(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 33—Collective agreements: contracting out.
Government new clause 34—Collective redundancy consultation: protected period.
Government new clause 35—Duty to keep records relating to annual leave.
Government new clause 36—Extension of regulation of employment businesses.
Government new clause 37—Power to establish Social Care Negotiating Body.
Government new clause 38—Agency workers who are not otherwise “workers”.
New clause 1—Domestic abuse victims’ leave—
“(1) Within twelve months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations entitling a worker who is a victim of domestic abuse to be absent from work on leave under this section.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “domestic abuse” is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.
(3) The regulations must include provision for determining—
(a) the extent of a worker's entitlement to leave under this section; and
(b) when leave under this section may be taken.
(4) Provision under subsection (3)(a) must secure that, where a worker is entitled to take leave under this section, that worker is entitled to―
(a) at least ten working days’ leave; and
(b) the benefit of the terms and conditions of employment which would have applied but for the absence.
(5) The regulations may―
(a) make provision about how leave under this section is to be taken;
(b) make different provision for different cases or circumstances; and
(c) make consequential provision.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide for statutory leave for victims of domestic abuse, with regulations providing for a minimum of ten days’ leave.
New clause 2—Domestic abuse: right not to suffer detriment—
“In Part V of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Rights not to suffer detriment), after section 47G, insert new section 47H—
‘Domestic abuse
(1) A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by their employer done on the ground that the worker has been, or is suspected to have been―
(a) a victim of domestic abuse; or
(b) affected directly by domestic abuse.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “domestic abuse” is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’”
This new clause would amend the Employment Rights Act 1996 to protect workers from adverse treatment on the grounds that they are, or are suspected to be, a person affected by domestic abuse.
New clause 3—Dismissal for reasons related to domestic abuse—
“In Part 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, after section 99, insert—
‘99B Domestic abuse
(1) A worker who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as having been unfairly dismissed if the reason for the dismissal is that the worker has been, or is suspected to have been―
(a) a victim of domestic abuse; or
(b) affected directly by domestic abuse.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “domestic abuse” is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’”
This new clause would amend the Employment Rights Act 1996 to protect workers from dismissal on the grounds that they are, or are suspected to be, a victim or a person affected by domestic abuse.
New clause 4—Employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent domestic abuse—
“After section 40A of the Equality Act 2010 (employer duty to prevent sexual harassment of workers), insert—
‘40B Employer duty to prevent workers from experiencing domestic abuse
(1) An employer (A) must take all reasonable steps to prevent their workers from experiencing domestic abuse in the course of their employment.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “domestic abuse” is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’”
This new clause would require employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent their workers from experiencing domestic abuse.
New clause 5—Employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent domestic abuse (contract workers)—
“After section 41 of the Equality Act 2010 (contract workers), insert—
‘41A Employer duty to prevent workers from experiencing domestic abuse
(1) An employer (A) must take all reasonable steps to prevent a contract worker working for or on behalf of (A) from experiencing domestic abuse in the course of their engagement.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “domestic abuse” is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’”
This new clause would require employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent contract workers from experiencing domestic abuse.
New clause 6—Workplace contravention of Equality Act: obtaining information—
“(1) In this section—
(a) P is a worker who thinks that a contravention of the Equality Act 2010 has occurred in relation to P’s employment or working practices;
(b) R is P’s employer and P thinks that R is responsible for the contravention mentioned in paragraph (a).
(2) A Minister of the Crown must by order prescribe—
(a) forms by which P may question R on any matter which is or may be relevant to subsection (1);
(b) forms by which R may answer questions by P.
(3) A question by P or an answer by R is admissible as evidence in proceedings under this Act (whether or not the question or answer is contained in a prescribed form).
(4) A court or tribunal may draw an inference from—
(a) a failure by R to answer a question by P before the end of the period of 8 weeks beginning with the day on which the question is served;
(b) an evasive or equivocal answer.
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply if—
(a) R reasonably asserts that to have answered differently or at all might have prejudiced a criminal matter;
(b) R reasonably asserts that to have answered differently or at all would have revealed the reason for not commencing or not continuing criminal proceedings;
(c) R’s answer is of a kind specified for the purposes of this paragraph by order of a Minister of the Crown;
(d) R’s answer is given in circumstances specified for the purposes of this paragraph by order of a Minister of the Crown;
(e) R’s failure to answer occurs in circumstances specified for the purposes of this paragraph by order of a Minister of the Crown.
(6) The reference to a contravention of the Equality Act 2010 includes a reference to a breach of an equality clause or rule, insofar as it relates to employment or working practices.
(7) A Minister of the Crown may by order—
(a) prescribe the period within which a question must be served to be admissible under subsection (3);
(b) prescribe the manner in which a question by P, or an answer by R, may be served.
(8) This section—
(a) does not affect any other enactment or rule of law relating to interim or preliminary matters in proceedings before a county court, the sheriff or an employment tribunal, and
(b) has effect subject to any enactment or rule of law regulating the admissibility of evidence in such proceedings.”
This new clause would reintroduce, for workers in relation to employers, the right to statutory Discrimination Questionnaires pursuant to the Equality Act 2010 regarding age, disability, sex, race, sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity, gender reassignment, religion or belief and marriage and civil partnership discrimination.
New clause 7—Protected paternity or parental partner leave—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult on the introduction of protected paternity or parental partner leave for all employees.
(2) A consultation under subsection (1) must consider―
(a) the minimum duration for a period of protected paternity or parental partner leave;
(b) how best to ensure that protected paternity or parental partner leave is protected, non-transferable and does not result in discrimination against the employee taking that leave;
(c) how best to ensure that protected paternity or parental partner leave reduces the risk of employees experiencing discrimination as a result of being eligible for ordinary maternity leave; and
(d) the extent to which the costs to employers of protected paternity or parental partner leave should be reimbursed, in full or in part, and the manner in which this should be achieved.
(3) Following a consultation under subsection (2), within twelve months of commencing the consultation, the Secretary of State must by regulations―
(a) introduce protected paternity or parental partner leave, ensuring that it is paid, protected and non-transferable;
(b) define the length of any period of protected paternity or parental partner leave under subsection (3)(a); and
(c) make provision for any other matters the Secretary of State considers relevant to the matters under subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b).
(4) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “protected” leave means leave during which an employer must not permit an employee who satisfies prescribed conditions to work; and
(b) “parental partner leave” means leave taken for the purposes of caring for a child, with the exception of maternity leave taken under sections 71 to 73 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
(5) For the purposes of subsections (2)(b) and (2)(c), “discrimination” is defined according to sections 13 to 19 of the Equality Act 2010.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on a period of protected paternity or parental partner leave, and require them to introduce protected paternity or parental partner leave by regulations at a subsequent date.
New clause 10—Carer’s leave: remuneration—
“(1) In section 80K of the Employment Rights Act 1996, omit subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) In subsection (1)(a), “terms and conditions of employment” includes—
(a) matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under the contract of employment, and
(b) terms and conditions about remuneration.””
This new clause would make Carer’s Leave a paid entitlement.
New clause 12—Rates of statutory maternity pay, etc—
“(1) In regulation 6 of the Statutory Maternity Pay (General) Regulations 1986 (prescribed rate of statutory maternity pay) for “£184.03” substitute “£368.06”.
(2) In the Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay (Weekly Rates) Regulations 2002—
(a) in regulation 2(a) (weekly rate of payment of statutory paternity pay) for “£184.03” substitute “£368.06”; and
(b) in regulation 3(a) (weekly rate of payment of statutory adoption pay) for “£184.03” substitute “£368.06”.
(3) In regulation 40(1)(a) of the Statutory Shared Parental Pay (General) Regulations 2014 (weekly rate of payment of statutory shared parental pay) for “£184.03” substitute “£368.06”.
(4) In regulation 20(1)(a) of the Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) Regulations 2020 (weekly rate of payment) for “£184.03” substitute “£368.06”.”
This new clause sets out rates of Statutory Maternity Pay, Statutory Paternity Pay, Statutory Adoption Pay, Statutory Shared Parental Pay and Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay.
New clause 13—Publication of information about parental leave policies: regulations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to require any employer with more than 250 employees to publish information on the internet about the employer’s policies on parental leave and pay for parental leave.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must be published within one year of this Act being passed.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative regulation procedure.”
This new clause would require companies with more than 250 employees to publish information about their parental leave and pay policies.
New clause 14—Entitlement to paternity leave—
“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 80A (entitlement to paternity leave: birth)—
(a) in subsection (3), for “two” substitute “six”,
(b) in subsection (4), for “56 days” substitute “52 weeks”.
(3) In section 80B (entitlement to paternity leave: adoption)—
(a) in subsection (3), for “two” substitute “six”
(b) in subsection (4), for “56 days” substitute “52 weeks”.”
This new clause sets out an entitlement to paternity leave.
New clause 15—Whistleblowers: protected disclosures—
“In Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996, for section 103A, substitute—
“103A Protected disclosure
An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or one of the reasons) for the dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure.””
This new clause would slightly extend the circumstances in which an employee is considered as unfairly dismissed after making a protected disclosure.
New clause 16—Adoption pay: self-employed persons—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations enable statutory adoption pay to be payable to persons who are—
(a) self-employed, or
(b) contractors.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the meaning of “self-employed” and “contractors” shall be set out in regulations under this section.”
This new clause extends statutory adoption pay to the self-employed and contractors.
New clause 17—Meaning of “kinship care”—
“(1) This section defines “kinship care” for the purposes of sections 80EF to 80EI of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (inserted by section (Kinship care leave) of this Act).
(2) Kinship care describes an arrangement where a child is raised by a friend, relative or extended family member other than a parent.
(3) Subsections (4) to (9) set out the arrangements that are recognised as being types of kinship care.
(4) An arrangement where a child is adopted (within the meaning of Chapter 4 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002) by a friend, relative or extended family member (“kinship adoption”).
(5) An arrangement where—
(a) a child is looked after by a local authority (within the meaning of section 22 of the Children Act 1989), and
(b) a friend, relative or extended family member of that child is approved by the local authority to be a foster carer for that child (“kinship foster care”).
(6) An arrangement created by a special guardianship order pursuant to section 14A of the Children Act 1989 (“special guardianship”).
(7) An arrangement created by a child arrangements order pursuant to section 8 of the Children Act 1989 where the court orders that a child is to live predominantly with a friend, relative or extended family member of that child (“kinship child arrangement”).
(8) An arrangement where a child is fostered privately (within the meaning of section 66 of the Children Act 1989) by a friend or extended family member (“private fostering arrangement”).
(9) Any other arrangement where a child is cared for, and provided with accommodation in their own home—
(a) by a relative of the child, other than—
(i) a parent of the child; or
(ii) a person who is not a parent of the child but who has parental responsibility for the child; and
(b) where the arrangement has lasted, or is intended to last, for at least 28 days (“private family arrangement”).”
This new clause is subsequent to the new clause about kinship care leave.
New clause 18—Kinship care leave—
“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 80EE insert—
“Chapter 5
Kinship care leave
80EF Kinship care leave
(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations entitling an employee to be absent from work on leave under this section if the employee satisfies conditions specified in the regulations as to an eligible kinship care arrangement with a child.
(2) The regulations must include provision for determining—
(a) the extent of an employee’s entitlement to leave under this section in respect of a child;
(b) when leave under this section may be taken.
(3) Provision under subsection (2)(a) must secure that—
(a) where only one employee is entitled to leave under this section in respect of a given child, the employee is entitled to at least 52 weeks’ leave;
(b) where more than one employee is entitled to leave under this section in respect of the same child, those employees are entitled to share at least 52 weeks’ leave between them.
(4) An employee is entitled to leave under this section only if the eligible kinship care arrangement is intended to last—
(a) at least one year, and
(b) until the child being cared for attains the age of 18.
(5) For the purposes of this Chapter, “eligible kinship care arrangement” means—
(a) special guardianship,
(b) a kinship child arrangement,
(c) a private fostering arrangement, or
(d) a private family arrangement
within the meaning given by section [Meaning of ‘kinship care’] of the Employment Rights Act 2024.
(6) The regulations may make provision about how leave under this section is to be taken.
(7) In this section—
(a) “special guardianship”, “kinship child arrangement”, “private fostering arrangement” and “private family arrangement” have the same meanings as in section [Meaning of ‘kinship care’] of the Employment Rights Act 2024.
(b) “week” means any period of seven days.
80EG Rights during and after kinship care leave
(1) Regulations under section 80EF must provide—
(a) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is entitled, for such purposes and to such extent as the regulations may prescribe, to the benefit of the terms and conditions of employment which would have applied but for the absence,
(b) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is bound, for such purposes and to such extent as the regulations may prescribe, by obligations arising under those terms and conditions (except in so far as they are inconsistent with subsection (1) of that section), and
(c) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is entitled to return from leave to a job of a kind prescribed by regulations, subject to section 80EH.
(2) The reference in subsection (1)(c) to absence on leave under section 80EF includes, where appropriate, a reference to a continuous period of absence attributable partly to leave under that section and partly to any one or more of the following—
(a) maternity leave,
(b) paternity leave,
(c) adoption leave,
(d) shared parental leave,
(e) parental leave,
(f) parental bereavement leave.
(3) In subsection (1)(a), “terms and conditions of employment”—
(a) includes matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under the contract of employment, but
(b) does not include terms and conditions about remuneration.
(4) Regulations under section 80EF may specify matters which are, or are not, to be treated as remuneration for the purposes of this section.
(5) Regulations under section 80EF may make provision, in relation to the right to return mentioned in subsection (1)(c), about—
(a) seniority, pension rights and similar rights;
(b) terms and conditions of employment on return.
80EH Special cases
(1) Regulations under section 80EF may make provision about—
(a) redundancy during or after a period of leave under that section, or
(b) dismissal (other than by reason of redundancy) during a period of leave under that section.
(2) Provision by virtue of subsection (1) may include—
(a) provision requiring an employer to offer alternative employment;
(b) provision for the consequences of failure to comply with the regulations (which may include provision for a dismissal to be treated as unfair for the purposes of Part 10).
80EI Chapter 5: supplemental
(1) Regulations under section 80EF may—
(a) make provision about notices to be given, evidence to be produced and other procedures to be followed by employees and employers;
(b) make provision requiring employers or employees to keep records;
(c) make provision for the consequences of failure to give notices, to produce evidence, to keep records or to comply with other procedural requirements;
(d) make provision for the consequences of failure to act in accordance with a notice given by virtue of paragraph (a);
(e) make special provision for cases where an employee has a right which corresponds to a right under section80EF and which arises under the person’s contract of employment or otherwise;
(f) make provision modifying the effect of Chapter 2 of Part 14 (calculation of a week’s pay) in relation to an employee who is or has been absent from work on leave under section 80EF;
(g) make provision applying, modifying or excluding an enactment, in such circumstances as may be specified and subject to any conditions which may be specified, in relation to a person entitled to take leave under section 80EF;
(h) make different provision for different cases or circumstances;
(i) make consequential provision.
(2) The cases or circumstances mentioned in subsection (1)(h) include—
(a) more than one child being subject to the same eligible kinship care arrangement, and
(b) a child being subject to an eligible kinship care arrangement on two or more separate occasions, and regulations may, in particular, make special provision regarding the applicability and extent of the entitlement to leave in such circumstances.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for some or all of a period of kinship care leave to be paid.””
This new clause sets out an entitlement to kinship care leave.
New clause 20—Duty to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace—
“(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—
‘(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from violence and harassment, including—
(i) gender-based violence;
(ii) sexual harassment;
(iii) psychological and emotional abuse;
(iv) physical and sexual abuse;
(v) stalking and harassment, including online harassment;
(vi) threats of violence.’
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) It shall be the duty of every employer to prepare, and as often as may be appropriate revise, an assessment to identify potential risks of violence and harassment in the workplace and implement policies and procedures to eliminate these risks so far as is reasonably practicable.
(3B) It shall be the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches.
(3C) In subsection (3B) a “gender-responsive approach” means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls, when designing and implementing policies and procedures.
(3D) In this section, “persons working in the workplace” includes—
(a) employees;
(b) full-time, part-time, and temporary workers; and
(c) interns and apprentices.
(3E) In subsection (2)(f) and subsections (3A) and (3B), a reference to the workplace includes remote and hybrid work environments.’”
This new clause will amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to place a duty on employers to protect all those working in their workplace from gender-based violence and harassment.
New clause 21—Expanded duties of the Health and Safety Executive—
“In the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, after section 11 (functions of the Executive) insert—
‘11ZA Duties of the Executive: health and safety framework on violence and harassment
(1) It shall be the duty of the Executive to develop, publish and as often as may be appropriate revise a health and safety framework on violence and harassment in the workplace.
(2) This framework shall include specific provisions relating to—
(a) the prevention of gender-based violence and harassment of those in the workplace including the prevention of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse;
(b) the duty of employers to create safe and inclusive workplaces and the preventative measures they must adopt; and
(c) the use of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with the duty of the employer in relation to violence and harassment (see section 2(2)(f)).
(3) The Executive shall work with other relevant bodies, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission and law enforcement agencies, to develop and revise this framework.
11ZB Duties of the Executive: guidance for employers
The Executive shall, in consultation with such other persons as it considers to be relevant, issue guidance for employers about the protection of those facing violence and harassment on the basis of gender in the workplace by—
(a) implementing workplace policies to prevent violence and harassment;
(b) establishing confidential reporting mechanisms to allow victims to report incidents;
(c) conducting risk assessments and ensuring compliance with the health and safety framework (see section 11ZA);
(d) reporting and addressing incidents of violence and harassment; and
(e) supporting victims of violence and harassment, including making accommodations in the workplace to support such victims.’”
This new clause will create a duty on the Health and Safety Executive to develop a health and safety framework on violence and harassment and to issue guidance for employers about the protection of those facing violence and harassment on the basis of gender in the workplace.
New clause 22—Duty of employer to prepare domestic abuse policy—
“(1) It is the duty of every employer to develop, publish and as often as may be appropriate revise a written statement of its general policy with respect to the support it provides to workers who are victims of domestic abuse.
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for determining—
(a) the scope of a domestic abuse policy;
(b) the form and manner in which a domestic abuse policy is to be published;
(c) when and how frequently a domestic abuse policy is to be published or revised;
(d) requirements for senior approval before a domestic abuse policy is published.
(3) The regulations may make provision for a failure to comply with subsection (1)—
(a) to be an offence punishable on summary conviction—
(i) in England and Wales by a fine;
(ii) in Scotland or Northern Ireland by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;
(b) to be enforced, otherwise than as an offence, by such means as may be prescribed.
(4) The regulations may not require an employer to revise the policy more frequently than at intervals of 24 months.
(5) For the purposes of this section, ‘domestic abuse’ is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.
(6) This section does not apply to an employer who has fewer than 5 employees.
(7) Regulations under this section must be made no later than twelve months after the passage of this Act.”
This new clause would create a duty on employers with 5 or more employees to have a policy outlining the support they provide to workers who are victims of domestic abuse.
New clause 23—Prescribed rate of statutory maternity pay—
“In regulation 6 of the Statutory Maternity Pay (General) Regulations 1986, delete ‘is a weekly rate of £184.03’ and insert ‘is a rate of £12.60 per hour in the UK and £13.85 per hour in London’.”
This new clause would increase the current rate of statutory maternity pay, bringing it in line with the “real Living Wage”.
New clause 25—Working Time Council—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, establish a Working Time Council (‘the Council’) to provide advice and make recommendations to the Secretary of State on the matters specified in subsection (4).
(2) The members of the Council—
(a) are to be appointed by the Secretary of State, and
(b) must include representatives of—
(i) trade unions;
(ii) businesses;
(iii) government departments; and
(iv) experts on matters relating to employment.
(3) Each member of the Council must hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms and conditions of the member’s appointment.
(4) The Council must provide advice and make recommendations on how a transition could be made from a five-day working week to a four-day working week with no impact on pay, including—
(a) how such a transition would affect employers and employees, and
(b) how businesses, public bodies and other organisations should approach such a transition.
(5) The Secretary of State may pay such remuneration or allowances to members of the Council as the Secretary of State may determine.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a Working Time Council to provide advice and recommendations on the transition from a five-day working week to a four-day working week.
New clause 27—Flexible working duties: reports on compliance—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, once every six months, report on compliance with the duties under section 80G of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (employer’s duties in relation to application for change to working hours, etc).
(2) The first report must be published and laid before Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.
(3) Each further report must be published and laid before Parliament within six months of the last such report being published.”
This new clause would require the Government to report on employers’ compliance with the flexible working duties set out in this Bill.
New clause 30—Special constables: right to time off for public duties—
“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended is follows.
(2) In section 50 (Right to time off for public duties), after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) An employer shall permit an employee who is a special constable, appointed in accordance with section 27 of the Police Act 1996, section 9 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 or section 25 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, to take time off during the employee’s working hours for the purpose of performing their duties.
(1B) In section (1A), “duties” means any activity under the direction of a chief officer of police.’”
This new clause gives employees who are special constables the right to time off to carry out their police duties.
New clause 61—Status of Workers—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit section 145F(3).
(3) Omit section 151(1B).
(4) Omit sections 295 (meaning of employee and related expressions) and 296 (meaning of worker and related expressions) and insert—
‘295 Meaning of worker and related expressions
(1) In this Act—
(a) “worker” and “employee” both mean an individual who—
(i) seeks to be engaged by another to provide labour,
(ii) is engaged by another to provide labour, or
(iii) where the employment has ceased, was engaged by another to provide labour, and is not, in the provision of that labour, operating a business on the employee or worker’s own account;
(b) an “employer” in relation to a worker or employee is─
(i) every person or entity who engages or engaged the worker or employee, and
(ii) every person or entity who substantially determines terms on which the worker or employee is engaged at any material time;
(c) “employed” and “employment mean engaged as an “employee” or as a “worker” under subsection (1)(a);
(d) “contract of employment” means a contract or employment relationship, however described, whereby an individual undertakes to do or perform any labour, work or services for another party to the contract or employment relationship whose status is not by virtue of the contract or employment relationship that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual, and any reference to the contract or employment relationship of an employee or a worker shall be construed accordingly;
(e) The ascertainment of the existence of a contract of employment or employment relationship shall be guided primarily by the facts relating to the performance of work, irrespective of how the contract or employment relationship is designated in any contractual or other arrangement by one or more of the parties involved;
(f) In ascertaining the existence of a contract of employment or employment relationship, all relevant facts may be taken into consideration but the following facts, if found, may be considered indicative of the existence of a contract of employment and the presence of any such fact shall raise the rebuttable presumption that the arrangement is a contract of employment—
(i) the use, by a person other than the putative worker, of automated monitoring systems or automated decision-making systems in the organisation of work;
(ii) the work is carried out according to the instructions and under the control of another entity;
(iii) the work involves the integration of the worker in the organisation of another entity;
(iv) the work is performed solely or mainly for the benefit of another entity;
(v) the work is to be done, or is in fact done, predominantly by the worker personally;
(vi) the work involves the provision of tools, materials and equipment by an entity other than the worker;
(vii) the worker is to a significant extent subordinated to and economically dependent on the entity for which the work is done;
(viii) the determination of the worker’s rate of remuneration and other significant terms and conditions is wholly or mainly that of an entity other than the worker and, in any event, significantly outweighs the power of the worker to determine his or her rate of remuneration and other significant terms and conditions;
(ix) the worker’s remuneration and other terms and conditions are not determined by collective bargaining;
(x) the financial risks of the entity for which the work is done are not to any significant extent those of the worker beyond his or her interest in securing further remunerated work;
(xi) the worker has no significant capital investment in the entity for which the work is done beyond the provision of tools and equipment necessary for the worker to perform the work;
(xii) the remuneration for the work done constitutes the worker's sole or one of their principal sources of income;
(xiii) part of the remuneration is in kind, such as food, lodging or transport.
