Bills
Live Bills
Government Bills
Private Members' Bills
Acts of Parliament Created
Departments
Department for Business and Trade
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Department for Education
Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Department of Health and Social Care
Department for Transport
Department for Science, Innovation & Technology
Department for Work and Pensions
Cabinet Office
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Home Office
Leader of the House
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Ministry of Justice
Northern Ireland Office
Scotland Office
HM Treasury
Wales Office
Department for International Development (Defunct)
Department for Exiting the European Union (Defunct)
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Defunct)
Department for International Trade (Defunct)
Reference
User Guide
Stakeholder Targeting
Dataset Downloads
APPGs
Upcoming Events
The Glossary
2024 General Election
Learn the faces of Parliament
Petitions
Tweets
Publications
Written Questions
Parliamentary Debates
Parliamentary Research
Non-Departmental Publications
Secondary Legislation
MPs / Lords
Members of Parliament
Lords
Pricing
About
Login
Home
Live Debate
Commons Chamber
Commons Chamber
Tuesday 11th March 2025
(began 1 month ago)
Share Debate
Copy Link
Watch Live
Print Debate (Subscribers only)
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
Oral questions: Justice
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Order. Topicals.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Topicals. Questions Order. Topicals. Questions to Order. Topicals. Questions to the Secretary of State for Justice.
11:35
Q1. What steps her Department is taking to use technology to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system. (903108)
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Secretary of State for Justice. Mr Gregory Campbell. Shaun
Davies, sorry. I do apologise.
11:35
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Number one, sir.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Number one, sir. Thank you, Mr Speaker. This government inherited an analogue justice system that has not kept
pace with a digital world. Technology can and must transform the system. Since taking office we
expanded the use of tagging, we are pioneering new technology for manual work in the justice system and I
have launched a new unit to further develop the use of artificial intelligence.
11:35
Shaun Davies MP (Telford, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The recent announcement of 110,000 sitting days is welcome but we must use technology to streamline
We have seen a 25% reduction in cases concluding between 2016 and 2022. What plans does the government had to use emerging technology to
enhance court processes, get faster justice for victims, manage justice for victims, manage offenders back into the community and enforcing exclusion zones, drug testing and alcohol testing?
11:36
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
This is an incredibly important point. We need to make sure the
whole of the system, including what happens in our criminal court is as efficient as it can be. That is why
I have commissioned an independent
review of the criminal courts and it will consider how to improve the efficiency of courts. We will report
later in the year. There will be I believe a wider role to play for technology when it comes to tagging and monitoring exclusion zones and
curfews.
I want to make sure we place the justice system in the best position to use emerging technology so we can keep the country safe.
11:37
Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Wright KC MP (Kenilworth and Southam, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I know the Lord Chancellor will accept the effective use of electronic tagging has not just made the justice system more efficient,
but also mitigating the need for
expensive prison places. Would she agree that for that to happen, two things are necessary? First, tagging themselves should be technically
reliable and second, in her department officials have the commercial capacity to manage the
contracts efficiently. If you disagree, what can be done to improve those things?
11:37
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Honourable gentleman races two incredibly important points. I
believe there will be a bigger role
for current and new technology to play when it comes to the future of the justice system. Particularly in expanding the range of punishment
available to us outside of prison. I want to make sure we are at the forefront of not just getting the best use of current technology, but
also emerging tech as well. He is
right that on making sure any commercial contracts are value for
money and that they can maintain public confidence.
I assure him across the department we do have the
across the department we do have the expertise available to us. The new unit I have set up will be crucial to our efforts moving forward.
11:38
Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP (Newark, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Shadow Secretary of State.
prisoners by mistake last year. Now we have uncovered criminals her department let out early were not monitored. For up to 8 weeks. As
they were not fitted with electronic tagging. It is another glaring
error. Gandhi Justice Secretary
clear up some confusion? How many criminals did her department failed to tag? -- Can the Justice Secretary. Were any offences committed while they went
unmonitored? Who is being held accountable for this gross
incompetence? incompetence?
11:38
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Every week the shadow Justice Secretary comes to the House and I am concerned for his health because
he seems to have an easier. He has forgotten who was in government just a few months ago. He seems to have forgotten that the previous government let the contract on
tagging go to Serco which I have inherited. I have been clearly delays we saw have been
unacceptable. Although the backlog has been significantly reduced, the
performance of Serco is still not good enough. And while the backlog
has been reduced substantially, I will continue to hold them to will continue to hold them to account and not hesitate to impose further financial penalties where necessary.
11:39
Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP (Newark, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I think we can all see the
Justice Secretary had no answers to my questions. If her department
cannot tag prisoners properly, why should the public have any confidence in her plan to use them
in places of short prison sentences? The threshold is already high. Often
criminals have committed multiple offences before they are first considered for prison. Which is why scrapping short sentences will
endanger the public and serve as a green light for criminality. Can the
Justice Secretary take this opportunity to reassure the public
and rule out reducing sentences for burglary, theft or shoplifting? It
burglary, theft or shoplifting? It is a simple question.
Yes or no?
11:40
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
What the public will know is that his government when they left office left the system on the point of
collapse. What they can have confidence in his that this government will fix the mess his party left behind and make sure
there is always a prison place available for everyone who needs to be locked up to keep the public safe and we can expand the range of punishment outside prison. Crucially
we will make sure those who enter the prison system can be helped to turn their lives and turned their
turn their lives and turned their back on crime.
That is a promise his back on crime. That is a promise his party never made.
11:40
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Number two, sir.
member will know from his meeting with the Minister in the other place, there are no current plans to release land at this location. We
are working with local
11:41
Greg Smith MP (Mid Buckinghamshire, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
representatives to make sure we bring benefits to the local community as part of the new Prisons Bill.
Bill. For his answer and Foreign Minister's time last summer. Notwithstanding opposition to a new
Notwithstanding opposition to a new prison, this absurdity has been going on for years. The MOJ owns the Greens, the lamp posts, the public lighting on the Springhill Road
lighting on the Springhill Road To Spring Hill. The residents say it is of no use to the MOJ. It is no
benefit to the estate.
The Association are willing to take it to use those greens for children to
play and for residents to use. Will the Minister look again into getting the Minister look again into getting this plan transfer to take place? It is of no benefit to him or his department.
11:42
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
In the last government only 500 places were produced. This
government is doing a 27,830 strong
placement. We set out ambitions to deliver 14,000 new places by the
year 2031. Almost 1,500 have been provided by the new prison in his
constituency. I'm happy if he writes to me about the specific concerns of the residents Association have and I will respond to those concerns.
Number three.
This is a matter for the independent judiciary and courts are required to
consider the likelihood of absconding as part of the decision.
The court can impose a broad range of bail conditions as part of the bail package including electronic monitoring, exclusion zones and
curfews. This government is committed to making sure criminals face justice and victims get peace of mind and closure.
11:43
Robbie Moore MP (Keighley and Ilkley, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
After the conviction of eight men for a string of horrendous child
rapes in my constituency, I would like to inform the Secretary of
State that all these men are now serving their just punishment. But two of them absconding from their
trial and are believed to be abroad. Their exact whereabouts is an open
secret in Keighley. It is a shocking failure of the system these men are
still walking free. Does the Minister agree that in the case of a dual national or foreign national
charged with disgusting crimes,
courts should be required to put terms on the bail of a defendant to stop them from leaving the country during a trial so they cannot be
walking free from their horrendous crimes? crimes?
11:43
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I understand the case he refers to took place under the last government and the men he referred
to were tried in absentia. The Home Secretary set out the steps the government is taking to tackle the terrible crimes of Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse. Including
group based exploitation. That is
going through the Crime and Policing Bill and we are legislating to make
this an aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offences to make sure this behaviour is properly reflected in the sentencing.
11:44
Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Number four.
remarks are available free of charge to the families and victims of fatal road offences, murder and
manslaughter. This government is running a one-year pilot, offering
free sentencing remarks to victims of rape and sexual offences, due to conclude in May. We are looking in the round at how to lower the cost
the round at how to lower the cost of a court transcript through increased use of technology.
11:45
Liz Jarvis MP (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
The previous government launched a pilot scheme to provide free sentencing remarks to victims of
sexual violence. But thousands of eligible survivors only found out months after this started. Bad communication meant victims missed
out on this opportunity foreclosure. Can the Justice Secretary confirm if this has been properly evaluated and will findings be made public? What steps will be taken to improve
11:45
Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Remember is to slow the rate that
initially there was not enough kind that is what you must do if we want
to test the effectiveness for victims of serious sexual offences. I can assure that the numbers are up
and we are conducting the study and once you have the results, we can test whether we can implement this in future. in future.
11:46
Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The
Ministry of Justice provides funding for victim support services to help victims recover from the impact of crime, including crime. The
government committed to the creation of a young futures program to help
of a young futures program to help support children at risk of being drawn into crime in a more systemic way. way.
11:46
Richard Baker MP (Glenrothes and Mid Fife, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
This support has been a claim for the victims of knife crime and will
the victims of knife crime and will
be essential. Also people in my constituency feel particularly
strong about this, following deeply concerning instances of knife crime involving young people. involving young people.
11:46
Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank my honourable friend for the question. As a member of
Parliament representing a developed nation I propose we work across the board to tackle the issue. This is
not an issue for one for all of us
to do better. We must ensure there are measures to crack down on the
carrying of knives including the
carrying of knives including the enforcement of and Ronan's Law. enforcement of and Ronan's Law.
11:47
Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Huntingdon, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I welcome any measures and anything that can be done to prevent
young people being drawn into the silence. I will this differ from existing legislation on possession
of an item with a blade or point?
Will the individual be arrested or
other matters such as social media be used?
11:47
Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I welcome the question. I
understand he is a member of the Crime and Policing Bill Committee
who will look at the legislation. We are looking at how this will
progress through the House and I welcome the engagement with and the scrutiny on this. The government is increasing penalties for illegal
sales of knives. We have to take action against legal weapons online. We have to consult on the
registration scheme. There is a lot
of work being done.
Firstly, I will answer questions six, 11, and 14 together. First, I want to acknowledge something
horrific that happened in my own
constituency. My constituent was tragically shot and killed on Sunday night. I pay tribute to police who took swift action and my thoughts
are with the victim, friends and family, and she will be mourned by
the whole community. Her loss will be felt. This government has made
the unprecedented commitment to reduce violence against women and girls by 50% in a decade.
We've
introduced new offences. We have also launched a new protection order
and selected areas including in my and selected areas including in my constituency last week and we are determined to do more.
11:49
Katie White MP (Leeds North West, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I'm sure the thoughts of the
whole House are with your constituent. I am sorry for your loss. The skill of violence against
loss. The skill of violence against
Is intolerable and the commitment of reducing by 50% by the end of the packet is much-needed and ambitious. Can she go further information as to how they will deliver this
commitment and what steps her Department plans to reduce domestic violence cases? violence cases?
11:49
Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank my honourable friend for
the question and this government is determined to reducing it by by the
end of the decade. We must look at how we can bring every single
government department ready table on this. This is not just an issue for
the Ministry of Justice Home Office practice for all of us to do better, every department, all of society, to
reach this target. We have funded a record number of sitting days in the Crown Court to hit the backlog and
tackle this head on.
The majority of cases and in the magistrates court cases and in the magistrates court and we are doing more to help vulnerable victims.
11:50
Adam Thompson MP (Erewash, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the Minister for her
answer and extend my thoughts to the family and friends of Joanna. In
recent years, women and girls have increasingly expressed distress with the justice system with cases of
sexual harassment I saw few of these
result in prosecution. What steps are being taken store my
are being taken store my Now that they will be supported? Now that they will be supported?
11:51
Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
We will introduce specialist rape and sexual offence teams in every
police force as well as consultants in 999 control rooms and will give victims access to an independent
adviser to help them understand the up-rates from day one. I want every victim to know that they are hard and the government supports them.
11:51
Patrick Hurley MP (Southport, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Firstly I associate myself with
the comments of my colleague with
regard to the tragic events in your constituency. In 2010, a woman in my own constituency was victim of an
own constituency was victim of an
alleged assault and now and 2025 she advises that there has been no trial and she worries about falling into the acute the runtime. What is being done to excavate cases like these
where violence has been alleged?
11:51
Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank my honourable friend. The
government is committed to dealing with the caseload and bringing within time stone for the miss.
Since July, we have put more funding into chrome courts so they have the
highest capacity ever and we will deal the more serious cases. We have
commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to recommend once in a generation reform and we look forward to his
reform and we look forward to his report in the spring. report in the spring.
11:52
Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I recently met with a distressed constituents who escaped a very
abusive marriage only for the court
to order a settlement which allows her ex-partner to exert financial
control over her. The act of 1973 does not allow domestic abuse to be
taken into consideration. Could the Minister inform the House what
consideration she has given to the recent scoping report on this issue which recommends reform? which recommends reform?
11:53
Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the honourable lady for the question. The government is
committed to tackling financial abuse and we are considering the findings and will report back. findings and will report back.
11:53
Lee Anderson MP (Ashfield, Reform UK)
-
Copy Link
-
I went to visit a lady had been
beaten black and blue unlocked in the cupboard by her boyfriend. He
was arrested, she made a statement,
but because of his controlling behaviour, she had him back because she was in control of her finances and was her employer. When she finally had the courage to take a of
the police would not prosecute them. What can we do to ensure women who
are the ones of these animals can go to the police at any time?
to the police at any time?
11:53
Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
First, can I apologise on behalf of the horrific circumstances that this constituents finds herself in. It is intolerable and no woman
should ever feel that way. If the honourable member wants to write to
me with specifics, I will look into it further. The government is determined to deal with this and
11:54
Clive Jones MP (Wokingham, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
restore confidence in the criminal justice system on the whole, from
justice system on the whole, from the top down. I look forward to speaking further about the case. The impact of Crown Court delays on
impact of Crown Court delays on victims, victim services and the
wider justice system are severe. One of my constituents as a survivor of sexual violence and sexual assault
sexual violence and sexual assault which began three decades ago. She has had numerous court hearings.
11:54
Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
has had numerous court hearings. Will the Minister tell my constituent how these injustices
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will be ended? This government inherited the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This government inherited the justice system in crisis, with
justice system in crisis, with record Crown Court caseloads which continue to rise, impacting too many victims like the honourable gentleman's. Since July, we've put funding in so Crown Court two have
funding in so Crown Court two have more funding and we will allow them to focus on more serious crimes. We
to focus on more serious crimes. We are determined to bring down the caseload and the waiting times and also introducing domestic protection
11:55
Josh Babarinde MP (Eastbourne, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
also introducing domestic protection
**** Possible New Speaker ****
orders to protect such victims. I would like to start on behalf of the Liberal Democrats by associating myself with the comments
associating myself with the comments made at the very beginning with relation to Joanna. So many victims
and survivors rely on the victim contact scheme to north when they
contact scheme to north when they
contact scheme to north when they are -- to north -- know when they
are -- to north -- know when they should be released.
The system they inherited from the last government is such that only survivors with a conviction of more than 12 months
qualify for the scheme. In the
upcoming Public Protection Bill will she commit to scrapping the 12-month
threshold so victims and survivors qualify for the scheme? qualify for the scheme?
11:56
Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
We are looking carefully at the Victim Notification Scheme to ensure the rights of victims are taken into
full consideration and victims are aware of the situation. I look forward to working with them closely
and they have no doubt on how to develop the strongest role possible to support victims of all crimes in our country.
our country.
11:56
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the Member for his question. The Ministry of Justice recognises the benefits of resettlement and there's reviewing
our approach to peer mentoring to
make sure it is successful and there are a range of measures being looked at including the Wise Group.
at including the Wise Group. at including the Wise Group.
11:56
Bobby Dean MP (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
A couple of weeks ago, I had two volunteers told about my surgery and
they had been working to reintegrate
into the community. They are doing fantastic work. They have got to
expand. They need more space and more people. What support is available to volunteers like to help them do their work with prisoners? them do their work with prisoners?
11:57
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I applaud the work that he describes. It is certainly the sort
of must continue. Levels of homelessness and rough sleeping, what we have inherited, they are far
too high. We are working with the Ministry Of Health communities and
11:58
Andy Slaughter MP (Hammersmith and Chiswick, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
local governments for a long-term strategy to put us back on track. If he wishes to write to me about that
he wishes to write to me about that particular case, I will follow that up., as part of the Justice
up., as part of the Justice Committee's work on this we are looking at revolving doors, peer
looking at revolving doors, peer support, support for ex-offenders,
support, support for ex-offenders, mentors, and a restaurant which gets
11:58
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
mentors, and a restaurant which gets 60% of its employees from release.
What is a government doing to expand successful rehabilitation projects like this? I thank the honourable
member for his question and for his identification of these good actors
going on within the prison estate. The prison service is keen to encourage this type of activity and
will follow-up with them directly.
11:58
Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I welcome efforts to help prison leavers to reintegrate. There is a
sentencing review running on the very premise and review released an interim report. Can the Minister
pointed to me where I in Paris 65- page report has anything to say at all about the evidence of what victims want? victims want?
11:59
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The sentencing review describes
the situation at the moment and this is the first stage in addressing the
long-standing issue. Frankly, it is something the party opposite has
spent 14 years avoiding tackling.
That is... I will leave it there. That is... I will leave it there.
11:59
Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
the House bill have heard very startling that the Minister did not
offer any clarity and not one part
on the expectations of victim two of crime and their families in the report. Worse than that, cherry
picks evidence from reports to support the narrative that the
public are ill informed and do not know what they want. Does the Minister agree that for the review
12:00
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
to have any credibility whatsoever, it must engage with what victims and the public want when it comes to the use of prison for punishment for
use of prison for punishment for serious offenders? Footy you have the commitment from my honourable friend than the Chancellor. The
friend than the Chancellor. The victims are front and centre of our
approach to fixing the mess that the party opposite left us. There is a
party opposite left us. There is a Victims Representative and victims will engage in this and I have met
will engage in this and I have met myself to many victims and in this
role and all of them I have been encouraged to contribute to the report and they will be fully involved in the implementation of
this reform.
Instead of chipping in
from the sidelines trying to get cheap sandbanks, it is about time the party opposite up their sleeve
the party opposite up their sleeve
12:01
Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The judiciary prioritise vulnerable witnesses, including
cases involved in domestic abuse. Cases tend to be heard more quickly
in magistrates courses -- court. We
have tried to address the outstanding caseload. Funding has gone up to record levels to increase gone up to record levels to increase the sitting days in the upcoming financial year.
12:01
Paula Barker MP (Liverpool Wavertree, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the Minister for the response. The backlog is harming efforts to instil confidence in
With domestic violence charges against their abusers. Violence against women and girls is a national scandal. Countless women lose their lives to male violence.
In my own region of Merseyside, it is now the second highest level in the country. Does the Department agree that any moves to fast track
cases via criminal or civil courts must be undertaken with appropriate sentences to remove abusers from our
12:02
Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
streets, irrespective of the prison
streets, irrespective of the prison I thank my honourable friend for that important question. We take all forms of homicide seriously. Our strategy will be published later
strategy will be published later this year and will cover all forms of violence and abuse which disproportionately affect women. We
disproportionately affect women. We will prioritise Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls which is why we funded record numbers of sitting days. We are extending the powers of the Victims' Commissioner and
the Victims' Commissioner and strengthening the code, protecting funding for services looking at
domestic abuse, to ensure victims are listened to and are put at the
heart of our justice system.
12:02
Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
Copy Link
-
Minister, last week at International Women's Day, we read out 96 names of women killed in the last year. I am always conscious of
the loss of life as the Minister is
as well. Can I ask the Minister what can be done to support the women and
their children? their children?
12:03
Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
We are doing everything we can to support the women and children. We declared a national emergency and we do have the ambition of halving violence against women and girls
over the course of a decade. My ambition is the names read out at the dispatch box next year are far shorter than the one read out this
year.
12:03
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Number 10, Mr Speaker.
rife with drugs. If we are to have a regime to reduce reoffending and cut crime, we must crackdown on drugs in
prison. We must address the supply of and we are introducing tactics including x-ray body scanners and we
including x-ray body scanners and we must also tackle demand as over 80 of our prisons now have drug-free wings.
12:03
Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Before 2021, less than 1% of
seized substances had anabolic steroids. Now in 2023 it is up to
10%. With this being the third most prevalent drug class detected in Scottish prisons in 2023. Will the
Minister meet with me and
representatives who are national leads on this topic from Imperial College to conduct research into how this impacts on offending and the
prison population?
12:04
Q12. What steps her Department is taking to support female offenders. (903119)
-
Copy Link
The honourable member has a long record of campaigning on this particular issue and I pay tribute
to them. It is an important point. I will make sure he can meet with the prisons minister and I will look at what further research may be needed.
12:04
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Question 12.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The government's plan to support women is clear and ambitious. To reduce the number of women going to prison, the new Justice board will support implementing the plan. This
support implementing the plan. This government is taking immediate action to ensure girls will never again be held in youth offender
12:04
Liz Twist MP (Blaydon and Consett, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
institutions following last week's publication of the review into girls
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in the youth estate. Self-harm in prisons is now at the highest rate ever recorded. In
the highest rate ever recorded. In women's prisons, the rate is eight times higher than men's prisons.
times higher than men's prisons. With a shocking third of female prisoners having self-harm. Does the Minister share my concern about
12:05
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Minister share my concern about these figures? What is the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Department doing to ensure that we tackle this issue effectively? I certainly share her deep
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I certainly share her deep concern about this. The honourable lady is right to raise this issue.
lady is right to raise this issue. Good relationships between staff and prisoners is essential in our effort to identify and manage the risk of
to identify and manage the risk of suicide and self-harm. We are providing specialist support and
rolling out tailored investments, including specialised training for new officers. We are recruiting psychologists to support women and piloting a compassion focused
12:05
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
therapy group designed for women will stop
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Number 13. I am not going to pre-empt the
sentencing review final report. But let's remember crisis we are dealing
let's remember crisis we are dealing with. The last government ramped up sentences but added just 500 cells in their whole time in office. Just
in their whole time in office. Just today we have examples of members that do not want to see any prison building in their areas. We will
building in their areas. We will build 14,000 new places.
But even that will not be enough to get us out of the mess left by the last
12:06
Joe Robertson MP (Isle of Wight East, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
out of the mess left by the last government. I have asked for recommendations on sentencing
**** Possible New Speaker ****
policies to make sure that we never run out of spaces again. If the government is going to look at alternatives to prison and
look at alternatives to prison and early release, how is the public to
have any confidence whatsoever when this government released prisoners early and left them to roam the
12:06
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
early and left them to roam the streets for eight weeks before
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fixing tags? I have already said in an answer to an earlier question that we are holding Serco to account stop we
holding Serco to account stop we will make sure that backlog on the tagging is cleared as quickly as
tagging is cleared as quickly as possible and we levied financial penalties against that company. We
penalties against that company. We continue to monitor and we will take further action if we need to. Members opposite will have to wake
up to the reality of their own track record when they were in government.
12:07
Josh Babarinde MP (Eastbourne, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
They did not build the places we need to keep up with the sentencing they kept on imposing, leaving us with a mess to clear up. We are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
getting on with the job. Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Liberal Democrat spokesperson. The Independent Review at the
Justice Secretary have been taking inspiration from Texas when it comes to reforming the criminal justice system. She might be aware that in
system. She might be aware that in Texas also they have a dedicated set of domestic abuse aggravated
of domestic abuse aggravated offences in their jurisdiction to help protect and respect survivors.
help protect and respect survivors. Will she join myself and Liberal Democrat colleagues in putting
forward proposals in relation to the Crime and Policing Bill, to reflect
similar changes in the law in the
United Kingdom?