(2) It is for a person who is claimed to be the employer and contests that claim to demonstrate in any legal proceedings that—
(a) they are not the employer, or
(b) the person providing the work is not an employee or a worker.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) apply to all employment of a government department, except for members of the armed forces.
(4) A person undertaking the work of a foster carer shall be treated as a ‘worker’ for the purposes of this Act.
(5) An entitlement on the part of a person to substitute the labour of another for his or her own labour shall be ignored in determining whether he or she is a worker or employee.
(6) Where a worker or employee provides labour through a personal service company the employer is the third party for whom the labour is performed.
(7) A “personal service company” means a company—
(a) in which the worker or employee is a director, or a substantial shareholding is held by the worker or employee, by themself or by or with a member of the family of the worker or employee, or by or with a third party for whom the labour is or was performed, or a nominee or nominees of such a third party; and
(b) which has contracted with the worker or employee to provide their labour to a third party or parties nominated by the company; and
(c) in relation to which the terms and conditions on which the worker or employee is or was engaged to perform the labour are or were substantially determined by any third party for whom the labour is or was to be performed, by itself or jointly with another person or entity; and
(d) in which the status of any third party for whom the labour is or was to be performed is not in practice that of a client or customer of the profession or business undertaking carried on by the worker or employee.
(8) An employer that employs, or proposes to engage, an individual to carry out work must not represent to the individual that the contract under which the individual is, or would be, engaged by the employer is a contract for services under which the individual performs, or would perform, work as an independent contractor if that is not the case.
(9) Subsection (8) does not apply if the employer demonstrates that, when the representation was made, the employer reasonably believed that the contract was a contract for services.
(10) In determining, for the purpose of subsection (9), whether the employer's belief was reasonable, regard must be had to all relevant circumstances including the size and nature of the employer's enterprise.
(11) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate as “workers” other persons engaged in work, and designate as “employers” other entities engaged in the provision of work, after consultation with organisations which appear to the Secretary of State to represent such persons and entities and any such regulations must be made by statutory instrument,
(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (11) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(12) This section has effect subject to sections 68(4), 116B(10) and 235.'”
New clause 62—Procedure for handling dismissal and re-engagement—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) After Chapter I (collective bargaining), insert—
“Chapter 1A
Procedure For Handling Dismissal and Re-Engagement
187A Duty of employer to consult representatives
(1) This section applies to an employer where, in an undertaking or establishment with 50 or more employees, in the light of recent events or information and the economic situation affecting the employer, there is a threat to continued employment within the undertaking, and one or both of the following matters apply—
(a) decisions may have to be taken to terminate the contracts of or more employees for reasons other than conduct or capability, or
(b) anticipatory measures are envisaged which are likely to lead to substantial changes in work organisation or in contractual relations affecting or more employees.
(2) The employer shall consult with a view to reaching an agreement to avoid decisions being taken to terminate contracts of employment, or to introduce changes in work organisation or in contractual relations.
(3) The consultations under subsection (2) shall take place with all the persons who are appropriate representatives of any of the employees who are or may be affected by those matters that apply.
(4) The consultation shall begin as soon as is reasonably practicable and in good time for any agreement to be reached so as to avoid decisions being taken to terminate contracts of employment or introduce changes in work organisation or in contractual relations.
(5) The employer shall allow the appropriate representatives access to the affected employees and shall afford to those representatives such accommodation and other facilities as may be appropriate.
(6) In this section, “appropriate representatives” has the same meaning as in section 188(1B) (and the requirements for the election of employee representatives in section 188A apply).
(7) If there are special circumstances which render it not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with a requirement of this section, the employer shall take all such steps towards compliance with that requirement as are reasonably practicable in those circumstances.
(8) Where the threat to continued employment emanates from a person controlling the employer (directly or indirectly), or a decision leading to the termination of the contract of an employee for reasons other than conduct or capability or a decision leading to substantial changes in work organisation or in contractual relations is that of a person controlling the employer (directly or indirectly), a failure on the part of that person to provide information to the employer shall not constitute special circumstances rendering it not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with such a requirement.
187B Duty of employers to disclose information
(1) An employer to which section 187A applies shall, for the purposes of the consultation provided for in section 187A, disclose to the appropriate representatives, on request, the information required by this section.
(2) The information to be disclosed is all information relating to the employer's undertaking (including information relating to use of agency workers in that undertaking) which is in the employer’s possession, or that of an associated employer, and is information—
(a) without which the appropriate representatives would be to a material extent impeded in carrying on consultation with the employer, and
(b) which it would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice that the employer should disclose for the purposes of the consultation.
(3) A request by appropriate representatives for information under this section shall, if the employer so requests, be in writing or be confirmed in writing.
(4) In determining what would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice, regard shall be had to the relevant provisions of any Code of Practice issued by ACAS, but not so as to exclude any other evidence of what that practice is.
(5) Information which an employer is required by virtue of this section to disclose to appropriate representatives shall, if they so request, be disclosed or confirmed in writing.
(6) The employer is not required to disclose any information or document to a person for the purposes of this section where the nature of the information or document is such that, according to objective criteria, the disclosure of the information or document would seriously harm the functioning of, or would be prejudicial to, the undertaking.
(7) If there is a dispute between the employer and an employee or an appropriate representative as to whether the nature of the information or document which the employer has failed to provide is such as is described in subsection (6), the employer, employee or appropriate representative may apply to the Central Arbitration Committee for a declaration as to whether the information or document is of such a nature.
(8) If the Committee makes a declaration that the disclosure of the information or document in question would not, according to objective criteria, be seriously harmful or prejudicial as mentioned in subsection (5) the Committee shall order the employer to disclose the information or document.
(9) An order under subsection (8) shall specify—
(a) the information or document to be disclosed;
(b) the person or persons to whom the information or document is to be disclosed;
(c) any terms on which the information or document is to be disclosed; and
(d) the date before which the information or document is to be disclosed.
187C Complaint to Central Arbitration Committee
(1) An appropriate representative may present a complaint to the Central Arbitration Committee that an employer has failed to comply with a requirement of section 187A or section 187B. The complaint must be in writing and in such form as the Committee may require.
(2) If on receipt of a complaint the Committee is of the opinion that it is reasonably likely to be settled by conciliation, it shall refer the complaint to ACAS and shall notify the appropriate representative and employer accordingly, whereupon ACAS shall seek to promote a settlement of the matter. If a complaint so referred is not settled or withdrawn and ACAS is of the opinion that further attempts at conciliation are unlikely to result in a settlement, it shall inform the Committee of its opinion.
(3) If the complaint is not referred to ACAS or, if it is so referred, on ACAS informing the Committee of its opinion that further attempts at conciliation are unlikely to result in a settlement, the Committee shall proceed to hear and determine the complaint and shall make a declaration stating whether it finds the complaint well-founded, wholly or in part, and stating the reasons for its findings.
(4) On the hearing of a complaint any person who the Committee considers has an interest in the complaint may be heard by the Committee, but a failure to accord a hearing to a person other than the appropriate representative and employer directly concerned does not affect the validity of any decision of the Committee in those proceedings.
(5) If the Committee finds the complaint wholly or partly well-founded, the declaration shall specify─
(a) each failure in respect of which the Committee finds that the complaint is well-founded
(b) the steps that should be taken by the employer to rectify each such failure, and
(c) a period or periods (not being less than one week from the date of the declaration) within which the employer ought to take those steps.
(6) On a hearing of a complaint under this section a certificate signed by or on behalf of a Minister of the Crown and certifying that particular information could not be provided except by disclosing information the disclosure of which would have been against the interests of national security shall be conclusive evidence of that fact. A document which purports to be such a certificate shall be taken to be such a certificate unless the contrary is proved.
187D Application for injunction pending rectification of failure
(1) This section applies if a declaration of the Central Arbitration Committee under section 187C finds a complaint wholly or partly well-founded.
(2) An appropriate representative may apply to the Court for an injunction to subsist until the employer can satisfy the Committee that the steps under section 187C(5)(b) have been completed within the specified period or periods under section 187C(5)(c)—
(a) to compel the employer to take those steps within the period or periods, or
(b) to render void any dismissal or changes in work organisation or in contractual relations.
187E Complaint to employment tribunal
(1) This section applies where an employer—
(a) offers or proposes to offer re-engagement on different terms to an employee—
(i) it has dismissed or proposes to dismiss for reasons other than conduct or capability, or
(ii) in relation to whom it has made or proposes to make substantial changes in work organisation or in contractual relations; or
(b) has failed to comply with any of the obligations set out in sections 187A or 187B.
(2) Any affected employee or their appropriate representative may make a complaint to the employment tribunal.
(3) If the tribunal finds the complaint well-founded it shall make a declaration to that effect.
187F Award of compensation
(1) An employee, or the appropriate representative of an employee, whose complaint under section 187E has been declared to be well-founded may make an application to an employment tribunal for an award of compensation to be paid by the employer.
(2) The amount of compensation awarded shall, subject to the following provisions, be such as the employment tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances having regard any loss sustained by the complainant which is attributable to the dismissal or substantial changes in work organisation or in contractual relations to which the complaint related.
187G Duty of employer to notify Secretary of State in certain circumstances
(1) This section applies to an employer to which section 187A applies in relation to 50 or more employees at one establishment or undertaking.
(2) The employer shall notify the Secretary of State, in writing, of the matters under section 187A(1) that apply and any related proposals not later than the end of whichever is the longer of—
(a) 45 days, or
(b) the notice period necessary to terminate lawfully the employment of all those employees who may be affected by any such matter before any decision to put into effect that matter is reached.
(3) A notice under this section shall—
(a) be given to the Secretary of State by delivery or by sending it by post, at such address as the Secretary of State may direct in relation to the establishment where employees who may be affected are employed,
(b) where there are representatives to be consulted under section 187A(2), identify them and state the date when consultation with them under that section began or will begin, and
(c) be in such form and contain such particulars, in addition to those required by paragraph (b), as the Secretary of State may direct.
(4) After receiving a notice under this section from an employer the Secretary of State may by written notice require the employer to give them such further information as may be specified in the notice.
(5) Where there are representatives to be consulted under section 187A(2) the employer shall give to each of them a copy of any notice given under subsection (3). The copy shall be delivered to them or sent by post to an address notified by them to the employer, or (in the case of representatives of a trade union) sent by post to the union at the address of its head or main office.
(6) If in any case there are special circumstances rendering it not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with any of the requirements of subsections (1) to (5), the employer shall take all such steps towards compliance with that requirement as are reasonably practicable in the circumstances. Where the decision regarding the matters is that of a person controlling the employer (directly or indirectly), a failure on the part of that person to provide information to the employer shall not constitute special circumstances rendering it not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with any of those requirements.
187H Failure to notify
(1) An employer who fails to give notice to the Secretary of State in accordance with section 187G commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(2) Proceedings in England or Wales for such an offence shall be instituted only by or with the consent of the Secretary of State or by an officer authorised for that purpose by special or general directions of the Secretary of State. An officer so authorised may prosecute or conduct proceedings for such an offence before a magistrates' court.
(3) Where an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person purporting to act in any such capacity, that person as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(4) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (3) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with their functions of management as if they were a director of the body corporate.”
New clause 63—Protection of contracts of employment—
“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) After Part IIA (zero hours workers) insert—
“Part 2AA
Protection of Contracts of Employment
27BA
(1) Any variation to an employment contract is void if it—
(a) was obtained under the threat of dismissal, and
(b) is less favourable to the employee than the pre-existing provision, unless the employer has complied with all its obligations under, and arising from, sections 187A to 187G of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in relation to any person employed under the contract.
(2) In subsection (1)(b), the definition of “less favourable” shall be determined by the perception of a reasonable employee in the position of the affected employee.
27BB Unilateral variation of employment contracts
(1) Any provision in an agreement (whether an employment contract or not) is void in so far as it purports to permit the employer to vary unilaterally one or more terms within an employment contract where the variation is less favourable to the employee that the pre-existing provision.
(2) In subsection (1), the definition of “less favourable” shall be determined by the perception of a reasonable employee in the position of the affected employee.
(3) In Chapter I (right not to be unfairly dismissed), after section 104G insert—
(3) In Chapter I (right not to be unfairly dismissed), after section 104G insert—
“104H Refusal of variation of contractual terms
(1) In relation to an employee who claims to have been unfairly dismissed in circumstances in which the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee has refused to agree to a variation of contractual terms—
(a) section 98(1)(b) shall not apply save that it shall be for the employer to show that the reason for the dismissal fell within section 98(2);
(b) section 108(1) shall not apply.
104I Matters for consultation under section 187C of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
(2) An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if—
(a) the Central Arbitration Committee has made a declaration under section 187C of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of the employer and employee, and the employer has not complied with the steps in that declaration, or
(b) the employer has failed, in respect of the employee, to comply with a provision of a collective agreement applicable to a matter for consultation under section 187A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.”
(4) In section 116 (unfair dismissal: choice of order and its terms), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) If an employee has been unfairly dismissed and the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) the dismissal is unfair is one specified under section 104H or 104I, the tribunal may only find that it is not practicable for—
(a) the employer to comply with an order for reinstatement under subsection (1)(b), or
(b) the employer (or a successor or an associated employer) to comply with an order for re-engagement if the employer (or if appropriate a successor or an associated employer) would be likely to become insolvent within three months if such an order was made.”
(5) In section 128(1)(a)(i) (interim relief pending determination of complaint), for “or 103A” substitute “103A, 104H or 104I”.
(6) In section 129(1)(a)(i) (procedure on hearing of application and making of order), for “or 103A” substitute “103A, 104H or 104I”.”
New clause 71—Review of Statutory Sick Pay costs—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult on how the Government can best support small employers with Statutory Sick Pay costs.
(2) The consultation under subsection (1) must consider the economic effects of increasing Statutory Sick Pay for small employers with 250 employees or less, including the effects on—
(a) productivity;
(b) long-term illness;
(c) benefit spending; and
(d) economic growth & tax revenue.
(3) Following a consultation under subsection (2), within twelve months of commencing the consultation, the Secretary of State must report to Parliament on actions taken to implement the findings of the report of the consultation.”
This new clause would require the Government to consult on how best to support small employers with statutory sick pay costs while taking into account the wider economic effects of increasing it.
New clause 72—Duty on employers to investigate protected disclosures—
“(1) Part 4A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protected disclosures) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In section 43C (Disclosure to employer or other responsible person), after subsection (2) insert―
“(3) Employers must take reasonable steps to investigate any disclosure made to them under this section.
(4) Employers with―
(a) 50 or more employees;
(b) an annual business turnover or annual balance sheet total of £10 million or more;
(c) operations in financial services; or
(d) vulnerabilities in other respects to money laundering or terrorist financing,
must establish internal channels and procedures for reporting and managing qualifying disclosures.
(5) The calculation of the number of employees under subsection (4)(a) includes employees of all franchises, subsidiaries and associated employers as defined under section 231 of this Act.
(6) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the commencement of this provision, set out in statutory guidance what “reasonable steps” under subsection (3) should include.”
(3) In section 48 (Complaints to employment tribunals), after subsection (1B), insert―
“(1C) A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that the worker’s employer has failed to comply with the duty in section 43C (Duty to investigate protected disclosures).”
(4) In section 49 (Remedies), after subsection (1A), insert―
“(1B) Where an employment tribunal is satisfied that an employer has contravened the duty set out in section 43C (duty to investigate), the tribunal―
(a) shall make a declaration to that effect, and
(b) may make an award of compensation to be paid by the employer to the complainant in respect of the failure and may increase any award payable to the complainant by no more than 25%.””
This new clause would create a duty on employers to investigate whistleblowing concerns, to establish internal channels for reporting and managing whistleblower disclosures, and enable tribunal claims with respect to contravention of those duties.
New clause 73—Hourly statutory sick pay—
“(1) Part 11 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (statutory sick pay) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 151 (Employer’s liability), insert—
“151A Hourly statutory sick pay
(1) Where an employee has an hour of incapacity for work in relation to his contract of service with an employer, that employer shall, if the conditions set out in sections 153 and 154 are satisfied, be liable to make him, in accordance with the following provisions of this Part of this Act, a payment (to be known as “hourly statutory sick pay”) in respect of that hour.
(2) For the purposes of this section an hour of incapacity for work in relation to a contract of service means an hour during which the employee concerned is, or is deemed in accordance with regulations to be, incapable by reason of some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement of doing work which he can reasonably be expected to do under that contract.
(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations make any amendment to this Part that is necessary to enable the operation of a system of hourly statutory sick pay.””
This new clause introduces a new defined term “hourly statutory sick pay”, enabling pro rata payment of statutory sick pay by the hour. This will give employers greater flexibility in SSP payment, which can currently only be paid in whole days.
New clause 74—Non-disclosure agreements: harassment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make changes by regulation to ensure that an agreement to which this section applies is void insofar as it purports to preclude the worker from making a relevant disclosure.
(2) This section applies to any agreement between a worker and the worker's employer (whether a worker’s contract or not), including—
(a) any proceedings for breach of contract;
(b) a non-disclosure agreement; or
(c) a non-disparagement agreement.
(3) Regulations made under this section―
(a) must not prevent a worker from being granted confidentiality protections associated with a settlement agreement, if those protections are made at the worker’s request; and
(b) must replicate or enhance the protections offered to workers by section 1 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, with respect to non-disclosure agreements and harassment, but must apply those protections to all workers.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “relevant disclosure” means any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, shows that harassment has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed, by a fellow worker or a client of the employer;
(b) “harassment” means any act of harassment as defined by section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to void any non-disclosure agreement insofar as it prevents the worker from making a disclosure about harassment (including sexual harassment), with relevant exceptions at the worker’s request.
New clause 75—Statutory sick pay: consultation on rate—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult on the rate of Statutory Sick Pay.
(2) A consultation under subsection (1) must conclude within six months of its commencement.
(3) A consultation under subsection (1) must consider―
(a) the rate at which Statutory Sick Pay should be set to ensure that employees are able to—
(i) cover their basic needs without falling into negative budgets;
(ii) recover from an illness; and
(iii) remain in work while managing their disability or long-term health condition;
(b) how best to phase in increases to Statutory Sick Pay over a five year period;
(c) the support that the Government could offer small businesses for longer-term absences or to improve the health of their workforce; and
(d) the support that the Government could offer to encourage better insurance protections for businesses to manage staff absences.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to hold a consultation on the rate of Statutory Sick Pay.
New clause 76—Statutory sick pay: gradual increases—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, commence a five year period of annual increases to the rate of Statutory Sick Pay.
(2) At the end of the five year period under subsection (1), the rate of Statutory Sick Pay must be no less than 80% of the National Living Wage.
(3) The annual increases under subsection (1) must be incremental, with each annual increase representing at least 10% of the overall increase required over the five year period.”
This new clause would gradually increase the rate of Statutory Sick Pay over the next five years, taking it to at least 80% of rate of the National Living Wage.
New clause 78—Access to employment rights: workers on temporary visas—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, commission an independent report on the extent to which workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law.
(2) In commissioning the report, the Secretary of State must arrange for the report to meet the requirements set out in subsections (3) to (5).
(3) The report must examine the extent to which workers on temporary visas feel unable to assert their employment rights because they are dependent on their employers to sponsor their visas.
(4) The report must make recommendations to the Secretary of State about how the Secretary of State can support workers on temporary visas in the assertion of their employment rights.
(5) The report must be completed within three months of being commissioned.
(6) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is practicable after receipt of the report, publish the report and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.
(7) The Secretary of State must, within three months of receipt of the report—
(a) respond to the recommendations in the report, and
(b) publish the response and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission a report ensuring that workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law in order to prevent abusive practices.
New clause 79—Duty to prevent and monitor sexual harassment in the workplace—
“(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—
“(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from sexual harassment; and
(g) the monitoring of sexual harassment in the workplace.”
This new clause would require the Health and Safety Executive to prevent and monitor sexual harassment in the workplace.
New clause 80—Single status of worker: review—
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of Government policy on the single status of worker, and how it affects the ability to access the rights provided for by this Act.
(2) The review must be published and laid before Parliament within six months of this section coming into force.”
This new clause calls on the Secretary of State to review the Government’s policy on the single status of workers within 6 months of this section coming into force.
New clause 81—Modern slavery in UK workplaces: review—
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of—
(a) the extent to which employees in UK workplaces are subject to modern slavery as a result of the actions of their employer, and
(b) the effectiveness of employment rights in preventing modern slavery in UK workplaces.
(2) The review must be published and laid before Parliament within six months of this section coming into force.”
This new clause asks the Secretary of State to conduct a review of modern slavery to ensure that the employment rights granted in the Act are effective in preventing modern slavery.
New clause 83—Impact on employment tribunals: sections 1 to 6—
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of—
(a) the impact of sections 1 to 6 on the operation of employment tribunals, and
(b) the ability of employment tribunals to manage any increase in applications resulting from those sections.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay the review made under subsection (1) and the Government’s response to the review before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact on the employment tribunals of the Bill’s provisions on zero hours workers.
New clause 84—Consultation and assessment on the right to request flexible working—
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of the right to request flexible working provided for in section 7 of this Act.
(2) As part of the assessment, the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation on the proposed right to request flexible working.
(3) The assessment must—
(a) include labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis;
(b) examine the impact of the measures in section 7 on employment, wages and economic output;
(c) consider the likelihood of the costs of flexible working measures being passed on to employees through lower wages; and
(d) examine the likely effect of the right to request flexible working on—
(i) productivity
(ii) wage growth
(iii) equality of opportunity
(iv) job security
(v) economic activity, and
(vi) employment.
(4) A report setting out the findings of the assessment must be laid before each House of Parliament no sooner than 18 weeks after the consultation has been initiated.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clause 7.
New clause 85—Employer duties on harassment: impact assessment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of section 18 of this Act on employers.
(2) The assessment must—
(a) report on the extent to which the prevalence of third-party harassment makes the case for the measures in section 18;
(b) include an assessment of the impact of section 18 on free speech;
(c) include an assessment of the likely costs to employers of section 18;
(d) include—
(i) an assessment of which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment through no fault of the employer, and
(ii) proposals for mitigations that can be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions in Clauses 18.
New clause 86—Unfair dismissal: impact assessment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of section 21 and Schedule 2 of this Act on—
(a) employers, and
(b) the economy.
(2) The assessment must—
(a) include labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis;
(b) examine the impact of the measures in section 21 and Schedule 2 of this Act on employment, wages and economic output;
(c) consider the likelihood the dismissal measures leading to lower employment, and greater use of temporary contracts; and
(d) examine the likely effect of section 21 and Schedule 2 of this Act on—
(i) productivity
(ii) wage growth
(iii) equality of opportunity
(iv) job security
(v) economic activity, and
(vi) employment, including levels of youth employment.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clause 21 and Schedule 2.
New clause 87—Regulations under Part 1 and 2—
“When making regulations under Parts 1 and 2 of this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives—
(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom; and
(b) the economic growth of the United Kingdom in the medium to long term.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State, when making regulations under Part 1 and 2 of the Bill, to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.
New clause 91—Use of positive action in the workplace—
“(1) In this section—
(a) “P” is a public sector worker who reasonably thinks that the application by P’s employer, in relation to P’s employment or a working practice, of sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010 has caused or risks causing detriment to P; and
(b) “R” is P’s public sector employer; and
(c) P reasonably thinks that R is responsible for the detriment in subsection (1)(a).
(2) A Minister of the Crown must by regulations make provision for—
(a) forms through which P may anonymously question R on any matter relevant to subsection (1);
(b) forms through which R may answer questions by P; and
(c) such forms to be made publicly available.