12:08
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I believe I have not yet seen his published bill, which might be on its way. I will look carefully at the bill when it is published and any amendments laid to the
legislation. He will know the picture is complex and even in jurisdictions where they have a more
catch all domestic abuse offence, there are issues with making sure it keeps up with the type of behaviour
you are trying to stamp out and to make sure other offences are not
falling off.
There are issues on how it would work in practice. I am happy to have further conversations.
I know this is of great interest to him and the house.
12:08
Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
15, Mr Speaker.
introduced offences to tackle the taping and recording of intimate images without consent. We are criminalising creating or asking somebody to create deepfake images without consent in the Data Bill.
Together with existing offences on sharing intimate images without consent, this gives law enforcement
consent, this gives law enforcement a package to tackle all aspects of this abusive behaviour. this abusive behaviour.
12:09
Joe Morris MP (Hexham, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the Minister for her answer and pay tribute to the work that has already been done. While
this is welcome, I would like to direct attention to making sure the police have the technical tools to
investigate reports. Will the Minister meet with me to discuss further measures that could be taken
further measures that could be taken to prevent intimate image abuse and how we can address this in all our communities?
12:09
Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I will meet with my honourable friend. We are launching a national centre for violence against women and girls within policing, including
a £2 million funding settlement to better target violence against women
and girls including online. We launched protection orders in selected areas, improving protection
for victims of all kinds of abuse, including online. The police are also able to use protection orders
also able to use protection orders to protect victims of online abuse.
12:10
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Number 16.
collapse. Under the last government, in 14 years, only 500 prison places
were produced. Under the last Labour government there was a net increase of 27,830 prison places. We are
of 27,830 prison places. We are doubling our efforts to match that number.
12:10
Lewis Atkinson MP (Sunderland Central, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
As the Minister highlighted, the prison capacity crisis that this government inherited has resulted in persistent offenders not feeling a
realistic deterrent. Can the
Minister tell us how this government's plans will restore A-
level of deterrent to the system and ensure there is capacity available in time to remove active offenders from the streets?
12:11
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
While they were blocking, we are
building. We are building and building. HMP Mill site, the first all electric prison, will open in a few weeks. It will deliver 1,500 places. Last week the Prisons
Minister in the other place attended a groundbreaking centre at HMP High Point. We have planning permission
for a new prison in Leicestershire and outline planning permission for a new prison in Buckinghamshire. We are getting on with the job. are getting on with the job.
12:11
Rt Hon Gavin Robinson MP (Belfast East, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
Copy Link
-
The Minister will know the increase in capacity is often found
because of the lockdown in the crime court system and too many on-demand are convicted and released with time
served with no opportunity for rehabilitation and going back to the
earlier question, no opportunity for mentoring either. Will this form part of the sentencing review with the Leveson inquiry? the Leveson inquiry?
12:12
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
That is why we are doing this big system relaunch and he is right to
draw attention to this. There is so much we are going to tackle and we are going to sort it out. are going to sort it out.
Number 17.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister. Keeping me busy, Mr Speaker. I thank the honourable member for drawing attention to the terrible legacy we inherited from the last
legacy we inherited from the last The Minister for prisons in the other place personally visited three of the prisons that have recently got urgent notifications.
got urgent notifications. Wandsworth, Winchester and Manchester. And plans to visit the fourth prison as soon as possible.
12:12
Rebecca Paul MP (Reigate, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fourth prison as soon as possible. He meets regularly with governors and senior officials to challenge them and assure himself sufficient progress is being made. I thank the Minister for the
answer. Prison officers do an
important job and I thank every officer at the prison in Banstead. But it is concerning that the number of assaults on staff have increased by more than double between 2023 and
2024. What step to see taken to make sure officers are protected in day to day jobs? to day jobs?
12:13
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Prison officers as she rightly
The work of the Prison Service is to make sure they are properly supported in that role and properly protected. That is what is going on.
12:13
Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Question 18, please.
courts. In the process, it let down not only victims of crime, but
businesses, employees, employers, children in care, every part of the
system was left in a mess. That is what we are sorting out. With record
Crown Court sitting days. A commitment of 110,000 days. Running almost to a maximum across all jurisdictions to bring down the
backlog. We are sorting out the mess we were left.
12:14
Mr Lee Dillon MP (Newbury, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I agree with the assessment of the Minister of the previous Conservative government. However
with more than 382,000 cases still in the backlog for magistrates call
's, have the government assessed on whether that will increase, given
the double sentencing power now passed down to those courts?
12:14
Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
It is being run sustainably. We extended the sentencing powers to
free up capacity in the Crown Court
and that again has been sustainable. We are increasing capacity in magistrates' courts by recruiting an additional 2,000 magistrates from
diverse backgrounds every year. That is why we are looking at reform, whether it be in magistrate or Crown
courts. We need a once in a generation reform and when we get the report back that is what we will get.
12:15
Baggy Shanker MP (Derby South, Labour )
-
Copy Link
-
Shockingly, only 40% of rape and
sexual offences reported to Derbyshire police resulted in a
Victims understandably lose faith in our justice system. What steps is our justice system. What steps is the Minister taking to reduce backlogs in the Derbyshire court so justice can be served for these despicable crimes?
12:15
Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I'm sorry to hear how long victims in his constituency are
waiting. We are taking urgent action to bear down on the backlog. Not only by increasing sitting days this year but committing to record levels
of sitting days next year. But that is not going to be sufficient to bring down the backlog and deliver
swifter justice. We need to hear from the Levinson report and implement reform in due course.
implement reform in due course. implement reform in due course.
12:15
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
This government is hosting a
record number of sitting days, 4000 more than the previous government. To bring the backlog, we must launch reform and that is why it lodged an
independent review led by Sir Brian Leveson. This government will
deliver swifter justice. deliver swifter justice.
12:16
Mrs Sarah Russell MP (Congleton, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
In 2016, 120 cases were dealt with in the Crown Court and that was never achieved again. The figure was
never achieved again. The figure was
The previous government likes to blame COVID for everything but there were problems in the system before that. There has been systematic failure to modernise processes in
our courts for years and years, as we hear far too often from the Justice Select Committee. What more
can we do to utilise technology to make courts more efficient and
secure faster outcomes for victims? secure faster outcomes for victims?
12:17
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The honourable lady is right to note the following rate of disposals
and that has happened in previous years and that is why I've asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at improving
this including both technical AI- related reform. We will need a 3-
pronged approach with more funding,
which are delivered, once in a generation form which Sir Brian
Leveson is looking at, and going further on productivity and efficiency in the system. That is why we will get swifter justice for victims.
victims.
12:17
Alison Bennett MP (Mid Sussex, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
The backlog in the criminal
justice system has seen offenders in my Tsikhanouski free to commit crime while waiting for the judicial
process. I met with residents last
week and discussed the backlogs are making the job it is already hard
even harder and making the lives of residents a misery. How will they deal with the backlog which is
deal with the backlog which is leading to offenders roaming free?
leading to offenders roaming free?
12:18
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
We are tackling these issues. As soon as I came into office, I increased the number of sitting dead by 2500 and increased sentencing powers for magistrates and also
criminal legal aid, which underpinned the whole system. For the next financial year we are funding a record hundred and 10,000
Crown Court sitting days and combining that with the reform and the court signed dealing with the
mind and the system, that is how we
mind and the system, that is how we will deal with the problems that she has rightly noted.
has rightly noted.
This government inherited prisoners on the point of collapse
with a rising and record backlog. Eight months on, the work of
restoring justice is well underway. I have announced record investment
in court signed next year the Crown Courts will sit for hundred and
10,000 days which is the highest allocation in recorded history. I financed vital reform to the
probation service and recruited 1300 new probation officers. I visited
Texas where a top and smart approach highs reduce reoffending and cut
crime to the lowest levels since the 1960s in the US and probably prison population under control.
There is
much we can learn from this law and order state, particularly getting
offenders to turn their backs on a life of crime. Through the plan for
change, the government is delivering swifter justice, using punishment to cut crime, and making streets safer. cut crime, and making streets safer.
12:19
Mr Gregory Campbell MP (East Londonderry, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
Copy Link
-
Over 130 people every week on average across the UK died as the
lead drug-related causes, more than 6005 families and homes devastated
6005 families and homes devastated
each year by this loss of light. -- 6500. Will she commit to working with devolved administrations to review enforcement regarding the use of all illegal substances?
12:20
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
He makes an incredibly important
12:20
Ian Lavery MP (Blyth and Ashington, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
He makes an incredibly important
The fixing of the problems that he most requires work from the Ministry of Justice, the devolved administrations, office as well and I will ensure he can engage with the
relevant ministers on the issue he raises.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Serious assaults were up by 22%.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Serious assaults were up by 22%. The principal edge of prison officers is 68. Can the Minister of
officers is 68. Can the Minister of House on discussions he may have had on the subject and say what these
12:20
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
on the subject and say what these loyal public servants made expect to see?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my honourable friend for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my honourable friend for his question. We recognise the unique role prison officers play in protecting the public and reducing reoffending. The Lord Chancellor
reoffending. The Lord Chancellor requested advice on the pension age for prison officers and we will continue to engage this complex
continue to engage this complex issue, considering the wider
issue, considering the wider context. Meeting with the Member for
12:21
Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP (Newark, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
context. Meeting with the Member for Aberdeenshire to discuss this meeting and I would be happy for the honourable member to join that meeting if he wishes. Met yesterday,
the Sentencing Council issued a letter correcting the Justice
Secretary and made clear the new guidelines were not the same as those under the last government and
explained to the part and supported
the new two-tiered guidance. Her representative was at the meeting and it was approved on January 24. Her officials were given a walk-
Her officials were given a walk-
through on March 3, dummies guide to two-tiered justice.
I brought this to her attention last Wednesday and her team finished the papers that
her team finished the papers that
12:22
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
she was, "Incandescent." What she incandescent at officials or
incandescent at officials or unfilled your to read the papers --
unfilled your to read the papers -- out her own field used our inability to do the job. Monkey is clearly not
to do the job. Monkey is clearly not done his work. His government was
done his work. His government was consulted extensively on this. It appears he cannot. The latter clearly states the consultation that
clearly states the consultation that place under his government and shows
they were consulted numerous times on the new guidance, which welcome.
I notice you did not refer to the welcoming of the cadence. The change
he refers to he knows full well as minor. It is about raising ethnic
and cultural guidance. He cannot hide behind that. The last few days have been an expert lesson from the
member opposite who has shown us how to throw the shadow transport secretary under the bus.
12:23
Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP (Newark, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I would have thought she would know the difference between the last
guidance and the new ones as a lawyer. In this government, you
never know who is a real lawyer or is pretending to be one. In 2021, by
the admission of the Justice Secretary, we will have two-tiered justice and her plan to fix this
will not come into place for a year. It is unacceptable. She has been too lazy to do her job. I will do it for
her.
Today, I am presenting a bill to block these guidelines and to fix
to block these guidelines and to fix
our mass. It is here, it is ready to go. Will she support it and stand with us on this side of the House for equality under the law or will
12:24
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
it be two-tiered justice with her
it be two-tiered justice with her and to deter Keir? Three he is
pretending to be the Leader of the Opposition. That is the only
Opposition. That is the only pretence. We all know exactly what
he is about. My reaction in what has happened in relation to the guidelines was clear when we did the oral statement and we will never
oral statement and we will never stand for a two tier approach to
sentencing but I am looking at fixing the problem rather than looking for about to jump and that
is why I've written to the Sentencing Council and will meet with them later this week and I've
made it clear I will consider the role and powers under failure to
legislate, I will do so.
I will make sure whatever changes happen from other workable and deliver the first
system we all need, one that his government did not deliver.
12:25
Liz Twist MP (Blaydon and Consett, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The principal of the quality
before the law is integral to the justice system. The new guidelines
from the Sentencing Council welcomed by the previous government have put
this principle actors. Does the Lord Chancellor agree with me the benches opposite have a lot of explaining to
do? do?
12:25
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I notice in the reference to letters that the Shadow Lord Chancellor did not refer to the
letter from the now Shadow Transport Secretary who welcomed the guidelines and the nose full well
they were referring to guidelines around race, ethnicity, cultural background. background.
12:25
Vikki Slade MP (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
The government's statistics on women sure that they are often
prosecuted for more minor offences and have shorter sentences and this
is a huge effect on their children socially and emotionally at increases the likelihood of them
being taken into care. What step to the Department taking to deliver the Female Offender Strategy and beyond
that, thinking about the negative impact on children of offenders?
impact on children of offenders? impact on children of offenders?
12:26
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
She raises an important point and that is why I set up the Women's Justice Board to make specific recommendations I believe these are
areas of policy properly made by elected dieticians and we will make progress, particularly with mothers,
because we know the harm passes down generations and we are determined to stop it. stop it.
12:26
Jessica Toale MP (Bournemouth West, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Victims of rape have been
consistently failed by the justice
system. 60% of victims dropped out of cases under the Tories and in Bournemouth the charging rate is only 8%. Given the outrage with
12:27
Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
vertebrate court backlog and the state of the system which was left to us by their own government, can the Lord Chancellor tell us what we
the Lord Chancellor tell us what we are doing to fix the problem and put
are doing to fix the problem and put victims first? Carefully considering the best way to fight drug terms of
the best way to fight drug terms of rape to be certain. We are extending independent legal advisers so they
12:27
Lewis Cocking MP (Broxbourne, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
independent legal advisers so they can access first to make sure they know their rights and they are
protected.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The government says foreign national offenders make up 12% of
12:28
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
national offenders make up 12% of the prison population. Cabinet minister tell me that the number will be zero? I can tell him the government has
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I can tell him the government has made faster progress on deportation with numbers that are 20% higher than the same time last year and
12:28
Darren Paffey MP (Southampton Itchen, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
will keep going forward.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A constituent of mine and set them, aged just 21, tragically died
after accessing pro suicide online forums that encourage self-harm and
advertised how to get people little drugs and exploit loopholes that
drugs and exploit loopholes that allow this. The substance used in her death can still be bought on Amazon today. Footsteps will the
12:28
Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Amazon today. Footsteps will the Minister take to close these loopholes and ensure the law is keeping young people safe actively?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am sorry to hear about the tragic case in his constituency.
tragic case in his constituency. Encouraging or assisting suicide is
Encouraging or assisting suicide is an offence under the suicide act and encouraging self-harm is an offence in the Online Safety Act of 2023 but
12:28
Sarah Bool MP (South Northamptonshire, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
in the Online Safety Act of 2023 but we will be tightening up the law to
make sure the situation is addressed and it is not just the law but the enforcement of it as well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We all agreed that the backlog
must be cleared in the courts of justice for victims is essential but can I ask the Minister if they are
12:29
Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
can I ask the Minister if they are giving the advice of the Law Society not to waste precious time and resources intermediate court and ask what engagement they have had with
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the Law Society in this regard? Our priority is delivering swifter justice for victims and
swifter justice for victims and dealing with the Crown court backlog and that is B5 Sir Brian Leveson to
12:29
Paula Barker MP (Liverpool Wavertree, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
and that is B5 Sir Brian Leveson to consider all options including intermediate court and we must have a whole-of-system reform and by
excluding those options we might not
deal with the problem. There are significant percentage of those who experience homelessness are ex-
offenders and I've raised concerns that the drive to alleviate this crisis must not extend to the
homelessness emergency. The debris Prime Minister is in the middle of forming a ministerial group to deal
with mustard. Will they play a role to ensure the Ministry of Justice is adequately represented? Speak about
adequately represented? Speak about my honourable friend makes a good point and the Ministry of Justice will take full part in that.
12:30
Rt Hon Esther McVey MP (Tatton, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I welcome the Secretary of
State's attempts to prevent the
Sentencing Council changing the process of sentencing which will
lead to a two-tiered justice system. If the Sentencing Council will not budge, as appeared to be the case,
this two-tiered justice system will take place in just 21 days, going against the key principles of the
legal system that everybody should be equal before the law without
discrimination. Will she introduce legislation immediately to make sure
this two-tiered justice system does
this two-tiered justice system does
12:31
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I have written to the Sentencing Council using the powers I have to do so. I will be meeting them later
this week. I made it clear I will consider the role and powers of the consider the role and powers of the Sentencing Council and if I need to legislate, I will not hesitate to do so.
12:31
-
Copy Link
One of my constituents has put up
with prolonged financial abuse because of drawn out divorce financial order proceedings which
largely ignore domestic abuse except
in rare cases. Will the Minister review proceedings guidance to make sure they properly consider the impact of domestic abuse and prevent the legal system from being used as
control?
12:31
Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank my honourable friend for that question and my thoughts are
with his constituent as she navigates this difficulty. We will consider the 2024 report on
financial provision on divorce. It did look into the important issue of domestic abuse and how this factors
in. We will also consult on our manifesto commitment to strengthen the rights and protections of
cohabiting couples. Because all abuse is abuse, financial or otherwise.
12:32
Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
When somebody enters this country illegally from another country to
which we are not allowed to deport them, and when they have previously
expressed support for terrorism and terror organisations, but not in
this jurisdiction, is the Secretary of State for Justice content that
the government has enough powers to protect the community from these
people walking free in our society? people walking free in our society?
12:32
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
This is an incredibly important point. I am discussing with the Home Secretary the full range of powers
we need and she has already made it clear we will not hesitate to act
further if we need to. It is important that we are able to deport offenders who pose a risk to our country.
12:33
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Last week at a Justice Select Committee meeting, it was confirmed that an effective Probation Service
is essential to rehabilitate
offenders and prevent reoffending. But over the years there has been an immense strain on the service
because of increased demand. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure probation officers have manageable caseload and support is provided for mental health and well-being, to avoid burnout and to
help with the recruitment and retention of staff?
12:33
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I pay tribute to the Probation Service. My honourable friend is right to point to the chaotic running of the service under the
last government. We are actively monitoring the effectiveness of the
probation reset, assessing the impact on work capacity, time saved and increased focused on individuals
posing a risk to public safety. We recognise the pressure probation officers have been under which is
why we have put in place well-being support models across our services,
including dedicated leads for prison and probation services.
12:34
Rt Hon Jonathan Reynolds MP (Stalybridge and Hyde, Labour )
-
Copy Link
-
Could the Secretary of State
outline what work she is doing with the Victims' Commissioner to make sure that families of British citizens murdered abroad have the
same rights as families of homicide victims in the UK? victims in the UK?
12:34
Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I regularly meet with the
Victims' Commissioner and local representatives to look at these issues affecting families. We are strengthening powers and legislation
which has been brought forward. We are strengthening the code and we will bring in any other measures needed to protect families wherever
A constituent of mine suffered a
A constituent of mine suffered a horrific murder, stabbed more than 140 times. The mother has been desperately trying to get hold of the court transcript to no avail.
Will ministers please meet with me to help this still grieving mother?
12:35
Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I am horrified to hear about this
case. Of course as I mentioned, these transcript of the sentencing
remarks should have been made available free of charge. I'm happy to meet with him to discuss how transcript of this and transcript
more broadly can be made available. more broadly can be made available.
12:35
Siân Berry MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green Party)
-
Copy Link
-
On radio four last week, a judge praised the extreme helpfulness of
presentencing reports to pass effective sentencing. Will the
Of the independence of the sentencing Council? sentencing Council?
12:36
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I think we can all agree that presentencing reports play a vital role in making sure whoever is
passing sentence as the relevant facts at their disposal. I don't believe access to those reports or
if somebody asks for them should be dictated by race or ethnic background. It should be made available and I would like to see more use of pre-sentence report
offender.
12:36
Kim Johnson MP (Liverpool Riverside, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Manchester Met University estimate more than 1,000 people are
convicted each year of this offence costing the taxpayer 1.2 billion
each year. Do we need to amend the law and free up spaces in our
prisons? prisons?
12:36
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I think the law on joint enterprise has already developed somewhat after the previous court of appeal decision. I know that the
This under review. At this point we
This under review. At this point we have no plans to go further but I am happy to make sure she can meet with the relevant minister. the relevant minister.
12:37
Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)
-
Copy Link
-
Across the United Kingdom, the definition is being as for the purpose of finding out who the
deceased was, how, when and where
they died. They are not trials. They
are not about assigning blame. Even when they extend into article two investigations. Yet in Northern Ireland, we have had findings of
bullying in respect of soldiers on the killing of active terrorists. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Crime and Policing Bill would afford an opportunity with a
suitable amendment to bring uniformity to the operation across
the United Kingdom of this issue?
12:37
Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The honourable gentleman is right
to confirm an inquest should be an inquisitive process and not
adversarial. I will of course raise the issues he mentions with the Secretary of State. What is deemed
to be Inskip of legislation is a to be Inskip of legislation is a matter for the local authorities and the leader of the house.
12:38
-
Copy Link
Prison maintenance privatisation has been an utter disaster. When
will we take it back in-house?
12:38
Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
We are investing approximately
£500 million over two years in
maintenance to improve conditions across the estate. It is fair to say we inherited a system in serious
need of repair. The estimated cost of bringing the prison estate to a fair condition and maintaining it to the end of the decade is £2.8
billion. The programs are underway and we will make as much progress as possible.
12:38
-
Copy Link
If you keep standing it makes it easier for me.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. One of the key objectives of the Sentencing Council is to make sure there is parity of sentence up and down the country. It
sentence up and down the country. It is a known fact that people from
is a known fact that people from ethnic minorities sometimes get a tougher custodial sentences than
tougher custodial sentences than white counterparts for similar offences. Does the Lord Chancellor
offences. Does the Lord Chancellor regret the attempt to discredit the considered and evidence-based conclusions of some of the most esteemed members of the judiciary
12:39
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
esteemed members of the judiciary when they published guidelines in reference to the report?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
What I was shocked about was here as a disparity we can see in terms of overall sentencing outcomes.
of overall sentencing outcomes. Everybody except we are not sure why that is happening and there has not been sufficient curiosity to work
been sufficient curiosity to work out why it is in fact happening. If you can see a problem or you think you have a problem, you need to get to the bottom of what is going on
to the bottom of what is going on
before you start coming up with broad policy solutions to fix those problems.
I also think some of these decisions are better made by ministers because we are directly linked to individuals who will pay
12:40
Steve Race MP (Exeter, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
linked to individuals who will pay the price of our choices and I am picking this up with the Sentencing
Council when I meet them.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Elaine Cox was brutally murdered in Exeter in 2020 and her murderer dismembered her body. Her family
dismembered her body. Her family have never been able to fully lay her to rest. There has been a campaign for the implementation of a
12:40
Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
campaign for the implementation of a law meaning the desecration of a body or concealment would become a separate offence. Will the Minister meet me to discuss whether the implementation of this law is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
possible? I will happily meet with my
12:40
Blake Stephenson MP (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
further. What is this government doing to crack down on unqualified people representing themselves as solicitors?
12:41
Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
solicitors? As he well knows, this profession
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As he well knows, this profession is highly regulated. We have the regulation authority which in itself is regulated by the Legal Services
is regulated by the Legal Services Board. All of our professionals across the country, whether they
practice in criminal or civil are highly respected and regulated. We are indebted to them.
12:41
Jonathan Hinder MP (Pendle and Clitheroe, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I was shocked to read the council response to the Secretary of State
last night and the arrogant tone. As the Secretary of State said, this
Parliament is sovereign. The fact is we have given too much power away to unelected bodies in recent years.
Can I reassure her of my support and can she reassure me that she will
not rest until we do retain equality before the law?
12:41
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I am looking forward to my meeting with the sentencing Council
later this week. As I made clear, I
am looking into the role and powers of the council and I will not hesitate to legislate if I need to.
12:41
Sir Ashley Fox MP (Bridgwater, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
The two tear sentencing
guidelines take effect on April 1.
If the Lord Chancellor is sincere about having a justice system treating everybody equally, will she not support our bill to block the
guidelines?
12:42
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I have made my position clear. I
have written to the Sentencing Council. I am leasing them this week. I am reviewing the role and
powers of the council and I will legislate if I need to do so.
12:42
Andy Slaughter MP (Hammersmith and Chiswick, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Chair of the select committee.
with the highest drug use rates in
the country, from drones, body scanners and physical scanning, they all felt under resourced in terms of investment. What is the Minister
investment. What is the Minister doing to better equip and staff?
12:42
Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
We have pressed ahead already with further measures on x-ray scanners, baggage scanners and we are taking action to deal with the
are taking action to deal with the
problem in relation to drones. For security considerations, I cannot get the detail of some of the mitigations and proposals we have for tackling drones. We will know
they are used by serious organised but I can assure him ministers, myself and officials and people in
the prison estate are aware of this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
matter and we are determined to crack down on drones bringing drugs to prisons. That completes questions. I will
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That completes questions. I will
12:43
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We We are We are now We are now going We are now going to We are now going to come We are now going to come to We are now going to come to the oral statement. North sea vessel
collision.
collision.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Mr Speaker, with permission, I wish to make a statement regarding the collision between two vessels off the east coast of Yorkshire that occurred yesterday. I want to begin
by offering my thanks to all those who responded on the front line from His Majesty's coastguard, local
His Majesty's coastguard, local emergency services, in a challenging situation and I know I speak for this House when I say that the
this House when I say that the ongoing efforts are brave and hugely
ongoing efforts are brave and hugely appreciated.
I also want to thank the international partners for their
the international partners for their many offers of help to the UK and the support from the maritime community. This is a fast moving
situation. Let me set out the facts as I currently have them. At 9.47
yesterday, vessels sailing collided
with an anchored vessel in the North Sea. A fuel tanker sailing under the
Sea. A fuel tanker sailing under the
of the United States, and operated by the U.S.
Navy. The collision occurred at approximately 30 nautical miles off the coast. I
broke out on both vessels. After initial firefighting attempts were overwhelmed by the size and nature of the fire, both crews abandoned
ship. Firefighting and search and rescue operations coordinated by His Majesty's coastguard continued
throughout the day. Pausing in the evening when darkness fell. Firefighting activity resumed this
morning and I'm pleased to say the
fire on the Immaculate but the Solong continues to burn. They
became attached during the incident
but there was a detachment and Solong began drifting south.
Should
it remain afloat it will be clear of land for the next few hours. The assessment of the coastguard is however it is unlikely that the
vessel will remain afloat. Tugboats are in the vicinity to make sure that the Solong remains away from
the coast and to respond as the
I want to be clear that while there
are exclusion zones around both vessels, there traffic is
continuing. The full crew of 23 on
the 'Immaculate' is accounted for.
One man was treated at the scene but
declined further assistance. Search and rescue operations for the
and rescue operations for the
missing sailor continued throughout yesterday but record of the evening at the point at which the chances of their survival had unfortunately
significantly diminished. The working assumption is that the sailor is deceased, very sadly. The
Coast Guard has advised the family and have been advised to and from
the next of kin. Our thoughts are
with loved ones at this time.
The MV
Stena was carrying jet fuel which was the cause of the fire. I am
aware of the media reporting regarding the materials on board but we are unable to confirm at this
time but can a pollution measures and assets were already in place and both vessels are being closely
monitored for integrity. There has been a group established through the
local resilience Forum. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch has
begun an investigation at the site. They are rapidly developing a plan
to salvage the vessels once it is safe to do so.
The Department Of Transport will continue to work with the Cabinet Office and other
government agencies and the Resilience Forum on the response.
Colleagues across the House will appreciate the situation is unfolding as I speak and I will try to answer questions from honourable
members with as much detail as I
have at my disposal. I commend the statement to the House.
12:48
Jerome Mayhew MP (Broadland and Fakenham, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the Minister for his statement in advance. Yesterday
morning, shortly before 10 AM, the MV 'Solong' collided with the 'Stena
Immaculate' which was at anchor. The
'Stena Immaculate' was on short-term charter to the scene of command and was carrying 20,000 barrels of jet
fuel. The Minister has not confirmed the cargo of the 'Solong' but has
confirmed it was carrying 15 containers of toxic sodium cyanide.
I listened carefully but can be Minister confirm this is no longer
his understanding? The collision and the resulting spill are concerning.
Before questioning the Minister and
the government response, I join him on paying tribute to the Coast Guard, the RNLI, emergency services,
and all others who have responded. The emergency services were on the
scene swiftly and their action saved many lives. Approaching furiously
burning vessels with the risk of explosion takes enormous bravery and we all commend them. I'm grateful
for the confirmation that all the mariners from the 'Stena Immaculate'
have been recovered at 13 of the 14
from the 'Solong' have been brought safely ashore.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the family of the missing sailor from that group. I understand the search for life has
been concluded but can he update the House on the efforts being made to
recover that matter now? Will he
commit to remaining vigilant to ensure any indications of foul play are carefully investigated? Given
the involvement of both US and media-registered ships, what impact
will this have on the investigative process and that the government
contacted respective governments to ensure close cooperation? The Secretary of State will be aware of
the concern regarding the oil spill on the surrounding marine environment.
Environmental
organisations avoid the potentially devastating impact from the tankers of the habitat including threaten
the bread qualities, grey seals,
We are sea life could be devastated.
I see been briefed by the Environment Agency on their response? The Minister made reference to the risk of the
'Solong'. Kindly update the House on
what steps have been taken to ensure that doesn't happen? I understand the preliminary investigation into the emergency has begun. I am
pleased the Minister is working closely with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency by the conduct assessment of the response and I
also seek assurances from the government to closely engaged with
local communities you will be concerned about the impact of the
collision on the environment.
This incident involves multiple government departments spanning environmental protection, maritime safety, Defence, chemical transport
regulation. Effective cross- government cooperation is essential.
Can be Minister assure the House such cooperation is taking place? It
is too early to draw significant conclusions at this stage but it is
clear that something went terribly wrong in the handling of these two vessels. We will support the
Minister in whatever action is needed to ensure the high standards of safety on the high seas. of safety on the high seas.
12:52
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the honourable member for
that. It did go terribly wrong, he is exactly right. My thoughts and prayers are with the family of the
missing sailor. They have been
informed that his next of kin are being informed. In terms of the questions you asked, what we know
for sure is the 'Immaculate' was
carrying 20,000 barrels of -- A1 jet
fuel and get to determine the cargo of the 'Solong'. I will make that available to the House as soon as I
can.
We will do everything to retrieve the matter now. We know
that lives are lost at sea but some comfort is given when rescue
comfort is given when rescue
services bring them back for proper burial. Whether they are as follow
player speculation. There is no evidence to suggest that. We are in contact with American and Portuguese
counterparts. In terms of the country pollution measures that the
mentioned -- counter pollution. They
are standing by and will use counter pollution measures at the necessary
time but the immediate concern is to protect the fire on the 'Solong'.
He
mentioned the issue of drift. The 'Stena Immaculate' remains anchored.
It is the 'Solong' that is drifting
at two nautical miles per hour. The
order will be given to intervene as when necessary to protect any life
onshore. He's right about the Marine Accident Investigation Bureau. We
have deployed those assets and they are working with the local
resilience Forum and I pass on my
thanks to the Humberside Resilience Forum at this time and assure and government agencies are working together effectively and giving
ministers and the Secretary of State
regular updates with situation reports I the night went on and I the day continues.
the day continues.
12:54
Ruth Cadbury MP (Brentford and Isleworth, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I endorse the minutes are's thanks to
the minutes are's thanks to
frontline workers involved and his concern for the family of the missing sailor. We are waiting for
the report. Will be Minister confirm
how the roots are being managed now
while the 'Solong' is drifting? And what else to happen in terms of the
pollution and so on in order to not delay further movement of shipping in these busy waters and also to
protect welfare of seafarers in other ships? other ships?
12:55
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the Chair of the
Transport Committee for the question. It is an incredibly busy
see highway as we know and I had the privilege of visiting on almost my
last visit us the Shadow Minister for Maritime before the last
election and I pay tribute to them and their hard work in dealing with
the situation. The 'Stena Immaculate' was anchored and it is the 'Solong' that is drifting and
there is an exclusion zone of 1000m
around them.
Other assets are allowed to traverse the estuary but if that changes, I will make that information available during the
12:56
Mr Paul Kohler MP (Wimbledon, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
day.
day. I thank the Minister in advance of the statement. The news reports concerning and our thoughts are with
concerning and our thoughts are with all those affected, the family of the crewmember who remains unaccounted for. This reminds us of
the risks those who work in the sector phase. These men and women often work long and challenging hours keeping the economy going and
hours keeping the economy going and we are hugely grateful to them. We are indebted to the emergency services, the RNLI, the coastguard,
for tireless work through the night had been all that they are doing all
that they can do limit the damage environmental impact and did much to
mitigate the loss of life.
It is clear the government has to take
urgent steps to deal with the damage and reassure community. I welcome
the formation of the group handling this on the work they are doing with other agencies. This is an unfortunate situation and I appreciate many questions cannot be
answered at this stage. What images The Government Taking to Protect the
Environment on the East Coast? What is being done to keep the shipping
routes open had said? And what plans are the government had to support
are the government had to support fishing and small industries that rely on the waters?
12:57
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I joined the Minister in thanking
them workers. They have kept us fed, fuelled, and supplied throughout COVID and indeed do so every day and
every week within our nation. I cannot commend them more highly. I
also join him in paying tribute to the emergency services. This is difficult, hard work. They are doing
an essential job in those circumstances. We have, as I have
circumstances. We have, as I have
said, the MCA is standing by with marine and counter pollution measures and we will begin to deploy
measures and we will begin to deploy
them once the fire is out and we will assess the situation and deploy measures and it's vital we keep shipping lanes open as best we can
in the estuary as this continues and that is why we have placed an exclusion zone of 1000m around both
ships, currently outside of where maritime vessels can operate as
normal in the circumstance.
12:58
Melanie Onn MP (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I would like to thank the
Minister for his communication with me through this unfolding situation and everybody who has been involved
in it. It is evolving, minute by
minute. I pay tribute to the local
RNLI, Coastguard, emergency services for the rapid response the local community had been heavily involved in readying themselves for any
potential ecological or environmental followed from the incident. I do not know whether the
incident. I do not know whether the
Minister is aware by Ernst Russ have put out a statement saying the
hazardous chemical was on board the 'Solong' and that they will continue
to monitor the cargo.
I wonder if
the Minister has had any success in tracking down the manifest for the 'Solong' to get reassurance and
reassure my constituents and put their minds at ease about exactly
their minds at ease about exactly
what was on the initial report from the Maritime Accident Investigation
Branch so we can understand what happened in this extraordinary event. event.
13:00
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank my honourable friend who has kept in contact with me throughout the night and this
morning as well. As I said, we visited together the command and
control centre just before the general election in her constituency to see the excellent facilities
there. I pay tribute to the Humberside Local Resilience Forum
made up from police, fire and
rescue, NHS, MCGG, PCC environmental agencies, MOT, and other organisations. They are working at
pace to assert any risk to local
people that may occur and I am working hard at that.
In terms of the benefits, there has been a lot
of press reports over the days. The facts are the facts. Hundred and
facts are the facts. Hundred and
20,000 barrels of jet fuel -- 220,000 barrels of jet fuel and they are working at pace to establish the
cargo of the 'Solong' which sailed from Grangemouth so I hope we can
get that information from the manifest at ports and as soon as we find that out, we will make that
find that out, we will make that
13:01
Rt Hon Graham Stuart MP (Beverley and Holderness, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I joined the Minister in saluting the heroic rescuers and mourn the loss of the mariner. There was a lack of communication regarding
yesterday's maritime disaster off the coast in my constituency. Apart
from a brief phone call after I reach out to the Secretary of State
for Transport, and I spoke to the leader of the local council, the Police and Crime Commissioner and
local councillors, all struggling to get information about what was going
on just miles from the coast.
My constituents I believe deserve
better. I must ask the Minister, why
did it take so long for the local resilience Forum to be set up? Is he confident we have the proper structures in place when a disaster
like this happens? How can we make sure communications improve going
forward? What work is being done to protect wildlife and beaches in our
protect wildlife and beaches in our
area? How can we make sure the agencies responsible are held to account? Perhaps he could respond while he was missing in action yesterday and we can hear not just
from 24-hour rolling media but from the elected government what was happening with this terrible disaster.
disaster.
13:03
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I was dealing with the situation,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I was dealing with the situation,
Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State made a statement. We set up the Maritime and coastguard and within minutes a response was ongoing. The honourable member had a call from a
honourable member had a call from a member of staff with the Secretary of State within an hour or two of the situation, being fully informed.
the situation, being fully informed. A local resilience Forum was est. We deployed assets for marine protection at the site. I am not sure what the honourable member is
sure what the honourable member is asking for.
But I think I am very proud of the agencies, local and
13:03
Alison Hume MP (Scarborough and Whitby, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
proud of the agencies, local and national, working at pace to get us
**** Possible New Speaker ****
where we are now currently. I welcome the Minister's timely statement and would like to
statement and would like to associate myself with his praise for the swift response of the emergency
the swift response of the emergency services and RNLI volunteers. Over recent years, fishermen on the east coast of Yorkshire, including
coast of Yorkshire, including Scarborough and Whitby a battle to keep going against the background of
keep going against the background of the effect of the crustacean dial of
the effect of the crustacean dial of Of jet fuel leaking into the sea.
I appreciate this is a fast moving situation. Could my honourable
friend tell the House more about the counter pollution measures in place and the predicted weather conditions
and the predicted weather conditions and how they will affect the ongoing operation?
13:04
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Yes, I know members on the north-east coast on all sides of this House had been worried over a number of years about the crustacean
situation and jet oil could be
leaking into the sea. Every resource is being deployed by agencies to
assess the extent of the pollution and every resource will be put into clean up that pollution. I happen to
be meeting with a fishermen organisation later in the week for
separate reasons. I hope to be able to update on further information at
trade.
13:05
Tom Gordon MP (Harrogate and Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I have been in communication with councillors in East Riding and the
Liberal Democrat administration in Hull. Yesterday the leader of the council raised calls for a rapid government response and I would
really push the Minister on clarity
about what we should see from the tactical coordination group and whether there is a government commitment to make sure that any environmental and economic impact will be covered by the government
and what support will we see down the line if there are unintended consequences as a result of pollution? pollution?
13:05
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
It is standard procedure to bring
on board the local resilience Forum is in any case like this. That has
been done. It is up and running. I am grateful to all elected members
from whichever party and hard- working councillors who will be involved in this to make sure the best interests of the people of the
Humber region are protected at this time. I can say that yes we
currently have deployed all the
resources that are needed to contain this fire and to assess the environmental damage and any
spillage.
They are on site at the moment and we will make decisions in conjunction with the local resilience Forum as we go through resilience Forum as we go through the day and for the rest of the week, I believe.
13:06
Luke Myer MP (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I wish to add my voice to the call made by my honourable friend
and neighbour for Scarborough and Whitby about the perilous position of the Teeside and North Yorkshire marine ecosystem after the
environmental disaster we suffered
in 2021. I would ask the Minister to really make sure that the response is not only around the Humber
estuary, but also assessing the environmental impact for the entire east coast as well.
13:07
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The counter pollution assets are being deployed, including the RNLI
and search and rescue and aviation. They have all been on site though
the search and rescue has been stood down. I point out to the honourable
member that both vessels were also
carrying marine heavy fuel oil. This of course is a pollution risk should either vessel sink or break apart at
this time.
13:07
Charlie Dewhirst MP (Bridlington and The Wolds, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the Minister for his statement today and echo his comments with relation to the missing sailor. I thank all those involved in the rescue operation.
Particularly at the RNLI station in Bridlington. Constituents in
Bridlington are worried about the environmental and ecological impact. Not least because we have the
biggest bird Connelly -- colony in mainland Britain. The largest shellfish landing port in the UK. We have around 5 million visitors who
come to the area every year to enjoy the local beaches.
Has the Minister had any assessment as yet of the direction of any potential pollution
direction of any potential pollution
and the current wind direction and what they will do if any pollution eventually ends up there? eventually ends up there?
13:08
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The honourable gentleman is right to raise this issue. I spoke to the Minister late last night on this.
The Met office tell us that modelling uses theoretical models to plot the potential movement of the
smoke and in a similar way it forecasts weather and air quality
forecasts weather and air quality
with onshore monitoring, being in this area. The immediate concern is to stop the fire so that we can assess around the pollution. As soon
as the fire is out, inspectors can either move nearer or move in to
assess the extent of the spillage if there is one and then we can begin
to deploy the resources to tackle it.
it.
13:09
Ian Lavery MP (Blyth and Ashington, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Mr Speaker, my constituency of Blyth and Ashington is on the north-east coast, probably round
about 150 miles from this horrendous disaster. Can the Minister say if
there has been any initial assessment on how this disaster and
where the pollution might move to
where the pollution might move to and is there a potential threat I should say to the coastline of the north-east of England?
13:09
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the honourable member for his question. The Met office is modelling the situation with wind at
the moment. We need to get the fire out on the Solong. Then we can make
a further assessment of what is required and in which direction any pollution, if any is moving and we will deploy assets to tackle that
when we know for sure.
13:10
Rt Hon Alistair Carmichael MP (Orkney and Shetland, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
It is just over 32 years now
since the grounding Shetland but for us the memories are still very
fresh. And for those on the east
coast of England that are braced, we know exactly how they will be
feeling. We may not know what happened here. But I think we can be
pretty certain in saying that somewhere, something of this sort was going to happen. Such is the
nature and the way in which shipping is regulated and owned across the world.
In Shetland for years we have
been warning about the dangers of anchoring right by our shoreline and others in areas marked to be
avoided. But it is almost impossible to get any agency to take ownership
of that. Can we use this moment, because I know the Minister has concerns, to take a serious look
about how we protect coastlines and island communities in the future?
13:11
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the honourable gentleman for his expertise. He has raised
this issue of his constituency of
this issue of his constituency of
Shetland and Orkney. I understand there has to be a proper lookout and
there has to be sound lookout and all other methods so something has
gone wrong here. As difficult as it
is to say, accidents always provide an opportunity to see how we can do things better going forward. I'm hoping when the accident investigation branch comes back with
initial findings and substantive
findings which will come to my desk, we can learn the lessons of this accident.
accident.
13:12
Martin Vickers MP (Brigg and Immingham, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I join with others in praising the emergency services and would
the emergency services and would
also add that the port of Grimsby East supported the emergency services. Obviously the concern at the moment is extinguishing the
fire. Looking longer term, there will be a potential impact on the
local community in as much as
pollution and so on with beaches and the like. Can the Minister give us assurance that he and other
government departments will work closely with the council and other agencies to make sure that any support is needed will be available?
13:12
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The honourable member has form because he has the port of
Gillingham in his constituency. That is where the Immaculate was waiting
to unload cargo when a birth became available. I can assure him the
agency is on standby and logistics
agency is on standby and logistics
are in place to assess any potential pollution spillage if there is one. We will tackle it. But the priority as I said is to get the fire on the
Solong extinguished.
13:13
Richard Tice MP (Boston and Skegness, Reform UK)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the Minister for his statement and we congratulate everybody involved in the rescue
effort. Will the Minister join me in assessing the voluntary nature of
the emergency services such as the RNLI and the lifeboat from Skegness, those volunteers rushing out of their homes, out of their
businesses, manning the lifeboats
and the RNLI at Skegness was away for almost 11 hours, putting themselves in harm's way with bravery and we should never forget that. that.
13:14
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The honourable member has acted
with honour in terms of how this weekend in these circumstances with
one of his ex-members in this House, I am grateful to him. He is exactly
right. Our emergency services are
2nd to none. Our volunteers that help the coastguard and the RNLI are
2nd to none. These men and women
risk their lives braving the seas, the winds, the temperature and in this case the fog to go and do what they could at the scene and yesterday I have nothing but the highest praise for them.
highest praise for them.
13:15
James Wild MP (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
My constituency as a Norfolk coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and other vital habitats including the wash and fishing fleet. Given the location of the collision, there is local concern
about the potential impact. When
13:15
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
will a risk assessment be done about the potential risk of pollution down the east coast to Norfolk? What action is being taken to contain it?
action is being taken to contain it? Will he commit to keeping the public informed? MCA assets are deployed
informed? MCA assets are deployed currently to assess and monitor any potential environmental impact of
potential environmental impact of this accident. He is right that this
this accident. He is right that this is a rich, biodiversity area. The
priority remains to get the fire on the Solong out so we can get a proper evaluation of the situation.
Once that is done and the fire is out, I can tell him that we will use
all resources possible to ascertain the extent of the pollution and to
the extent of the pollution and to
13:16
Steff Aquarone MP (North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Can I put my thanks and appreciation particularly to the
resilience team in Norfolk? It is not clear what areas will be affected but the changing wind,
weather conditions, pollution can change. North Norfolk is currently
predicted to be unaffected and we are keeping a close eye on what
happens. The Minister confirm he will keep all MPs on the North Sea Coastline updated on developments
and if pollution which is North Norfolk, fishing communities will
get as much notice as possible what steps are in place to deal with this? this?
13:16
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The honourable member makes an important point as to how affected
coastal communities are by this type of incident and officials are monitoring the situation and we are
looking at this and as it currently
stands the resilience team is stood up and I'm happy to keep the House
informed on the ongoing situation, when it is required.
13:17
Rt Hon Dr Andrew Murrison MP (South West Wiltshire, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Automatic identification systems
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Automatic identification systems
and radar should mean this sort of thing does not happen, even in dense fog, which is why many of us thought
fog, which is why many of us thought this could be a maritime 9/11 type
this could be a maritime 9/11 type event but that appears to be not the case. It has exposed vulnerability and ships like the 'Stena
and ships like the 'Stena Immaculate' could be said to be sitting ducks. What did will the
13:17
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
sitting ducks. What did will the Minister undertake to deal with this
and will you do what is necessary to avoid such an incident? There I am grateful for the very good question
and in addition to my maritime responsibilities the Security Minister for the Department Of Transport and any lessons learnt in
13:18
Graham Leadbitter MP (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, Scottish National Party)
-
Copy Link
-
terms of this incident which can be used, we will learn them and
implement recommendations.
implement recommendations. This with reference to the 'Solong'?
This with reference to the 'Solong'? The Minister is where the 'Solong'
The Minister is where the 'Solong' is in danger of sinking. In terms of
the substances contained in these containers, it is vital that public information is put out about the
danger of the contents of the containers should any leak occurred.
containers should any leak occurred.
13:18
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank him for his question. The maritime authority is a reserve
power to me. It covers the UK. I
could not answer the first part of this. I do not want to speculate on the cargo until I have got the facts
confirmed by officials and then I can let the House know appropriately. appropriately.