(3) Within six months of the passing of this Act and every three months thereafter, R must publish a report to set out―
(a) the number of forms received under subsection (2), and
(b) a summary of the nature of the complaints to which they relate.
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations require R to report on the use of sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act.
(5) This section does not apply to activities undertaken by R under paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 of the Equality Act.”
New clause 92—Rolled-up holiday pay for irregular hours workers and part-year workers—
“In the Working Time Regulations 1998, omit regulation 16A (Rolled-up holiday pay for irregular hours workers and part-year workers).”
This new clause would remove regulation 16A from the Working Time Regulations, which gives employers the ability to pay irregular hours workers and part-year workers their holiday pay by way of ‘rolled-up pay’, i.e. an uplift to their weekly or monthly pay.
New clause 93—Working Time Regulations 1998: records—
“In Regulation 9 (Records) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, omit paragraphs (2) and (3) and substitute—
“(2) The records referred to in paragraph (1)(a) must be created, maintained and kept in such manner and format as the Secretary of State may prescribe.””
This new clause would remove the discretion given to employers in 2023 to keep records in any form they choose (or not at all) in relation to each worker’s daily working hours.
New clause 94—Annual report on application of changes to employment rights to seafarers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament an annual report on the extent to which the relevant employment rights changes made by this Act apply to seafarers.
(2) Each annual report must describe—
(a) so far as appropriate, whether each relevant employment rights change applies or is intended to apply at the time of its commencement to seafarers on a relevant service within the meaning given by section 1 of the Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023;
(b) any proposals by the Secretary of State to apply any relevant employment rights change to such seafarers subsequent to commencement;
(c) the extent to which the application of changes to employment rights to seafarers is affected by any change or prospective change to the Maritime Labour Convention, adopted on 23 February 2006 by the International Labour Organisation.
(3) The first annual report under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament within three months of the passing of this Act.
(4) In this section, “relevant employment rights changes made by this Act” means the provisions of—
(a) Part 1 of this Act,
(b) sections 25, 28 and 29.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the application of employment rights provisions to seafarers.
New clause 95—Annual report on provisions relating to seafarers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament an annual report on the extent to which the provisions of sections 26, 47 and 48 of, and Schedule 3 to, this Act improve the working conditions and employment rights of seafarers.
(2) The first annual report under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament within three months of the passing of this Act.”
New clause 97—Rights of employer and employee to minimum notice—
“(1) Section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Rights of employer and employee to minimum notice) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) omit “for one month or more”;
(b) for both instances of “one week’s notice”, substitute “one month’s notice”; and
(c) for “twelve weeks’ notice”, substitute “twelve months’ notice”.”
This new clause would change the minimum notice period for termination of contract to a day one right, and would increase the notice period to: one month for an employee who has been employed for up to twelve years; and twelve months for an employee who has been employed for over twelve years.
New clause 101—Duty to establish a regulatory body for foster carers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make a report to Parliament on progress made to date on establishing a regulatory body for the employment rights and remuneration of foster carers.
(2) Any regulatory body established pursuant to the Secretary of State’s activities under subsection (1) must include—
(a) representatives of employers and foster care workers;
(b) independent members; and
(c) representatives of individuals with lived experience in foster care; and
(3) A regulatory body established pursuant to subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the establishment of a central registration system for foster carers;
(b) the expansion of employment rights for foster carers;
(c) remuneration rates for foster caring; and
(d) any other matters which the Secretary of State deems appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory body for foster carers for the purposes of consideration the remuneration and the expansion of employment rights for foster carers.
New clause 102—Statutory sick pay: report to Parliament—
“(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that any regulations made under section 157 (rates of payment) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 do not result in an employee receiving a lower rate of statutory sick pay than the employee would have received prior to the passing of this Act.
(2) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must report to Parliament on how the prescribed percentage of weekly earnings specified in section 9 of this Act will ensure that all employees receive an increase to their eligible rate of statutory sick pay.”
This new clause would ensure that the Bill’s changes to statutory sick pay do not result in any employees receiving a reduced rate, compared with current rates.
New clause 105—Substitution clauses: duties of company directors—
“(1) The director of a relevant company has a duty to ensure that the company keeps a register of all dependent contractors.
(2) The director must supply details of the register under subsection (1) with the Secretary of State within 12 months of the passing of this Act and every 12 months thereafter, subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about what information must be supplied in the register of dependant contractors.
(4) For the purposes of this section―
(a) a “relevant company” is a company that―
(i) provides services in relation to postal and courier activities, food and beverage service activities or taxi operation;
(ii) has more than 250 employees in the UK and overseas; and
(iii) includes provision within the company’s contracts with contractors which allow the contractor to send another qualified person (a "substitute") to complete the work in the contractor’s place if the contractor is unable to complete the work;
(b) a “director” includes any person occupying the position of director, by whatever name called; and
(c) “dependent contractor” means a person who—
(i) performs work or services for the relevant company;
(ii) is paid according to tasks performed rather than hours of work;
(iii) depends partially or primarily on the relevant company for employment and income;
(iv) is not required to perform services for the relevant company; and
(v) is not specified as an employee or worker for the relevant company within a statement of employment particulars or a contract of employment.”
This new clause requires certain company directors to keep a register of the people carrying out work for the company under so-called ‘substitution clauses’, which allow companies to permit their suppliers – including some delivery couriers – to appoint a substitute to supply services on their behalf.
Amendment 275, in clause 1, page 2, line 30, leave out from “period” to the end of line 32.
This amendment aims to take out reference to low hours.
Amendment 276, page 2, leave out lines 36 and 37.
This amendment is linked to amendment 275.
Government amendment 8.
Amendment 277, page 3, line 20 leave out “with the specified day” and insert “12 weeks after the commencement”.
This amendment proposes that the reference period for offering guaranteed hours to workers previously on a zero-hours contract be 12 weeks.
Government amendment 9.
Amendment 264, page 3, line 39, at end insert—
“(11) In this section an agency worker is a qualifying worker”.
Government amendments 10 to 15.
Amendment 265, page 5, line 4, leave out from “event” to the end of line 7.
Government amendment 16.
Amendment 266, page 5, line 14, leave out from “contract” to “, and” in line 15.
Government amendment 17.
Amendment 267, page 5, line 25, leave out lines 25 to 42.
Government amendment 18.
Amendment 328, page 8, leave out lines 10 and 11.
Amendment 269, page 11, line 24, at end insert—
“(c) the length of the response period which shall not be less than one week.”
Government amendments 19 to 28.
Amendment 278, in clause 2, page 16, line 22, leave out “a specified amount of time” and insert “2 weeks and ideally one month”.
This amendment, and amendments 279 to 281, aim to set time limits for workers to be given notice of shifts, when shifts are moved and when compensation should be paid.
Government amendment 29.
Amendment 279, page 17, line 16, leave out “a specified amount of time” and insert “2 weeks and ideally one month”.
This amendment is linked to amendment 278.
Government amendments 30 to 37.
Amendment 280, in clause 3, page 21, line 29, at end insert “provided that the notice is at least 10 days in advance of the original planned shift”.
This amendment is linked to amendment 278.
Amendment 281, page 21, line 39, leave out “a specified amount of time” and insert “a week”.
This amendment is linked to amendment 278.
Government amendments 38 to 50 and 79.
Amendment 7, in clause 9, page 29, leave out from line 34 to line 3 on page 30 and insert—
“(1) The weekly rate of statutory sick pay that an employer must pay to an employee is the higher of—
(a) the National Living Wage; or
(b) the prescribed percentage of the employee’s normal weekly earnings.
(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), the “National Living Wage” is defined in accordance with regulation 4 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015.”
This amendment brings the rate of Statutory Sick Pay into line with the National Living Wage.
Amendment 272, page 29, leave out from line 34 to line 3 on page 30 and insert—
“The weekly rate of statutory sick pay that an employer must pay to an employee is the higher of—
(a) £116.75; and
(b) 65% of the employee’s normal weekly earnings.”
This amendment would make the rate of statutory sick pay 65% of an employee’s earnings or £116.75 a week, whichever is higher.
Government amendments 80 to 85.
Amendment 1, in clause 16, page 33, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The conditions specified under subsection (2) must be framed so as to ensure that a “bereaved person” includes those bereaved by pregnancy loss.
(2B) In subsection (2A) “pregnancy loss” includes—
(a) a pregnancy that that ends as a result of—
(i) a miscarriage;
(ii) an ectopic pregnancy;
(iii) a molar pregnancy;
(iv) a medical termination conducted in accordance with section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967;
(b) an unsuccessful attempt at in vitro fertilisation due to embryo transfer loss.””
This amendment requires that any regulations made under section 80EA of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (as amended by the Bill) must include conditions framed by reference to those bereaved by pregnancy loss.
Amendment 2, page 33, line 11, at end insert—
“( ) in subsection (5), after “child” insert “or as a result of pregnancy loss.”
This amendment amends section 80EA(5) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to ensure that the two week leave period is made available to those bereaved as a result of pregnancy loss.
Amendment 3, page 34, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) In section 171ZZ6 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (entitlement to statutory pregnancy loss pay), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) The conditions specified under subsection (2) must be framed so as to ensure that a “bereaved parent” includes those bereaved by pregnancy loss.
(3B) In subsection (3A) “pregnancy loss” includes—
(a) a pregnancy that that ends as a result of—
(i) a miscarriage;
(ii) an ectopic pregnancy;
(iii) a molar pregnancy;
(iv) a medical termination conducted in accordance with section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967;
(b) an unsuccessful attempt at in vitro fertilisation due to embryo transfer loss.””
This amendment amends the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 to ensure that the entitlement to statutory pregnancy loss pay extends to those bereaved by pregnancy loss.
Amendment 288, page 34, line 32, leave out clause 18.
Amendment 289, in clause 18, page 35, line 7, at end insert—
“(1D) Subsection (1A) does not apply to the hospitality sector or to sports venues.”
This amendment would exclude hospitality providers and sports venues from the Bill’s duties for employers not to permit harassment of their employees.
Amendment 287, page 36, line 10, leave out clause 21.
Government amendments 86 to 89.
Amendment 329, in clause 24, page 37, line 30, at end insert―
“(3A) For the purposes of this section, any provision in an agreement (whether a contract of employment or not) is void in so far as it purports to confer on the employer or a third party the power to vary, unilaterally, the terms of the agreement.”
This amendment would render void, for the purposes of a case of unfair dismissal in relation to failing to agree to a variation of contract, any provision enabling an employer to vary a contract unilaterally.
Government amendment 90.
Amendment 316, in clause 25, page 39, line 8, omit subsection (2)(a) and insert—
“(a) in subsection (1), omit “at one establishment” and insert “or more than 10% of the employer’s employees, whichever is the smaller number,”;”
This amendment would require an employer to consult with representatives of affected employees when proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees or at least 10% of their employees, whichever is the smaller number.
Amendment 317, page 39, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) After section 189 (complaint and protective award), insert—
“189A Failure to comply with section 188 or 188A
Where the employer has failed to comply with the requirements under section 188 or section 188A, any proposal to dismiss employees as redundant shall be void and of no effect.””
This amendment would increase the sanction for failing to consult with representatives of affected employees by rendering the dismissal ineffective.
Government amendment 91.
Amendment 318, page 39, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) In section 189(4), omit “but shall not exceed 90 days””
This amendment would remove the cap on the length of a protected period for which an employer is ordered to pay remuneration in protective awards.
Government amendments 92 to 97.
Amendment 302, in clause 26, page 40, line 26, leave out “120” and insert “52”.
This amendment applies the provisions for collective redundancy notices for ships’ crew to ships providing a service entering a harbour in Great Britain on at least 52 occasions in the relevant period.
Amendment 303, page 40, line 31, leave out “10” and insert “5”.
Amendment 273, in clause 28, page 46, line 28 at end insert―
“(ii) a public authority specified in Part 3 of Schedule 19,”.
This amendment would apply this section to public authorities in Scotland.
Amendment 4, page 47, line 3, at end insert—
“(c) supporting employees who provide or arrange care for a dependant with a long-term care need, as defined by the Carer’s Leave Act 2023.”
Government amendment 98.
Amendment 330, in clause 31, page 49, line 11, leave out from "Body" to the end of subsection (2)(b) and insert—
“that person being selected by agreement between officials of the trade unions and employers’ representatives who are members of the Negotiating Body and, in the event of a failure to agree chosen by the Central Arbitration Committee.”
This amendment would require the Chair of the Negotiating Body to be appointed by agreement between trade union and employers’ representatives or the Central Arbitration Committee rather than by regulations by the Secretary of State.
Government amendments 99 and 100.
Amendment 331, page 49, line 26, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and paragraph (b) and insert—
“equal numbers of persons nominated by—
(i) trade unions that represent the interests of social care workers; and
(ii) employers’ associations representing the interests of employers of social care workers.”
This amendment would require the regulations to establish the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body to provide for equal numbers of trade union representatives and employers’ representatives to be appointed to the Negotiating Body.
Government amendment 101.
Amendment 332, in clause 32, page 49, line 40, leave out from “are” to the end of paragraph (b) and insert—
“matters relating to or connected with matters in Section 178(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations No. 332, (Consolidation) Act 1992.”
This amendment would extend the remit of the negotiating body to the list of matters for collective bargaining set out in Section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
Government amendments 102 to 107.
Amendment 333, page 50, line 4, at end insert—
“(d) the training of social care workers;
(e) career progression of social care workers;
(f) a procedure for the resolution of disputes at employer, regional and national level which may refer a dispute to ACAS for conciliation and mediation and, if not then resolved, shall be entitled to refer the matter to the Central Arbitration Committee to resolve the dispute, the decision of the latter being binding;
(g) discipline and grievance procedures;
(h) any other matter agreed to be the subject of negotiation by the members of the Negotiating Body.”
This amendment would add additional matters to those within the Negotiating Body’s remit; namely, the training and career progression of social care workers, dispute resolution procedures and discipline and grievance procedures and other matters agreed by members of the Negotiating Body.
Government amendments 108 and 109.
Amendment 334, in clause 33, page 50, line 8, leave out from “means” to the end of subsection (1) and insert—
“an individual who, as paid work, provides social care for an adult, including an individual who, as paid work, supervises or manages individuals providing such care or is a director or similar officer of an organisation which provides such care.”
This amendment would bring the definition of social care worker in line with the definition of a “care worker” in Section 20(3) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
Government amendments 110 to 114.
Amendment 335, in clause 34, page 50, line 23, leave out subsections (1), (2) and (3) and insert—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring the Negotiating Body, if it reaches an agreement about a matter within its remit, to submit the agreement to the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would remove almost all of Section 34 on the consideration of matters by the Negotiating Body, retaining the power in the regulations that agreements on matters by the Negotiating Body be referred to the Secretary of State.
Government amendments 115 to 126.
Amendment 336, in clause 35, page 51, line 22, leave out paragraphs (c) to (f).
This amendment removes the provisions about what happens where an agreement is referred back to the Negotiating Body in paragraphs (c) to (f) of Section 35(3).
Government amendments 127 to 129.
Amendment 337, page 51, line 36, leave out clause 36.
This amendment would remove Clause 36 on cases where the Negotiating Body is unable to reach an agreement about a matter
Government amendments 130 to 138.
Amendment 338, in clause 38, page 52, line 17, leave out from “remuneration” to the end of line 18 and insert—
“the worker’s remuneration is to be no less than that determined and paid in accordance with the agreement.”
This amendment relates to an agreement on a social care worker’s remuneration and is in line with sectoral collective bargaining by which a local agreement can be more but not less favourable than the national agreement.
Government amendments 139 and 140.
Amendment 339, page 52, line 25, leave out clause 39.
This amendment would remove Clause 39 on the power of the Secretary of State to deal with matters referred to the Negotiating Body.
Government amendments 141 to 153.
Amendment 340, page 55, line 16, leave out clause 45.
This amendment would remove Clause 45 which prevents agreements reached by the Negotiating Body being regarded as collective bargaining.
Government amendments 154 to 161.
Government new schedule 1—Agency workers: guaranteed hours and rights relating to shifts.
Government amendments 51 to 78 and 240.
Amendment 324, in schedule 2, page 127, line 14, at end insert—
“(1A) In section 98 of Part 10, in subsection (4)(b), at end insert “in the view of the employment tribunal”.”
This amendment would focus the determination of the question on whether a dismissal is fair or unfair on the judgment of the employment tribunal.
Amendment 325, page 127, line 14, at end insert—
“(1A) In section 98 of Part 10, in subsection (4), at end insert—
“(c) the tribunal shall take into account, in accordance with the rules of natural justice, whether or not there has been a fair investigation and a fair appeal.””
This amendment requires the employment tribunal to have regard to the rules of natural justice when determining whether or not a dismissal is fair.
Amendment 327, page 127, line 14, at end insert—
“(1A) In section 98, in subsection (1)(b) after “reason” insert “relating to the employee””
Amendment 5, page 127, line 37, leave out from “period” to the end of line 38 and insert—
“of not less than 3 months and not more than 9 months from the day on which the employee starts work.”
This amendment will ensure that the initial period of employment is between 3 and 9 months.
Amendment 326, page 127, line 38, at end insert—
“(4A) The initial period of employment specified in, or determined in accordance with the regulations shall in relation to a contract for a fixed or reasonably ascertainable term not be longer than ten percent of the duration of that term.”
Government amendment 241.
Amendment 319, page 129, line 29, at end insert—
“(5A) In section 139 (Redundancy), after subsection (1)(b) insert—
“(c) the fact that the requirements of that business—
(i) for employees with their existing contractual entitlements to carry out work of a particular kind, or
(ii) for employees with their existing contractual entitlements to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where the employee was employed by the employer,
have ceased or diminished.””
This amendment would provide for workers dismissed by a process of fire and rehire to reduce wages or other terms and conditions to be treated as redundant.
Amendment 320, page 129, line 29, at end insert—
“(5A) Omit section 155 (Qualifying period of employment).”
This amendment removes the qualifying period of two years of continuous employment for the right to a redundancy payment.
Amendment 321, page 129, line 29, at end insert—
“(5A) In section 162 (Amount of a redundancy payment), in subsection (2), for every reference to “week”, substitute “month”.”
This amendment would increase the calculation of the appropriate amount of redundancy pay for each specified period of employment.
Amendment 322, page 129, line 29, at end insert—
“(5A) In section 162 (Amount of a redundancy payment), omit subsection (3).”
This amendment would remove the 20-year cap on entitlement to a redundancy payment.
Amendment 323, page 129, line 29, at end insert—
“(5A) In section 162 (Amount of a redundancy payment), after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) For the purposes of this section, “year of employment” means “year of employment or part year of employment”.”
This amendment clarifies that, when redundancy pay is calculated, each part year worked is treated as a full year of employment.
Government amendments 242 and 243.
Amendment 343, in schedule 3, page 131, leave out lines 13 to 29.
This amendment would remove section 148B from Schedule 3 relating to matters within the remit of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.
Amendment 290, page 131, leave out from the beginning of line 14 to the end of line 29 and insert—
“(1) In the case of staff employed under section 148C, matters within the SSNB’s remit are limited to the establishment of a framework to which employers of school support staff must have regard when discharging their functions.
(2) A framework under subsection (1) must include information on—
(a) the remuneration of school support staff;
(b) the terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;
(c) the training of school support staff;
(d) career progression for school support staff; and
(e) related matters.”
(3) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(a) of section 148C, the matters within the SSSNB’s remit are matters relating to the following—
(a) the remuneration of school support staff;
(b) terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;
(c) the training of school support staff;
(d) career progression for school support staff.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, for the purposes of subsection 5—
(a) a payment or entitlement of a prescribed kind is, or is not, to be treated as remuneration;
(b) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;
(c) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to the training of school support staff;
(d) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to career progression for school support staff.”
This amendment would change the matters within the SSNB’s remit, limiting it to the creation of a framework to which school employers should have regard but do not need to follow.
Amendment 341, page 131, line 15, leave out from “are” to the end of line 19 and insert—
“matters relating to or connected with matters in Section 178(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.”
This amendment would extend the remit of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body to the list of matters for collective bargaining set out in Section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
Amendment 342, page 131, line 19, at end insert—
“(e) a procedure for the resolution of disputes at employer, regional and national level, including the power to refer a dispute to ACAS for conciliation and mediation and, if not then resolved, entitlement to refer the matter to the Central Arbitration Committee to resolve the dispute, the decision of the latter being binding;
(f) Any other matter agreed to be the subject of negotiation by the parties.”
This amendment would add a dispute resolution procedure to the matters within the remit of the the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.
Government amendments 244 and 245.
Amendment 344, page 139, leave out lines 3 to 34.
This amendment would remove section 148Q from Schedule 3 relating to guidance issued by the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.
Amendment 304, in schedule 4, page 144, line 22, at end insert—
“(ia) for “120 occasions” substitute “52 occasions”;”
This amendment applies the requirement for national minimum wage equivalence declarations to ships providing a service entering a harbour on more than 52 occasions during a relevant year.
Amendment 305, page 145, leave out from the beginning of line 35 to the end of line 3 on page 146 and insert “52 occasions”.
This amendment applies the requirement for remuneration declarations to ships providing a service entering a harbour on more than 52 occasions during a relevant year.
Amendment 306, page 149, leave out lines 15 to 18 and insert “52 occasions”.
This amendment applies the requirement for safe working declarations to ships providing a service entering a harbour on more than 52 occasions during a relevant year.
Amendment 307, page 150, line 26, at end insert—
“Regulations relating to other working conditions
4H Regulations relating to other working conditions
(1) Regulations may specify conditions relating to other working conditions of seafarers who carry out work relating to the provision of a relevant service, including conditions about the provision of—
(a) sick pay,
(b) holiday pay
(c) pensions,
(d) training on matters other than those specified in section 4E(5).
(2) In this Act, regulations under subsection (1) are referred to as “regulations relating to other working conditions”.
(3) Regulations relating to other working conditions may impose requirements on the operator of a relevant service.
(4) Regulations relating to other working conditions may apply to—
(a) all relevant services, or
(b) one or more relevant services of a specified description.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (5)(b), a service may be described by reference to (among other things) the route operated by the service.
Declarations relating to other working conditions
4I Request for declaration relating to other working conditions
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service to which regulations relating to other working conditions apply will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least 52 occasions during a relevant year (see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”).
(2) The harbour authority must, within such period as is determined by regulations under this subsection, request that the operator of the service provide the authority with a declaration relating to other working conditions in respect of the service for the relevant year.
(3) The duty under subsection (2) is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 16(1)(a).
(4) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—
(a) in England and Wales, to a fine, or
(b) in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
4J Nature of declaration relating to other working conditions
(1) A declaration relating to other working conditions in respect of a service for a relevant year is a declaration within any of subsections (2) to (5).
(2) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided before the beginning of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the relevant working conditions will be met in relation to the service in the relevant year.
(3) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that the relevant working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year.
(4) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that—
(a) the relevant working conditions have been met in relation to the service in so much of the relevant year as has already occurred, and
(b) the relevant working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year.
(5) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided after the end of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the relevant working conditions were met in relation to the service in the relevant year.
(6) For the purposes of this section the relevant working conditions are met in relation to a service at a particular time if at that time the service is operated in compliance with regulations under section 4H(1) that apply to the service.
(7) References in subsection (6) to the operation of a service include references to its operation outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.”
This amendment inserts an additional power to make regulations and matching declaration requirements for a broader range of working conditions of seafarers.
Amendment 308, page 151, line 17, at end insert—
“(iv) section 4J(4) or (5),”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.
Amendment 309, page 151, line 39, at end insert—
“(iv) within subsection (3) of section 4J (and not also within subsection (4) of that section),”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.
Amendment 310, page 152, line 7, leave out “or safe working declaration” and insert—
“safe working declaration or declaration relating to other working conditions”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.
Amendment 311, page 152, line 12, leave out “or safe working declaration” and insert “safe working declaration or declaration relating to other working conditions”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.
Amendment 312, page 152, line 30, at end insert—
“(iii) information relating to matters that are the subject of regulations relating to other working conditions.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.
Amendment 313, page 153, line 27, at end insert “or
“(d) a declaration relating to other working conditions;
“declaration relating to other working conditions” has the meaning given by section 4J(1);”.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.
Amendment 314, page 153, line 31, at end insert—
“regulations relating to other working conditions has the meaning given by section 4H(2);”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.
New clause 96—Annual report on application of changes in Parts 4 and 5 to seafarers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament an annual report extent to which the changes provided for in Parts 4 and 5 of this Act (“the relevant changes”) apply to seafarers.
(2) Each annual report must describe—
(a) so far as appropriate, whether each relevant change applies or is intended to apply at the time of its commencement to seafarers on a relevant service within the meaning given by section 1 of the Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023;
(b) any proposals by the Secretary of State to apply any relevant change to such seafarers subsequent to commencement;
(c) the extent to which the application of the relevant changes to seafarers is affected by any change or prospective change to the Maritime Labour Convention, adopted on 23 February 2006 by the International Labour Organisation.
(3) The first annual report under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament within three months of the passing of this Act.”
Government amendments 227 to 235.
Amendment 6, in clause 129, page 119, line 25, at end insert—
“(aa) section [Working Time Council];”.
This amendment is consequential on NC25.
Amendment 301, page 120, line 11, at end insert—
“(q) section [Annual report on application of changes to employment rights to seafarers];
(r) section [Annual report on provisions relating to seafarers]
(s) section [Annual report on application of changes in Parts 4 and 5 to seafarers]”
This amendment provides for the coming into force of NC94, NC95 and NC96 two months after the passing of the Act.
Amendment 283, page 120, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force sections 1 to 6 of this Act until the findings of the report under section [Impact on employment tribunals: sections 1 to 6] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
This amendment would prevent the Bill’s provisions on zero hours workers coming into force until the review of the impact on the employment tribunals of the Bill’s provisions on zero hours workers had been assessed and approved by Parliament.
Amendment 284, page 120, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force section 7 of this Act until the findings of the report under section [Consultation and assessment on the right to request flexible working] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
Amendment 285, page 120, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force section 18 of this Act until the findings of the report under section [Employer duties on harassment: impact assessment] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
Amendment 286, page 120, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force section 21 and Schedule 2 of this Act until the findings of the report under section [Unfair dismissal: impact assessment] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
Government amendments 246, 248 and 250.
Amendment 274, in schedule 10, page 190, line 36, leave out paragraph 17 and insert—
“(17) In section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination etc at work), in subsection (1)(a)―
(a) for “3” substitute “6”; and
(b) at end insert―
“(ab) for cases involving sexual harassment, the period of 12 months starting with the date of the act to which the complaint relates, or””.
This amendment would increase to 12 months the time limit for bringing employment tribunal claims relating to sexual harassment.
Government amendments 262 and 263.
Justin Madders
I start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I have done throughout the passage of the Bill. I thank Members in all parts of the House for their valuable contributions throughout the passage of the Bill to date, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) for her assistance in taking the Bill through Committee, and the other members of the Public Bill Committee for providing substantial debate and scrutiny.
The Government’s plan to make work pay is a core part of our mission to grow the economy, raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all. It will tackle the low pay, poor working conditions and poor job security that have been holding our economy back. The Bill is the first phase of delivering our plan to make work pay, supporting employers, workers and unions by raising the minimum floor of employment rights, raising living standards across the country and levelling the playing field for those businesses that are engaged in good practice.
This is a landmark Bill that, once implemented, will represent the biggest upgrade in employment rights for a generation. It is therefore important that we get the detail right. The amendments being put forward by the Government directly demonstrate our commitment to full and comprehensive consultation on the detail of the plan to make work pay. On 4 March, we published five consultation responses relating to key areas of the Bill. That package represents the first phase of formal public consultations on how best to put our plans into practice. We have also undertaken extensive engagement with more than 150 stakeholder organisations, in addition to the formal consultations.
We have made great efforts to listen to the range of views from businesses, trade unions, representative organisations, civil society and others. The insights gained have been invaluable in informing the amendments to ensure the Bill works in practice, both for workers and for businesses of all sizes across the whole country. The amendments will strengthen the Bill, providing further detail and clarity on measures and ensuring such measures can be implemented in a straightforward way.
I turn to the detail of the amendments. The Government have tabled a range of amendments in relation to zero-hours measures. These amendments will help ensure that the zero-hours contract reforms work for workers and employers, supporting a culture where secure work and prosperous growth go hand in hand. Amendments in relation to clause 1, covering the right to guaranteed hours, will clarify requirements where a worker works for an employer under more than one contract at the same time; clarify that under a guaranteed hours offer, if it is accepted, work must be provided by the employer for the hours set out and that those hours must be worked by the worker; and enable a worker to take a case to an employment tribunal on the ground that an employer deliberately structured the worker’s hours or offered work in such a way as to make a reduced guaranteed hours offer or to avoid having to make an offer at all.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Given the urgent necessity to promote growth, surely the acid test of a Bill such as this is whether it will actually make it more attractive for entrepreneurs to create jobs. What is the answer?
Justin Madders
The answer is in the Department’s press release, which cites Simon Deakin, professor of law at the University of Cambridge, no less. He has said:
“The consensus on the economic impacts of labour laws is that, far from being harmful to growth, they contribute positively to productivity. Labour laws also help ensure that growth is more inclusive and that gains are distributed more widely across society.”
I am sure that the right hon. Member wants to see that happen.
Amendments in relation to the rights in clauses 2 and 3 to reasonable notice of shifts and payment for short-notice cancellation, curtailment and movement of shifts will ensure that the rights work appropriately for workers whose contracts specify the timing of at least some of their shifts; provide that a worker is entitled to a payment from their employer only for a shift cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice if they reasonably believed they would be needed to work the shift; and allow employers to disclose personal information about a worker in notices of exceptions, where appropriate and in accordance with data protection law, and ensure that the usual burden of proof applies where it is alleged that such a notice is untrue.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
The Minister will have seen the appalling evidence that the Business and Trade Committee took from McDonald’s, where the BBC investigation exposed allegations from hundreds of young workers who were suffering harassment, and even allegations from one worker of managers soliciting them for sex in return for scheduling shifts. The tightening up that he proposes is very welcome. When does he think he will set out the detail—[Interruption.] When will he set out the detail of, for example, the period of time that someone must work before being offered a zero-hours contract?
Justin Madders
I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his question. We are aiming to work on this once the Bill has passed this stage, and consultation will take place in due course. I have to say that the chuntering from those on the Conservative Benches really shows how they fail to appreciate the power imbalance that there is in some workplaces and the exploitation and harassment that arise from that.
Our measures on guaranteed hours, reasonable notice of shifts, and payment for short-notice cancellations seek to ensure that workers, often in fragmented sectors with little voice of their own, do not bear all the risk of uncertain demand. However, we recognise that there are cases where unions and employers, working together, may want to agree more tailored rights than the provisions allow, which would benefit both the workers and the employer given the unique context of that particular sector. Unions, businesses and trade associations have made a case for that flexibility in their meetings with us. We want to allow for that, while also providing a baseline for sectors where unionisation is uncommon or agreement cannot be reached. New clause 33 and associated amendments will allow employers and unions to collectively agree to modify or opt out of the zero-hours contract measures.
Like the other workers covered by this part of the Bill, agency workers deserve a baseline of security and access to a contract that reflects their regular hours. Many agency workers have a preference for guaranteed hours, according to survey evidence. We know that 55% of agency workers requested a permanent contract with their hirer between January 2019 and September 2020, according to the Department for Business and Trade’s agency worker survey. We are keen not to see a wholesale shift from directly engaged workers to agency workers as a way for employers to avoid the zero-hours provisions in the Bill.
New clause 32, new schedule 1 and associated amendments will narrow the broad power currently in the Bill and instead include provisions for similar rights to be extended to agency workers. Hirers, agencies and agency workers can then be clear where responsibilities will rest in relation to the new rights. These amendments reflect the call for clarity from stakeholders in their response to the Government’s public consultation on this issue. Given the important role that agency work plays in businesses and public services, we recognise the need to work with the recruitment sector, employers and trade unions to design detailed provisions for regulations that work—that is, regulations that achieve the policy objective of extending rights to agency workers without unintended consequences for employment agencies and hirers—and we will work on that in due course.
The Government have also tabled amendments in relation to dismissal and redundancy practices. This Bill will help employers to raise standards in relation to these practices, so that the vast majority of businesses that do the right thing by their workers will no longer be undercut by those with low standards.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I had the good fortune to serve with the Minister for 21 sessions in Committee, and at the end of that we had a Bill 192 pages long. We now have 270 pages of amendments, most of which come from the Government. Why are they tabling so many amendments and giving them just two days’ scrutiny? Are these just more union demands?
Justin Madders
I have literally just explained how we have been consulting with businesses and trade unions and put down amendments as a result. Of course, if the hon. Member is concerned about the length of the amendment paper, he can withdraw his own amendment, which we will no doubt be debating later on.
We are tabling some technical amendments to clause 21 on unfair dismissal that will update cross-references in other legislation to “the sum”, which is the existing cap on the compensation that can be awarded by an employment tribunal in most unfair dismissal cases.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I apologise if the Minister has moved on a bit; I was just waiting to hear what he said. The Minister may correct me, but I do not believe the provisions around menstrual health—the menopause strategy and so on—include endometriosis, which can be crippling for people in the workplace. I may not have seen it in the Bill, but does the Minister have any plans to ensure that this becomes a protected area of sick leave? Endometriosis is devastating for many women, but at the moment, they are struggling to get this terrible disease recognised in the workplace.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for raising this important point. It was touched on in Committee, but there are not any amendments dealing with that specific issue today.
Returning to holiday pay, where an employer does not keep adequate records, a Fair Work Agency enforcement officer may seek a labour market enforcement undertaking from the employer to ensure future compliance. Where the employer refuses to give a labour market enforcement undertaking, or fails to comply with one, the FWA enforcement officer may apply to the appropriate court for a labour market enforcement order.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I apologise to the Minister because he has moved on, but I want to come back to the new level of statutory sick pay, which is £118.75 or 80% of an employee’s weekly earnings. An employee with weekly earnings of £125 would at present get £116.75, but under the new model, they would receive only £100. Is that correct?
Justin Madders
Yes, but the hon. Member forgets the fact that we are removing the waiting days. With the provisions on the lower earnings limit going, 1.3 million people will be accessing statutory sick pay. We think that that is the right balance and that it will leave people in a much better position. Of course, it is something that we will always continue to review.
Moving on to umbrella companies, we are aware of non-compliance in this market, where umbrella companies can be responsible for denying employment rights to those who work through them. New clause 36 will allow for the regulation of umbrella companies and for enforcement by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, and subsequently the Fair Work Agency. The specific requirements on umbrella companies will be set out in the relevant regulations, which set out the minimum standards of conduct for employment agencies and employment businesses. We will consult before amending these regulations, and we are committed to working with the sector to ensure that future regulation works effectively for umbrella companies. The amendment marks an important step towards ensuring non-compliant umbrella companies are no longer able to deny workers the rights they are owed.
The Government are moving a range of amendments in relation to part 3 of the Bill, which covers the adult social care negotiating body and the school support staff negotiating body. On the SSSNB, the Government are moving two technical amendments to correct incorrect cross-references. The body is an important part of delivering both the Government’s “Plan to Make Work Pay” and our opportunity mission. The Government will today commit to consult in the summer on whether agency workers should be brought into scope of the SSSNB in future legislation to support those missions.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Could the Minister clarify for the House whether the provisions on the school support staff negotiating body will provide a ceiling as well as a floor on pay, or will it just be a floor? There are certainly a number of school and academy leaders who say they want to pay above what the Government might recommend for support staff and that this may limit them from doing so.
Justin Madders
That was debated in detail in Committee. My understanding is that there will be a floor, but there will not be a ceiling. If I am wrong about that, I will come back to that. We absolutely think that a floor is needed given some of the issues with low pay in this country.
Amendments to the adult social care negotiating body provisions will remove clause 42, thereby removing the power to make stand-alone enforcement provision in respect of the agreements reached by negotiating body. Enforcement of pay terms under agreements will instead be in the remit of the new Fair Work Agency under schedule 4.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Minister is rattling off a whole list of amendments that appear to have come after the legislation has gone through Committee. Does he not understand that that creates a massive burden on many businesses? Would it not be better to accept that the Government have gone a little overboard with the Bill and to start afresh with proper consultation with businesses at ground level?
Justin Madders
The reason why we are putting so many amendments down is because we have been consulting and working with businesses, and that is why we have so much to say today. It was a Labour party commitment to launch an Employment Rights Bill within 100 days of taking office, and I am proud that we have delivered on that commitment and that we have this Bill here today.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
In that consultation, how many small businesses expressed their support for the Bill?
Justin Madders
I refer the right hon. Member to our departmental press release, where at least half a dozen business representatives and businesses have expressed support, and of course, there are many more businesses out there. Indeed, I visited one only recently that supported the Bill.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Would the Minister be kind enough to name one of those businesses on the press release? [Interruption.] He had better look at the press release just to check.
Justin Madders
There is the Co-op—quite a big business—Richer Sounds, Centrica and the British Chambers of Commerce. These are not bit-part players at all, are they?
New clause 38 seeks to ensure that agency workers in the adult social care sector who do not have a “worker’s contract”, within the meaning of employment legislation, would nevertheless be able to bring a claim in the employment tribunals or in civil proceedings where a fair pay agreement has been breached. It does that by deeming a contract to exist for this purpose between the worker and the party that pays them. That will allow such workers to bring an unlawful deduction of wages claim or breach of contract claim for a breach of fair pay agreement terms.
New clause 37 and associated amendments will enable the Scottish and Welsh Ministers to establish their own separate negotiating bodies and associated framework, and to enable their negotiating bodies and the resulting agreements to cover social care workers in both adult and children’s social care. Care policy, funding and commissioning is delivered together in both Wales and Scotland. In England, the two workforces, and therefore the policies and delivery, are distinct. As such, it is right for Scotland and Wales to have the powers to set up negotiating bodies that can provide for their systems and workforces as they are now. These amendments and associated consequential amendments will allow the devolved Ministers to exercise certain powers in this chapter of the Bill with the consent of the Secretary of State, ensuring that the Secretary of State retains oversight of regulations relating to the reserved matters of employment and industrial relations.
Amendment 151 to clause 41 supplements the power to make regulations in relation to record keeping. It will enable those regulations to apply to section 49 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 in order to prevent employers from trying to contract out of their new record keeping obligations.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
When my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) asked a moment ago which businesses support the Bill, the Minister mentioned the British Chambers of Commerce. I have just visited its website, which states:
“The British Chambers of Commerce has used an evidence session on the Employment Rights Bill to highlight businesses’ serious concerns about the legislation and the speed and detail of consultation.”
Will the Minister withdraw his comment?
Justin Madders
I am glad that the hon. Member has access to the internet. I direct him to the Department’s webpage, where he will see that Jane Gratton, deputy director of public policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, said:
“There is much here to welcome as sensible moves that will help ensure that employment works for both the business and the individual”.
That was in response to the amendments, so it is a much more up-to-date comment than the one the hon. Member mentioned.
Returning to the important issue of violence against women and girls, it is incumbent on every part of Government to work together to tackle violence against women and girls. That is not a task for a single Department or Minister. The Government are steadfastly committed to delivering our manifesto commitment to halving violence against women and girls, and we will publish a cross-Government strategy shortly. I intend to work with colleagues to ensure that our Department does its bit in that respect.
I also take this opportunity to note the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on non-disclosure agreements. I have met advocates on that issue and I understand the significant problems that they have highlighted in relation to the misuse of non-disclosure agreements in some circumstances. That important issue warrants further consideration. The Government are pressing ahead with plans to implement the provisions relevant to NDAs in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 and the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. We take NDA misuse seriously and will continue to look into it to see what we can do.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
New clause 72, in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), focuses on whistleblowing and protected disclosures. That area has been so important in recent public scandals, including the Post Office-Fujitsu scandal and the Lucy Letby case. May I urge the Minister to consider that new clause? Imposing a duty on bigger employers to look at and investigate protected disclosures is a vital way of moving forward on that key legislation.
Justin Madders
I have begun to consider it, as that legislation is now a quarter of a century old and needs looking at in the light of experiences in a number of the scandals that have been mentioned. We are considering where we go next on whistleblowing legislation.
To conclude, Britain’s working people and businesses are the driving force of the UK economy, and the Bill will help to create a labour market that delivers for both. It will deliver significant benefits to the UK, including better working conditions, more secure work, reduced inequalities and improved industrial relations. I appreciate that I have outlined a lot of detail today, but it is important to remember that, as is typical with any legislation of this nature, many of the policies will be provided for through regulations and, in some cases, through codes of practice. We expect further consultations on these reforms to begin later in the year, when we will seek significant input from stakeholders.
I am grateful for Members’ efforts to improve the Bill, and for their scrutiny and debate so far. I look forward to hearing further debate this afternoon.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
After 21 sittings in the Public Bill Committee, the Government are still tabling hundreds of amendments to the Bill. That highlights once again that their false political deadline of 100 days in which to publish the Bill was foolhardy. They should have taken better time.
This is a bad Bill. Although it contains many good and well-intentioned measures, the Government have failed to get the balance right between employees and employers. Although I welcome some of the Minister’s comments—not least on bereavement leave for pregnancy loss, on which we spoke at length and agreed in Committee—I am afraid that the Government have got the balance wrong in the vast majority of the Bill. The amendments in the names of right hon. and hon. Friends in His Majesty’s loyal Opposition seek to highlight how the Bill simply goes too far in too many regards: it will affect our economy, it will affect the number of people who have a job, and it will affect the willingness of employers—the wealth and job creators—to take on new staff, to grow, to put new product lines in place and to keep employing people.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and doff my cap to him for his 21 sittings in Committee. When the Regulatory Policy Committee considered the Bill, it said that eight of the 23 impact assessments were “not fit for purpose”. Is he any more confident that that has been rectified through the amendments?
Greg Smith
I am sorry to have to report to my hon. Friend that, no, I do not have greater confidence that the Bill will work. He is right that the RPC placed so much of the Bill in the red column—at severe risk—and identified it as “not fit for purpose”. Some of the amendments in my name and those of right hon. and hon. Friends, to which I will speak in more detail in a moment, seek to explore further the impact that the measures in the Bill will have on the economy, and to answer the point that he rightly outlined.
Fundamentally, we know that every Labour Government leave unemployment higher than when they started; the difference with this one is that they are actually legislating for that outcome.
I will turn first to new clause 83 and amendment 283. When we were in government, we banned exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts. We know that this flexibility works for many employees on zero-hours contracts, such as students and those with a summer job or other responsibilities—employees can value that. This Bill imposes a statist, top-down, “Government knows best” approach, which will limit flexibility for both employers and employees.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I visited the Nelson Arms in Farnham recently and met the publican, who employs a lot of people on zero-hours contracts, one of whom, in addition to working in the pub, works as a paramedic, because the flexibility allows him to do both jobs. These are the sorts of people who will be impacted by this legislation.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am attending a wedding in Farnham later this year, and I look forward to visiting the Nelson Arms and thanking his constituent for the service he also gives as a paramedic.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Is the shadow Minister aware that the TUC’s survey clearly shows that the vast majority of people on zero-hours contracts really want regular hours? Can he respond to that?
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman says it is “the vast majority”. I do not know whether it is the vast majority, but some people, of course, will want the guarantee of the hours he talks about. The point I am making is about allowing flexibility for those for whom it does work. I gave the example of students, and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) gave another example of someone for whom this flexibility works. That is not to say that there are not many people in our economy who do seek the change the hon. Gentleman wants, but it is not a universal rule, and it should not simply be applied to everyone. I gently invite him to reflect on the impact this will have on people such as those my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon referred to.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Has the shadow Minister actually read the Bill? Does he understand that the flexibility included is the flexibility to ask for guaranteed hours, and if a student or somebody doing a second job does not want those guaranteed hours, they do not need to have them?
Greg Smith
I am happy to confirm to the hon. Lady that I have read the Bill, and I have read a considerable number of documents from the House of Commons Library and many other organisations. I have spoken to a lot of businesses in my constituency, as well as further afield, who I can assure her are horrified at the Bill. The Minister was asked earlier to name a single small business that supported the Bill, and his answer was the Co-op and Centrica. The last time I looked, neither of those would be considered small businesses.
Greg Smith
I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
Does it worry my hon. Friend that, once again, the Government have revealed they are desperately hoping that companies such Centrica do become small businesses?
Greg Smith
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point in his stylish, witty manner.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, the Regulatory Policy Committee has given a red rating to the identification of options and choice of policy on zero-hours contracts and guaranteed hours in the Bill. That means the Government have not justified the necessity of clauses 1 to 6. What is the problem the Government are trying to solve with those clauses? Why are those clauses needed? We just do not know. The Bill, despite literally hundreds of Government amendments, remains silent about how these provisions will work in practice, which means the Government’s assessment that the administrative cost of the Bill to business in shift and workforce planning will be £320 million could well be an underestimate.
The deputy CEO of UKHospitality raised their concerns in Committee, saying:
“the Government are intending to leave it to case law and employment tribunal systems to figure out what ‘reasonable notice’ means.” ––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 43, Q39.]
That is an unacceptable way to legislate. Businesses crave certainty and a stable regulatory environment. This Bill provides anything but, and the result, as the chair of the CBI has said, is that it risks becoming
“an adventure playground for employment rights lawyers.”
Dr Luke Evans
My hon. Friend is a learned man and he may have seen the report in the Financial Times that, for the first time ever, the number of companies registered at Companies House has fallen. Does he think this Bill being on the horizon has anything to do with that, particularly given the points that have been made about it not being fit for purpose?
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend makes an exceptional point. The Bill categorically will be playing a part in that, along with the Budget of broken promises, the increase in employer NI and so on. I shudder to think what will happen when the Bill becomes law. We understand the parliamentary arithmetic—we understand that the Government will force this through, and that is the reason we have tabled new clause 83 and amendment 283.
Greg Smith
I will happily give way in one moment. Government Members should have their eyes open to the consequences of this badly thought out legislation. Perhaps the hon. Lady will open her eyes to that point.
Uma Kumaran
These measures will ensure protections for all the 2.4 million people in the UK with irregular work patterns, be it zero-hours contracts or agency contracts. Can the shadow Minister tell the House why he thinks agency workers do not deserve the same protections as everyone else?
Greg Smith
The hon. Lady makes a point that she made in Committee. It was good to debate with her and others in Committee—we had a genuine and robust debate. What I am arguing for is flexibility and a recognition of how the employment market and our economy works in real life. To treat everything with one universal rule will be a disaster for our economy. I fear that it will result in fewer people in work and fewer jobs in the economy, and it certainly will not deliver the growth that this Government pretend they want to see.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Matt Western
Does the shadow Minister not accept that it is due to the expendability of employees in the workplace that we have such a poor rate of productivity in this country, particularly compared with France and Germany?
Greg Smith
I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman, and we have worked together on a number of issues in recent years, but I do not accept his point. Is there room to improve productivity? Of course there is—there is room to improve productivity across all sectors all the time; we would not grow the economy if we could not do that. However, the Bill takes a sledgehammer to crack the proverbial nut. Applying a universal rule for all will not deliver what the hon. Gentleman nobly wishes to achieve in the economy. As is often the case in politics, the thing that divides us is not the end goal or the point we want to get to; it is the means of getting there. I do not think the Bill will deliver what he wants to achieve. He looks like he wants to intervene again. I want to make progress, but I will give him one last go.