13:19
Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
May I thank the Minister for the clarity of his statement and his
answers to the. Extraordinary that
there is such uncertainty as to whether a cargo as dangerous as
sodium cyanide was being carried on one of the vessels? Given that, as
he said, tugboats might be deployed to prevent the vessel running on the shores of the country, has considered that if the fire is too
considered that if the fire is too
dangerous for the approach, a role for the Royal Navy may be necessary under extreme circumstances? under extreme circumstances?
13:20
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I am grateful to the honourable member for his question. We are proud maritime nation with the
skills to transport all sorts of hazardous substances if needed. We
have the skills and the people and the ports and we have the shipping
lanes to do it. I ask the member not to speculate on what was contained
on board the 'Solong' because it has not been established but there have been multiple press reports and once
I know for sure, I will inform the House appropriately.
I also remained
the whole House that the UK is a world leader when it comes to
maritime assurance. This is what we do. We trade across the world and
bring goods and services across the world and ensure them and we should be proud of the maritime sector and
13:21
Ellie Chowns MP (North Herefordshire, Green Party)
-
Copy Link
-
be proud of the maritime sector and
the assurance sector as well. There I would like to pay tribute to everyone involved in the emergency response. Does the Minister share my
response. Does the Minister share my deep concern that more than 24 hours after the collision, we do not know
after the collision, we do not know the cargo on the MV 'Solong'? Surely we should know that at least. In
we should know that at least. In terms of the pollution, I understand this incident has taken place close
this incident has taken place close
to two protected areas.
Are those areas affected? What is the plan to clean them up? He mentioned the
measures are in with implemented because the priority is reducing fire but I understand the 'Stena
Immaculate' is no longer burning and that is the one with hundreds of that is the one with hundreds of litres of fuel.
13:21
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I there to the honourable member that I think this incident started
about 9:50 yesterday and within
minutes into the incident, assets
were stood up and the crews were
brought safely home apart from one member of the 'Solong'. We got the
assets in place. The assets are being deployed where it is safe to deploy them and the priority is deploy them and the priority is getting the fire at on the 'Solong'.
13:22
Wendy Chamberlain MP (North East Fife, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Several members have mentioned
the effects to the marine environment including endangered bird species which are returning to
colonies right now in places such as
the Isle of May. That is my constituency. What engagement if you
have been with those who run the colonies? Secondly, in relation to the Scottish government, if the
worst case scenario leads to pollution extending extensively, is
there plans for engagement between the Environment Agency and CIPA?
13:22
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The environment is at the front
of our mind and once we get the fire out we will make the impact assessment and clear up any
pollution if necessary. The Department is working across
government and we are looking at
protection, marine, fish,
environment, and liaising with them in the days ahead once we have the impact assessments, to see what is the best way forward. the best way forward.
13:23
Robin Swann MP (South Antrim, Ulster Unionist Party)
-
Copy Link
-
Can I join those paying tribute
to emergency services? The unknown
cargo of the 'Solong' is a major concern to those working on that
issue. In that instance, with regard to the UN maritime organisation
which has responsibility for safety and security of shipping and Marine and atmospheric pollution by ships, what engagement had the Minister had
with the UN in regard to this? What steps will they take in learning
from this to make sure any cargo from this to make sure any cargo that is at the is dealt with?
13:24
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I am grateful to be honourable
member and we are in discussions with both of the owners of the vessels and we know that the 'Solong' was sailing from
Grangemouth. It had a mixed cargo of containers and that is the only
information available to me. That information is currently being
analysed. I do not have that at the moment but as soon as I have it, we
will make it known. The 'Stena Immaculate' was carrying 220,000
barrels of A1 jet fuel and we know
that I can continue to make contingency plans around that in terms of that vessel.
13:25
Calum Miller MP (Bicester and Woodstock, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I would like to thank the Minister for his statement associate
myself with the recognition of the loss of life and potential loss of life and the communities affected. I
understand the probity is dealing with the immediate incident and there will be a fuel investigation
in due course. In light of the fact that the vessels were deployed to
the North Sea, can the Minister assure us that the government and its agencies will make an assessment
13:26
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
so we can be clear there has been no foreign interference in this
foreign interference in this terrible accident? The the answer to that is yes and the Minister For
that is yes and the Minister For Defence contacted last May to three they are ready and willing to be
they are ready and willing to be deployed if required. So far, the
not because we feel there is no malign intention to the incident but
malign intention to the incident but the Marine Accident Investigation Branch will investigate and give
initial findings as soon as humanly possible and I will read the final
report, as is my duty to do so, as Maritime Minister and we will take Maritime Minister and we will take the matter from there.
He is right to raise it.
13:26
Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the Minister very much
and all of those who responded. I also thank the Minister for his
endeavour because I understand he has been focused on this in the
House and I thank you for all he has done. Can the Minister of claim what
steps will be taken to investigate the failings with visual observation, radar on the automatic
observation, radar on the automatic
system, the AIS, which led to this and how can we make sure this is
and how can we make sure this is dealt with in a coordinated matter dealt with in a coordinated matter in terms of the long-term implications?
13:27
Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Can I update the House to say that as it stands, no sign of
pollution from vessels has been observed at this time but monitoring
is in place and if that changes, assets are in place and will be provided as needed. It is the latest information as the lead to me and in
terms of the question, that is a
matter for the Marine Accident Investigation Branch and the officials who are on the site and
were deployed yesterday and they
will be making surveys of the two vessels and reporting back to me
with initial findings when they can.
Subsequently, there will be a final
report for a sign of on my desk at some point in the future. I'm
**** Possible New Speaker ****
grateful for the support of the honourable member. I thank the Minister for his
13:28
David Simmonds MP (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the Minister for his statement. Point of order, David Simmons. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, David Lawrence, a former Labour elementary candidate,
former Labour elementary candidate, put a statement saying he was pleased to be invited to Downing
Street for a preview of the Planning And Infrastructure Bill, a landmark
piece of legislation which is yet to see the light of the. May I seek
your guidance on how we can make sure in future that important
legislation deserving the scrutiny of Parliament is first seen in this
House and not shared off-line with Labour Parliamentary candidates?
Labour Parliamentary candidates?
13:28
Rt Hon Angela Rayner MP, The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Ashton-under-Lyne, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the honourable member for his point of order. I am sure his comments will have been heard by the Surgery Bench.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can I assure the House that the
13:29
Rt Hon Caroline Nokes MP (Romsey and Southampton North, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can I assure the House that the Planning And Infrastructure Bill is coming to this pace and we regularly consult with stakeholders but no one had a preview before the House.
13:29
Presentation of Bills
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
had a preview before the House. I thank the Secretary of State for the point of clarification.
for the point of clarification. Presentation of the bill, Secretary
Angela Rayner. Planning and
Infrastructure Bill. Second reading.
What are they? Tomorrow. Presentation of bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sentencing Council Powers of Secretary Of State Bill. Friday,
13:29
Mr Peter Bedford MP (Mid Leicestershire, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Secretary Of State Bill. Friday,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Mr Peter Bedford. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I backed a move that leave be given
I backed a move that leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for financial implications and 20 properties because without it we are
properties because without it we are collectively creating the greatest financial crisis of our time. The problem, quite simply, is that as a
problem, quite simply, is that as a nation, we are not living within our means. There was once a sense that
means.
There was once a sense that people had certain financial responsibilities, to save for a
house, retirement, holidays, needy. Two truths of people have less than
£1000 in savings and as a result money has become caught up with
anxiety. How will BP bills, mortgages, tuition fees? We have
ignored anxiety over money for too
long with University, apprentices, and parents. We have high expectations but law means and an
expectations but law means and an
extraordinary and deeply unpleasant statistic is 97% of young people worry about money every single day.
Yet, we continue to spend, not least
because it is so easy. Offers pop on screens every day, created by
marketing wizards who now exactly where we are most vulnerable and
using our search history to create appetite for new books, video games, appliances, overseas trips. In a
single click, we are committed and plunge further into the red. Around
20 million people effectively pay on account, and not to look shop owners
who live locally at no them back to buy now and pay later schemes and at
extortionate rates of interest.
The
There is a solution to this, treating the problem at source. That
is through education. Young people need to understand how money works. The principle of saving, the dangers
and opportunities of compound interest. This isn't a new idea. The
coalition government brought in financial education for secondary schools. This bill aims to consolidate that learning. It extends provision to primary schools
and tertiary education. Money habits are formed at a very early age. From
the age of seven. Yet many school leavers remain in the dark.
55% of
those employing apprentices are aware that many of their workers face financial difficulties. This
does not require extra resource, just extra creativity. In fact, it
can bring the curriculum to life. For example, in Finland, or subjects
incorporate money into their teaching. In maths, problems linked
to savings and debt. Geography lessons explain the cost of deforestation on goods in the
supermarket. And IT lessons explain financial consequences and provide
extra credit for your favourite videogame. This is not a party political matter.
This bill will
reduce inequality. It will help explain the importance of property,
the benefits of homeownership. Of a comfortable retirement, what it takes to provide for one's own
family. I have spoken to bankers,
teachers, children, parents, police, and employers. To councillors, accountants, magistrates, lawyers, and whatever their political persuasion, they all agree that
money is often the route of many of society's problems. Not least
because people are increasingly
unaware of how to manage it. And what is possible through careful budgeting.
Schools should prepare young people for the adult world.
Yet for all the focus on balancing,
there is no attention given to balancing the bank account. And none is focused on meeting interest
payments on a future loan. We are sending our young people out into the world putting them into the game
of life without even teaching in the rules first. 50% of the British
public would fail a financial
literacy test. We rank alongside Thailand and Albania despite be one of the world's wealthiest countries.
No wonder only 1% of teachers believe that pupils possess adequate
financial skills, or that 67% of young people do not feel confident
panning for their financial future. In my Maiden speech I focused on the
importance of social mobility. We did not have much, and I did not
always attend school trips, we could not also the heating on. But I found ways to save for the things that I
ways to save for the things that I
wanted a lie.
In an age where many believe the responsibility of toothbrushing should be handed to teachers, we can't leave our entire
financial future to materialise like magic. Before our economy decays
even faster than young tea. We have to balance the books and that starts with understanding the Prince. Money
was that is why I have the co- sponsors of the bill at the house to give future generations the tools and knowledge to avoid walking into
**** Possible New Speaker ****
financial ruin. To lead successful and prosperous lives, irrespective of their background. The question is that the
honourable Member have leave to bring in the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it.
contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring a bill?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and bring a bill? Jerome Mayhew, Elaine Stevenson, Josh Newbury, Jonathan Brasch, Roger
Josh Newbury, Jonathan Brasch, Roger Gale, Shockat Adam, Vera Hobhouse, Ian Roome, Sian Berry, Liz cocky,
Ian Roome, Sian Berry, Liz cocky,
Martin Vickers, and myself.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Financial Financial Education Financial Education Bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Financial Education Bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Financial Education Bill. Reading Second Reading what day? Friday 25th of April.
13:36
Legislation: Employment Rights Bill: Remaining stages (Day One)
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Friday 25th of April. Programme motion, minister to
move. The question is the Employment Rights Bill program number two
motion is on the order paper. The question is the Employment Rights Bill program number two motion as on the Order Paper. As many are of that
opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The ayes have it. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. Employment Rights Bill is amended
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Employment Rights Bill is amended in the Public Bill Committee to be considered.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
considered. We will begin with new clause 32 with which it will be convenient to consider other new clauses,
consider other new clauses, amendments, and new schedules as listed on the selection paper for day one. I called the Minister to
13:37
Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
move new clause 32. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.
I beg to move that the clause be
read a second time. Let me first of all start by referring to my Register of Interests, as I have
done throughout the passage of this bill. And let me thank members in all parts of the house for their contributions throughout the passage
contributions throughout the passage
of this bill to date, particular my honourable friend for her assistance in taking the bill through Committee
stage as well as other member of the Public Bill Committee who provided substantial debate and scrutiny.
Government 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 has been holding our economy
back. The bill is the first phase of
the ring are Plan to Make Work Pay supporting employers, workers, unions are raising minimum floor of employment rights, raising living standards across the country and levelling the playing field for
those businesses who are engaged in
good practice.
This is a landmark bill which, once implemented, will represent the biggest upgrade in
employment rights for a generation. It is therefore important that we get the detail right. Amendments being put forward by the government
today directly demonstrate our commitment to full and complaints of 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 for the package represents the first phase of formal public conversations and how best to put
our plans into practice.
We have taken extensive engagement of over 150 stakeholder organisations in addition to the formal
consultations. We have taken great
efforts to listen to a range of useful businesses, trade unions, representatives of organisations, civil society and others. The
insights gained have been invaluable
in informing these amendments to ensure that they work in practice both for workers and for businesses of all sizes across the whole country. These amendments will
strengthen the bill providing further detail and clarity on measures and ensuring measures can be implemented in a straightforward
way.
I will now turn to the detail of the amendments. The government is moving a range of amendments in relation to zero hours measures.
These amendments will help ensure zero hours contracts reforms work
for workers and support a culture of secure work and prosperous growth
hand-in-hand. Amendments in relation to clause 1 covering rights will clarify requirements where a worker
works to an employer under more than one contract at the same time. In
clarify that under guaranteed hours
offer, work must be provided by the employer for the hours set out and these hours must be worked by the
worker.
And they will be able to take the case to the employer tribunal on the grounds that the work was structured or offered in
such a way as to make reduced guarantee offer to avoid having to make an offer at all.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The capacity to promote growth
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The capacity to promote growth surely the acid test of a bill like this is whether it will actually make it more attractive for entrepreneurs to create jobs? What
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is the answer? The answer is in the department's
press release which Simon Deacon, Professor of Law of University of
Professor of Law of University of Cambridge no less says the consensus on the economic impact of labour laws is far from being harmful to
laws is far from being harmful to growth to contribute positively to productivity. Labour laws also help ensure both his more inclusive and
gains are distributed more widely across society. I'm sure the right honourable Member wants to see that
happen.
Amendments in relation to the rights and clauses two and three
and shifts and short notice changes,
will ensure that the work is appropriate for workers where the
contract specifies the timing of some of their shifts and ensure they are entitled to payment for a shift cancelled or could tell that short
notice if they reasonably believe there are going to work that shift.
It allows personal information to be disclosed where appropriate and in accordance with data protection law.
It ensures the burden of proof is applied where it is alleged such a notice is untrue.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Minister will have seen the appalling evidence that our committee took from McDonald's where
BBC investigation exposed allegations from hundreds of young workers who were suffering harassment. Even allegations from
harassment. Even allegations from one worker of managers soliciting
one worker of managers soliciting them for sex in return for scheduling shifts. The tightening up that he proposes is very welcome.
that he proposes is very welcome. When does he think he will set out
When does he think he will set out the detail of for example the period of time which someone must work
**** Possible New Speaker ****
before being offered a zero hours contract? I thank the chair of the Select
Committee voice question. We are aiming to work on this once the bill
aiming to work on this once the bill has reached the appropriate stage in competition will take place in due course. And those of the benches
course. And those of the benches opposite really fail to appreciate what was happening in some workplaces at the moment and the exportation and harassment that
exportation and harassment that arises from it.
On measures on
arises from it. On measures on guaranteed hours, reasonable notice of shift and payment for short notice cancellations, we will seek to ensure that workers often in
fragmented sectors do not bear all the risks of uncertain demand. But
we will recognise the cases where unions and employers working together may want to agree rights than the provisions would allow
which would benefit both workers and the employer given the unique
context of that particular sector. Unions businesses and trade associations have made the case for flexibility in the meeting for us.
We want to allow for that and provide a baseline for sectors where unionisation is not common or agreement cannot be reached will
stop you clause 53 and associated amendments will allow employers and unions to collect a degree or modify
or opt out of zero hours measures.
The other workers covered in parts of the spill, agency workers deserve a baseline of security. And access
to a contract reflects the regular hours will stop many agency workers have a preference for guaranteed
hours according to surveys.
55% of agency workers requested a permanent
contract between January 2019 and September 2020, according to a workers survey. We are keen to see a
wholesale shift and directly engaging as a way of avoiding zero
hours provisions. You clause 32 and Schedule 1 and associated treatment
will include provisions for similar rights to be extended to agency
workers. Higher risk agency workers can then be clear responsible of
these will rest in relation to 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 workplace in businesses, we recognise the need to work with
the recruitment sector, and employs a trade unions to design detailed provisions and regulations that work. And to achieve the policy
objective of extending rights to agency workers without consequences.
We will work on that in due course. The government is now also moving
amendments in relation to dismissal and redundancy practices. This bill will help employers to raise standards in relation to these
practices, and the vast majority businesses that do the right thing by the workers were no longer be undercut by those with low standards.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I had the good fortune to serve
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I had the good fortune to serve with the Minister for 21 sessions on the Bill Committee. At the end of that we had a document of 192 pages
that we had a document of 192 pages long. We now have 270 pages amendments, most of which come from
amendments, most of which come from the government. Why are they tabling so many amendments and giving just
so many amendments and giving just to backdate scrutiny? Are these just
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to backdate scrutiny? Are these just I literally just explained where we've been consulting with businesses and trade unions and pet
amendments down as a result of that, and of course of the honourable
member is concerned about the length of the paper for the amendments, he can of course withdraw his own amendment, which will no doubt be
debating later on. We are moving some technical amendments to clause 21 on unfair dismissal which updates
cross-references and other legislation to the sum which is the existing cap on the competition
which can be awarded by an
Most unfair dismissal cases.
It's the government's intention in putting forward this bill to end the unscrupulous use of fire and rehire. We are proposing technical
amendments that allow the courts to work as intended to provide those protections. They ensure that once the provisions of the bill, which make unfair dismissal at day one
right into force, the unfair protections from the fire and rehire once the employee starts work. This Brexit in line with other changes to
unfair dismissal. Making sure people are protected from unfair high and
are protected from unfair high and
rehire for someone who is -- for doing the same work they were doing
that for less pay.
We will ensure it works for employees and employers alike, listening to feedback from
consultation whenever 20 or more redundancies were proposed to be made across an employers organisation. Businesses tell us
that this would have put them in a constant state of consultation, so the change proposed would ensure that this clause extends protections
for employees whilst limiting burdens for employers. The amendment means that collective redundancy
obligations will be triggered where 20 or more redundancies are
established in one place or the
number of redundancies across the organisation meets a certain threshold.
The government will set this to shut out in due course via
secondary legislation. This will happen after we've consulted and shown that it balances the needs of a growing business with the interests of employees will stop
this could be a proportion of employees in the business, a suitable number of employees across
the business, or some other threshold prepared through detailed
consultation. Employers will also be required to notify the government of redundancies which meet the threshold set in secondary legislation. The government's intention is to ensure that it is
more difficult for a small and scrupulous minority of employers to
ignore their collective redundancy obligations as we've seen in recent years.
New clause 34 or therefore
double the protected award and deployment tribunal can make 290
days. We consulted on this and other matters from October to December 24
and after listening carefully to a range of responses from businesses and employee representatives, we have concluded that the maximum
period of the protective award and planning tribunal can make should be raised from 90 to 180 days force of
this is on top of changes the governor has a ready-made from 20 January this year, employment
tribunal have had the ability to uplift protective award by up to 25%
where an employee unreasonably failed to follow the code of practice on dismissal and re- engagement.
We recognise that
responsible employers up and down the country already go further than the current obligations to collectively consult and will
continue to do so. Recognise the collective consultation with their
workforce can be valuable in finding solutions to challenges that
businesses face. We will publish a new code of practice to guide employers on their collective consultation obligations and promote
the wake employers are working with their employees to arrive at a mutually beneficial outcome so that all businesses are required to do
the same.
The government is also moving amendments in relation to the bill's provisions on flexible
working and dismissal during pregnancy. This bill will increase the baseline set of rights for employees with parental responsibilities, enabling more
working parents to get on and work and achieve a better worklife
balance, whether that's raising children looking after a loved one with long-term health condition.
Businesses will go in too, it will help employers fill vacancies. These
amendments will ensure that these provisions work as intended. Clause
22 adds a new power to make provisions for non-redundancy dismissals during or after the
protected period of pregnancy.
The amendments will allow supplementary questions to this power to ensure
that the regulations can clearly set
out details as part of defining circumstances in which a pregnant woman can still be fairly dismissed. And we will work with stakeholders on how to exercise these powers in
regulations. There's also an amendment to clause 7, proposing the flexible working measures in the Employment Rights Bill be added to
these provisions as scope of section 202 of the employment rights act 1996. This means that the security
service MI5, GCHQ and secret intelligence service will be exempt from disclosing any information
related to flexible working requests if in the opinion of a minister, it would be contrary to national security.
In these instances the employer would not need to disclose
the reasons for refusing a request for flexible working. The government is also moving amends in relation to
statutory sick pay. Now plan to Make Work Pay we committed to
establishing a fair earnings replacement for lower earners and
launched a public consultation which asked employers and employees, trade unions, stakeholders and members of the public what this percentage rate
should be. After carefully
considering responses to this consultation, the government believes that an 80% rate strikes the right balance between providing financial security to employees who need it, including retaining an incentive to return to work when
appropriate whilst also limiting additional costs to business.
Today's amendments will set the rate of statutory sick pay at 80% of an
Or Or the Or the flat Or the flat rate, Or the flat rate, whichever Or the flat rate, whichever is lower. Consequently, we will be removing the previously proposed power for the Secretary of State to
prescribe the percentage rate in secondary legislation. However, ministers. Yet use the existing power in section 157 of the Social Security confusion that benefits act 1992 to substitute a different
provision as to the weekly flat rate or the percentage rate of the employees weekly earnings, depending on which is lower.
These amendments also amended the weekly flat rate
£280.75 as agreed by Parliament as part of its annual operating exercise. The government is also
moving amendments which allow two new provisions into part two of the
bill. Analysis conducted by the Resolution Foundation found the 900,000 workers reported they had no
900,000 workers reported they had no
paid holiday despite this being a Daiwa entitlement. New clause 35 will create a new duty in the work regulations for employees to retain records for holiday pay and annually for six years.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I apologise he has moved on a bit, I was just waiting to hear what he said. Maybe the Minister can correct me, but in terms of the
correct me, but in terms of the provisions made around mental health, I believe that that doesn't
health, I believe that that doesn't include condition of endometriosis, which can be crippling for people in
which can be crippling for people in the workplace. So I'm not sure, I may not have seen it in the bill,
but does the Minister have any plans to make sure that that becomes a protective area of sick leave because it's devastating for many
because it's devastating for many women, but at the moment they very much struggled to be able to recognise with that terrible disease in the workplace.
in the workplace.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Grateful to him raising this important point. It was something that was touched on in the Bill committee, but there aren't any amendments dealing with that specific issue today. Returning to
specific issue today. Returning to the question of holiday pay, where an employer does not keep adequate
an employer does not keep adequate records of fair work enforcement officer may take an undertaking to
officer may take an undertaking to ensure future compliance but if they
refuse to give them, the fair agency enforcement officer may apply to the appropriate corporate labour market, and I will give way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and I will give way. I just want to come back to the new level of statutory sick pay which is £118.75 or 80% of employees weekly earnings. The current situation is that an employee with
situation is that an employee with weekly earnings under £25 with the present get £160.75 but under your
present get £160.75 but under your new model, they would only receive
**** Possible New Speaker ****
£100. Is that correct? Yes, but I think the honourable member is forgetting the fact that
we are moving the waiting days with the provisions on the lower earner
limit, the likes of 1.3 million people will be accessing statutory sick pay. We think this is the right
balance, think this will leave people in a much better position, and of course it's something we will always continue to review. I will
move now onto the issue of umbrella
companies.