Matt Western
The shadow Minister is being very generous. I am making a simple point: it is less motivating and of less interest to a company to invest in machinery and plant if it can ultimately change the structure of its workforce or expend them through fire and rehire. That is what is holding us back, and that is why we have a 20% deficit to France and Germany in terms of productivity.
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I do not see businesses out there that want to expend or get rid of their workforces, or disinvest in them, and he is giving a very pessimistic outlook of the way that the business environment runs in this country. Businesses want to innovate. They want to grow and employ more people. They want to make more money. Making money is not something people should look down their noses at—it is a fundamentally good thing that creates wealth, grows the economy, and increases the tax base to pay for the services that we all want. I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view of the world when it comes to the Bill and the point he is trying to make.
Wendy Morton
Listening to the debate, it is clear that there are Conservative Members who understand business, and who come to this place with years of experience—[Interruption.] If Labour Members would stop heckling for one moment, they might start to listen. If we want to increase productivity, that is about employees, but it is also about employers being able to invest in their staff through training, contracts, plant and machinery. It is a whole raft of things, none of which we can do if businesses are stifled with red tape and employment law, or measures that are basically about law through the courts.
Greg Smith
I agree with my right hon. Friend. The crux of what she says is the difference between the approach of Conservative Members to economy and the way that Labour Members, and those on the other left-wing Benches, look at the economy. The left of British politics tends to view everything through the lens of business being bad, of all employers seeking to exploit their workforces, and of an image of a Victorian factory from a novel of that era. In reality, we must recognise the symbiotic relationship between employer and employee, because we do not grow the economy without things working in both their interests. The Bill seeks to tip the balance too far in one direction, forgetting that that will take away the incentive for employers—the wealth creators—to get on and grow.
Let me move to new clause 84 and amendment 284. Conservative Members have absolutely no issue with the right to request flexible working. Indeed, Conservatives in government passed the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023. That made it easier for employees to make flexible working requests, gave them a statutory right to do so, and required employers to consider and discuss any requests made by their employee more quickly. That legislation appears to be working. Indeed, the Regulatory Policy Committee has said that
“there is little evidence presented that employers are rejecting requests unreasonably.”
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I spent 13 years as a solicitor working in employment rights, predominantly for employees and periodically for employers, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that flexible working is not working for many mothers in this country. Many women are giving up jobs and becoming self-employed because their employers will not agree their flexible working requests.
Greg Smith
It is good to hear from a real solicitor who gives her wealth of knowledge to this area. I am not trying to suggest that everything is perfect and working well. I fully accept the fair and good point that the hon. Lady makes about many mothers getting back into the workplace or extending their careers, but the Bill is not the answer she is looking for, if she looks at it in more detail.
The RPC gave the Government’s impact assessment for flexible working provisions a red rating, and that goes to the nub of the point. Is there room for improvement? Of course there is, but the impact assessment for the flexible provisions in the Bill was given a red rating—not fit for purpose. Once again, I ask the Minister this: what problem are the Government trying to solve with clause 7? Before rushing to pile more red tape on businesses through the Bill, did the Government consider options such as raising awareness of the right to request flexible working? Our new clause 84 requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact that clause 7 will have on employment, wages and economic output.
Mrs Russell
I assure the hon. Gentleman that women absolutely do know about the right to request flexible working, and that is not the source of the problems they are facing.
Greg Smith
The hon. Lady almost makes the point for me. Earlier, I made the very point that we introduced that right. It was working well, yet the RPC says that the provisions in the Bill will do nothing for it and are not fit for purpose—I thank her for her intervention.
New clause 84 calls for consideration of
“the likelihood of the costs of flexible working measures being passed on to employees through lower wages”,
and of the likely effect that the right to request flexible working will have on productivity, wage growth, equality of opportunity, job security, economic activity and employment. Equally, it requires that a report setting out that those findings
“must be laid before each House of Parliament no sooner than 18 weeks after the consultation has been initiated.”
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has just said that there may be areas where we could go further on flexible working. Can he explain why the previous Government’s flexible working taskforce met just once last year, and just once the year before? As with the long-awaited employment Bill that never materialised, is it the case that this Government are bringing forward real measures because the previous Government vacated that territory?
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman, with whom we debated these matters at length in Committee, clearly has not listened to what I said. I detailed how we did legislate in this area, yet this Government are bringing forward a Bill that the RPC, in this respect, has given a red rating and said is not fit for purpose. I gently urge him to look again at this issue, and at where we can agree on areas that could go further or be different from measures set out in either existing or proposed legislation. We must understand the impact that measures in the Bill will have on the real economy.
Amendment 284 would ensure that clause 7 could not come into force until Parliament had approved that report. To put it simply, the genesis of the amendment is that the Government have not done their homework, and they have no idea what they are doing or why. We know that these provisions will damage business, which in turn will hurt workers, and we want Labour Members to acknowledge that it will be ordinary people who pay the price.
Let me turn to new clause 85 and amendments 285, 288 and 289. Clause 18, which makes employers liable for harassment of their employees by third parties, is another example of the Government putting more regulation on business without knowing the problem they are trying to solve. The independent Regulatory Policy Committee has said that the Government have not managed sufficiently to demonstrate the need for the third-party harassment provisions in the Bill, and has once again rated this impact assessment as red.
It should go without saying that Conservative Members do not condone any form of harassment in the workplace. When we were in government, we legislated to put a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to anticipate and prevent sexual harassment, a horrible, evil crime that is covered by other legislation to protect everybody in the country. I double underline that we are not condoning sexual harassment—indeed, we legislated clearly to clamp down on that evil and heinous crime. However, I would be interested in any evidence the Minister has for the prevalence of third-party harassment in the workplace, and of how clause 18 might solve that, because the Government have not produced that evidence so far.
Greg Smith
I will make some progress, as I think I have demonstrated that I am not shy of giving way, and I will come back to the hon. Lady. The problem is that badly considered law, developed with no evidence base, is likely to cause problems, rather than to solve them. That is the law of unintended consequences. We are deeply concerned about not just the unclear liabilities that the clause places on employers, but the implications it has for freedom of expression.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that the third-party harassment protections
“raise complex questions about the appropriate balance between third parties’ rights to freedom of expression (as protected under Article 10 ECHR) and employees’ protection from harassment and their right to private and family life.”
We are already struggling to ensure freedom of speech at our universities—places that should be guardians of free, open and challenging debate.
Wera Hobhouse
It was of course my private Member’s Bill that the previous Government supported, but only partly, because third-party harassment was scrubbed out of the Bill; I am very pleased that the new Government are reintroducing that bit. The question is: why does the hon. Gentleman support the idea that employers should prevent sexual harassment in the workplace and demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps, but think that for third parties that impacts on freedom of speech? It does not make sense.
Greg Smith
If the hon. Lady will allow me to continue, it will become clear why we take such a position; I will give some concrete examples in a few moments of where the law of unintended consequences will kick in on this provision.
A 2022 study by the Higher Education Policy Institute found that quiet no-platforming, where students decide not to invite otherwise suitable speakers to an event because of their views, was more common than reported cases of no-platforming. Speakers quietly no-platformed include Alex Salmond, Liam Neeson, Harry Enfield, Tony Blair—one that those on the Labour Benches might blink at—and Peter Hitchens. Although this clause is well meaning, it is likely to make matters worse. As James Murray, the legal director of Doyle Clayton, has pointed out, this clause could well cause difficulties for universities in offering a platform to discuss issues on which those listening may have differing views.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the problem in universities. It has particularly found form in no-platforming speakers deemed to be unacceptable or to make people feel uncomfortable because of their views on transsexuals, for example. Kathleen Stock, a distinguished academic and a feminist, was no-platformed in exactly that way because of her view that sex is a biological fact. This clause needs to be examined in that context. I welcome much about this Bill—particularly on trade unions and zero-hours contracts, as it happens—but I feel that this one area needs to be looked at again by the Government, for the very reasons that my hon. Friend made clear.
Greg Smith
I totally agree with my right hon. Friend that this area needs to be looked at again to ensure that those unintended consequences that challenge freedom of speech in this country are not allowed to come through. I double-underline that we have no truck with harassment: we absolutely believe that it should be stamped out, using criminal law where necessary, to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice. This Bill opens the door to unintended consequences.
Antonia Bance
I will help the hon. Gentleman to come back to the point. Two in three young women have experienced sexual harassment or verbal abuse in the workplace. It is important that where they are in customer-facing roles, they are protected from abuse both by their colleagues and managers and by their customers. That is particularly important if they work in a university bar, another sort of bar or a shop or retail setting. I was very pleased to have taken the first piece of evidence about the nature and extent of workplace sexual harassment when I worked for the TUC in 2015, and I am sad that it has taken us a decade to get to the point where we say, “No more sexual harassment by customers and clients.” The Conservative party could have achieved that much more quickly if it had just accepted the private Member’s Bill put forward by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse).
Greg Smith
I do not think that the hon. Lady is actually disagreeing with what I have said so far. Sexual harassment is clearly a crime—it is already a crime—and any perpetrator of it should be brought to justice. That is covered by different law.
Greg Smith
In a moment. To answer the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance), the point I am getting at is not about sexual harassment or anything else covered in the criminal law. For example, if somebody who is waiting on tables or serving at a bar in a hospitality setting overhears a conversation that they find themselves deeply offended by—perhaps around the situation in Israel and Gaza right now—this Bill—
Greg Smith
I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment. This Bill would criminalise and bring in the banter police and so on just because people are expressing a perfectly legitimate political view that somebody else finds offensive. I double-underline that sexual harassment is absolutely—
Mrs Russell
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The shadow Minister is in danger of misleading the House. Nothing that he has referred to is a crime. Sexual harassment, as dealt with in this Bill, is a civil matter dealt with by tribunal.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. That was in fact a point of debate, rather than a point of order.
Greg Smith
I will get back to James Murray, the legal director of Doyle Clayton, who has pointed out that this clause could well cause difficulties for universities in offering those platforms to discuss issues where people have differing views. He said:
“If we think about a speaker that has been invited—say it’s a controversial gender critical speaker, like Julie Bindel or Kathleen Stock—someone might somewhat disingenuously say”
that they are an employee of the university and that they find what they say to be deeply harassing. He also said:
“The concern is that this will shift the balance away from free speech and universities will be more risk averse as they won’t want to be held liable for third-party harassment.”
Why do the Government want to run that risk?
There is then the burden on businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector.
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman has had a go; he may come back later.
Kate Nicholls, the chief executive of UKHospitality, said that staff in restaurants, bars, pubs and hotels work in a “social environment” where
“there are jokes and people are boisterous”.
She said that while everyone wants to ensure that their staff are protected,
“we don’t want to be policing our customers”,
and she is concerned that this clause could add “undue restrictions”. If someone works in a pub or a comedy club, for example, there is a high risk that they might hear comments that they do not like, but it is wrong to restrict free speech just because somebody does not like something. The unintended consequence of this provision is likely to be a chilling effect on free speech and unclear responsibilities for employers about where they need to draw the line.
Greg Smith
I will make some progress. I have been on my feet for a long time, and I know that a lot of people wish to speak in this debate.
In other words, this clause could well function as a banter ban at best, and as a restriction on academic debate and inquiry. Due to our concern about how this clause will operate, especially in the higher education and hospitality sectors, we have tabled amendment 289, which would carve out the hospitality sector and sports venues from clause 18. We believe those are the sectors where the potential for unintended consequences from this clause will be the greatest.
It is because we believe that clause 18 will create problems, rather than solve them, that we have tabled new clause 85, which would require the Secretary of State to report on the clause. The report must include the extent to which the prevalence of third-party harassment makes the case for the measures in clause 18, including an assessment of the impact of the clause on free speech, an assessment of the likely costs of the clause to employers, an assessment of which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment through no fault of the employer, and proposals for mitigations that can be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations. We will require the Secretary of State to lay a report setting those out before each House of Parliament, and amendment 285 would prevent clause 18 from coming into force until that report is approved by Parliament.
The Government need to go away and think again, and that is what our amendments are designed to achieve. If the Government are not willing to do so, we have also tabled amendment 288, which would leave the clause out of the Bill entirely, so great is our concern about the unintended consequences it could have.
Wera Hobhouse
Since we were discussing this issue for the best part of the previous Parliament, can I ask the shadow Minister whether there is a misunderstanding about what this part of the Bill does? It is about a preventive duty, not predicting everything that could happen in the hospitality sector, for example. The guidance is to make sure that everybody knows that their workplace will protect people from harassment—that is what an employer needs to do. What is the problem with that?
Greg Smith
I am not sure that the hon. Lady has firmly grasped what the Bill says in this respect. Of course we want to protect everybody in our society—that is the first duty of Government—but I do not think she has fully considered the unintended consequences in the real world, particularly in the hospitality sector.
I will speak briefly to new clause 86 and amendments 286 and 287. Clause 21 and schedule 2 are another example of the Government rushing to legislate in an attempt to meet an arbitrary deadline set by the Deputy Prime Minister, with chaotic results. Clause 21 will remove the qualifying period for unfair dismissal. Again, the Regulatory Policy Committee slapped a red rating on the Government’s impact assessment for these provisions, meaning that the Government have not adequately justified the need for them. They have admitted that they do not have robust data on the incidence of dismissal for those under two years of employment. In other words, yet again, we do not know whether there is even an actual problem with unfair dismissal for this Bill to try to solve.
The British Chambers of Commerce has said that
“Members say that there would be a reduced hiring appetite were this legislation to come in, and that they would be less likely to recruit new employees due to the risk and difficulty, particularly under the day one rights, unless there were at least a nine-month probation period”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 8.]
As such, our new clause 86 requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of clause 21 and schedule 2, and amendment 286 requires Parliament specifically to approve that impact before these sections of the Bill can come into force.
Greg Smith
I am mindful of time, and I do not wish to incur Madam Deputy Speaker’s wrath, so I will make progress.
We have also tabled amendment 287, which would remove clause 21 from the Bill entirely, so concerned are we about how damaging it will be to both employers and employees, particularly those who will not get work as a direct consequence of these requirements.
Our new clause 87 seems a perfectly sensible thing to ask for: a simple requirement that the Secretary of State must have regard to the objectives of economic growth and improving the international competitiveness of the UK economy when making regulations under parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. If agreed to, though, it would of course be a wrecking amendment, because the Government do not know how they intend to give effect to the provisions on guaranteed hours, the extension of those provisions to agency workers or the provisions on unfair dismissal, to name but a few. All of those things will be left to regulations after the Bill is passed, without proper scrutiny from this place, and it will be working people who pay the price.
Our new clause 91 would clamp down on public sector employers using positive discrimination under sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010 where it causes detriment to other employees, and would promote merit-based employment practices. Taxpayers rightly expect that their money should be spent well, and part of offering value for money is that taxpayer money should be ruthlessly focused on improving the public services on which all of our constituents rely. That always means hiring on merit.
Amendment 290, which deals with the school support staff negotiating body, is the last of our amendments that I will speak to. In 2010, the then Conservative Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, abolished the school support staff negotiating body. The Conservative Government had a clear and principled reason for this: employers should have the flexibility to set pay and conditions locally, rather than having a top-down, centralised framework imposed on them. It was to allow school leaders—who know better than politicians in Whitehall—to innovate and do what works best for their schools, their pupils and their employees. Instead of giving employers flexibility to do what works best for them, the Government are re-establishing a national terms and conditions handbook, training, career progression routes and pay rates for school support staff that all school employers will be obliged to follow. We believe that the current arrangements for employing school support staff are working well.
Greg Smith
I have explained that I do not wish to incur Madam Deputy Speaker’s wrath, which I fear is close at this point, so I will make some progress.
The current arrangements have also allowed for innovation that is beneficial for pupils. We believe that school employers must retain a degree of freedom and flexibility to recruit, develop, remunerate and deploy their staff for the benefit of the children in their community, to achieve their particular aims from a school improvement or inclusion perspective. I urge the Government to consider this.
There are many more amendments that I could speak to, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will not. I will only say that this is a bad bit of legislation, and some of the amendments we are considering, particularly those tabled by the Government, make the Bill worse in many respects. They add to the already heavy burden on business, a burden that will combat growth—will slap down growth—and will mean that the Government will not achieve the objectives they have set out to achieve in their landmarks, missions, road signs and whatever else they have announced. I therefore urge the Government to consider our amendments, go back, and tame the worst excesses of this job-destroying Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Select Committee, I want to make clear that I will then call Steve Darling, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Immediately after Mr Darling, there will be a six-minute time limit. I call Liam Byrne.
Liam Byrne
Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am going to be very brief—I will just make three quick points—and will do my best to salvage a degree of consensus from the conflict that has characterised this debate at its outset.
If there are a couple of things that unite us across this House, it is that we all believe in fair play, and we all believe in an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work. However, the reality is that millions of workers in this country are simply not earning their fair share of the wealth that we produce together. If labour income were the same share of national income as it was back in the 1950s, something like £12,000 a year would go into the pay packets of every single one of the 33.8 million workers in this country. As such, following a decade that has seen 4 million people trapped in low pay and during which we have had a living standards crisis, it behoves each and every one of us to think more creatively and constructively about how we support workers in this economy to earn a good life for them and their family.
We on the Business and Trade Committee have the privilege of hearing from some of the best employers in the country, but we also have the duty of interrogating many firms that, frankly, have been letting down our country. I will highlight three examples, in order to illustrate some of the amendments that have been tabled in my name and in the names of other right hon. and hon. Members. They are not amendments that I wish to press to a Division; they are probing amendments, on which I think the Minister needs to provide the House with some answers.
I will start with McDonald’s, which I referenced in an earlier intervention. It is one of the most significant employers in our country, employing over 200,000 people. Some 90% of McDonald’s workers are on zero-hours contracts. On the day of our hearing, a BBC investigation by Zoe Conway, its employment correspondent, exposed the reality that hundreds of McDonald’s employees were contacting the BBC and the EHRC with allegations of the most appalling harassment. We heard about the case of a 17-year-old McDonald’s worker who alleged that she was being asked for sex in return for a manager giving her the shifts that she wanted—how on earth can that be acceptable in today’s economy? Yet when we put that point to the chief executive of McDonald’s and asked, “Do you think that the imbalance of power that has flourished in McDonald’s because 90% of your workers are on zero-hours contracts has anything to do with this litany of abuse, or with 700 workers contacting their solicitors to bring a case against McDonald’s?”, the answer was no. It was an absolutely extraordinary denial of reality.
We then heard from Evri, which, as many people know, is one of the most significant courier firms in the country, employing tens of thousands of people. Mr Hugo Martin came before our Committee to give evidence, and told us that all at Evri was sweetness and light. However, the Committee has now received hundreds upon hundreds of complaints from whistleblowers, alleging that they are being cheated and undercut, most recently through the rate cuts, the packet racket which is still persisting, health and safety abuses at work, intimidation, bullying and harassment. They are being told repeatedly that their shifts will be cut, or that they will be out of the door if they do not work six days a week. Our constituents are experiencing this completely unacceptable behaviour.
I must be careful about scope at this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but we also heard from the company Shein, which could not even tell us whether the products that it made contained cotton from China. We were simply trying to understand whether workers in our country were being undercut by an abuse of modern slavery practices abroad.
I say to the House that although we may have our differences on the Bill, we must accept the reality that millions of people in this country—millions of the people we are sent here to represent—are being treated in a way that should be unacceptable in a 21st-century economy. What the good employers told the Committee, time and again, was that they supported the spirit of the Bill, although of course they had concerns about the detail, and it is good that the Minister is listening. What they did not want to see persist was the situation that they feared, in which the good firms were being undercut by the bad. We must have a level playing field in this country: that will be a necessity if we are to win a global race to the top.
My amendments 275 to 277 suggest alterations to the zero hours regime that the Minister has set out. I think we should abolish the definition of “low hours” in contracts. I accept the evidence that was given to us by Paddy Lillis, the brilliant general secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, that retaining the definition creates a risk of loopholes that will be exploited by bad employers.
Amendments 278 to 281, which might be termed the McDonald’s amendments, urge the Secretary of State to put on the face of the Bill a definition of “reasonable notice” in relation to the moving of shifts and the compensation that should be entailed in the event of unreasonable shift movements. We need to ensure that our workers, particularly young workers, are never again subjected to the kind of abuse that we have seen unfold at McDonald’s. Those days must be consigned to the past.
New clause 80, which might be described as the Evri amendment, creates an obligation and duty for the Secretary of State to bring to the House, within six months of the Bill’s coming into the force, the final version of a review of the single status of workers. We heard compelling evidence from the director of Labour Market Enforcement, who told us that the Government, Ministers and civil servants could consult
“until the cows come home”.
We could put off the consultation about the different definitions of “worker” for ever and a day, when what we need to do is end the kind of abuse that we see at Evri now. Ensuring that these loopholes are closed so that bogus self-employment is no longer a loophole through which bad employers abuse honest workers: I should like to see the Minister step up to that requirement.
New clause 81, which we might call the Shein amendment, requires the Government to update the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and section 54 in particular, to ensure that the employment rights granted in the Bill are not undermined by companies operating in this country that are abusing this legislation. At the time the Modern Slavery Act was world-leading legislation, but we heard clear evidence from companies such as Tesco that this country risked becoming a “dumping ground” for bad products produced by workers exploited abroad. We cannot allow this country, which led the abolition of slavery, to be a country in which we have second-class protections against modern slavery in the 21st century, and I should therefore welcome a commitment from the Minister on when the Act will be updated.
We welcome some of the Government amendments, particularly the enhanced protection for agency workers and the action on umbrella companies. Both are recommendations in the Committee’s excellent report, which I commend to all Members. I hope that, as a result of this debate, we can salvage some consensus. The Bill will go through today, and this will be the biggest overhaul of employment rights in the country. We must ensure that it lasts for the future, and the more we can do to bring a cross-party consensus around that simple idea that all workers—all constituents—in the country should have the right, the power and the freedom to earn a good life for themselves and their families, and the sooner we can do it, the better.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The holy grail sought by all Governments, of whichever hue, is economic growth. I therefore think it important for us to look through the lens of economic growth, and to think about whether the Bill drives it. I recall from my time in Committee, where I spent many hours listening to the oratory of the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), that we spoke a great deal about productivity and whether it would be driven by the Bill.
I have spoken about the possible impact of the Bill to people in my community, including representatives of Enlightened HR and Alison Bennett, a human resources consultant, for whom its destination was very welcome. Indeed, we have heard from many other people who have been consulted that the Bill’s destination and aspirations are correct and appropriate, but it is a question of how we get there and whether the Government have achieved the right balance between employers and employees. That is important, because the last thing we want the Bill to do is have a chilling effect on the economy. We are only too well aware that the national insurance contributions that are set to kick in next month are already having that negative impact, and we do not want this well-intended Bill to echo that further.
There are 250 amendments before us at this late stage of the legislation. The Minister says that that is due to levels of consultation and so forth and should be welcomed, and that we are trimming our sails, but if that is the case, and if the Minister was in such listening mode in Committee, why did the Government accept no Opposition amendments whatsoever? I should welcome some reflections from the Minister when he winds up the debate.
As a Liberal Democrat, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions, I can say that carers are at the front and centre of our world. What is effectively the population of Portsmouth—200,000 people a year, or 600 a day—walk away from the employment market to take up caring occupations and, in many instances, support family members. That has an £8 billion annual impact on our economy, which leaves us less productive. I hope that the Government will give serious thought to our amendment to make leave for carers a paid opportunity, because giving them that flexibility and that breathing space would unlock more people for our employment market.
Our proposal to make caring a protected characteristic is extremely important. We have already heard about harassment and discrimination in connection with other parts of the Bill, but this would help immensely to support carers. Doubling the pay of those taking adoption leave is also important, as is support for people who take caring roles such as kinship care. I hope that the Ministers will take those family roles into account.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have missed an opportunity to recognise the extraordinary contribution of kinship carers in this Bill? I recently met a couple in my constituency who are kinship carers. They have acted out of love, but they have had none of the support that foster parents would have had in looking after the children in their care. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government would do well to look at including the same employment rights for kinship carers as they currently offer to foster parents?
Steve Darling
As somebody who was adopted myself, I know only too well the importance of supportive love. I have been heavily involved with children’s services, and I know that the best care for children in need of loving homes is often not too far away from home. The more that children’s services can be less of a child-rescuing service and more of a child support service, the better, so I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend alludes to.
An area that particularly exercised the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire in Committee was third-party harassment, and I strongly support the Government’s proposals in this Bill. I have engaged with young women in Torbay who work in retail and the hospitality industry, particularly those from Torquay girls’ grammar school, and they find that harassment in the workplace is not a bit of banter, but repugnant in the extreme. They told me that they will go to a shift feeling sick to the stomach because they know a particular individual will be coming in that evening who will act inappropriately. Their managers should have a duty of care toward them, and I welcome that proposal in the Bill.
I know that some of the amendments allude to non-disclosure agreements. I welcome the Minister’s kind words, but warm words do not get measures into legislation. I ask him to reflect on that, and I am sure that colleagues will speak about NDAs.
The final area I need to cover is probationary periods. We Liberal Democrats would really welcome putting a three to nine-month probationary period on the face of the Bill, which would ensure that there is less chance of expensive tribunals for employers. We welcome the steps that the Government have taken in respect of statutory sick pay, but we need to ensure that the correct balance is struck between the burden on employers and positive outcomes for employees.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I welcome the amendments put forward by the Liberal Democrats, especially new clauses 12 to 14, which would extend paternity leave from two to six weeks and double the amount of pay. Those precious weeks are essential for fathers to bond with their child and to provide additional support to their partners. Does my hon. Friend agree that these are essential new clauses that the Government should accept?
Steve Darling
I agree with my hon. Friend. When I go and speak to primary school teachers, they say that they face a challenge where there is poor attachment between the parent and the child, which can have a significant developmental impact on young people. By giving greater powers through this Bill, we can drive stronger connections between those parts of the family unit.
The reality is that we need to support small businesses and get the right balance between implementing the good stuff in this Bill and making sure that we are not punishing businesses. We need to make sure that we support the family, because, as I have said, the family is the core part of what our society is, and strengthening that will hopefully strengthen outcomes and strengthen our society. My fear is that this Bill is a little bit like Snow White’s apple: it may have looked extremely good on the outside, but it sent her to sleep. My fear is that this Bill is a little like that, because it may have a lot of promise on the outside, but it could be a sleeping potion for our economy.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I give my full support to the measures in the Bill. Without question, they are some of the most progressive in this area of legislation for decades.
My new clause 25 seeks to set up a working time council, comprising businesses, trade unions, Government Departments and experts on the subject, to advise the Secretary of State on how the transition from a five-day week to a four-day week would affect employers and employees, and on how businesses, public bodies and other organisations should approach such a transition. Virtually every progressive change in employment legislation over the decades has been pooh-poohed by the Conservative party. Leopards do not change their spots, as we have seen in spades today.
In the evidence session, the Minister asked some witnesses what the productivity implications of some of the proposals contained in the Bill would be. The answer from Professor Simon Deakin, of Cambridge University, was that
“there is a strong correlation between stronger labour protection and both productivity and innovation.”
He went on to say that research
“shows that, on average, strengthening employment laws in this country in the last 50 years has had pro-employment effects, for various reasons.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 137-138, Q141.]
I know the shadow Minister was there when Professor Deakin said that.
Historically, it is a well-trodden path for some to object to measures that would advance employment rights, even if those rights are of advantage to everyone concerned, be it employers, employees or society more generally. That is especially so in the medium to long term, because legislatures do not just legislate for today; they also legislate for tomorrow.
I thank the Minister—my admiration for him knows no bounds—and other Members for the work that they have put into this Bill. My primary aim in tabling new clause 25 was to try to get the debate about the four-day week out of the blocks. I accept that the notion is challenging, but that is not a reason to put off the debate; the discussion has to be had. It is over 100 years since the introduction of a five-day week in different industries, which was down to the influence of Henry Ford, who was not the most radical of people. In the 1920s, the introduction of the two-day weekend for those working at his car factories was a pivotal moment. He argued that it would boost worker productivity and morale, and it did.
The argument that a shorter week affects business resilience or productivity has been used time and again. The Factories Act 1961 contained requirements to deal with overcrowding, control temperature and introduce ventilation, all of which were opposed at the time on the basis of cost. As colleagues will know, the same argument was put forward about the Equal Pay Act 1970. It was the same when paid holidays were introduced in 1938. People said the minimum wage was going to cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, but we all know that it did not. Paternity and maternity leave was eschewed because it was said to damage industry, but did it do so? No, it did not.
Research from Barclays shows that working hours in the UK have fallen by 5% on average in the past four decades, with British workers now working 27% more hours on average than their German counterparts. Workers in France, Italy and Spain have enjoyed a 10% decline in working hours, but despite people in this country working longer hours than those in our competitor and partner nations, we are one of the least productive countries in the G7, and we have to do something about that. What about the impact on employers?
Alison Griffiths
Maybe I am pre-empting the answer the hon. Member was going to give, but what exactly are the measures in this Bill and the amendments—the magic potion—that will improve productivity?
Peter Dowd
I am pleased the hon. Lady asked me that question, because it is patently obvious that better working conditions lead to less absenteeism, more resilience in the workforce and better productivity. It is not a magic potion, but what is known as enlightened employment. She may like to read about that, and if she wants, I will put her in touch with a few people who can talk to her about it.
In that study I mentioned, 71% reported reduced levels of burnout, 54% said it was easier to balance work with household responsibilities, 60% found they had an increased ability to combine paid work with care responsibilities, and 62% reported that it was easier to combine work with social life, and so on and so on. As I have said, the Bill seeks to put this issue on the agenda, because I believe it is inevitable—history shows it—that changes in patterns of work, working arrangements, the nature of work and other associated issues, such as artificial intelligence, will eventually lead to a four-day week over a period of time. So let us embrace the change and let us plan for the change. If we do want to get the country back to work, get the country working productively and get many millions of people without work back into work, let us do this as progressively as we possibly can.
Finally, if we are lengthening the time we ask people to work by an extra year, two years or maybe three years in the future—if we ask them to have a longer working life—the least we can do is to ask them to have a shorter week. What is wrong with that, and is it really too much to ask? I do not think so, and many employers and employees take the same view, so let us not make an enemy of progress. Why do we not just embrace it?
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I rise to speak to the measures on zero-hours contracts, and Opposition new clause 83 and amendment 283. It is absolutely right that we should pause to consider the effects of these changes on employment tribunals, but it is also right that we should pause to consider their effect just on employment. Of course, there are bad employers and those who would seek to exploit, which is a very bad thing. We should bear down on them, but there is no reason to believe that the measures the Government are bringing forward will achieve that.
I suggest that the Government want to get rid of zero-hours contracts not because intrinsically there is a great problem attached to them, but because of the special place zero-hours contracts have in Labour mythology. I want to take us back to the glory days of the modern Labour party when the leader of the Labour party was the current leader’s immediate predecessor, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I see the then shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is with us in the Chamber, and as it happens, I was the Minister for Employment at the time.
When our Government came to power, unemployment had been 8%, and it then rose a little bit to 8.5% at the end of 2011. From then on, it came down, and it kept coming down. By late 2016, it was under 5%, and it would fall further still. However, that did not fit Labour Members’ narrative. They wanted to be able to say that this reduction in unemployment was not real: it was all fake employment or low-quality employment. That was not true, but it did not stop them saying it. In fact, three quarters of the increase in employment was in higher-skilled occupations, and three quarters of the jobs growth was in full-time work. At that time, employment was growing much more quickly than self-employment, and the No. 1 sector for employment growth was construction.
However, Labour Members still kept saying that the jobs being created were all low-quality ones, and at the top of the list of things to call out was the zero-hours contract. The then Leader of the Opposition used to talk about it weekly at Prime Minister’s Question Time. There were a couple of awkward moments, such as after his glorious appearance at Glastonbury, when it turned out that the Glastonbury festival—guess what?—employed people on zero-hours contracts. There was further embarrassment when it turned out that there were people working for none other than the Labour party conference who were on zero-hours contracts.
At the DWP we did some research, and it turned out that less than 3% of people relied on a zero-hours contract for their main employment. On average, it delivered them 25 hours of work a week, while, strangely, they had above-average job satisfaction, and most were not looking for more hours. People said the number had grown, but it is actually much more likely that that was because of growing awareness of the term “zero-hours contract”.
Thinking about our history, it has long been the case that far more than 3% of people have had irregular income patterns, where they have not had guaranteed hours of work or levels of salary—from casual labour to piece work, catalogue agents and commission-only sales. At a certain point, it dawned on me that my own first job had been washing dishes on a zero-hours contract—or at least it would have been, had a contract been involved at all.
Antonia Bance
Does the right hon. Member accept that someone choosing to take on an irregular contract when they are at the high end of the pay scale with significant professional skills and expectations for the future is very different from the endemic insecurity at the bottom of the labour market, which is where zero-hours contracts are concentrated? Some 83% of people on a zero-hours contract—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I think the hon. Lady is in fact making her speech, rather than an intervention. [Interruption.] Oh, her speech will come tomorrow.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Member is right: of course those things are different, but with the dawning realisation I had back then, I started to wonder who else might take a zero-hours contract? Yes, it is true that disproportionately they are young people, but for quite a lot of people a zero-hours contract is for a second job. I would be interested to hear from the Government their assessment of that. It turned out, when we looked at this in 2016, that one of the biggest users of zero-hours contracts in the country was none other than the national health service, so that it could cope with increases in demand. These were people who had a permanent job as well, but who could, as bank staff, supply other hours when that was needed.
For this Government, it is totemic to do something about zero-hours contracts because of that Labour mythology. For the unions, there is also another reason. This is classic insider-outsider theory, with a shift in remuneration from people who are not in work to people who are already in work, and it pushes up what is called the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. In plain English, it is bad for jobs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must know that because, as we all know, she is most definitely an economist—she has worked as an economist, she has trained as an economist and she is an economist—and this is classical economic reality.
For whom might zero-hours contracts work well? They work well for any employer with an unpredictable, variable need for workers—from the events business to the NHS, as I have mentioned—and there are other obvious cases in tourism, agriculture and food. However, some people may just choose to have that flexibility. Over the last two years it has been a seller’s market to go into teaching, but some people have still chosen to become a supply teacher because, for whatever reason, for them that works well.
The other group for whom this may work are those furthest from the labour market, who have perhaps been out of work for a very long time, who perhaps are ex-offenders, or who for some other reason find it difficult to immediately land a regular, full-time job. When this is combined with universal credit—which, by the way, the right hon. Member for Islington North also wanted to abolish—it can work very well, because the top-up payment can be adjusted according to how much someone earns week to week.
This Bill is bound to have unintended consequences. We do not know exactly which ones they will be, but I will suggest some of them. It could suppress seasonal peaks in employment—for tourism in the summer, but also at Christmas time—because employers will not want to take on the liability from the reference period. It could deter people from second jobs, which will be bad for growth. It could mean people move from contracted employment to self-employment or casual work. It could mean a move from permanent contracts to temporary contracts and, yes, it could hit our national health service and other important public sector employers.
I do not doubt that this piece of legislation will be good for unions, but it will be bad for the economy and bad for growth, and it will be especially bad for people in the hardest circumstances who so badly want to get back to work, and for whom this kind of contract can also be that important first step.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)
I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) on all their incredible work in bringing forward this landmark piece of legislation. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who is co-sponsoring new clause 74 with me today.
This is the first speech I have given as a Back Bencher in nearly 10 years. One of the few benefits of—ahem—elevating oneself to the Back Benches is the ability to speak much more routinely on behalf of my constituents and those without a political voice. The amendment I rise to speak to today is literally about the voiceless: those who have been legally silenced in the name of organisational and personal preservation.
New clause 74 would prohibit employers from entering into non-disclosure agreements with workers in relation to complaints of sexual misconduct, abuse, harassment or discrimination. It very closely mirrors legislation recently passed in Ireland that bans NDAs in those circumstances but allows them at the express consent of the victim, and legislation that has been passed in multiple US states in relation to sexual harassment.
NDAs have a perfectly legitimate use in business to protect commercial confidentiality and trade, but they are frequently misused to bully people into silence when they have already suffered at work. We know of the most high-profile cases, from Harvey Weinstein to Mohamed Al-Fayed, only because their brave survivors risked breaching their NDAs. But these agreements are far from confined to celebrity abusers; they are being misused and exploited on a vast scale. The campaign Can’t Buy My Silence—led by Zelda Perkins, who helped to expose the abuse of Harvey Weinstein—has also uncovered multiple scandals in the higher education sector, which led to action by the former Government to ban the use of NDAs in that sector.
We sadly know that, in our own labour movement, trade unions have been accused of using confidentiality clauses in settlements, which have the same chilling effect as NDAs. I have been told stories—
Alison Griffiths
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would the right hon. Lady be kind enough to declare her union interests from her entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I believe there is a £10,000 donation—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. That is not a matter for the Chair, but a point for the Member.
Louise Haigh
I am very grateful for that point of order. I am, of course, very happy to declare my interests, as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, just as I am in the process of criticising a trade union.
Trade unions have been accused of using confidentiality clauses in settlements, which have the same chilling effect as NDAs. I have been told stories that should be on the front pages of newspapers, such as the man who was accused of rape, signed an NDA and was paid off. His alleged victim only found out years later that that had been the case while she was still working in the same workplace.
Media organisations such as ITN have come under recent criticism. As former employee Daisy Ayliffe said:
“Women who work for ITN have tried to report harassment and discrimination, but soon after doing so found themselves suddenly out of a job and bound by non-disclosure agreements.”
Another former employee of ITN, on seeing Daisy speak out, realised that his experience was far from unique and asked that I use parliamentary privilege today to speak about the confidentiality clause he was required to sign. He has asked that I do not use his name, so I will call him Mr B.
Mr B joined ITN in 2008 on a scheme called Enabling Talent, which aimed to recruit more disabled people into the organisation. He suffers from a condition called functional neurological disorder, which has a number of symptoms, including non-epileptic seizures or dissociate seizures, which he describes as zone-outs or blackouts. In 2008, ITN made a number of reasonable adjustments for him, including help with note taking, a key to the first aid room, and disability leave when required in order to avoid stress and fatigue-induced seizures. He states that at the time he could not fault his employer for the support it gave him.
Mr B left ITN to pursue his career elsewhere and returned in 2017, when he again declared his disability and made a request for similar adjustments. Despite multiple requests for the kind of help he had received before, none were forthcoming. Instead, he suffered severe bullying and discrimination, including pressure to disclose his disability widely to his colleagues. The situation got so bad that his zone-outs and blackouts became increasingly frequent. After suffering one seizure at work, he was required to apologise to those who had witnessed it. He was repeatedly accused of lying about his disability and told that his issues were nothing to do with his disability, despite having joined ITN on a disability inclusion scheme.
Mr B took ITN to tribunal, incurring tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs. He settled but was required to sign a confidentiality clause. His health has deteriorated so badly that he now uses a wheelchair 50% of the time and, following the loss of his job, he was, for a period, made homeless.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in such cases there is no public interest and no interest for anyone, apart from guilty parties, to keep these things secret, and that that is why it is important NDAs are not used to hide problems that employers should sort out?
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; he is absolutely right. There are many organisations, including the BBC, that as a policy do not use NDAs.
Imagine suffering that kind of treatment at work: losing your job, losing your health, and then being banned from explaining to another potential employer, or even your closest friends, what has happened to you. It makes it next to impossible to recover from the experience, very difficult to find work again and vanishingly unlikely that the organisation will face up to its wrongdoing and enact change.
For Mr B, for survivors of monsters such as Mohamed Al-Fayed, and for the thousands of victims across our society who have been legally required to suffer in silence, I hope the House can agree that such agreements have no place in modern society. And if it can happen in organisations such as ITN, whose job is literally to expose injustice, or in trade unions, whose job is to protect workers, then it can happen anywhere. Organisations in these instances, no matter who they are, will circle the wagons and protect themselves rather than the victim. By doing so, they protect abusers. That is why we must simply remove the tools of their abuse and end the use of NDAs in these circumstances.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his earlier response and for confirming that the issue warrants further consideration, but may I press him a little further on exactly how we can see progress? And we must see progress. It is sickening that across the country women and men will have suffered abuse in their workplace and that, instead of action against the perpetrator, they are the ones who are shamed and silenced, ganged up on by lawyers and sentenced to a lifetime of regret.
Sir Ashley Fox
As a member of the Public Bill Committee for the Bill, I was surprised by the number of amendments the Government tabled to their own legislation in Committee. There were hundreds of amendments, demonstrating how badly the Bill was drafted when it was first proposed. It was clearly a bad idea to commit to introducing such a major piece of legislation within 100 days of the election, but I guess that was the price of trade union money to fund the Labour party. Having had 21 sittings in Committee scrutinising the Bill line by line, we now find ourselves with another vast number of Government amendments once again, but this time with only two days to scrutinise it. Most of the amendments on the amendment paper are the Government’s. The amendment paper is thicker than the original Bill.
This is a bad Bill. It pushes up the cost of labour, makes our flexible labour market less flexible and will increase unemployment. I am pleased to have tabled new clause 30, which would add special constables to the scope of section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, giving them the right to unpaid leave to perform their duties. Special constables are volunteers who give their time at no cost to the taxpayer to help our police forces. Specials have existed in some form ever since the Special Constables Act 1831, which allowed justices of the peace to conscript volunteers to combat riots and social unrest. The special constabulary as we know it was established by the Police Act 1964, which gave chief constables the authority to appoint and manage special constables. Today’s specials carry all the same legal powers as their full-time counterparts, both on and off duty, and put themselves in harm’s way without payment to keep our society safe.
Today, the special constabulary—an institution that has served this nation for nearly two centuries—faces a crisis. The number of volunteer officers has fallen by two thirds in the past decade; in the past year alone, we have seen a 20% drop. Many police forces now face significant gaps in their special constabulary ranks. This is not just a temporary dip, but a long-term trend. There are multiple factors at play, but clearly becoming a special is not an attractive proposition to too many potential recruits. I believe we must act now to ensure that the special constabulary continues to play a vital role in policing for generations to come.
It is in that context that I bring forward my amendment to the Bill, which seeks to amend section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. For those who are not aware, section 50 allows those undertaking a number of community roles to request unpaid time off work to perform their duties. On the list are magistrates, local councillors, school governors and even members of the Environment Agency. It seems strange to me that we would exclude those prepared to keep us safe from the list of community-minded citizens.
Matt Western
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my union membership. The legislation before us today is truly historic. It is totemic in scale—the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. I commend the Minister and the team for the work they have done.
The Bill delivers not only for working families, but for the whole country. It will lead to higher productivity, higher wages and, ultimately, economic growth. These reforms are unashamedly pro-worker and pro-business, in sharp contrast with the past 14 years, when we saw low pay, low productivity and low growth in the economy. Shockingly, productivity grew by just 0.2% a year between 2010 and 2020. Since 2011, we have seen insecure work rise nearly three times as fast as secure work. Whether it be the 800 P&O workers who were sacked over Zoom without notice, the retail workers whose shifts get cancelled last minute and now cannot afford their weekly food shop, or the 9 million people—one in three workers in this country—not protected from unfair dismissal, it cannot go on.
I will talk briefly about some of the measures in the Bill. Day one rights will provide a serious boost for millions of people. Nine million workers have less than two years’ service with their employer, and thus do not enjoy protections from unfair dismissal. I would welcome some clarity around the initial period of employment. What specific timeframe would the measure apply to, and what exactly does it mean? Moreover, I urge the Government to look at what support is available for smaller firms that are concerned about the impact that the measure may have on their costs. Can we consider what more can be done to guide companies through these changes?
Zero-hours contracts are endemic across our economy. So many people with those contracts are given very little notice when their work is cancelled. In some cases, they may have already sorted out their childcare or made travel arrangements.
Let me turn briefly to industrial relations. An important element of the legislation is setting the new framework for industrial relations. The Business and Trade Committee heard from many good employers, such as Jaguar Land Rover and British Aerospace, that work with the unions to create the right employment practices across their businesses. By contrast, we also witnessed the mistreatment of workers and the denial of their basic rights at Amazon, which clearly had problems in the workplace.
The proposed Fair Work Agency, which is welcomed by unions and progressive businesses alike, is a positive move. As we heard in the Business and Trade Committee, the agency needs to be adequately resourced, because it is so important.
I shall turn to some of the amendments that I support. We just heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) about new clause 74. One constituent of mine, Mrs E, was the victim of harassment in the workplace. She was victim to a particular individual who was protected by the management. Ultimately, she had to leave the organisation. He then also had to leave himself. Harassment is such a problem in the workplace, and it is something that must be addressed in this legislation.
New clause 81 relates to modern slavery. The Select Committee heard about the problems of Shein and how companies in the UK have been disadvantaged by the practices of businesses that operate elsewhere.
I wish to talk a bit more about productivity and the points that I raised with the shadow Minister. The legislation is important because it brings not only great benefits to workers, but even greater responsibilities for employers. Tighter employment legislation leads to greater productivity, as we see in France and Germany. Both countries have seen a 20% advantage in their productivity compared with that of the UK. This is why we have seen such a stagnant economy in the UK over the past 10 years.
This legislation is another reminder to the people of this country that only the Labour party can deliver for working families. It will mean less uncertainty at work, less insecurity at work and more money in people’s pockets.
I urge the Government to look at the Fair Work Agency, and particularly at the definitions of “reasonable notice”, “moved” and “short notice”, and to provide clarity on how many weeks the initial and subsequent reference periods should be.
This is a colossal piece of legislation that is so important in this decade. It brings about real change, which is what this party will deliver for working people, thereby boosting productivity and ultimately growing the economy.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I rise to speak to new clause 74, which appears in the name of the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh). I pay tribute to her and say that the Back Benches are very lucky to have her. May I also pay tribute to Mr B, whose story she told so movingly?
The campaign to redress the power imbalance for those offered non-disclosure agreements in cases of sexual harassment, harassment, bullying and discrimination has been many years in the making. It transcends organisations and it transcends party. I pay tribute to Members past and present of all colours who have been part of this campaign for so long. I was pleased to hear from the Minister from the Dispatch Box that he hopes to continue to make progress, but I hope to urge him to go further faster, and for very good reason. It is long past time that this practice just stopped.
I want to reveal another never-before-told story from ITN. It is never-before-revealed because it is covered by a non-disclosure agreement, which means that I will be using privilege to reveal the details. Before I begin, it is worth saying that the victim is not alone; I understand that there are seven out there from ITN—we have heard another one today—and that investigations have been done by ITN’s board, which is intent on change. This victim is clear that she does not want to cause ITN problems, but she wants MPs to understand the effect that this continues to have on her life and why we need to act quickly.
This young woman was in her mid-20s when she landed her dream job at ITN. She quickly became trapped in what we understand to be a coercive, controlling sexual relationship with an older male editor. He would hurl wild accusations at her and accuse her of affairs with colleagues. She ended up suffering from panic attacks as a result of the relationship. Before Christmas 2019, she finally had the courage to end it.