We are aware of non- compliance in the umbrella company market where umbrella companies can be responsible for denying Employment Rights Bill those who
work through them. New clause 36 will allow for the regulation of umbrella companies and for
enforcement by employing agency standard inspector and subsequently the fair work agency. The specific requirements on umbrella companies
will be set out in the relevant regulations which set out the minimal standards of conduct for
planning agencies and employment businesses. We will consult before amended these regulations and we are committed to working with the sector
to ensure the future regulation works effectively umbrella companies.
This manner marks an
important step towards ensuring compliance umbrella companies are no longer able to deny workers the
rights that they are owed. The
government is also moving a range of amendments in relation to part three of the bill, which covers the adult social care negotiating body and the
. With regards to the school support
staff negotiate body, the governors to technical amendments to correct incorrect cross-references. The school support staff negotiating body is an important part of delivering both the government's
plan to Make Work Pay and the governance opportunity mission.
The government will today commit to consulting the summer on whether agencies should be brought into the scope of the S&P with future legislation to support these
**** Possible New Speaker ****
missions. Could you clarify for the House,
what the provisions on school support negotiating body support staff negotiating body, will provide
staff negotiating body, will provide a floor as well as a ceiling? Or
will it be a floor on pay because there are certainly a number of school leavers, academy leaders who say actually they want to pay above
say actually they want to pay above what the government might may recommend for support staff and this may actually limit them from doing
**** Possible New Speaker ****
so? I think this is something we did
debate in detail in the Bill committee. My understanding is that there will be a floor but not a ceiling if I'm wrong about that I
will come back to that. And we absolutely think a floor is needed
given some of the issues in low pay in this country. And amendments to
the adult social care negotiating provisions will remove clause 42,
thereby removing the power to make a stand-alone enforcement provision in respect of the agreements reached by the adult social care negotiating body.
Enforcement of pay terms and
agreements will instead be the remit of the new fair work agency under
**** Possible New Speaker ****
schedule four to the bill. I recognise that the Minister is rattling off a whole list of
rattling off a whole list of amendments that appear to cover after the legislation has gone
through the Bill committee. Does he not understand that this actually
creates a massive burden on many businesses? Would it not be better to actually accept they've gone a little bit overboard with this bill
and start afresh with proper consultation with businesses at
ground level?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The reason why we are putting semi-amendments down is because we've been consulting with businesses and working with them, and that's why we have so much to
and that's why we have so much to say today. It was a commitment of this party to launch an Employment
this party to launch an Employment Rights Bill within 100 days of taking office, and I'm proud that we delivered on that and proud that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
we've got this bill here today. With respect to the consultation,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With respect to the consultation, how many small businesses express
**** Possible New Speaker ****
their support for this bill? I would refer the honourable
member to our Department of press release writing there is a least half a dozen business representatives and businesses who have expressed support, but of course there are many more
businesses out there. Indeed I visited one only recently who
**** Possible New Speaker ****
supported the bill. Will the Minister be kind enough to name one of those businesses on
to name one of those businesses on the press release? You better look
at the press release just to check.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
OK. Co-op, quite a big business. Richer sounds, Centrica, British
Richer sounds, Centrica, British Chamber of Commerce. These are bit part players at all are they really?
part players at all are they really? Anyway. New clause 38 seeks to
ensure that agency workers in the adult social care sector who do not have a workers contract in the meaning of employment legislation
meaning of employment legislation
but nevertheless be able to bring a claim in the employment tribunal saw in civil proceedings were FAP agreement has been reached.
It does this by dealing a contract to exist
for this purpose between the work and the party who pays them. This will allow such workers to bring an unlawful -- lawful direction for a
breach of fair pay agreement terms. Nicholas 37 and associated moments will enable the Scottish and Welsh ministers to establish their own separate negotiating bodies and
associated framework and 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 policies
workforces and therefore policies
and delivery are distinct. As such it's right for Scotland and Wales to have the powers to set up the ghostly bodies which 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 sector of state retains oversight of regulations relating to reserved matters of employment and industrial revolutions regulations.
The amendment supplements the powers in relation to record-keeping from this amendment will allow those regulations to apply to section 49
of the national minimum wage at 1998 to prevent employers from trying to contract out of their new record
keeping. Obligations. Before I wind up, I wanted to address some of the other amendments which have been
tabled to the bill, and wanted to
take this opportunity to note a particularly amendments tabled by my honourable friend the Member for Luton North. I am grateful to the
work of the Women and Equalities committee further raising the important issue of miscarriage, the loss of a baby at any stage is
incredibly difficult and personal experience, and the enquiry they have conducted demonstrated a clear gap in support for those who
experience pregnancy loss and need
I pay tribute to my honourable
friend from Luton North because she has shown great courage in talking about her own experience.
I'm grateful to her and other members
who have spoken on this issue. We
have heard them. We fully accept the principle of bereavement for pregnancy loss, as raised in the amendments. We look forward to further discussions with the
Honourable member and noble Lords as the bill moves on to its stages in the other place. Bereavement is not
an illness. It is not a holiday full stop and it needs its own special
category. I want to take this opportunity to note the amendment
tabled by the member for Poplar and Limehouse and the member for Lowestoft.
The government recognises
the important points raised by both members, and a serious impact domestic abuse has on society particularly women and girls. We
strongly encourage employers to support staff who experience domestic abuse. Many already do this
through their membership of the Employers' Initiative on Domestic Abuse. It empowers employers to
tackle domestic abuse. The provisions in the bill make flexible working easier to request which we
know can be a great help to those experiencing domestic abuse, and to
take time from work for appointment for domestic abuse related matters
was the government's commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.
I've met the Minister for Safeguarding in violence against women and girls.
This house will know she is a dedicated and respected campaign on these issues. In addition I have
spoken to honourable members including EUR-MED for Gloucestershire whose Private Members' Bill will have its first
reading about concerns sharing many stories from constituents. I have also discussed this with the other
woman for Lowestoft. And the Justice Department. Everyone will need to
contribute.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
He said when asked if there were businesses who supported the bill and he mentioned the British Chambers of commerce. I've gone to
their website and they say the British Chamber of Commerce has used an evidence session to highlight businesses serious concerns about
businesses serious concerns about the legislation. Will the Minister withdraw his comments?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
withdraw his comments? I'm glad you're a member has got access to the internet, I would direct into the Department's webpage
direct into the Department's webpage where this is what the Deputy
Director of public policy said. " There is much to welcome, sensible move that will help ensure employment works both businesses and
individuals. " This is in response
to the amendments that a much more up-to-date comment than the one he indicated. I will move back to the
issue of violence against women and girls because it is very important.
It is incumbent on every part of
governments to work together. This is not a task for a single parliament or minister. This
government is steadfastly committed to delivering the manifest agreement of halving violence against women
and girls, and creating a cross
government strategy. I intend to work with colleagues that we as a department to do our bit in respect
of that. I also wanted to take this opportunity to note the amendments tabled by the member for Sheffield
Heeley and the member for Oxford where, and Non-Disclosure Agreements
Bill stop I have met with advocates in this area and understand the
sniffing of the problems they have highlighted regarding the issues in some circumstances of nondisclosure agreements.
This is an important
issue that warrants further consideration. We are aware that the
government is pressing ahead with plans relevant to the NDAs and the
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. We take the issues of NDA
seriously and will continue to look further into this to see what we can do. I know there are a number of
members who wish to speak. I will give way one last time.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
New clause 72, focuses on whistleblowing and protected
whistleblowing and protected disclosures. This area has been so
important in recent scandals, the Fujitsu scandal, the post office, Lucy Letby or other public scandals.
Lucy Letby or other public scandals. Can I urge him to look at that amendment and look at the fact that imposing a duty on bigger employers
imposing a duty on bigger employers to look at investigating protected disclosures as a vital way of moving forward on that key legislation?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the member for the intervention. This is something I
intervention. This is something I have begun to consider because we are aware the legislation is now 1/4 of a century old and needs looking
of a century old and needs looking at again in light of the experiences and the number of scandals that have been mentioned. So we are
been mentioned. So we are considering where we go next with whistleblowing legislation. In conclusion, Britain's working people
and businesses are the driving force of the UK economy.
This bill will
help create a labour market that delivers for both. This bill will deliver sniffing benefits to the UK including better working conditions, more secure work, reducing
inequalities and improving industrial relations. I appreciate I
have outlined a lot of detail today but it is important to remember as is typical with a legislation of this nature, many of the policies
will be provided through regulations. And in some cases codes of practice. We expect further consultations of these reforms to
begin later in the year, seeking significant input from stakeholders.
I'm grateful to the efforts of members and the debate and scrutiny we have received so far I look forward to hearing further debate
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this afternoon. Agency workers guaranteed hours and rights related to shifts.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and rights related to shifts. The question is the new clause 32
14:06
Greg Smith MP (Mid Buckinghamshire, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is the new clause 32 be read a second time. Shadow Minister Greg Smith. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. After 21 sessions in Public Bill Committee, we still see the
government bringing hundreds of amendments to this bill which once
again highlights that their false little deadline of 100 days to publish it was foolhardy they should
have taken a better time. Fundamentally, this is a bad bill. Whilst it contains many good measures, many well-intentioned measures, they have failed to get
the balance right between employees and employers. Whilst I welcome some
of the comments the Minister made in his opening remarks, not least on
the point that he knows we have agreement in the Bill Committee on
bereavement leave for pregnancy loss
that we spoke at great length in the Bill Committee.
But I'm afraid the vast majority of this bill the
balance has been got wrong. The amendment that stand in the names of honourable and right honourable
friends from his Majesty's loyal opposition seek to highlight the way that this bill simply goes too far
in too many regards. And highlights the ways that it was going to affect
our economy. It was going to affect
the number of people in the economy who have a job. It will affect the willingness of employers, the actual
wealth creators, the people who actually create the jobs, to take on new staff.
To grow, to put new
**** Possible New Speaker ****
product lines in place and to keep employing people. I'm grateful to the Shadow
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to the Shadow Minister for giving way. I doff my
Minister for giving way. I doff my cap to his 21 sessions in the Bill
cap to his 21 sessions in the Bill Committee. Does he give any light on the facts the Regulatory Policy
the facts the Regulatory Policy Committee they looked at this bill said eight out of the 23 sections were " Not fit for purpose"? Is he
were " Not fit for purpose"? Is he any more confident after being in that Bill Committee and the amendments laid before us today that those eight have been rectified?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my honourable friend for his intervention. I am sorry to have to report to him that, no, I don't
to report to him that, no, I don't have any greater confidence that this will is going to work. He is right that the RPC identified so
right that the RPC identified so much of this bill in the severe risk
much of this bill in the severe risk column and not fit for purpose. Some of the amendments I will speak to in more detail in a moment in my name
more detail in a moment in my name and that of honourable and right honourable friends on these benches
honourable friends on these benches will seek to further explore the impact that the measures in this bill are going to have on the
economy, and try and answer some of the points that my honourable friend has rightly outlined.
The
fundamental position that we find ourselves in is that, as we know,
every Labour government believes unemployment higher than when they started. The difference with this one is that they are actually
legislating for that outcome. I turn
first of all to new clause 83 and amendment 283. When we were in
government, we band exclusivity clauses in zero hours contracts. We
know that for many employees on zero hours contracts, such as students, those with a summer job or other
responsibilities, that this works for them.
Employees can value that
flexibility. This bill imposes a
state top-down government knows best approach that will limit flexibility
**** Possible New Speaker ****
both for employers and employees. I thank the honourable member for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the honourable member for giving way. I visited that Nelson
giving way. I visited that Nelson Pub in Farnham recently. I met the publican who employs a lot of people on zero hours contracts. One of whom in addition to working at the pub as
in addition to working at the pub as she works as a paramedic. And that flexibility allows him to do both
**** Possible New Speaker ****
flexibility allows him to do both jobs. These are the sort of people who will be impacted by this legislation. I am grateful to my honourable
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am grateful to my honourable friend for that intervention. He is aptly right. I'm actually taking a
wedding in Farnham later this year I look forward to visiting the Nelson and thanking his constituent for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that service he also gives as a paramedic. He promotes me but I will give way. I'm grateful to him for giving
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to him for giving
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to him for giving way. Is he aware the TUC's survey clearly shows that the vast majority of people on zero hours contracts
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of people on zero hours contracts really want regular hours? Can he respond to that? The honourable gentleman makes a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The honourable gentleman makes a point about, in his words, the vast
point about, in his words, the vast majority. I don't it is the vast majority but, yes in certain cases, of course some people will want to
guarantee of those hours that he talks about. But the point I am making is about flexibility. It is
about allowing those for whom it does work. The example I gave around for example students, the example
that my honourable friend gave. Around those for whom this
flexibility does in fact work.
That is not to say that there are not
many out there in our economy who do seek the change you want. But that is not a universal rule. It is not
something that should simply be applied to absolutely everyone. I would gently invite him to reflect
on what it does mean for those examples such as the one my honourable friend from Farnham
**** Possible New Speaker ****
again. And the impact. Has see actually read the bill?
And does he understand that the flexibility included is the flexibility to ask for guaranteed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
hours? If a student or someone doing a second job does not want those guaranteed hours, they don't need to have them. I am happy to confirm to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am happy to confirm to the honourable Lady that, yes, I have
honourable Lady that, yes, I have read the bill. I have read a considerable number of documents from the House of Commons Library, from any other organisation. I have
spoken to a lot of businesses in my own constituency as well as further
afield who I can assure her are horrified at the bill that is coming up. The Minister was asked earlier
to name a single small business that supported this bill and his answer
was the Co-op.
Last time I looked it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
was not considered small. Does it worry my honourable
friend that once again the government revealed they are desperately hoping companies do become small businesses?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
become small businesses? My right honourable friend makes
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My right honourable friend makes in his ever stylish with the manner a very good point on that. The
a very good point on that. The Regulatory Policy Committee has given, as one friend said earlier, a
given, as one friend said earlier, a red rating to the identification of
options and choice of the policy on zero hours contracts guaranteed hours. This means the government has not justified the necessity of
not justified the necessity of
clauses 1 126.
What is the problem they are trying to solve these
clauses? The bill, despite hundreds of government amendment remain silent about how these provisions
will work in practice. Which means the government's assessment that the administrative cost to business that
the bill will have in shift and workforce planning is £320 million.
And that could well be an underestimate. UK hospitality raised their concerns during committee. "
But the government are intending to leave it to case law and employment tribunal systems to figure out what
reasonable notice means.
" That is
an unacceptable way to legislate. This is is crave certainty and a stable Goleta environment. This bill
provides anything but. And the results, as the chair of the CBI has
said, is that this bill risks becoming an adventure playground for
employment rights lawyers.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My honourable friend may have seen the financial Times report that, for the first time ever, the number of companies registered at
Companies House is actually falling? Does he think this bill has anything to do with it, in particular that
to do with it, in particular that not fit for purpose points that have been made with this legislation coming on the horizon?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
coming on the horizon? My honourable friend makes an exceptional point. This bill currently will be playing a part in
currently will be playing a part in that along with the budget of broken promises, that tax increases and employers NI and so on. I shudder to
employers NI and so on. I shudder to think what will happen when it actually becomes a law. We
understand the pulmonary rhythm deck. We understand that the
government will force this through. But it is the reason we have tabled new clause 83, and amendment 283.
New clause 83 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a
review of the impact of sections 1 to 6 on the operation of employment tribunal is an ability of a plumber
tribunal is to manage any increase in applications resulting from those sections. Amendment 283 provides
commencement block on sections 1 to
6. We believe the section shall not come into force until the review required has been approved by Parliament. It will be both
businesses and employees who struggle when claims are brought because of the confusion rated by
If the employment tribunal is not able to cope with this increased caseload, and members opposite should have their eyes open to the
consequences of this badly thought out legislation.
Perhaps the honourable lady will open her eyes
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to this point. These amendments will ensure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
These amendments will ensure attractions for all of the 2.4
million work people in the UK with irregular work patterns, be it zero hours contracts or agency contracts.
Can the shadow Minister tell this House why he thinks that agency workers don't deserve the same
**** Possible New Speaker ****
protections as everyone else? The honourable lady makes a point
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The honourable lady makes a point that I think she made in the Bill committee, and it was good to debate with her and others during the passage of the Bill committee. Actually I think we did have a genuine and robust debate during
that. The point I am arguing for is
flexibility. The point in arguing for is a recognition of how the employment market, of how our
economy actually works in real life, and to treat everything with one universal rule is going to be a
disaster for our economy.
And I fear that it will result in fewer people
in work, fewer jobs and the economy, and it certainly won't deliver the growth this Government pretence that
they want to see happen. How can I resist young gentleman?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Does he not accept though that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Does he not accept though that when you look at the productivity rate in this country, particular versus France and Germany, is not absolutely down to the expanded
absolutely down to the expanded ability of employees in the workplace that we have such a poor
**** Possible New Speaker ****
rate? I don't accept what the
honourable gentleman, who I greatly respect, and we've worked together on a number of issues over recent
on a number of issues over recent years, but I don't accept the point he is making on that. Is there room to improve productivity? Of course
to improve productivity? Of course
there is. There is room to improve productivity across all sectors all of the time Foster we wouldn't get a growing economy if you couldn't do that. However, I think what this
bill is trying to do is take a sledgehammer to crack the proverbial
NUT and to apply a universal rule across all is not going to deliver what a think the honourable
gentleman quite nobly wishes to achieve within the economy.
This is
one of those points where potentially actually as is always the case in politics, the thing that
divides us isn't the end goal or the point at which we want to get you. It's the means to getting there. And
I don't think this bill will deliver what he wants to achieve. I will
give him one last track.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The simple point that it is less motivating, less of interest to a company to invest in machinery and
company to invest in machinery and plant if it can ultimately change the structure of its workforce or
the structure of its workforce or expend the hire and rehire. That is what is holding us back, and that's what we have a 20% deficit to France and Germany in terms of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
productivity. The honourable gentleman makes an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The honourable gentleman makes an interesting point. But don't see businesses out there wanting to expand their workforces or get rid
expand their workforces or get rid
of them or disinvest in their workforces. I think the honourable gentleman is giving a very pessimistic outlook on the way the business environment actually run in
this country. Businesses want to innovate, want to grow, want to employ more people, want to make
more money. Making money is not something to look down people's noses out.
It's a fundamentally good thing that creates wealth and grows
the economy and increases the tax base to pay for the services that we all want to see. So I don't share
the honourable gentleman's view of the world when it comes to this bill on that point he is trying to make.
I want to move on some further amendments but I will give way to my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
honourable friend. Grateful. I think what's very clear listening to the debate across
clear listening to the debate across the House that there are those of us on the site that understand
on the site that understand business, and that also understand and actually come to this place with
and actually come to this place with years of experience, but if perhaps the members on the opposite side would stop heckling for one moment,
would stop heckling for one moment, they might start to listen that if you want to increase productivity, it's about employees, it's also about employers being able to invest
about employers being able to invest in their staff through training, through contracts, through plants
and machinery.
A whole raft of things, none of which you can do if
you stifle your businesses with red tape and employment law, a law which
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is basically through the courts. I quite agree with my right
honourable friend, and I think the point that goes to the crux of what she is trying to say is the approach to which those of us on these
to which those of us on these benches look at the economy and the approach that those on the Labour benches and other left-wing benches
benches and other left-wing benches look at the economy. And that is of
look at the economy. And that is of course the left of British politics tend to view everything through the
tend to view everything through the lens of business being bad, of all employers seeking to exploit their workforces.
Of this Victorian
factory image from a novel of that
era, whereas in reality it's that symbiotic relationship between employer and employee that we need
to recognise that actually you don't grow the economy without things working in both interests, and what
this bill seeking to do is to tip the balance too far in one direction, forgetting that that's
going to take away the incentive for the employers, the wealth creators
to get on and grow. So to move on to new clause 84 and amendment 284, on
the side of the House, we have
absolutely no issue with the right to request flexible working.
Indeed and 2023, Conservatives in
government passed the employment relations flexible working act. This
made it easier for employees to make flexible working requests, gave them
a statutory right to do so and give
employers the right to consider any request made by the employee more quickly, and that legislation
appears to be working. The regular Terry policy committee have said that there is little evidence presented that employers are rejecting requests for flexible
working and reasonably.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I spent 13 years as a solicitor working in employment rights, predominately for employees, periodically for employers. I can assure you that flexible working is not working for many many mothers in
not working for many many mothers in this country that many women are giving up jobs and becoming self-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
giving up jobs and becoming self- employed because their employers will not agree there flexible working requests. It's good to hear from a real solicitor giving their wealth of
solicitor giving their wealth of knowledge to this area. And I'm not trying to suggest that everything is perfect and that everything is
perfect and that everything is working well. Affiliate set the
point that she makes about many mothers getting either back into the workplace or extending their careers. That's a fair and good
point that she makes.
But again, this bill is not the answer that she
is looking for if she looks at it in
more detail. So the RPC gave the government's impact assessment for the flexible working provisions
average rating. That actually goes to the nub of the point, is there room for improvement? Of course
there is, but the impact assessment that flexible provision in this bill
is given a red rating. Not fit for purpose. So once again, I ask the
Minister what problem is 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 clause 7 will have
on employment.
Wages and economic
output. One more crack.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I can absolutely assure him that women do know about the right to request flexible working and that that is not the source of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
problems that they are facing. She almost makes the point for me because I talked earlier about the
because I talked earlier about the very point that we introduced that
very point that we introduced that right, and it was working well, but the RPC said the provisions in this bill don't actually do anything for it and will not fit for purpose, so
it and will not fit for purpose, so I frankly thank her for her intervention. So our new clause 84
intervention.
So our new clause 84 equally calls to consider the
likelihood of the cost to flexible working measures being passed on to
employees through lower wages and examine the likely effect of the right to request flexible working on productivity, wage growth, equality
of opportunity, job security, economic activity, and employment. New clause 84 equally requires a
report setting out the findings must be laid before each House of
Parliament no sooner than 18 weeks after the consultation has been
initiated.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
He's just said that there may be areas where we can go further
areas where we can go further inflexible working. Can he explain then by the last government flexible working task force met just once last year and met just once in the
last year and met just once in the year before? As with the long- awaited employment Bill, which never materialised, is it not the case
materialised, is it not the case that this government is bringing forward real measures because the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
forward real measures because the last government vacated this territory? The honourable gentleman who we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The honourable gentleman who we debated at length in the Bill committee on these matters clearly
hasn't listened to what I've said because I detailed how we did legislate, we did legislate in this
area. And yet it is this government that is bringing forward a bill that
the RPC in this respect has given a red rating and has said is not fit
for purpose. So I would generally urge him to look again at this and where we can agree on areas that
could potentially go further or be
different to that which is set out in either existing legislation or proposed legislation to understand
the impact that what this bill is actually asking to do will have on the real economy.
Amendment 284 would ensure that clause 7 could not
come into force until Parliament had
approved that report. So to put it simply, the genesis of this
amendment is because the government have not done their homework. They have no idea what they are doing and why. We do know that these
provisions will damage business, and that in turn will hurt workers. And
we want members opposite to acknowledge that. It will be
ordinary people paying the price. So to move on, I want to turn to new
clause 85 and amendments to 85, 288
and 289.
Clause 18 in the bill, 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 has not managed to
sufficiently demonstrate the need for the third party harassment
provisions in the bill. And have created this once again as read. It
created this once again as read. It
should go without saying that in this side of the House we do not condone any form of harassment in the workplace.