When she returned to work in January, she had been demoted. Her hours were reduced and so was her pay. The first editor she told warned her to stay silent. She said: “You don’t want to be one of those women who always moan about being wronged.” She then confided in a more senior editor, and things got worse. She told her: “It’s not like he ever hit you. It’s not like you ever had to go to A&E with broken bones.”
She went to work every day for the next year. It took ITN months to agree to an HR investigation into what happened. It agreed only on the condition that she would also be investigated. HR found that it could not assess the complaint because it was criminal in nature, but at the same time found it to be unfounded. That makes no sense. Around this time, she asked a question at an ITN women’s empowerment forum, in front of all staff, during the pandemic. She simply asked, “What support is there for women who report alleged sexual harassment in the workplace?” Within an hour, her email had been cut off. HR summoned her to an urgent meeting; her primary offence, it would seem, was asking for help.
From that moment, she was suspended without pay. She had been completely cut off from almost all support networks for about a year. ITN told her that she was not allowed to tell anyone—except the police, to be fair—what was happening. Even her best friend had to sign an NDA to attend a meeting to support her. The NHS offered her group therapy for her anxiety, but she felt that she had to decline because the organisation insisted that she stayed silent. Her lawyer said that the organisation was trying to starve her out in negotiations over her exit. They took years. By the time they got to a settlement, she had racked up £70,000 in legal fees.
Mrs Russell
I know from experience that it is a practice of employment lawyers who work for employers to go on to Google Maps and look at the houses in which complainants live, to assess the assets that they are likely to have and whether they are likely to be able to afford to continue their defence to tribunal, or whether they could be offered a smaller amount as a settlement. Does the hon. Lady agree that NDAs are providing cover for that?
Layla Moran
Absolutely. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that we need to put a stop to.
The young woman eventually reached a settlement, but it was extremely one-sided. She panicked, because the NDA gagged not just her but her partner, her best friends and her parents, but it did not gag the men or the senior executives involved in the harassment that she faced. It covered not just business matters—we are not seeking to stop confidentiality agreements on business matters—but everything painful that she had endured. Her mental health spiralled and she ended up in hospital. Every day that she was in a hospital bed, the lawyers sent her automatic reminders to sign her NDA. This was a woman at her most vulnerable. It is entirely wrong that she was put in that position.
It is worth saying that almost none of that NDA is enforceable. It if was taken to court, it would fail. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 makes it clear that she should have been able to get that support. We are kidding ourselves if we think that NDAs are not still being used and issued. They are. That is why this Bill—whether now, in the Lords or wherever—needs to put a stop to it.
Many years on, following an investigation into the treatment of these workers at ITN, the woman does believe that the organisation is trying to change, and she is grateful to the executives from within who are pushing for reform. The latest update is that ITN is willing to renegotiate her NDA. That is laudable, but she should never have been put under one in the first place, and those protections should be everywhere.
We face a weird situation which we in the House have created. In the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, there is a provision—it was tabled as an amendment by Labour and taken on in the Lords by the then Conservative Government—that says that such non-disclosure agreements are not allowed, but it covers only higher education settings, because that was the scope of the Act. I am an Oxford MP. How does it make any sense at all that I might have a constituent who is protected from such non-disclosure agreements if they work for the university but not if they work for any of the university spin-outs?
Josh Fenton-Glynn
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. I pay tribute to the people who have shared their experiences. Does she agree that the people we are talking about have means and support networks, and that without these protections the most vulnerable in society will be affected, which is why getting the laws right is so important?
Layla Moran
I thank the hon. Member very much; these people are indeed incredibly brave. What we are trying to show is that it happens to men and women, it is discrimination, it is sexual harassment, and it is ubiquitous—it is happening everywhere and it is happening now. We are not seeking to silence people. In fact, new clause 74 says that if a victim wants an NDA for whatever reason, they would be allowed one. The new clause simply seeks to redress the gap.
How can it be right that, sometime soon, in some establishments, workers will be protected and that in others they will not? It is time for the Government to sort this out. The new clause does not say exactly how they should do that, but that the protections afforded to all workers anywhere should be the same as those afforded in universities. It would give the Government six months from the Bill’s enactment to sort it out, which should be plenty of time. Arguably, they should be able to tackle this with something in the Lords, which would give them a bit of extra time.
I urge the Minister not to wait for some other Bill or some other time. I welcome the meaningful words that we have heard from the Dispatch Box. However, I also urge him to look back—I appreciate that that is not to this Government but another one—because we have heard this before. The campaign has transcended parties and transcended years—it has transcended Parliaments. We are making slow progress; meanwhile, victims continue to be hurt day after day. Every day that these NDAs—often made in perpetuity—endure, that hurt and trauma continues. Please, let this be the Government who put the abuses of non-disclosure agreements where they belong—in the trash can—so that we finally afford the protections that we are about to give to all university workers to every single employee.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
As per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I am a member of GMB. My union membership has given me reassurance for many years that I have backing if I need it. I am conscious that although in this place we may be listened to when we speak up, for too many people insecurity and lack of respect at work are an everyday experience.
Businesses suffered under the failure of the previous Government to act when reform was needed. That was not in this area alone, of course, but today we are speaking about the relevant amendments. We can come back to their other failings another day—or perhaps on more than one other day—because this is the time for action and we are the party of business.
Everyone should have a contract that reflects the hours that they work. There is a place for flexibility, but people need to sort out transport and childcare and plan their household budgets, so we will ensure that agency and low or zero-hours contracts work for both sides—for businesses and workers. For too long, zero-hours contracts have often been at the expense of people who are just trying to make a living for themselves and their families. We will put a stop to that.
A day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay, and giving the Fair Work Agency the power to bring civil proceedings and issue penalties is an important move. The vast majority of employers respect the rights of the people who work for them and have nothing to fear from that. In fact, they will welcome the levelling of the playing field. As they tell us all the time, their good practice must not be undermined by the unscrupulous minority.
We also say that everyone should be free from harassment when they are at their place of work. The message that Conservative Members send when they object to that protection—to, among others, the many thousands of young women who have been harassed at work—is appalling. In contrast, we believe that everyone deserves respect at work, whatever the industry they work in. I want to reassure, among others, workers in the hospitality and retail industries that they matter, they deserve better and we are on their side. Further, when issues happen, it is to everyone’s benefit to resolve them quickly. We will fast-track decision making and back that up with robust fines. That helps businesses and workers and it minimises stress, cost and delay.
I am pleased that the Bill is welcomed by many of our leading employers, including Centrica, as already mentioned. I know Centrica well; it has a training academy in my constituency. Its chief executive, Chris, is fully supportive of the legislation as not just the right thing to do but as a foundation for a high-growth, high-skills economy and the progress that our country needs.
A stable workforce will help both employers and workers. The chaos of repeated strikes has damaged businesses and services and left our country reeling. The Conservative party may be instinctively opposed to empowering ordinary people, but on the Labour Benches, we say that these are the people who keep our country going and they have the full support of this Government.
Chris Law
I rise to speak to new clause 75 and to other new clauses and amendments in my name.
Last year, the Labour party committed to
“strengthen statutory sick pay, remove the lower earnings limit to make it available to all workers and remove the waiting period.”
Although the removal of the lower earnings limit and the waiting period are welcome, the fact remains that the UK’s statutory sick pay does not meet the needs of working people. The miserly increases to the rate—it has just been increased by £2 after five years—are far from the transformative change that Labour promised and will not help to deliver a healthier population and a growing economy. Indeed, only a few years ago, during the covid period, the Minister noted that the then Health Secretary had
“admitted that he could not live on statutory sick pay”.—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee Delegated Legislation Committee, 25 January 2021; c. 7.]
To be clear, the UK is lagging behind in its provision of SSP, offering one of the least generous systems in the OECD. While the Labour Government propose a rate of £118.75 a week, or 80% of average weekly earnings—whichever is lower—numerous other European countries, such as Austria, Germany, Iceland and Luxembourg either provide full salary payments or cover a portion of earnings ranging from 50% to 90%. Amendment 272 would bring the UK into closer alignment with other OECD countries.
With limited coverage and relatively low rates, many workers and particularly low-income and part-time employees are left without sufficient financial support when they fall ill. Such a gap in sick pay provision impacts workers’ wellbeing, exacerbating financial stress during illness, and can discourage people from taking the necessary time off to recover. It contributes to poorer health outcomes, undermining longer, healthier working lives across the UK population. Surely no one in this House wants that to continue.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation states that the most effective way of strengthening sick pay is by increasing the rate. There are numerous amendments that would do that, including new clause 76 in my name, which would gradually increase the rate of statutory sick pay over the next five years, taking it to at least 80% of the rate of the national living wage, and others that propose SSP to be the higher of a prescribed rate or percentage of usual weekly earnings. Moreover, a report by WPI Economics shows that sick pay reforms could result in a net financial benefit to this country of more than £4 billion. It also found that the positive effects of sick pay reform would particularly help the increasing proportion of the British workforce who manage long-term conditions and ensure that fewer workers fall out of the job market entirely.
As an example, many people with multiple sclerosis need to take time off work for varying lengths of time for reasons related to their condition. Some people with MS are well supported by their employers through occupational sick pay—of course we support that—and can take the time off work that they need on full pay. When people with MS can get the financial support they need while they are off work, they can often stay in work for longer, as they can better manage their symptoms in the long term. This needs to be the same for all those with MS and other long-term conditions who rely on SSP.
New clause 75 would require the Secretary of State to consider such a change, with the aim of properly reforming this outdated and inflexible system. Changes for those with such conditions could include SSP being paid at an hourly rate, rather than a daily rate, to enable people to work half or part days on a gradual, phased return to work, or changing the restrictions on how people can claim and use SSP so that it is fairer for people with fluctuating conditions by extending eligibility timeframes. Sadly, however, I suspect that the Labour party is looking to slash welfare spending, as has been reported today—700,000 disabled people being pushed into poverty will be no joy to many—and that it has little interest in making such supportive and progressive change. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
The Labour Government’s lack of gumption in their approach to SSP is illustrative of the timidity of their approach in this Employment Rights Bill. Yes, the Bill makes improvements to the rights of working people and, yes, it reverses some of the worst excesses of the Tory Government, but it could have done so much more. Where is the straightforward system defining a single status of worker to replace the maze of confusing classifications, designed to limit protections, that continue to exist? Where are the increased provisions for collective bargaining to alleviate low pay? Where have the promises disappeared to of the right to switch off, which would ensure better work-life balance?
This was the opportunity to legislate to entrench employment rights and to ensure a fairer deal for workers and a healthier, more equitable and more productive economy and society. Unfortunately, this Bill is left wanting. I hope that, if the Labour party is serious about its manifesto commitments, the Minister will look at these new clauses and amendments.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I welcome the Report stage of this Bill. I proudly declare my membership of Unite and the Communication Workers Union and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This Bill will see the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights for a generation. It is an agenda for change—change that is desperately needed. Working class people keep this country cared for. They keep our streets clean, our shelves stacked and our public services running, but the imbalance of power in our workplace is plain to see. The P&O scandal was testament to that. This Bill represents a crucial first step in redressing that imbalance, especially amendment 80 on sick pay. It strengthens both collective and individual rights and puts more money in the pockets of working people.
I therefore welcome the Government’s amendment to the Bill ensuring that everyone gets sick pay from the first day they are ill, including those previously excluded for earning too little. Currently, around 1.2 million workers are excluded from statutory sick pay altogether, and the present three-day wait is extremely hard for those on low pay who often budget on a week-to-week basis. Me and my husband were those people who lived week to week and dragged ourselves into work when we were not well, because if we did not work, we did not eat when my children were small. The fact that the Bill rectifies that is extremely welcome.
The pandemic exposed just how inadequate current levels of sick pay are. I therefore urge the Government to ensure that as many workers as possible benefit from the measures in the Bill. In particular, they should look at what they can do to increase the rate of statutory sick pay over time, as we currently have one of the lowest rates of sick pay across the developed countries. I hope the Government continue to consider the impact of the removal of the lower earnings limit to ensure that everybody benefits from the measures in this Bill.
Overall, these changes will be transformative for working people in my constituency. As a working-class woman from a council estate, it does my heart good to be able to stand in this place supporting changes that will make the lives of working people better and give them the rewards they so deserve.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I pay tribute to all the Members who served on the Bill Committee for its 21 sessions. Their job was made harder by the fact that this was rushed legislation brought forward purely to spare the blushes of the Deputy Prime Minister, who made promises to the trade union barons who fund her party. As a result, we see the large number of amendments that we are discussing today. It is also the case that while the Government have consulted during the passage of the Bill, they do not appear to have listened to employers very much. Hon. Members should beware the unintended consequences of these measures and the Bill.
Mrs Russell
It appears to be quite commonly overlooked by Opposition Members that flexible working will still be available to people on fixed-term contracts. Does the hon. Member agree that such contracts can be used to manage seasonal fluctuations?
James Wild
I am simply pointing to the words of the chief executive of Currys, which employs thousands of people across the country. I am not here to tell employers what form of contracts to offer their staff, and I am not sure that it is the hon. Lady’s job to do so either. However, the Bill will certainly remove flexibility.
The Government are doubling down by extending that requirement to agency workers. Flexible contracts, which are valued by staff—we have heard from other Conservative Members about their benefits—will be undermined by the Bill. A flexible labour market is an important part of securing a growing economy. The previous Government managed to achieve that while also extending employment rights. As the Federation of Small Businesses and organisations that provide millions of jobs have warned, the clear danger of the Bill is that it will make it harder to employ people by increasing risks and costs.
Rather than striking the balance that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), spoke about, the Government have produced measures that, when taken together—and on top of the Chancellor’s tax-raising Budget and the near doubling of business rates for hospitality, retail and leisure businesses—create a significant cost and regulatory risk. That is why we oppose the Bill and the Government’s action to hike taxes and increase regulation that will make us less competitive.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my trade union membership.
For far too long, our economy has been stuck in a low-growth, low-wage, low-aspiration situation. For far too long, we have allowed some of the best employers and businesses in the country to be undercut by more unscrupulous employers that, as they are unable to compete through competitive advantage or productivity, do so only by levelling down working conditions. That simply cannot be right. We have heard in Committee, in the House and in headlines over many years some heartbreaking examples of the worst scandals that that has enabled. Truthfully, there is not a person in our society who is not losing out as a result of our failure to tackle this issue.
Opposition Members have commented on the pace at which the Government are moving on that issue. We would not have to move at such a pace if they had done more.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees with Julie Abraham, the CEO of Richer Sounds, who says:
“Happy colleagues are likely to be more productive. This also leads to reduced stock loss and higher staff retention, which in turn, minimises recruitment and training costs, not to mention disruption to established teams.”
Alistair Strathern
I could not have put it better myself.
Research is clear about the strong link between good working conditions and good productivity, and the wider economic benefits that they bring. That is why I am grateful to everyone who has played their part, including the Minister and members of the Bill Committee—I have sympathy for those who had to endure some of the tropes that we have heard today—in ensuring that we had such a big and comprehensive package before us today.
We are debating some strong amendments today. I will focus on new clause 32 in particular, as it affects a constituent who came to my surgery recently. The literature on the harms of zero-hours contracts—their impact not just on productivity but on poverty and on workers’ conditions, health and mental health—is compelling, but if we do not acknowledge the human impact, we miss half the story.
At my constituency surgery two weeks ago, I was joined by a gentleman who had been working for four years on a zero-hours contract at Royal Mail. For four years, he had not known what hours he would be working week to week, month to month, year to year. For four years, he had not been able to plan his daily life—his other commitments, and the further education that he was trying to do to build out his skills and better himself. For four years, his life had been narrowed by the precarious reality of the exploitative application of zero-hours contracts by those who should haven know better.
For that reason, I am so glad that the Government committed in our manifesto and in the Bill, which was introduced some time ago now, to taking on zero-hours contracts and giving people the right, where appropriate, to request a fixed-hours contract. However, without new clause 32, my constituent would have been missed out, because although he works at Royal Mail, he is employed through an agency. Without the extension of protections in the new clause he would, like many others across the country, have lost out. I am very glad that we are being complete in our approach and ensuring that we do not miss out from that important protection the very many employees who are currently working for agencies.
There are lots of other important amendments to the Bill. I was glad to hear such warm words from the Minister in his opening remarks about the very important amendment tabled by my Bedfordshire neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). It is impossible to hear her testimony about bereavement or to speak to parents who have gone through bereavement and not recognise the simple reality that to be bereaved is not to be sick, and that our leave system should recognise it as such. I was very glad to hear from the Minister that the Government will work with my hon. Friend and others across the House who have campaigned on this issue for a long time to ensure we recognise that reality.
There are a number of important measures in the Bill. I can do justice to very few of them in three minutes, so I want to focus on just one: clause 14, which is about ensuring we remove some of the barriers to new dads taking up paternity leave early on in their employment. It is a well-recognised fact that we have some of the worst paternity leave entitlements across Europe. Although shared parental leave sounds great as a concept, we do not have to look far to notice that its uptake is shockingly low and shockingly skewed to the highest earners. I am glad that we are taking a small but important step in the Bill to recognise that we need to do more to boost access to paternity leave. The Government will be conducting a review of parental leave later this year, and I know that Members across the House will be keen to engage with the Minister on how we can go further, not just in allowing fathers to have that crucial early time with their child but in breaking down the very gendered nature of parenting, which is currently baked into our statutory provision on parental leave.
There are so many important measures in the Bill and so many important areas where we know we will need to go further. Fundamentally, I am full of pride to see a Government finally, after inaction by the Conservatives for far too long, taking seriously the issues of workplace security, productivity and the wellbeing of people across the country in some of the most vulnerable forms of employment. I am proud that this Government are standing up for my constituent and many people like him across the country, and I am proud to support the Bill today.
Alison Griffiths
In the last 30 years, I have worked in businesses of every size in numerous sectors, from consumer goods to cyber-security and insurance to cloud infrastructure. I may not be a lawyer, but I feel well qualified to comment on this Bill. The Government need not take it from me; if only they had listened to the businesses I have spoken to.
I am vice-chair of the Business and Trade Committee, and my fellow Committee members and I have spent many hours listening to evidence on the Bill from employers, trade unions and industry groups. Our Select Committee toured the country at the end of last year, collating evidence and hearing from a wide range of sectors. In my coastal constituency of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, I have spoken to numerous businesses, many of which are impacted by the vagaries of seasonal trade and inclement British weather. A consistent message emerges, from businesses at least, if not from the trade unions: how can a Government who claim their primary focus is delivering growth be so tin-eared to the views and needs of the very businesses, entrepreneurs and employees who are fundamental to creating that growth?
The Government have boasted of delivering this Bill, which is telephone directory-thick, within their first 100 days. This is not sensible governance—indeed, the telephone directory of amendments is testament to that. One of the most damaging provisions is the abolition of the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal under clause 21, allowing employees to question failing probation or a trial period in their contract. From day one, employees will be able to take their employers to court. Our Conservative amendment 287 seeks to remove this clause entirely because it will disincentivise businesses from hiring, as they will know they cannot let an employee go even if it is not working out.
The Government expect entrepreneurs and businesses to take the risks necessary to drive growth. Indeed, that is what they expect and want to do, but clause 21 adds unnecessary risk and is likely to be to the detriment of jobseekers. It will further marginalise those who would already be considered risky candidates.
Antonia Bance
The hon. Member and I both serve on the Business and Trade Committee. The statistics show that the vast majority of young people do not have two years’ service and therefore have no protection from US-style “fire at will” policies. In hospitality and catering, which are industries that the hon. Member has massive concerns about, vast numbers have no protection from fire at will—overnight firing for no reason and with no process—and the Bill will outlaw that. I know that she supports fair process and fair reasons for firing, so I hope that she will support the Bill today.
Alison Griffiths
The hon. Member knows that I will always support fair process, but the point I was making is that this clause will make it more difficult for employers to take on prison leavers, care leavers, candidates with a non-traditional CV, career changers, and young people who are just looking for that first rung on the jobs ladder. Those people will not be given a fair chance, as employers will see them as too risky, and I hope she will see the risks inherent in the clause.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. I used to be an employer. I was an entrepreneur for about 15 years, and we employed more than 1,000 people. Does she agree that exactly those people who are a bit of a risk because they have something not quite right on their CV and are a high-risk hire, are the people who will not get jobs as a result of the Bill?
Alison Griffiths
I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful point. Anyone who has ever looked for a job—Members in the Chamber will probably count themselves as being among the better qualified of the population looking for work—will know that most employers, of any kind, do not want to take a risk. If we make it even harder for them to employ people who are a risk at base point, it will not serve their purposes.
The Government’s own impact assessments suggest that the direct effects of the Bill will cost UK businesses an additional £5 billion annually. That estimate most likely understates the true cost, as it accounts only for administrative burdens while ignoring the broader impact on hiring, business costs and strike action. Key factors such as reduced hiring due to zero-hours contract limits, increased strike activity, and greater liability from employment tribunal claims, as outlined in the Bill, are dismissed as “too hard to calculate”, making those assessments highly questionable.
That is why I support new clause 86, which would require an impact assessment to be carried out for the measures in clause 21. We tabled new clause 83 and amendment 283 to ensure that the Bill’s provisions on zero-hours workers would not come into force until a comprehensive review of the Bill’s impact on employment tribunals had been assessed and approved by Parliament. Clause 18 places a new duty on employers to prevent third-party harassment. Protecting employees is unquestionably important, and no one should doubt the sincerity of Conservative Members about that.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree, as I do, that it is right that 1.3 million low earners who find themselves ill should receive statutory sick pay for the first time? Like her, I represent a coastal seat with a tourist sector, and as a consequence my constituency has a significant number of low earners. Does she agree that we need to be backing them?
Alison Griffiths
I refer the hon. Member first to my earlier comments about ensuring that we do not disincentivise employers, and secondly to the flexibility that is needed for both employers and employees.
Amendment 288 seeks to exclude hospitality providers and sports venues from those provisions, recognising the impracticality of holding employers accountable for every interaction in those environments. It is simply not practical to think that every publican, landlord and bar owner—small business owners—would be liable for any harassment that happens towards their employees in a pub, bar, nightclub or festival. Amendment 285 would require an impact assessment to be carried out on clause 18. Of course businesses and business owners should embed good working practices and guidelines to combat this abhorrent behaviour, but it is impractical and undesirable for the Government to legislate nationally for every sector and business.
Mrs Russell
The hon. Lady will appreciate that there is a defence here if an employer has taken all reasonable steps. It is only reasonable steps.
Alison Griffiths
I am sorry; I think we have made enough progress.
I urge the Government to reconsider, to withdraw the Bill and to work with businesses, unions and workers to create a fair and balanced approach that prioritises the political interests—
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have said it before, and I will say it again: due to the virtue of my last name, I am the only legitimate union Barron in this place, and I am absolutely proud of it.
It is an honour to speak on this Bill again, and I commend this Government for bringing it forward. We made a commitment to working people before the election, and we are following that through. I welcome the Government’s new clause on agency workers. In Corby we have more employment agencies than any other town in Northamptonshire. We now see that those who work in agency jobs will receive fair treatment in pay, working hours and job security, which is to be welcomed as we aim to create a better local economy for the people of Corby and East Northants.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He and I are constituency neighbours. As he will know, there has been a lot of growth in Northamptonshire and increased distribution in the area, so the Government new clause will make a massive difference to our constituents.
Lee Barron
It will indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point so well.
This Bill has been a huge move in terms of sick pay, as far as the Government are concerned. It will bring 1.3 million people into getting sick pay for the first time, and we need to welcome that. We might need to have a look at some point in the future to see if there has been a drag downwards in terms of the people around the lower earnings limit, but we should certainly welcome this as a step in the right direction.