And when we were in government, we legislate to put a
duty on employers to take reasonable steps to anticipate and prevent sexual harassment. That is a
horrible evil crime that is covered
in other legislation to protect
everybody in this country. So I double underline that we are not condoning that. In fact we legislated very clearly to clamp down on that evil and heinous crime.
I would be interested in any
evidence the Minister has for the prevalence of third party harassment in the workplace and how this clause
might actually solve that because the government has not produced it
so far.
I'm going to make some progress as I think I've demonstrated, I'm not shy of giving
way and I will come back to the honourable lady. The problem is that badly considered law developed with
no evidence base is likely to cause
problems rather than solve them. That is the law of unintended
consequences. We are deeply concerned not just about the unclear liabilities this clause places on employers but on the implications it
has for freedom of expression. The
equality and human rights commission has said that the third party harassment protections raised
complex questions about the appropriate balance between third parties, rights to freedom of expression is protected under
article 10 of the European Convention on human rights, and employees protection from harassment
and their right to private and
We are struggling to ensure freedom
of speech universities, places that should be guardians of free, opening, and challenging debate.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank him four giving way. It was of course my Private Members'
was of course my Private Members' Bill which the government supported, but only partly because third party
but only partly because third party harassment was scrapped out of the bill. I'm pleased that the new government is reintroducing the
government is reintroducing the bill. The question is, why is he
bill. The question is, why is he supporting that employers should event sexual harassment in the workplace and demonstrate that they
workplace and demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps but,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for third parties, he thinks it is something that impacts on freedom of speech? It does not make sense. I thank the honourable lady for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the honourable lady for her intervention. She allows me to continue a bit, I think it will
continue a bit, I think it will become clear why we are taking the position we are, and I will give
position we are, and I will give some concrete examples where the law of unintended consequences will kick
of unintended consequences will kick in on this particular provision. A 2022 study by the Higher Education
2022 study by the Higher Education Policy Institute found a quiet no platform in 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 platforms including Alex Salmond,
Harry Enfield, Liam Neeson, Tony Blair, and Peter Hitchens. And this
clause, whilst well-meaning, is likely to make matters worse. As
James Murray, the legal director of Doyle Clayton pointed out, this clause could well cause difficulties
for universities in offering a platform to discuss issues on which those listening may have differing
**** Possible New Speaker ****
views. I draw attention to the problem
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I draw attention to the problem with universities. And in particular no platforming speakers who are
no platforming speakers who are deemed to be unacceptable or make people feel uncomfortable because their views on for example
their views on for example transsexuals. A distinguished
transsexuals. A distinguished academic and terrorist was no
academic and terrorist was no platforms exactly that way after saying that sex was a biological
fact. I welcome much about this bill particularly on trade unions and zero hours contracts actually as it
happens.
But I do feel this one area
**** Possible New Speaker ****
needs to be regained by government. I'm grateful to my honourable
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to my honourable friend and agree this area needs to be looked at again. To ensure unintended consequences are not
unintended consequences are not allowed to come through that challenge freedom of speech in this
challenge freedom of speech in this country for we have no truck with harassment. We believe it should be
harassment. We believe it should be stamped out using the criminal law when necessary to ensure the perpetrators of it are brought to justice. What this bill is doing is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
justice. What this bill is doing is opening the door to unintended consequences. I that the honourable member for
giving way. Two in three young women have experienced sexual harassment or verbal abuse in the workplace. It
is important that, where they are in
a customer facing roles, they are protected both from abuse by their colleagues and their managers, and from abuse by their customers. This
is particularly important if perhaps they are working in the University bar or in another sort of a bar or
in 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 and I worked for the TUC in 2015. I am sad it has taken us a decade to get to the point where we
are saying no more sexual harassment by customers and clients, and the
party opposite could have achieved this much more quickly if they had just accepted the Private Members' Bill put forward by the member opposite.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The honourable lady I don't think it actually disagree with what I
it actually disagree with what I have said so far. Sexual harassment is clearly a crime. It is already a crime and any perpetrators of it
crime and any perpetrators of it should be brought to justice. But that is covered by different law.
that is covered by different law. And the point that we are getting
And the point that we are getting to, to answer the honourable lady,
is not a point about sexual harassment or anything else covered in the criminal law.
It is, for example, in a hospitality setting
where perhaps somebody who is waiting on the tables or serving at
a bar overhears a conversation that they fight deeply offensive. For
example, perhaps around the situation in Israel and Gaza. That
they find themselves deeply offended
by, but yet this bill would be
making, would criminalise and bringing 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
**** Possible New Speaker ****
harassment is... The Shadow Minister is in danger
of misleading the House. Nothing that he has referred to as a crime. Sexual harassment is that within
Sexual harassment is that within this bill is a civil matter dealt
**** Possible New Speaker ****
with a tribunal. I thank the honourable lady for her point of order, I think it was a point of debate rather than a point
**** Possible New Speaker ****
point of debate rather than a point of order. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. If we can get back to James Murray, the legal director, who has pointed
out that this clause could well cause difficulties for universities in offering those platforms that discuss issues that people have
differing views. He said " If we think about a speaker who has been invited, say to the controversial
gender critical speaker like
Kathleen stop, someone might somewhat disingenuously say that they are an employee of this university and they find what they
say to be deeply harassing.
The concern is that this will shift the balance away from free-speech and
universities will be more at risk, and more risk averse as they won't want to be held liable for that
third party harassment. Why does the
government want to run this risk? Then there is the burden on businesses particularly in the hospitality set. Kate Nicholls,
chief executive of, he has had a go
so far, Kate Nicholls, Chief Executive of UK hospitality said
that the staff in restaurants, bars, clubs, and hotels, are working in a social environment where there are
jokes and people are boisterous.
She said, while everyone wants to make sure their staff are protected, " We
don't want policing our customers. "
She is concerned this clause could add undue restrictions. If someone
is working or are part or comedy club, there is a high risk that they might hear comments that they don't
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
response these for employers about
where they need to draw the line.
I know there are a lot of people that
wish to speak in this debate. This clause could well function as a
banter band at best an restriction on academic debate and inquiry. Due to our concern about how this clause
will operate, but especially on higher education and hospitality sectors, we have tabled amendments
to hundred and 89. This will carve out the hospitality said and sports
venues from clause 18. These are sectors where we believe 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 but
we have tabled new clause 85. This
requires the Secretary of State to report on this clause. This report must include the extent to which the
prevalence of third party harassment makes the case for the measures in section 18 including assessment of
the impact of section 18 on free speech, including an assessment of the likely costs for employers of section 18, including assessment of
which occupations might be at particular risk of third party harassment through no fault of the employer.
And proposals for
mitigations that could be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations. We will require
the Secretary of State to lay this report setting out before each House
of Parliament amendments 285 will prevent clause 18 Coming into force until that report is approved by
Parliament. The government needs to
go away and think again and that is what our amendment is designed to achieve. If the government is not willing to do so, we have also
tabled amendments to hundred and 88 which will leave this clause out of
the bill entirely.
So great is our concern about the unintended
**** Possible New Speaker ****
consequences could have. Since we have been discussing it for the best part of the previous
for the best part of the previous parliament, can I ask him whether there is a misunderstanding of what actually this other bit of the
actually this other bit of the private bills is about, it is a
private bills is about, it is a preventative duty. It is not about predicting everything that could happen in hospitality that. So the guidance is to make sure that
guidance is to make sure that everybody knows that their workplace
everybody knows that their workplace is there to protect people from harassment.
That is what the employer needs to do and what is the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
problem with that? I'm not sure the honourable lady
has firmly grasped what this bill says in that respect. Of course we want to protect everybody in our society, as is the first duty of
society, as is the first duty of government. But the real world and the unintended consequences particularly in the hospitality sector, I don't think the honourable
sector, I don't think the honourable lady is fully considered. If I may
lady is fully considered. If I may very quickly speak briefly to new clause 86 with the amendments.
clause 86 with the amendments. Clause 21 and schedule two 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, Regulatory Policy
Committee again slapped a red rating of the government impact assessment for the provisions winning the government has not adequately
justified the need for them. The government has admitted it does 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 if there is
even an actual problem with unfair dismissal that this bill is trying
to solve. The British Chamber of Commerce have said " Members say
they would be reduced hiring appetite if this legislation were to come in. And they would be less
likely to recruit new employees due to the risk and difficulty particularly under the day one
writes, unless there was at least a
nine month probation period. " Our new clause 86 requires the secretary of state to assess the impact of the
provisions of clause 21 and schedule two and amendments children 86 requires Parliament to specifically
improve this impact before these sections of the bill can come into
force.
I am mindful of time. I do not wish to incur the raft of Madam
Deputy Speaker so I will make progress. We have also tabled amendments to hundred 87 to remove clause 21 from the bill entirely, so
concerned are we about how damaging this will be to both employers and employees particularly those who will not get work as a direct
consequence of these requirements. New clause 87, seems a perfectly
sensible thing to ask for. A simple requirement in the secretary of state to have regard to the
objectives and economic growth and improving the international stiffness of the UK economy when
making regulations the parts one and
two of this bill.
If passed, would of course be a wrecking amendments
because the government does not know how it intends to give effect to the provisions on guaranteed hours, the extension of these provisions to
agency workers, the provisions on unfair dismissal to name but a few.
All that will be left to regulations after this bill is passed and without proper scrutiny from this
place. And it will be working people who of course pay the price. One new
clause 91, it would clampdown on public sector employers using
positive discrimination under the Equality Act, where this causes
detriments to other employees and to promote merit-based employment
practices.
Taxpayers rightly expect that their money should be spent
well. Part of offering value for money that taxpayer money should be
ruthlessly focused on improving public services on which all about constituents rely. That always means
hiring on merits. Amendment 290 on
the school staff 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.
But employers should have the
flexibility to set pay and conditions locally rather than having a top-down centralised
framework imposed on them. To allow
leaders who know better than politicians in Whitehall to innovate for their schools and employees.
Instead of giving employers flexibility to do what works best for them, the government is re- establishing a national terms and
conditions handbook training career progression routes and pay rates for school supports taught school
employers will be obliged to follow. We believe the current arrangement for employing the school supports
are working well and have allowed for innovation.
I have explained that I do not wish to incur Madam
Deputy Speaker's Rath which I fit
And have allowed for innovation that is beneficial for pupils. We believe that school employers must retain a degree of freedom and flexibility to
recruit, develop, enumerate 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, and I urge
the government to consider this. There are many many more amendments that I can speak to, but I won't.
Other than to say this is a bad bit of legislation. The amendments
before us from the government in particular in many respects make this worse. Add an already heavy
burden to business that will combat
growth, that will sap down growth, that will not mean that they achieve the objectives they have set out to achieve in the landmarks and missions and road signs and whatever
else it is they have announced. And therefore, I urge the government to
look at our amendments to go back and attain the worst excesses of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this job destroying bill. Before I call the chair of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Before I call the chair of the Business and Trade Select Committee, I just wanted to make it clear I would then be going next to Steve
Darling, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, but immediately after Mr Darling, there will be a six
14:47
Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
minute time limit.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm going to be very brief and just make three quick points, and I
just make three quick points, and I will do my best to try and salvage a degree of consensus from the conflict characterised the outset of the debate. I think if there are a couple of things that unite us
couple of things that unite us across this House, is that we do all
believe in an honest days pay for an honest day's work. But the reality is that millions of workers in this
is that millions of workers in this country are simply not earning their fair share of the wealth we produce
together.
The reality is that if
wages encompass the same shows national income as it was in the 1950s, there will be some thing like
£12,000 a year the pay packets of every single one of the 33.8 million workers in this country. So after
we've had this decade that has seen millions of people trapped in low pay after a decade in which we have
had a cost of living crisis, if teachers each and every one of us to
think more constructively and creatively about how we support workers in this collimator and a good life for them and their family.
On our committee, we had the privilege of hearing from some of
the best in the country, but we also had the duty to interrogate many of
those firms which frankly were letting down our country. And just
one highlight three examples to light up some of the amendments that are down in my name and the names of
honourable and right honourable members. Because these are not amendments that I wish to put to vote, but they are amendments which
are probing amendments and one which I think the Minister needs to provide the House with some answers.
Let me just start with McDonald's because I referenced that in an early intervention. This is one of
the most significant employers in our country. It employs over 200,000 people. 90% of workers in McDonald's are on zero hours contracts. And it
was the BBC investigation, the employer correspondence that on the day of our hearing exposed the reality that hundreds of McDonald's
employees were contacting the BBC and the HRC with allegations of the
most appalling harassment. Indeed we had the case of a 17-year-old worker
McDonald's who alleged that she was being asked for sex in return for a
manager giving her the shifts.
How can that be acceptable in today's
economy? And yet when we put this point to the Chief Executive of McDonald's and said don't you think that the imbalance of power that has
flourished in McDonald's because 90% of your work has been on zero hours
contracts has anything to do with this litany of abuse, has anything
to do with 700 workers contacting your solicitors to bring a case against McDonald's? The answer was no. Absolutely extraordinary denial
of the reality. Second, we had from every, one of the most significant
every, one of the most significant
career Macquarie affirms my career.
And we were told everything was
sweetness and light. Now seen as a committing hundreds of complaints
from whistleblowers, alleging the way they are cheated, and the car
most recently through the health and safety pieces at work, intimidation,
bullying, harassment, been told time and time again that their shifts
will be cut, or they will be out the door if they don't work six days a week. This is complete unacceptable
behaviour that is happening to our
constituents.
And then of course, and here I must be careful of scope, but then of course we've heard from the company she in he can even tell
the committee whether the products they make contained cotton in China. We were simply trying to understand
whether workers in our country are being undercut by a piece of modern
slavery practices abroad. So I say
to the House, that although we may have our differences about this bill, we have got to accept the reality that the millions of people
in this country, millions of people we are sent to this House to represent, they are being treated in a way that should be unacceptable in
a 21st-century economy.
And of course what the good employers set
our committee time and time again as they supported the spirit of legislation. Of course there were
concerns and it's good the Minister is listened, but what are the did not want to see persist is a situation they feared which is that
the good firms are being undercut by the bad. We've got to have A-level
playing field in this country. That's going to be a necessity if we
are going to win a global race to the top.
So amendments 275277 in my
name actually suggests amendments for zero hours regime that the Minister has set out. Actually I
think we should be abolishing definitions of low hours in the contract. I accept the evidence that was given to us by Paddy Lewis, a
brilliant general secretary that keeping that definition in the
contract actually raised the risk of loopholes to be exploited. By bad
employers. And moments 278281, what
I call the McDonald's amendments, so these are amendments that edge them instead to put on the face of the
bill definition of what is reasonable notice to move shifts, to put on the face of the bill the
compensation that should be entailed if there are unreasonable moves in
shifts because we need to make sure that our workers in this country, particularly young workers, are
never again open to the kind of abuse that we have seen unfold at
McDonald's.
Those days must be consigned to the past. New clause 80
is what you might call the then Evri amendment. That creates an obligation, a duty on the Minister
to bring before this House within
six months of this bill. The finalisation of the review of single status of workers. We had compelling evidence from the director of the
labour enforcement he said to us that the Government minister's,
civil servants could consult in her words until the cows came home. We could put this consultation about the different kinds of definitions
of worker of forever and a day, and actually what we need to do is end
the kind of abuse we see at Evri now, so making sure that these loopholes are closed so the bogus
self-employment is no longer a
loophole through which bad employers can abuse honours workers in this country.
That's something I like to see the Minister step up to.
Finally, in clause 81 it's what you might call the Shean amendment, and
this requires the government to
update the modern slavery outcome a particular section 54 to ensure that the employment rights granted in this bill are not simply undermined
by companies operating in this country which are abusing modern
slavery legislation. At the time the modern slavery act was while leading legislation, but now we've had clear
evidence from companies like Tesco that this country was at risk of
becoming a dumping ground of bad products produced by workers exploited abroad.
We cannot have a situation where this country that led the abolition of slavery is now
a country where we have second-class protections against modern slavery in the 21st-century. That is not something we should permit, and so I
would welcome a commitment from the Minister as to when the modern
slavery legislation will be updated.
Finally, we welcomed some of the amendments put forward, in particular the enhanced protection agency workers, those both
recommendations which we carried in
an excellent report from the Select Committee to the House which I commend all members, but hopefully this debate we can salvage some
consensus.
This bill is going to go through today. This will be the biggest overhaul of employment
rights in this country. We've got to make sure that it is something that lasts for the future, and the more that we can do to bring cross-party
consensus around that simple idea
that every worker, every constituent in this country should have the right, the power, the freedom to only get life for them and their family, the sooner we bring that
consensus, the better.
14:55
Steve Darling MP (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Steve Darling.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. The holy Grail that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. The holy Grail that all governments seek, whichever you
all governments seek, whichever you can is economic growth. And I think therefore it's really important that we look through the lens of economic
growth and whether the employment Bill actually drives economic growth. I know from my time on the
growth. I know from my time on the bill committee the time spent with the many hours with the Member for
the many hours with the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, hearing his
oratory for many hours that we spoke much about productivity and whether
this bill would be driving productivity.
When I've engaged with
people in my community, such an
enlightened HR as Alison Bennett, around what the impact of this bill could be, the destination for her as
an HR consultant was very welcome,
and we've heard from lots of people who have been consulted on this bill that the destination and the
aspirations of this are correct. And appropriate. But it's how we get
there and whether the government have got the balance right between employers and employees there is
really important.
Because the last thing we want this to do is have a
chilling effect on the economy where we are only too aware of how the National Insurance contributions
that are set to kick in April are already having that negative impact
on our economy. And we don't want this well intended piece of
legislation to echo that further. The fact that there are 250
amendments coming before us today at this late stage of this legislation
whilst the Minister says this is due to levels of consultation and so forth and should be welcomed, and us
trimming our sales, if that was the case, and if the Minister is in such
a listening mode, at the bill committee, why were no amendments
accepted at all by the government from opposition members if they were
on listening mode? So I'd welcome some reflections on the windup from the Minister there.
As Liberal
Democrats, and Liberal Democrats spokesman for the DWP, carers are
front and centre of our world. The fact that we have the population of
Portsmouth effectively 200,000 people a year walking away from the
employment market to take up caring occupations and support what is
often members of their families, that's 600 day walking away. That
has the impact of £8 billion a year on our economy that leaves us less
productive as an economy. So our amendment as Liberal Democrats
around making leave the carers paid
opportunity is something that I would hope that the government would give serious thought to.
Because
making sure that those carers have that flexibility and that breathing space will actually unlock more
space will actually unlock more
people for our market of employment. Making carers a protective characteristic is extremely
important. Before you heard about harassment elsewhere and discrimination as part of this bill,
but that would help support carers
immensely. Ensuring that there is
also a doubling of pay for those who
are... Taking adoptive leave is extremely important. Driving that
there is that support for those
people who take those caring roles such as kinship care is extremely
important, and I would hope that the Minister would take these caring,
these family roles into account.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very grateful. Does he agree with
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very grateful. Does he agree with me that the government has missed an opportunity to recognise the extraordinary contribution of kinship carers at this legislation? I really met the couple in my
I really met the couple in my constituency who are kinship carers. They acted out of love, but they've had none of the support that foster parents would have had in looking
parents would have had in looking after the children in their care. So this my honourable friend agree that
this my honourable friend agree that the government would do well to look at including the same employment rights for kinship carers as they
**** Possible New Speaker ****
rights for kinship carers as they Is someone who's adopted myself,
I know only too well the importance of that support. And as someone who
has been involved heavily with children's services, I know that often the best care for those
children who are in need of loving homes are often not too far away
from home, and the more that
children's services can be less of a child rescue service and what the child support service the better. I would strongly endorse what my
colleague alluded to there.
An area
that exercise the member for Mid Buckinghamshire particularly was
around third party harassment. I would strongly support the proposals
from the government in this bill. Having engaged with young women in
Torbay particularly from the grammar
school, who work in retail and
hospitality industry, they find that harassment in the workplace not a bit of banter but repugnant in the
extreme. And they often will go to a
shift, they shared with me when I visited, they said they would go to
a shift with a sick pit of the stomach feeling sick that they knew that this particular individual
would be coming in that evening we would act inappropriately with them.
And therefore their managers should
have a duty of care towards them. I welcome that. I know that there is
also nondisclosure of that are
alluded to with amendments here. And I would welcome the kind words that
the Minister has said around that. But warm words do not actually get
it onto legislation. I would ask the Minister to reflect on that and I'm sure colleagues will intervene on
NDAs. Finally, the areas I need to
cover, are in respect of masonry
periods.
-- probation periods. We
would welcome that a period of 3-9 months on the front of this bill
which would ensure there is less chance of expensive tribunals for
employees. We would also like to welcome the steps the government made in respect of Statutory Sick
Pay. But we need to ensure the balance is struck correctly between the burden on employers and positive
outcomes for the employees. In conclusion,...
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would like to welcome the amendments put forward by the Liberal Democrats, in particular new
Liberal Democrats, in particular new clauses 12, 13, and 14, which will extend parental rights to include
extend parental rights to include maternity rights from two weeks to
maternity rights from two weeks to six weeks and doubling the amount of pay. Those precious weeks are essential for fathers to bond with
essential for fathers to bond with their child, and to provide additional support to their
additional support to their partners.
Would he agree with me that these are essential amendments that the government should accept?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I agree with my colleague that actually, when you go and speak to
actually, when you go and speak to primary school teachers, the challenges that they particularly face is where there is poor
face is where there is poor attachment between the parent and
attachment between the parent and the child. And that can have a significant developmental impact on young people. By giving those
greater powers through this bill, one can drive that great strength of
one can drive that great strength of connection between that part of the family unit.
In conclusion, the
reality is that we need to be supporting small businesses and
getting the balance right between what the good stuff within this bill is, to make sure we are not
punishing businesses. And making sure we are supporting the family as
opposed, and strengthening the
family as the core part which will strengthen our society. My fear is
that this is a little bit like
snowwhite apple. It may look extremely good on the outside but it did send her to sleep.
I fear is
that this employment bill is a little like that. Where actually it may have lots of promise on the
outside but it could be a sleeping potion for our economy. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. First I'd like to give my full
First I'd like to give my full support to the measures in the bill. They are without question some of the most progressive in this area of
the most progressive in this area of legislation for a decade. My new
legislation for a decade. My new clause 25 seats to set up a working time council comprised of representatives of businesses, trade
15:06
Peter Dowd MP (Bootle, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
unions, government departments and experts on the subject. To advise
the Secretary of State how to measure going from a five day week to a four-day week and other
changes. Every progressive change in employment legislation over decades
has been criticised by the party opposite. Leopards don't change
their spots and we saw this today.
The Minister asked what proximity implications of some of the proposals would be, and the answer from the professor from Cambridge
University was that there was a strong correlation between strong
protection, and both productivity
and innovation.
He went on to say that research shows an average strengthening employment laws in this country in the last 50 years
has had pro employment effects for
various reasons. I know the Shadow Minister was there when he said that. Historically it is a well
trodden path for some to object to measures that would advance employment right even if those right
were of an advantage to everyone concerned, with employers, employees, or society more
generally. So this is especially so
in the medium to long-term.
Legislators don't just legislate for today, they legislate for tomorrow.
Can I thank my honourable Friend, my
admiration for him knows no bounds the effort is put into this bill and of course others as well. The
primary aim of introducing this new clause is to try to get the debate
about the four-day week off the
blocks was I accept the notion is a challenging one. That is not a reason to put off the debate will
stop discussion has to be had.
It is only 100 years since introduction of a five day week in different
industries. Influence of Henry Fords, not the most radical of
people, in the 1920s introducing a
two day weekend for those working at
the car factory. He argued it would boost worker morale and it did. The
argument that a shorter week effects resilience and proximity has been used time and time again. Even as
late as 1961, a Factory Act requirements to deal with
overcrowding had to be deal dealt
with, then rules on temperature.
All opposed at the time. And the same
thing about the equal pay act. Paid holidays were introduced in 1938.
What about the minimum wage, it was going to cost hundreds of thousands
of jobs when it didn't and we all know it didn't. Paternity Leave,
Maternity Leave, all criticised about having a cost to industry and did it? No it didn't. Research
showed that working hours in the UK has fallen 5% in the past four
decades. British hours are now working 27% more hours than their German counterparts.
Meanwhile
France, Italy, Spain enjoyed a 10% decline in working hours. Despite
people in this country working
longer hours, there are competitors and partners and we are one of the least productive in the G7. We have
to do something about that. What about the impact on employers? I
don't want to buy will give way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the honourable member for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the honourable member for Greenway. And I want to ask what is the magic potion that will improve
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the magic potion that will improve productivity complaint in this bill and amendments? I'm pleased she asked me that
question because it is patiently
obvious that better working conditions lead to less absenteeism. They lead to more resilience and work. They lead to better
work. They lead to better proactivity. It is what is known as enlightened employment. Maybe the
honourable Lady would like to read about that. I will put in touch with
a few people who can talk to her about it if she wants.
71% in that study reported reduced levels of
burnout. 54% said it was easier to balance work with house responsible
disease. 60% found an increased ability to combine the way they
worked with Kerry responsibly. 62% said it was easier to combine work with social life and so on and so
on. What it seeks to do is to put
the issue on the agenda. Because history shows that changes in
patterns of work and working arrangements, the nature of work, and other associated issues, AI,
will eventually lead to a four-day week over a period of time.
So let's
embrace the change. Let's plan for
the change was the if we do want to get the country back to work, we do want to get the country working
productively, if we want to get millions of people without work back into work, let's do it as
progressively as we possibly can.
Finally, if lengthening the time you are asking people to work by an
extra year, two years, three years maybe in the future, the least we
can do is to ask them to have a shorter week.
What is wrong with
that? Is that really too much to ask? I don't think so. Many more
employers and employees take the same view. So let's not make an
enemy of progress. Why don't we just embrace it?
15:12
Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP (East Hampshire, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.
I rise to speak regarding measures
on zero hours contracts and amendments to hundred and 83. It is
right we consider the effects of these changes on employment. It is
right we pause to consider the effect on employment. Of course
there are bad employers, there are those who would seek to exploit. It
is about thing we should bear down on them. But there is no reason to believe these measures will achieve that.
I suggest that the government
wants to get rid of zero hours contracts not because instinctively
there is a problem with them but because of the special place zero hours contracts have in Labour mythology. And I want to bring 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 honourable Member for
Islington North. And the then shadow Chancellor is here with us in the
chamber.
I was the Minister for Employment at the time. Unemployment
when that government came to power had been 8%. It rose a little bit to
8.5%. And from then on it came down and kept coming down. By late 2016
it was under 5%. And it would fall
further still. But that did not fit the Labour Party's narrative. They
wanted to be able to say that this reduction in unemployment wasn't real. It was all fake employment, it
was low quality employment.
That wasn't true but it did not stop them
saying it. In fact three quarters of the increase in employment was in higher skilled occupations. Three quarters of the jobs growth was
full-time. At that time growth in employment was growing much quicker
in self-employed and the number one area of implements was construction. Still they kept saying these were
all low quality jobs that have been created. On top of the list of the things the caller zero hours
contracts. The Venn Leader of the
Opposition used to talk about this.
There were a couple of moments like
a glorious appearance at Glastonbury when it turned out the Glastonbury Festival employ people on zero hours contracts. There was further
embarrassment when it turned out that none other than the Labour
Party conference, there were people working there on zero hours
contracts. We did some research, it turned out that less than 3% of people relied on zero hours contract for the main implement. On average
it delivered them 25 hours work each week, and strangely they had above
average job satisfaction.
Most were not looking for more hours. People
said the number had grown. Actually that was much more likely because of growing awareness of the term zero
hours contracts. When you think about our history, there has long been far more than 3% of people have
had irregular income patterns. When I have not had guaranteed hours of
work or levels of salary. From casual labour to catalogue agents,
commission only sales. At a certain
point it dawns on me that my own first job had been a zero hours
contracts, washing dishes.
Or at least it would have been had contracts involved at all.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Does accept that choosing to take on a regular contract when you are the higher the pay scale with
significant professional skills and expectations for the future is very
expectations for the future is very different to the endemic insecurity at the bottom of the labour market which is where zero hours contracts
which is where zero hours contracts are concentrated? 83% of people on a zero hours contracts.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
zero hours contracts. I think she is making her speech
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think she is making her speech
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of course she is right. Of course those things are different, but this dawning realisation I had back then,
dawning realisation I had back then, I suddenly went well who else might take zero hours contracts? This is true that disproportionately it is
true that disproportionately it is young people. Actually quite a lot of people a zero hours contract as a
of people a zero hours contract as a second job, and I'd be interested to hear from the government on what their assessment of that is.
It
their assessment of that is. It turns out that one of the biggest users in the country of zero hours contracts, when we looked at this in
contracts, when we looked at this in 2016 was none other than the National Health Service so they could cope with increasing demand. These were people who had a
permanent job as well but as bank staff could then 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.
The unions, there was another reason
too. This is classic insider, outsider theory, shift of
enumeration from people who are not in work to people who are already in work. It pushes up the what's called the non-accelerating inflation rate
of unemployment. Or in plain English, it is bad for jobs. And the
Chancellor of the Exchequer must know this. Because as we all know, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is
most definitely an economist. She has worked as an economist, trained
as an economist.
She is an economist. And this is classical
economic reality. So who might zero hours contracts work well for? Well for any employer with an unpredictable variable need for
workers. From the events business that I mentioned to the NHS which
also mentioned. There are obvious cases also in tourism, agriculture
and food. And also for some individuals. Some may just choose to have that flexibility. After the
last few years, it's been a sellers 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.
And the other group for whom it may work as those furthest from the
labour market who have perhaps been out of work for a very long time or perhaps they are ex-offenders offer some other reason it's difficult to
immediately land a very regular,
full-time job. And especially when combined with Universal Credit, which by the by the honourable
member also wanted to abolish, which could adjust its top up payment according to how much you earn week
to week can work very well.
This legislation is bound to have
unintended consequences. We don't know exactly which ones they will be, but I suggest they could include suppressing seasonal peaks in
employment for tourism and also at Christmas time because employers won't want to take on the liability
from the reference period. It could deter people from second jobs. That's 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, temperate contracts and yes could hit our
National Health Service and other important public sector employers.
I don't doubt that this piece of
legislation will be good for unions, but it will be bad for the economy and bad for growth and will be
especially bad for those 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.
15:20
Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I begin by congratulating the
right honourable friend the deputy promised and the employment minister for all their incredible work in bringing forward this landmark piece
of legislation? Can I also pay tribute my honourable friend the Member for Oxford West & Abingdon
who is cosponsoring new clause 74 with me today? This is the first
speech that I've given as a backbencher in nearly 10 years. And
one of the few benefits of elevating oneself to the backbenches is the
ability to be much more routinely on behalf of my constituents and those without a political voice.
And the
amendment I rise to speak to you today is literally about the voiceless. It is about those who
have been legally silenced in the name of organisational and personal
preservation. New clause 74 prohibits employers from entering
into nondisclosure agreements with workers in relation to complaints of sexual misconduct, abuse, harassment
or discrimination. It mirrors very closely legislation passed in Ireland recently that bans NDA's in
the circumstances but allows them at the express consent of the victim and legislation has been passed in
multiple US states in relation to
sexual harassment.
NDA's have a perfectly legitimate use in business, to protect commercial confidentiality and trade, but they
are frequently misused in order to bully people into silence when they have already suffered at work. We
know of the most hope my high- profile cases from Harvey Weinstein
to hammer Dao Fayard only because their brave survivors risked
breaching the MTAs, but these agreements are far from confined to celebrity abuses, misused and
exploited on a vast scale. The campaign can't buy my silence who
campaign can't buy my silence who
helped expose the abusive Harvey Weinstein has exposed multiple scandals in the higher education sector which led to action by the former government to ban the use of
NDA's in the sector.
We sadly know in our own labour movement the trade unions have been accused of using confidentiality clauses in
settlements which have the same chilling effect as NDA's. I've been
**** Possible New Speaker ****
told stories... With the member be kind enough to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With the member be kind enough to declare her union interests from her register of financial interests? I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
believe there is a £10,000 donation. That is not a matter for the chair, but it's a point for the member. Very grateful. Of course very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very grateful. Of course very happy to declare my register of interest just as I am in the process
interest just as I am in the process of criticising a trade union. Trade unions have been accused of abusing
confidentiality clauses and settlements would have the same told of stories that should be on
the front pages of newspapers, such as the man who was accused of rape
who signed an NDA and was paid off. His alleged victim only found out years later that there had been the
case while she was still working in the same workplace.
Media organisations like ITN have come
under recent criticism as former
employee Daisy Amy said, women who have white there have tried to report discrimination and harassment
the scene after doing so found themselves suddenly out of a job and bound by nondisclosure agreements.
Another former employee after seeing
her speak out realised his experience was far from unique and has asked that I use Parliamentary privilege today to speak about the confidential clause he was required
to sign. He asked that I not uses
name so we call him Mr B.
Easterby joined IDM in 2008 on a scheme called enabling talent, which aim 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 associate seizures which she describes as soon
as blackouts. In 2008, ITN made a
number of reasonable adjustments for him, including help with notetaking, key to the first-aid room and disability leave when required in order to avoid the stress and
fatigue induced seizures.
He states that the time he could not fault his employer for the support they gave
him. He left ITN to pursue his career elsewhere and return in 2017 when he again declared his disability and made a request for similar adjustments. Despite
multiple requests for the kind of help you had received before, none
were forthcoming. Instead he suffered severe bullying and discrimination, including pressure to widely disclose his disability to
his colleagues. The situation got so bad that his so now son blackouts
became increasingly frequent and after suffering from one seizure at work, he was required to apologise
to those that had witnessed it.
He was repeatedly accused of lying about his disability and told his
issues were nothing to do with his disability, despite joining ITN on a disability inclusion scheme. He took
ITN to tribunal incurring tens of thousands of legal costs. He set
about was required to sign a confident charity 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
**** Possible New Speaker ****
homeless. Which you agree that in cases like Mr B, there is no public
like Mr B, there is no public interest and no interest for anyone
interest and no interest for anyone apart from the guilty parties to keep these things secret, and that's
keep these things secret, and that's why it's important that NDA's aren't used to hide problems that employers have and should sort out.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have and should sort out. Very grateful. He's upset the road. There are many organisations, including the BBC that has a policy
including the BBC that has a policy to not use NDA's. Because 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 the survivors and monsters
like Mohammed Al fired, of the thousands of victims across our society have been legally required to suffer in silence, hope the House
can agree that such agreements have no place in modern society. And if
it can happen in organisations like ITN, whose little job it is to
expose injustice, or in trade unions whose job it is to protect workers, then it can happen anywhere. Organisations in these instances, no
Organisations in these instances, no
matter who they are or circle the wagons and protect themselves rather than the victim, and in doing so they protect abuses.
That's why we
must simply remove the tools of their abuse and end the use of NDA's
in the circumstances. Very grateful to the Minister for his response earlier for confirming that it
warrants further consideration, but can I press on a little further on exactly how we can see progress? And
we must see progress. It's sickening that across this country, women and men who have suffered abuse in their
workplace and instead of action against the perpetrator, they are the ones that are shamed and
silenced, going upon by lawyers and sentenced to a lifetime of regret.
15:27
Sir Ashley Fox MP (Bridgwater, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Is a member of the Public Bill
Committee for this bill, I was surprised by the number of amendments that the government tabled to its own legislation at
committee. Hundreds of amendments demonstrating how badly this bill
was drafted when it was first proposed. It was clearly a bad idea to commit 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 party opposite. And having spent 21 sessions in
committee, scrutinising the spill line by line, we now find ourselves
with another fast number of government amendments once again.
But this time with only two days to scrutinise it. Most of the
amendments in that package are the governments amendments. The amendment paper is thicker than the
original bill. Now this is a bad bill. It pushes up the cost of
labour, makes our flexible labour market less flexible, and will increase unemployment. But there is
one amendment, new clause 30, which
I'm pleased to propose. This adds special constables within the scope of section 50 of the employment
rights act 1996.
And would give them the right to unpaid leave to perform
the right to unpaid leave to perform
their duties. Special constables are volunteers. They give their time at no cost to the taxpayer to help our
police forces. Specials have existed in some form ever since the Special Constable site of 1831, which allow
justices of the peace to conscripted volunteers to combat riots and social unrest. The special
Constabulary as we know it was established by the police act of
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. They put themselves in harm's way without payment keep
our society safe. Today, the special
Constabulary, an institution that has served this nation for nearly 2 centuries faces a crisis. The number
of volunteer officers has fallen by two thirds in the last decade. In the past year alone, we've seen a
20% drop, and many police forces now
face significant gaps in their special Constabulary ranks.
This isn't just a temporary dip. It's a
long-term trend. There are multiple
factors at play, but clearly becoming a special isn't an attractive proposition to too many
potential recruits. I believe we must act now to ensure the special Constabulary continues to play a
vital role in policing for generations to come. And it's in
this context that I bring forward momentum to the Employment Rights Bill to amend section 50 of the
employment rights act 1986. For those not aware of section 50, it allows those undertaking a number of community roles to request unpaid time off work to perform their
time off work to perform their
On that list our majesties, school
governors, members of the Environment Committee it seems
strange we are including some.
Some
employers are understanding and already tried to have support
offices on their staff. When the Association of Spatial Constabulary Officers wrote to the Minister
asking him to back the changes, he
said the leasing scheme was being extended this is simply not enough.
The survey completed by ASCO last
year showed 60% of specials are not supported by employers. It is currently lawful for employers to
refuse time off for a special. The riots last summer demonstrated
benefits of a flexible police force, given the government focus on
increasing community policing, increasing the number of special soup is a good choice because it will not cost the taxpayer a penny
but simply put special constables on the same footing as other
volunteers.
This amendment has been signed by members from almost every party represented in the House and has been endorsed by 10 police and
crime commissioners. Importantly,
Inspector Bill Dudley, acting in his
capacity as lead, height put -- that
included support under Section 50 -- that included support under Section 52 includes special. I believe this
will help the retention of many special constables and will make the
streets safer because it will recognise the work of specials and put them on the same footing as the
thousands of other people allowed time off work for valuable civic duties and in that spirit I actually
Minister to seriously consider if the government will consider the Nou
15:33
Matt Western MP (Warwick and Leamington, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Camp -- the new clause 30. The legislation before us today is truly
legislation before us today is truly historic and the biggest upgrade to workers rights in the generation and
workers rights in the generation and I commend my honourable friend for what they have done. It delivers for families and the whole country, leading to higher productivity, which is, and ultimately to economic
which is, and ultimately to economic growth. These are unashamedly pro-
worker and pro-business which is a
contrast to the years of low
productivity and low growth.
Since 2011, we have seen insecure work
rise nearly 3 times faster than secure work. Whether it be the 800
workers sacked over Zoom without
workers sacked over Zoom without
notice for P&O, there are 900 people
not protected by unfair dismissal in this country and it cannot go on. I will talk briefly about some of the measures in the bill. Day 1 writes
measures in the bill. Day 1 writes
as a serious improvement. Nine
people do not have protection of dismissal.
I welcome some clarity
around the initial period of employment and what specific timeframe it would apply to and what
it means exactly. I would urge the government to look at the support available for smaller firms concerned about the impact it may have on their costs and what more
can be done to get companies to be
changes. As these zero-hours contract become endemic across the
economy as many people working on them are given such little notice of the cancellation of the work when
they may have made provisions for childcare are travel arrangements.
I
look at industrial relations and I think one of the important elements from the legislation is setting the
new framework for industrial relations. We carried on the
Business and Trade Select Committee session from good employers such as
Jaguar land and British Aerospace on
the work that they do to create the right practices across business and
right practices across business and
also we witnessed the mistreatment of workers at companies like Amazon where there are clear problems.
I
think the work for the British proposal for the Fieldwork It Is the
proposal for the Fieldwork It Is the
is also a very positive move. We also heard of the need for the
also heard of the need for the
government to resource that it is -- resource adequately because it is am
form. In terms of clause 74, I would reference a particular constituent
of mine, Mrs E, who was the victim
of harassment in the workplace to a
prolific individual who was protected by management that ultimately she had to leave the organisation and ultimately he left,
too.
This is such a disadvantage and
such a problem and this is one of the issues that this legislation
must address. I want to talk about the new clause 81 which references
modern slavery. When we heard about
the sorts of problems that are brought because of the fact that
companies in the UK are disadvantaged by modern slavery and the activities of businesses
operating elsewhere. If I could, I
just want to go a bit further on
productivity and the points I was referencing to the Shadow Minister.
What I think is important is not just the great benefits this
legislation brings to employees and
workers but also the greater responsibilities to employers and
with tighter employment legislation, as you see in France and Germany, it ultimately leads to greater
productivity. Both of those countries have seen up to 20%
advantage in terms of productivity versus the UK and that is why ABC
such a stagnant economy in the UK in the last few years and legislation
is another reminder to the people in the country that told me this part
can deliver for working families.
Less uncertainty and insecurity at
work and putting more money in people Bosman pockets. I would urge
the government to look at the Fair
Work Agency on how long this period would be. In conclusion, I think
it's a colossal piece of legislation, so important in this decade and the Prince about real
change and that is what this party will deliver for working people,
boosting productivity and ultimately
drawing the economy. drawing the economy.
15:39
Layla Moran MP (Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise to speak to clause 74 in honour of honourable friend who I pay tribute to. I also paid tribute
pay tribute to. I also paid tribute
to Mr B, Hood story she told. In
terms of cases of sexual harassment, bullying, discrimination, it had
been many years in the making and it transcends organisations and it transcends party. I paid tribute to members past and present of all parties been part of this campaign.
I was pleased to hear from the Minister from the dispatch box that we look to continue to make progress but I urge him to go further,
faster, for good reason because it is long past time that they stopped.
I will start by revealing a story
that has never been told before from ITN. Never before revealed because
it is covered by a nondisclosure agreement so I will use privilege to reveal the details and it is worth
saying that the victim is not alone and there are others from ITN and I
felt one today and -- we have heard one today and there have been
investigations done by the ITN board
who are intent on change and this victim is very clear that she does not want to cause them problems but she wants MPs to understand the
effect that this continues to have on her life and why we must act quickly.
This young woman was in her
mid-20s when she landed her dream job at ITN. She quickly became trapped in what I understand to be a
coercive and controlling sexual
relationship male editor who would hurl accusations of and she ended up
suffering panic attacks as a result of the relationship and she ended
before Christmas, 2018. When she returned in January, she was demoted, four hours and pay reduced.
The first editor she spoke to told
her to stay silent and said, "You do
not want to be one of those women who always moan about being wrong." She confided in a special editor who
said, of course It's not like she
ever hid you all you had to return to accident and emergency.
It took months to agree to a nature
investigation into what happened and they agreed on the condition that
she would also be investigated. HR
found they could not investigate it because it was criminal. At the same
time she raised a question at the Women and Paris Forum and asked the
question - what support is there for women to reports that harassment in
women to reports that harassment in
the workplace. She was summoned to an urgent meeting and it would seem her primary offence was asking for
help and from that moment she was suspended without pay.
She was completely cut off from almost all support networks for almost 1 GR and
ITN told her she could not tell anyone other than the lease to confirm what was happening even her best friend had to sign a
nondisclosure agreement to attend the meeting to support her. The NHS
of a group therapy for anxiety as you felt you had to decline because
the organisation insisted she stay
silent. Her lawyer said the organisation was trying to start for out of negotiations over her exit, which took years.
By the time she got the settlement, she was on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
£70,000 worth of legal fees. I know from experience that it is one of the premises of employment
one of the premises of employment lawyers who work for employers to go
onto Google maps and look at the houses in which the complainants live so that they can assess what
live so that they can assess what level of asset they are likely to have and if they are likely to afford to continue taking defence to the tribunal of whether they could
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the tribunal of whether they could be offered a smaller settlement. She agree that nondisclosure agreements are providing cover for this. Absolutely. This is exactly the
type of behaviour we must put to a
stop. She did eventually reach such a settlement but it was extremely one-sided and she panicked because
the NDA did not just gag her partner, best friends, parents, and
not the men or senior executives involved in the harassment that she faced. It did not just cover
business matters.
We are not seeking to stop confidentiality agreements
when it comes to business matters.
That is not what we are seeking to do. What had covered what everything painful that she had endured. Her
mental health spiralled and she ended up in hospital and every day she was in the hospital bed the lawyers sent her automatic reminders
to sign the NDA. This was a woman at her most vulnerable. It is entirely
wrong that she was put in that position and it is worth saying that
none of the NDA is enforceable and if it was taken to court, it would fail.
What could be Victims Bill
makes it clear she should have got
that support. We are kidding ourselves if we think these are not still being used and should. They
are. And that is why we must put a stop to this. Many years on,
following an investigation into the
treatment of these workers at ITN, she believes the organisation is trying to change and she's grateful to the executives pushing for
reform. The latest is that they are willing to renegotiate what happened
but that is something she should not have endured in the first place and the protection should be everywhere.
We are facing a weird situation we have created in this House be caught
in the Higher Education Freedom of
Speech That there is an amendment which has been taken to the Lions by the then-Conservative government
that these types of nondisclosure are not allowed but only in higher education settings. How is it making
any sense at all that I might have a constituent protected from these
kinds of nondisclosure agreements if they work for university but of the
book for any of the university
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I pay tribute to the people who
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I pay tribute to the people who have shared their experiences, but does the member agreed that the people we are talking about are people with means and support
people with means and support networks, and if we don't have these protections, we don't have
protections for the most vulnerable in society, and getting these laws
right is so important.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
right is so important. What we are trying to show is that it is men, women, disco nation, sexual harassment, and it is happening everywhere and happening
now. We are not seeking to try and silence those. If a victim wants
one, it would say it on the face of
the bill, but if a victim would want one for whatever reason, that they would be allowed to habit. What this
amendment seeks to do is to redress this gap, how is it right that some establishments, workers will be
protected and in others they are not.
This is the time for the government to sort this out, and
what the amendment says is not even how they should do this but the
protections afforded to all workers should be the same as those in
universities. They have six months to sort it out. That should be plenty of time. They should be able to tackle this with something in the
Lords which would then give them a bit of extra time to be able to do
this now and I would urge the Minister cannot wait for some other bill or some other time.
The words are meaningful but I would also urge
him to look back and I appreciate it wasn't this government, but we have
had this before. This campaign has transcended years of Parliament. We are making slow progress and
meanwhile, these victims continue to be heard today after day and every
day that these endure as often in
perpetuity, this continues. Let this be the government that we put these kinds of abuses of nondisclosure
agreements where they belong, in the
trash can, and we finally afford the protections that we are about to give to all university workers to every single employee.
every single employee.