This is not just about legislation: we must change the jobs market and the perception of work that some people have in modern Britain. There are still some people who do not recognise the value that working people bring. I had a meeting last week with the parcel delivery company Evri, which operates in all our constituencies. It described the employer-employee relationship as a “master-servant” relationship. I turn around and say that that kind of view of working people is absolutely dated. Evri said that if it changed the status of its workers, it would want its “pound of flesh”—its words, not mine.
While we have those who treat and describe working people in such a way, we must bring in legislation to ensure that they cannot treat people like that. Working people are not servants, and they should be treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve. That is a fundamentally wrong, crass and outdated way to view employment in modern Britain, and as long as there are still those who think like that, we need to ensure that we change things for the better, and this Bill goes a long way towards doing that.
The question I often ask myself is this: why do those who want economic growth think that we make growth happen through insecure work, minimal wage rates and zero-hours contracts, under which people do not know what they will earn in order to support their family from one week to the next? Work should not mean a lifetime trapped in poverty; it should be the route out of poverty, and this Bill is a step in the right direction to ensure that is what it becomes once again.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group on modernising employment, and at our last meeting we heard from Zelda Perkins, of the Can’t Buy My Silence campaign, about non-disclosure agreements. Her testimony makes it absolutely clear that more needs to be done in that space, and if there is room to do so through this Bill, I urge the Government to accept the amendments that were described earlier. The APPG looks to the future of work and what good employment looks like. At the end of the month, the APPG is going to look at good work, the new deal and this Bill. We will look at the full effects of this Bill to see how we can take forward its benefits and transfer them into the modern world of work. In the 21st century, modern employment should look like security of work, well-paid and with progression opportunities, in order to keep families out of poverty. This Bill goes some way towards doing that.
In conclusion, I urge all Members to support this Bill, which bans exploitative zero-hours contracts. Saying that this will somehow stop flexible working is for the birds—it is not the case. We had flexible working long before we had zero-hours contracts. We survived then, we can survive now, and we will survive into the future.
Lee Barron
No.
Zero-hours contracts are banned in Spain and in the Republic of Ireland—employers cannot use them. Do not tell me that those countries do not have flexibility; they have. We will survive in the future, as we survived in the past, without exploiting working people, because countries do not grow their economy by exploiting working people. This Bill goes some way towards stopping that.
The Bill bans exploitative zero-hours contracts, increases protection from sexual harassment, introduces equality menopause action plans, strengthens rights for pregnant workers, makes flexible working the default, strengthens bereavement leave, improves pay and conditions through fair pay agreements, provides day one protections against unfair dismissal, and establishes the Fair Work Agency to make sure all employers are playing by the same rules. The Bill will deliver the jobs for the future that will benefit working people in Corby and East Northamptonshire, and I am proud to support it.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I will focus first on new clause 83, tabled by the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker)—who I think I am just catching before she leaves the Chamber—said that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay. The right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) also said that we all agree that an honest day’s work deserves an honest day’s pay. A lot of today’s speeches have been focused on banning zero-hours contracts, and the argument has been made that people deserve to know what their contracts are, what they are going to be paid, and that they are going to be treated properly. One of the reasons I think this Bill is rushed and is falling down goes back to a question I put to the Secretary of State when this Bill began its passage through the House: why does it not cover unpaid internships?
Looking at this Bill, and with today’s debate having focused so much on zero-hours contracts, I find it difficult to understand why we would leave a whole section of society out of the Bill—people who can work for up to 12 months without any pay. Banning unpaid internships has been in Labour manifesto after Labour manifesto. In every Parliament I have been a Member of, I have tabled a Bill to ban those internships. My Government did not want to do it, despite Prime Ministers making promises at the Dispatch Box when I first raised the issue, but there are Members on the Government Benches who stood on manifestos that said they would ban unpaid internships. Now we have this great Bill, which was trailed in the general election and is being promoted by the Labour party, yet there is nothing in it about unpaid internships. When the Bill goes to the other place, that has to be looked at, because such internships are wrong.
We have heard a great deal today about opportunities for people, but what opportunities are there for people such as my sister and me, who had to work and earn a living to be able to do what we have gone on to do? We could not have spent 12 months working in London unpaid. The fact that a whole section of society can go unpaid is still not being addressed, and that fundamentally undermines what I am hearing from Labour Members about what the Bill will do to create equality. I think that is wrong. The review of the impact on employment tribunals that is proposed in new clause 83 needs to be wider, and it needs to be understood that if the aim is to create equality, it is not in fact being created.
Joe Robertson
Does my right hon. Friend think that some of the problems that he is identifying are a result of the Bill’s being rushed through this Chamber?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I do, and I am trying to make a serious point here. This is a big Bill, and it is one of the Government’s flagship pieces of policy. I heard someone say earlier, from a sedentary position, that we have 12 hours of debate, but that does not come up to the 21 days that we spent in Committee examining the Bill bit by bit. I agree with other Members that it has been rushed through for political purposes.
The purpose of debates such as this is to explore the issues, and try to make a Bill into a better piece of legislation. I am trying to be constructive in explaining where I see the flaws and in highlighting the unforeseen consequences. It worries me when we see the no-platforming of people at universities, and hear about trigger warnings and people saying that they feel emotionally put upon. That, I think, is an abuse of some of the protections that we are trying to introduce, and I think there are people who will try to abuse this particular clause. What I am saying to the Minister, and the Government, is, “Can that wording be tightened up?”
Richard Burgon
It is always a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour from the other side of the House, the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke).
I really welcome the Bill, which needs to be put in its historical context. With the exception of those passed under the last Labour Government, virtually every time we have seen an employment rights Bill or a trade union Bill in recent decades, it has been an attack on trade union rights or workers’ rights, whereas this Bill makes a real difference in advancing the rights of working people in this country. They have been kicked around for too long, and it is right that we do not accept that it is fine for workers in this country to be some of the easiest to sack and mistreat in the continent. Workers in our country deserve better employment rights, and this Bill sets about putting them in place.
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend will have heard constantly, particularly in response to the P&O disaster, that the Conservatives were going to introduce an employment Bill when they were in government. Does my hon. Friend agree that they have criticised this Government for doing what they promised: to bring in this Bill within 100 days?
Richard Burgon
I certainly do. The previous Government never got round to introducing such a Bill. When the Conservative party was in government, all we had about the P&O debacle were crocodile tears or statements of sorrow from the Dispatch Box, which just do not cut it.
This Bill contains important advances, such as establishing bereavement leave and introducing menopause action plans. Over 1 million people on zero-hours contracts will benefit from the guaranteed hours policy, and 9 million people who have been with an employer for less than two years will benefit from the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one. It seems to escape the understanding of many Conservative Members that this does not mean that employers cannot dismiss people; it means that they cannot dismiss people unfairly.
The Conservatives are arguing for the right of employers to dismiss people unfairly. As it stands, before this legislation comes in, the only way that workers can claim unfair dismissal from day one is if it is a discriminatory dismissal. To be clear, an employer could, six months into someone’s contract of employment, say, “I’m sacking you because I don’t like people who wear green jumpers,” or, “I’m sacking you because I find your voice irritating.” That would be unfair dismissal. As it stands, people do not have the right not to be unfairly dismissed until they have accrued two years of service, and the Conservative party needs to come clean about that.
Before I move on to my new clause 6, I want to say that I welcome many of the Government amendments and the amendments tabled by Labour Back Benchers, including the many important amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who did such a good job at developing employment policy in opposition; the important amendments on sick pay, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain); and the important amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and for Luton North (Sarah Owen).
My new clause 6 would right what I consider to be a historical wrong. The last Labour Government brought in the groundbreaking Equality Act 2010, which we can all be proud of. As part of that, they introduced statutory discrimination questionnaires. When I was an employment lawyer before becoming a Member of Parliament, I lost track of the number of times that we used statutory discrimination questionnaires to smoke out discrimination in the workplace in relation to age, disability, sex, race, sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity, gender reassignment, religion or belief, and marriage and civil partnership.
I bumped into an old colleague who is a trade union lawyer on a train, and he made the point that statutory discrimination questionnaires also—[Interruption.] I make no apologies for having a friend who is a trade union lawyer—I think the Conservatives need to get out a bit more. He made the point that statutory discrimination questionnaires showed when a claim did not have a good chance of succeeding at an employment tribunal, helped to manage potential claimants’ expectations, and thus led to an unmeritorious claim either not being pursued or being settled. Such questionnaires helped to smoke out discrimination in workplaces, helping not just the individual employee, but tackling discrimination against workers more widely in that workplace. The truth is that in 2025, given some of the rhetoric from politicians in this country and around the world, it is as important as ever to have mechanisms in place to tackle discrimination in workplaces across the country.
That was part of the last Labour Government’s pioneering Equality Act. Shamefully, the Conservative Government abolished statutory Equality Act questionnaires in 2014 as part of their attack on workers’ rights. In their consultation, 83% of respondents said it was wrong to remove this important mechanism for workers to unmask and tackle discrimination—83%—yet the Conservative party when in government, aided and abetted by some of their erstwhile friends, ploughed ahead in any event.
I tabled new clause 6 because this is an important opportunity for our new Labour Government to right the wrong done by that Conservative-led Government and reinstate a very important advance made in the last Labour Government’s Equality Act. I look forward with interest to hearing the Minister’s response. If he will not accept this amendment to the Bill, I invite him to come forward with a proposal to reintroduce statutory discrimination questionnaires as soon as possible. They made a real difference. They helped to stop some claims going to tribunal that should not have gone to tribunal, but, more importantly, they empowered workers to smoke out discrimination in their workplaces not only for their benefit, but for the benefit of their colleagues in that workplace and for the benefit of wider society. We need that now in 2025, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
A great many very important employment-related issues are being discussed, but I rise in support of new clause 16. As it stands, self-employed people are not entitled to statutory adoption pay, which creates a substantial economic barrier for prospective adopters. Without this support, the selfless act of adoption is being made harder. New clause 16 would fix that.
A constituent of mine, Kirsty, is a self-employed mother who discovered this significant gap in the financial support system while exploring the possibility of adoption. Kirsty and her husband have a son, Charlie, who is a bright-eyed four-year-old with an unshakeable love of trains. He often talked about how much he wanted a little sibling to be his assistant train driver, and after a year of trying to conceive a second child, Kirsty and her family decided that opening their hearts and their home to a child through adoption was the best option. However, one of Kirsty’s close friends—also self-employed and in the process of adopting—informed her that she was not entitled to the same financial support through statutory adoption pay, throwing her plans into doubt.
Unlike biological parents, who qualify for maternity allowance, or employed adopters, who are eligible for statutory adoption pay, self-employed adopters such as Kirsty fall into a financial support void. While statutory guidance allows local authorities to make discretionary means-tested payments equivalent to these allowances for the self-employed, such support is not guaranteed, and local authorities have no legal duty to provide it. In fact, a freedom of information request by the charity Home for Good has revealed that 34% of local authorities lack any policy for providing this financial support. Even worse, 90% of self-employed adopters, when they were surveyed by the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence back in 2022, reported that their social worker never advised them about these discretionary payments and the possibility of receiving them.
Adoption provides children with the opportunity to thrive in a permanent, loving home, often completing a family, as I have had the great pleasure of seeing for myself in my role as a proud adopted auntie. I am confident in my belief that Members across the House will agree that self-employed people are no less suited to adopt than anyone else. Despite the increase in the number of children in care, the number of adoptions in the UK has halved since its peak in 2015, and this is completely unsustainable. The enormous and growing pressures that face our foster care system will only worsen if the number of adoptions continues to decrease.
As of December 2024, there are 4.39 million self-employed people across the UK. If we began removing the financial barriers and empowering those who are self-employed through guaranteed financial support for adoption, we could begin to reverse the worrying trends in the number of adoptions. That would allow willing adopters such as Kirsty and her husband to be financially able to do so.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my proud membership of USDAW and the GMB.
It was an honour to serve on the Public Bill Committee for this historic piece of legislation. The Bill represents a watershed moment: a turning point for working people in our country who for too long have been left behind in an economy plagued by weak employment rights, stagnant growth and the soaring cost of living. The measures contained in the Bill represent a meaningful intervention in our broken labour market, looking to promote good quality jobs that offer dignity, security and respect to working people. As someone with a proud background representing workers, I wholeheartedly support the Bill’s spirit and provisions. I believe it will meet Labour’s promise to deliver a new deal for working people— a new deal that will make work pay.
Whether it is banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, ending the scandal of fire and rehire, or protecting employees from unfair dismissal from day one, the Bill will promote good secure employment and a workforce who finally feel valued. It recognises trade unions as the force for good in the workplace that they are, encouraging positive, productive and harmonious partnerships between companies and unions. The evidence we heard in Committee made it clear that many of the Bill’s measures enjoy broad support from both employees and employers, such as the modernising of family friendly rights to meet the needs of today’s workers, and the creation of the Fair Work Agency, which will protect good employers from being cynically undercut by unscrupulous competitors.
Let me now turn to statutory sick pay and Government amendment 81. During the pandemic, it became clear that SSP is in desperate need of reform. I am therefore delighted that the Bill removes the three waiting days and the lower earnings limit, delivering greater financial security to working people when they need it most. However, an issue remains. Setting the amount a low-paid worker receives while off sick at 80% of their wages has the unintended consequence of reducing sick pay for those who earn at, or slightly above, the lower earnings limit. Low-paid, long-term sick workers will be the most affected. I believe that is an oversight, and contrary to the spirit of the legislation. I call on the Minister to close the gap.
Turning now to the right to a regular hours contract, the proliferation of one-sided flexibility throughout the workforce has been one of the most damaging labour market developments of the past 14 years. It has left workers vulnerable to sudden changes of income as their hours change from week to week. The right to a regular-hours contract is therefore one of the Bill’s most important provisions. However, limiting that right to those on a specified number of hours, such as 16 hours a week, will unnecessarily exclude those above the threshold from benefiting from the right, while giving employers a perverse incentive to give additional hours, when available, to those who already have more hours.
I raise these points not to be critical, but because I believe that we have in front of us a magnificent piece of legislation—one that is testament to the power of collaboration and consultation—and I want as many people as possible to benefit from it. Jobs are the cornerstone of our lives. The Bill takes giant strides forward, ensuring that people are fulfilled by their jobs, protected while at work and take home enough to make ends meet. It restores a fair balance of power between employers and employees. It is good for workers, good for productivity and good for growth, and is therefore good for business, too. I suggest to the House that anyone serious about fairness at work and increasing living standards should support it.
Joe Robertson
The hon. Gentleman talks about the Bill being good for growth, but is he concerned that the Government’s own assessment says it will cost businesses £5 billion? Does he have any concerns at all about the downward impact on growth of that cost?
Michael Wheeler
I think that a Bill that promotes good, secure work across the economy is something we should not shy away from. I believe, if I am correct, that the figure referenced represents 0.5% of the costs of businesses, so no—I am not concerned.
I would like to finish in a slightly odd place. Benjamin Disraeli believed that his Government’s active role in passing legislation that benefited the working person would
“gain and retain for the Conservatives the lasting affection of the working classes”—
clearly he failed in that endeavour. One nation Tories are now a vanishingly scarce presence on the Opposition Benches. I ask all hon. Members on those Benches, with their opposition to this Bill: when did the Conservatives give up even trying to be on the side of working people?
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
If growth is the intended destination, as my friends in Dublin would say, “You can’t get there from here”. This Bill—so long on amendments and so short on detail—cannot be reconciled with this Government’s stated mantra of growth, growth, growth. By their own estimate, the Bill will cost business £5 billion—so easily dismissed by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler), despite being a serious amount of money. The only growth will be in the mountain of red tape in which the Bill will snare businesses.
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 87, which would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the
“international competitiveness of the economy”
and its growth in the medium to long term. The Secretary of State for Business must surely recognise the importance of this—after all, I saw him just days ago in a slick video, with cuts quicker than the shower scene in Hitchcock’s “Psycho”, boasting of
“working together abroad to deliver growth at home”.
Now, I love a fantasy film as much as anyone, but the Secretary of State is in danger of jumping the shark with this level of sophistry and stretching credulity beyond snapping point. Growth at home is feeble, and this Bill is its enemy.
So lacking in detail is this Bill, which was clearly scrabbled together to beat the Government’s own deadline of the first 100 days, that it is the equivalent of a parliamentary blank cheque—sign here, and we will fill in all those pesky details later—handing sweeping powers to the Secretary of State. We are being asked to walk into a cage without a key. I have seen this before with the SNP’s woeful prospectus for Scottish independence in 2014. Scots were bright enough then to see through the smokescreen. Will Members across the House be sharp enough to discern the dangers here?
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite clear that the Government did not do the work needed to get the Bill into the right place and position to be introduced to this House in the first place? That was exemplified in Committee, with the amount of drafting that had to be done at that stage. The Bill should have been stopped by the parliamentary business and legislation committee; it should never have been allowed to get to the Floor of the House.
John Cooper
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. He is a very experienced parliamentarian and knows full well that to arrive at this stage with, as we have heard from other Members, a telephone directory of amendments is quite an incredible situation. How could any self-respecting Secretary of State for Business and Trade stand over the anti-growth regulations contained in—but not confined to—parts 1, 2 and 4 of this Bill? Even a trainee solicitor can see that they strip out flexibility for both employees and employers, making it less likely that people—especially young people and people with sketchy backgrounds—will be hired for that all-important first job. Whither your employee rights if you have no job?
As someone who bends his elbow, I am familiar with the occasionally coarse atmosphere in pubs. My daughter took a part-time job in a bar while studying at university, but I see nothing useful for her in the Bill’s bid to make employers liable for third-party harassment. It is why I also support our amendment to exclude the hospitality sector from this onerous clause. Aside from the fact that my daughter was well capable of dealing with the rare rude, sexist or obstreperous client under existing laws, clause 18 risks the Bill becoming a snooper’s charter—a busybody’s dream. If our amendment 289 falls, the public bar will no longer be the cockpit of free speech, but placed in the purview of the censorious, and the malicious gauleiters of orthodoxy.
Set as we are in a sea of troubles amid global turmoil, are Labour really so afraid of off-colour jokes, or the bar stool crank with outré political views, that it will establish the banter police? One of my criticisms of the Holyrood Parliament in Edinburgh is that it passes “never mind the quality, feel the width” legislation in a bid for self-justification. With this Bill, that accusation could rightly be levelled at this Government, too.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I will be proud to see this Bill progress through Parliament and to develop accordingly. That is what the amendments before us offer us the chance to do. May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), who is no longer in her place, and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for the work that they are doing?
In the short time available to me, I wish to speak to new clause 7, which reflects a manifesto commitment made by the Labour party that said explicitly that the current parental leave system does not support working families. Millions of people across this country will recognise that that is the case. New clause 7 is about putting meat on the bones of that commitment, because it is long overdue. We are behind the curve in this country in how we treat dads. I wish to thank everybody who has signed this amendment, because it sends the message that we care about our fathers in this country.
We have the worst paternity leave in the EU, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), who is no longer in his place, pointed out. Two weeks is just enough time for the dad to realise that the meconium is going to stop and that they might eventually get three hours’ sleep at some point. Let us see how our economic competitors treat dads better. Dads get 16 months in Sweden, eight months for each parent and three months protected for the dad. In France, Spain, Norway and Luxembourg, dads get at least six weeks. In Japan, they get a year. Why do they do that? It is because dads make a difference. Yes, this Bill would give them a day one right to paternity leave, but only two weeks. One in five dads—35% of them—in this country does not take any leave at all, because they cannot afford to do so. They need a paid and protected right of itself to benefit from paternity leave. It benefits them and it benefits their kids. It is better for the mental health of the father. It means that they take fewer sick days—there is evidence to prove that—and it is good for the kids. It is also good for the mums.
We need to end the battle of the sexes when it comes to childcare, because research shows that women really cannot win. Even when we do not have kids, we pay the price because of maternity discrimination. We all know of employers who do not employ women in their 20s and 30s because of the risk that ladies do babies. The challenge with this legislation, which rightfully strengthens maternity discrimination powers, is that it could inadvertently reinforce that message if we do not bring forward legislation to support fathers. [Interruption.] I am glad Conservative Members support what I am saying. I wish they would vote with us on this tonight.
The gender pay gap does exist in this country, but it is basically a maternity pay gap, because the motherhood penalty is all too real. By the time of their first child, a woman’s wages are a third below a man’s within 20 months. Members might say that that is to do with working part-time, but that is even when women return to the front. One in nine mums have been dismissed, made redundant or forced out. Women are considered 10% less competent in the workplace when they become mums, as if juggling things make them less able to do things rather than more. Childless women are eight times more likely to be promoted. Conversely, dads are considered 5% more committed than non-dads because we expect them to be in work, paying for their children rather than helping to look after them.
I want to deal not in caricatures but in cold, hard cash. Above all, supporting paternity leave in its own right, and leave for the other parents in relationships, is good for the economy. It helps boost women’s participation and productivity. Countries with better paid parental leave have a smaller gender participation gap in their economy, with all the economic benefits that that brings. Closing that gap could bring £23 billion into our economy—1% of GDP.
Joe Robertson
The hon. Member is talking about the benefits of her new clause to fathers, but does she accept that the effect of the Bill will be negative and harmful to everyone and to the economy, by stripping £5 billion away from businesses? It is no good that her new clause would be helpful for fathers if the net effect of the Bill is bad for everyone, through the damage done to the economy.
Ms Creasy
I wish that the hon. Gentleman had been listening, because I just pointed out that dealing with the gender pay gap would bring £23 billion to our economy. That is exactly how we pay for better parental leave—it is a cost-neutral proposal.
A newsflash for those who have not worked it out: mothers are already paying for this childcare in their lower wages, opportunities and progression. Women’s salaries are hit by 33% after the birth of their first child. Women are doing 450 million hours of unpaid childcare in this country, which equates to £382 billion worth of work—twice as much as men. A consultation could explicitly look into these issues and at how we can share that cost and benefit fairly, so that both men and women can contribute equally to our society and look after their children equally. It could look explicitly at self-employed parents. After all, there are nearly a million self-employed dads in this country, who pay £1.1 billion in national insurance contributions. They do not get any parental leave at all.
We know that shared parental leave is not the answer. Only 2% of dads have taken it in the 10 years that it has been available, because it is not paid. That is why we must be explicit that any consultation must look at the pay that needs to be behind parental leave, as well as at protecting it. Those on the lowest incomes do not take shared parental leave at all. More shared parental leave has been claimed in London alone than in Wales, Scotland, the north-west and the north-east combined.
Above all, this is about our kids. God knows, we love them all dearly, but we can all understand why 20% of divorces take place in the first five years after having a child: because of the unequal situation that we put families in and the pressures that that creates—the mum and dad guilt. We have a choice in this place about whether we deal with mum and dad guilt, with the Government making a proper commitment with a proper timetable, and with proper involvement from Parliament and the Women and Equalities Committee.
To all those who will say, “Well, I struggled, and so should you,” I say that that is bad for the economy and bad for our kids. It means that fathers do not get the time to work out the quirks of their children, so mums end up being the ones who know how to cut the sandwiches. It means that mums end up doing more of the childcare and dads get pushed further away from their children. If this Government are serious about supporting families—I believe that they are—they need to show us the detail. That way, in every family, which come in all shapes and sizes, every parent—whether the father, the non-birthing parent or the mother—will have the time to be the best parent and contributor. That is why these policies are massively popular with Conservative and Reform voters—if only the Reform MPs were here to do something for men for a change.
This long overdue change will make a difference. I hope that Ministers are listening to why it matters to show a commitment to this, and I look forward to hearing to what they have to say in response to the new clause.
Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2025
Crown Estate Act 2025.