15:48
Imogen Walker MP (Hamilton and Clyde Valley, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I am a member of GMB. My union membership has given me reassurance
for many years that I have backing if I need it, and I am conscious
that we may be listened to when we speak up. For too many people
insecurity and lack of respect at
work are an everyday experience. And in addition, businesses have suffered and the failure of the previous government to act where
reform was needed, not in this area alone but we were speaking on the
relevant amendments and we can come back to their other failings another
day, or perhaps more than one other day.
This is the time for action and
we are the party of business. Coming to the amendments, we say that
everyone should have a contract that reflects the hours 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 hour contracts work for both sides,
businesses and workers, because for too long, zero hour contracts have
too 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. Moving on, a days work
deserves a fair pay, and the power to bring civil proceeding and issue
penalties is an important move. We
respect the rights of the workers and have nothing to fear from this.
In fact, they will welcome the fact that the playing field is being
levelled. They are good practice and must not be undermined by the
unscrupulous minority. We also say that everyone should be free from
harassment in their place of work
and the message being sent to the many thousands of women being
harassed at work when they objected
this is appalling.
In contrast, we believe that everyone deserves respect at work whatever the
industry they work in, and I would like to reassure among other workers
in hospitality and retail industries that they do matter, and that they do deserve to. And that we are on
do deserve to. And that we are on
their side. To resolve it quickly, we will fast track decision-making
and back it up with robust finds. This helps businesses and workers,
it minimises stress, cost, and delay.
This bill is being welcomed
by many of our leading employers. They have a training academy in my
constituency of Hamilton and their Chief Executive is fully supportive
of this legislation. It is not just the right thing to do but a foundation for high-growth, high
skills economy and progress that our
country needs. A stable workforce will help employers and workers. The chaos of repeated strikes has
damaged businesses and left our country reeling. The party opposite
may be opposed to empowering ordinary people, but we say that
these are the people that keep our country going and we have the full
support of this government.
15:52
Chris Law MP (Dundee Central, Scottish National Party)
-
Copy Link
-
I beg to move closer to 5 and speak to other causes and moments in
my name. The Labour Party committed to strengthening sick pay, removing
limits, making it available to all workers and remove the waiting
period, while the removal of the limit is welcome, the fact remains that the UK Statute six pay does not
meet the needs of working people. The rates are far from the transformative change that was
promised, not help to deliver health area population and growing economy.
Indeed, it is only a few years ago that the Minister during the COVID
period asked repeatedly on the
statutory sick pay that has been increased to 2 pounds. To be clear, the UK is lagging behind this
provision, offering one of the
weakest systems. Numerous European countries such as Austria, Germany and Luxembourg provide salary
permits or cover up a portion of earnings from 50 to 90%. Amendment
272 will bring the UK to other
countries.
With limited coverage, many workers, particularly low-
income and part-time employees are left with financial support when
they fall ill. This gap impacts workers well-being, exacerbates financial stress during illness and
can discourage people from taking time off to recover. It contributes
to outcomes and surely no one in this house once this to continue.
The foundation suggests that to
strengthen sick pay is to increase rates with amendments to this bill
that would do so, including my own because 76 which would gradually increase statutory sick pay the next
five years, taking it to at least 80% of rates to the National living
wage and other supposed to be higher of a percentage of the usual weekly
earnings.
Moreover, economic show that six pay reforms could result in a net financial benefit to this
country of over £4 billion. Sick pay
reform will also help with the British workforce managing long-term conditions and ensuring that fewer workers follow the job market
workers follow the job market
entirely. As an example, many people with Multiple Sclerosis need to take time off work for reasons relating
to this. Some people are supported
and of course, we support that. When people get the financial support
they need, they can often stay in work longer as they can better manage things in the long-term.
This
means this needs to be the same for people with other conditions who
rely on SSP. New clause 75 will
consider this outdated as an
inflexible system. Changes for those conditions could include this being Pederson hourly rate rather than a
daily rate, enabling people to work half days on a gradual return to work or change restrictions on how
people can claim SSP so it is fairer for people with conditions by
extending eligibility timeframes. However, I suspect the Labour Party is looking to slash spending and has
been reported with people being pushed into poverty which will be no
joy to many and little interest to
supportive change.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister. The lack
of gumption ever to meditate with which they have approached this bill with, it makes improvements to the
rights of working people of the Tory
government, but it could have done so much more. The status of the
worker is designed to limit restrictions. Where the provisions
for collective bargaining to alleviate low pay? We have the
promises to switch off designs to ensure better worklife balance disappearing. This is the opportunity to legislate, to
entrench employment rights for a more equitable and more productive
economy and society.
Unfortunately,
this bill is left wanting, so when we look at these clauses and amendments, if the Labour Party are
serious about this manifesto commitment.
15:57
Lorraine Beavers MP (Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I call Lorraine Beavers.
this bill and I proudly declare my membership of Unite and CW and refer
to my register of interest. 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 for, they keep 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 a testament to
that. This bill represents a crucial first step in redressing that
imbalance, especially amendment 18
on sick pay. It strengthens those collective and individual rights money in the pockets of working
people. I therefore welcome the government's amendment to the bill,
ensuring everyone gets sick pay from
the first day they are rail, including those previously excluded for earning too little. Currently,
there are around 1.2 million workers
from statutory sick pay altogether.
And the present weight is extremely
hard for those on low pay. We were
people who lived week to week and dragged ourselves into work when we weren't well. If we didn't work, we
didn't eat when my children were small. The bill rectifies this which
is extremely welcome. The pandemic exposed just how inadequate current
levels of sick pay are. I would
therefore urge the government to ensure as many workers as possible benefit from the measures in the
bill.
In particular, I would ask that the government looked 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. And I hope the
government continues to consider the impact of the removal of the lower earnings limit to ensure everybody
benefits from the measures in this bill. Overall, these changes will be
transformative. For working people in my constituency of black Perth
and Fleetwood, as a working-class
woman from council estate, it does my heart good to stand in this place supporting changes that will make
the lives of working people better, giving them the rewards they so deserve.
Thank you.
16:00
James Wild MP (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I pay tribute to all the members
who served on the committee sessions, and their job was made
harder by the fact this was rushed legislation brought forward to spare
the blushes of the Deputy Prime Minister who made promises to the
It is also the case but for the
government has consulted during the bill, does not appear to have
listened to employers and honourable members should be aware of the intended consequences of these
measures.
During to the amendments
given, clause 87 is essential. Many of the problems in the bill will be implemented through regulations
which clearly do not have any detail
for employers and employees and show
the nature of the legislation common
on what is past in draft while clauses were considered. That has not happened in this case and so it is sensible to require the amendment
and that ministers must have regard
to the international competitiveness of the economy.
As honourable members now, the government inherited the fastest growing
economy in the G7. Their actions, their words, they have stopped the growth stone dead and so as well as competitiveness, the government
should take into account economic growth in the medium and long term. It is essential. My concern is the
government is treating businesses
like the mule in buckaroo with more costs and anyone who's played the
game will know that it is inevitable
that the mule will buck. That means
higher costs and lower wages.
The new clause 87 will offer some
detection. Many honourable members have spoken about the extension of
employment provisions to Day 1 and I recognise this is well-intentioned but the reality is that this
increases the risk to employers of taking a new role and increased risk
inevitably deter small employers from taking people on for fear of
facing unemployment tribunal. It is
bad for people, jobs, investment, growth, and so the new clause 86
requires the Secretary of State to
examine the provisions in clause 21.
This parliamentary work is about protecting young people, ex-
offenders, and their chance of
joining the workforce because otherwise firms may not take a chance on them. Part-time be had by
this bill in particular and these measures are on top of the jobs tax of £25 million a year which is
of £25 million a year which is
making 730,000 jobs in hospitality subject to national insurance for the first time and these are the
types of flexible roles which are well suited for people on long-term
sickness benefits you might be looking to move back into the
workplace and the bell undermines.
The third area is around flexible
working and provisions and guaranteed and clause 28 tabled by
the government. Again, I think it is
to business leaders who have warned about the unintended consequences. The chief executive for Currys have
set this will penalise those who benefit from flexible hours and make
such jobs less viable and business is less competitive. You do not have
to be an economist or a lawyer to know that businesses have seasons, particularly in my constituency, so companies Planet Lab the right size of the workforce at different times
of the year is.
-- Companies must plan to have.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Flexible working will still be available with fixed term contracts. Does she agree these could be used to manage seasonal fluctuation?
to manage seasonal fluctuation? Three and pointing to the words from the chief executive of Currys. I'm
the chief executive of Currys. I'm not here to tell them what contract you have and I'm not sure it is the
you have and I'm not sure it is the job of the honourable lady to tell employers which contracts to offer
staff but they will be removing the flexibility and the government is doubling down by extending those to agency workers.
The flexible
agency workers. The flexible contracts valued staff, and we've
had contributions from the site talking about the benefits of, will be undermined by this bill. Having a
flexible labour market is part of growing the economy and we achieved that under the last government extending employment rights. The
clear danger from this bill and the warnings from the Federation of
Small Business and others is that this will make it harder to employ
young people and rather than striking the balance the shadow minister spoke about, the government
minister spoke about, the government
is introducing measures which, taken together, combined with the tax- raising budget, creates a
significant cost for that regulation.
That is why we oppose this bill and the action the
government is taking to increase taxes and regulation and make us less competitive.
less competitive.
16:06
Alistair Strathern MP (Hitchin, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I draw the attention of members to my registered interest. For too long, our economy has been stuck in
a low-growth, low-wages situation. We have allowed some of the best employers and businesses in our
country to be undercut by less scrupulous employers who have only
scrupulous employers who have only
done so through levelling working conditions. That cannot be right. We
have heard in committees, this House, and in the headlines over the years the worst examples that have been perpetrated by a fully there is
not a person across society who is not currently losing out as a result
not currently losing out as a result
of the failure to tackle this.
The Opposition are talking about the pace but maybe...
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I wonder if I honourable friend would agree with the CEO of Richer
would agree with the CEO of Richer Sounds talks about happy colleagues
Sounds talks about happy colleagues and the issue of hire staff
**** Possible New Speaker ****
retention which minimises training cost and minimises disruption to established teams. I could not have put it better
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I could not have put it better myself. We have to be clear about the strong link between good work
the strong link between good work conditions and good productivity and this is why I'm grateful to everyone
who has played their part, from the Minister, to those who have come in with some sympathy for some of the
tropes we have listened to today. There are some strong amendments
debating today and I want to focus on one which touches a constituent
who came to my surgery.
This is clause 32. There is literature about
zero hours contracts and the impact on productivity, conditions and
mental health workers and they are compelling but listing to the given point, you are missing half the
point, you are missing half the
story. Two weeks ago I was joined by a gentleman who been working for four years on a zero hours contract and for four years, he had not known
to be, month-to-month, year-to-year what hours they would be working and
he had not been able to plan day- to-day and plan for commitments and
training he was trying to do.
For four years, his life had been
damaged by the precarious reality of the zero-hours contract which was
implemented by those who should know better. I am glad this government in its manifesto and in the bill put
forward to the House is looking at
zero hours contracts and giving people the right to request a
contract. But, my constituent, without this amendment, I would be
missing out. He is now employed through an agency without these protections and the expansions
brought forward, he would have
laughed, like many others.
I am very glad that we are being complete and
making sure we do not miss out. Many
employees are not receiving the support protection. There are more
areas of the bed and I'm glad to hear from the Minister in his
opening remarks about the measures introduced by my honourable friend.
The support to -- it is impossible not to discuss the simple reality
that to be bereaved is not to be
sick and that the leaf system should recognise that.
I am glad to hear that this government will look to
make sure that we can work with the honourable member at others across the South who have campaigned on
this issue for a long time to recognise that reality. Alongside that, there are a number of
important measures. In three minutes
I could do justice to very few and so I will focus on clause 12, making
sure we remove some barriers to fathers taking maternity leave early employment. As well recognise we
have some of the worst paternity leave entitlements across Europe at the moment.
Parental beef sounds
great -- parental leave sounds good
as a concept at it is shockingly low and skewed towards the highest earners. I'm very glad we are taking
important steps to recognise we must do more to boost access to paternity
leave as part of this bill and part of the upcoming act later this year,
I know that a lot of colleagues across the House will be keen to engage with the Minister to
understand we can go further, not just another fathers to have crucial early time with your child, but also
breaking down the genders that are currently baked into statutory
provision.
There are so many important measures in the bill and many areas where we must go further
and fundamentally I am full of pride to see our government finally, after
too long, taking the issue of
workplace security, productivity, and the well-being of people and
some of the most vulnerable forms of employment across the country seriously. I'm proud they are standing up for my constituent and
people like him across the country and I am grateful to be supporting this bill today.
16:12
Alison Griffiths MP (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In the last 30 years, I have worked in businesses of every size,
numerous sectors from consumer
goods, to cyber security, insurance, Planning and Infrastructure Bill top I may not be a lawyer but I'd feel
qualified to comment on this bill.
If only the government had listened to the businesses I have. My fellow
committee members and I have spent many hours listening to evidence on
this bill, from employers, trade unions, industry groups.
At the
Select Committee, we toured the country at the end of last year, collating evidence and feeling from
a wide range of sectors. In my own
causal constituency of Bognor Regis, I spoke to numerous that is, many of
them are impacted by the vagaries of seasonal trade and employment Tish
whether and a consistent message emerges from businesses and trade unions. How can a government that claims its primary focus is
delivering growth be so ignorant to
the views and needs of the very businesses, entrepreneurs and employees that are fundamental to creating this was? The government
has boasted of delivering this bill, I think as a telephone directory, within its first 100 days.
This is not sensible governance. Indeed, a
telephone directory of amendments is
testament to that. One of the most damaging provisions is the abolition
of the 2-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal under clause 21, a
loving employees to question failing
probation or a trial period in their contract. Employees will be able to take employers to court from day
one. The Conservative amendment 207 six to remove this clause entirely
because it disincentives businesses from hiring, knowing that they
cannot let an employee go even if it is not working out.
The government
expects entrepreneurs and businesses to take the risks necessary to drive
growth and in the that is what they expect and what to do. This clause
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. Of
course I will give way to my honourable friend.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the honourable member for giving way and I serve with horror
giving way and I serve with horror on the Business Select Committee. The vast majority of young people do not have two years service and have
not have two years service and have no protection from the fire at will policies and in hospitality and
policies and in hospitality and catering, there are massive concerns and vast numbers have no protection
from fire at will, with overnight fighting for no reason with process
fighting for no reason with process and the bill will outlaw that and I know she supports fair process and
fear reasons for filing and I hope
**** Possible New Speaker ****
You know that I will always support fair process, but the point
support fair process, but the point that I was leading on to make is that this clause will basically mean
that this clause will basically mean that it is more difficult for employers to take on prison levers,
employers to take on prison levers, care leavers, candidates with a
care leavers, candidates with a nontraditional CV, career changes and young people just looking for
and young people just looking for that first job, that first rung on the ladder because it is these people who won't be given a fair
chance as employers will see them as too risky, and I hope she will see
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the risks inherent in her clause. I used to be an employer is an entrepreneur for 15 years. We
entrepreneur for 15 years. We employed over 1000 people. Does she agree that it is those people who
agree that it is those people who are risk because they have got something which isn't quite right on
something which isn't quite right on their CV, a high-risk higher. Those are the people who will not get a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
job because of this legislation. It is a powerful point, and I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is a powerful point, and I think anyone who has ever looked for a job themselves, people in this chamber will probably count themselves among the better
qualified in the looking for work population. Anyone who has ever
looked for a job will know that most employers of any kind don't want to take a risk. So, if we make it even
harder for them to employ people who
are risk, it will not serve their purposes. So, the government's own impact assessments suggest that the
direct effects of this bill alone will cost UK businesses and
additional £5 billion annually.
This only costs for the broader impacts
of hiring business costs and strike
action. Key factors like reduced hiring include greater liability
from employment tribunal claims as outlined in this bill. They are
dismissed as too hard to calculate. Making the assessment questionable.
This is why I will be supporting the amendment for new clause 6 which
will require an impact assessment on
clause 21. This is why the bill's provisions on 20 our workers will
not come into force until a comprehensive review of the impact of this bill of tribunal's had been
assessed and approved by Parliament.
Moreover, we prevent third-party
harassment. Protecting employees is unquestionably important, and nobody
should doubt the sincerity of members on this side of the chamber
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to that. Would she agree that it is right that 1.3 lower earners who find
that 1.3 lower earners who find themselves L should receive statutory sick pay for the first time? I represent a coastal seat
time? I represent a coastal seat which has a Tory sector, and as a consequence, I have significant lower earners. Would she agree that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
lower earners. Would she agree that we need to be backing them? I think my friend for his
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think my friend for his intervention. I would refer to my earlier comments on making sure that
earlier comments on making sure that we don't just incentivise employers
and secondly, to point to the flexibility that is needed for both employers and employees. The
amendment seeks to exclude sports
venues from these provisions.
Recognising the impracticality of holding employers accountable for every interaction in these
environments. It is simply not practical to think that every publican, landlord and bar owner,
small business owners would be liable for any harassments that
happen towards their employees in a
pub, bar, nightclub or festival.
Amendment 285 would require an
impact assessment to be carried out
on clause 18, and of course, businesses and business owners should embed good working practices and guidelines to combat this
apparent behaviour, but it is
impractical and an desirable for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
every sector and business. There is defence here if an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
employer has taken reasonable steps. We have made enough progress. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We have made enough progress. I urge the government to reconsider,
urge the government to reconsider, withdraw this bill to create an
16:21
Lee Barron MP (Corby and East Northamptonshire, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
approach and one that prioritises this.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Our first want to reform members to the declaration of interest and I
to the declaration of interest and I have said it before and I will say it again. Due to the virtue of my
it again. Due to the virtue of my name, I am the only legitimate person in this house and I am proud
person in this house and I am proud of it. It is an honour to speak
of it. It is an honour to speak again on this bill and I want to commend this government for bringing it forward.
We made a commitment to
it forward. We made a commitment to people and we are following that through. I want to start by welcoming the governments amendments on agency workers. In my
constituency, we have more agencies than any other town in
Northamptonshire. We are now seeing that those who work agency jobs
receive fair treatment in terms of pay and job security. It is to be
welcomed. We aim to provide a better local economy for the people of
Corby and East North Hants.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Me and the member for Corby are neighbours, and there has been a lot
neighbours, and there has been a lot of growth in Northamptonshire and increased distribution in the area, and this will make a massive
and this will make a massive difference to our constituents.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
difference to our constituents. I think the member for making the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think the member for making the point so well with me. In terms of sick pay, this has been a huge move in terms of how the government
in terms of how the government brings 1.3 million people to get sick pay, and we need to welcome
that. We need to have a look in the future to CF there has been a drag downwards in terms of lower earnings
limit, but I certainly think we
should welcome it as a step in the
There are still some who don't recognise the value that working
people bring.
I had a meeting last week with a company called every. They operate in all our
constituencies. They describe the employee relationship as master
servant. I want to turn around and
say that that kind of view of working people is absolutely dated.
They said that if they change the status of their workers, then they
would want their pound of flesh. Whilst we've got people who treat working people in such a way and describe them in such a way, then we
have to bring in legislation to make sure that they can't treat people
like that.
Working people are not servants and they should be treated
with dignity and respect that they deserve. It is a fundamentally
wrong, crass, and outdated way to view employment in modern Britain, and as long as there are still those
who think that can, we need to make sure we change things for the better, and this bill goes a long way towards doing that. But the
question I often ask myself is why is it that those who want economic
growth think that the way in which we make economic growth is through insecure work, Minimum Wage Act
rates, zero hour contracts where you don't know from one week to the next
how you are going to support and what you will and to support your
family.
Work should be the route out of poverty, not a lifetime trapped in it, and this bill is a step in
the right direction to make sure that is what this becomes once again. I chair the all-party
parliamentary group on modernising employment. At the last session, we heard from Zelda Perkins from can't
buy my silence in relation to
nondisclosure agreements. Her testament makes it absolutely clear
that we need more done in this space, and if there is room through this bill to do that, then I would
urge the government to take those amendments on that were described earlier on.
The APPG that our telex
to the future of the work, at the end of the month, the AA PG will
look at work in this bill, looking at the full effects to see how we
take this forward the benefits and transfer them into the modern world of work. In the 21st-century, modern
employment should look like security of work, well-paid with progression opportunities to keep families out
of poverty. This bill goes some way
to do that. In conclusion, I urge all members to support this bill.
It bans exploitative zero hour
contracts, and I will make the point that what we are trying to do will
stop flexible working is for the birds. That is not the case. We had flexible working long before we had
zero hour contracts. We survived then, we can survive now, and we will survive into the future. If you
live and work in Spain or you live and work in the Republic of Ireland,
or you live and work in the Republic of Ireland, they are banned.
You
can't use them. Don't tell me those countries don't have flexibility. They have. We will survive in the
future like we survived in the past without exploiting working people
because you don't wear your economy by exploiting working people, and
this goes some way to do that. It increases protection from sexual harassment. It introduces a quality
action plans, strengthens rights for pregnant workers, makes flexible working the default. It strengthens
bereavement leave, improves pain conditions through fair pay agreements, provides day one
protections from unfair dismissal and establishes the fair work agency
to make sure all employers are paying by the same rules, and it will deliver the jobs for the future
which will benefit working people in
Corby and I am proud to support it.
Corby and I am proud to support it.
16:28
Rt Hon Sir Alec Shelbrooke MP (Wetherby and Easingwold, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
This will focus on new clause 83.
We start with a lady from Clyde
Valley and she think that a fair days work as a fair days pay, and
the member for Sally Howell also said that we all agree that an
honest days work deserves an honest days pay, and a lot of the speeches
have been focused on banning the zero hour contracts and the arguments being made that people
deserve to know what their contracts are, know what they will be paid, know that they will be treated
properly, and I find it disturbing, and one of the reasons that this bill is falling down goes back to
question I put to the Secretary of
State at the start, around why they
are not paid internships.
So when we are looking at the bill which is
focusing so much on zero hour contracts in this debate today, the
reasons behind that I find difficult to equate to why you would leave a whole section of society out of this
bill who can work for 12 months without being paid. I don't
understand how something that has been a Labour manifesto after Labour
manifesto, and may I say that I brought forward in every term I have been in this place a bill to ban
unpaid internships.
My government
didn't want to do it. Party opposite, there are members that that that stood on this manifesto
who always said they would do it. Here is this great bill which was
trialled in the general elections which has been promoted by the party opposite and yet there is nothing there. So I am making this appeal
now for when this bill goes to the other place next, that this has to
be looked at because this is wrong. All of the debates today about
opportunities for people, what opportunity lies to people like
myself and my sister who had to work
and earn a living to be able to do what we have gone on to do? That we couldn't have spent 12 months
working in London unpaid, that this fundamentally undermines what I am
hearing opposite about what this bill is setup to do in creating equality when there is a section of
society who are not being addressed
I do think that is wrong.
When we
talk about the clause without review, given what happens at employment tribunal, the review must
be wider and must understand that if
the aim is to create that equality, that the quality is not being created. Let's move on to something I mentioned to the Minister at the
start. I'm grateful for the answer he gave me at that point. I've
presented in the bill today with all
the clauses around parental leave, bereavement leave, and I pay tribute
bereavement leave, and I pay tribute
to the honourable lady Fall -- four
Luton North.
We are not looking at all aspects of mental health talking specifically about endometriosis
which is crippling for those who have it. I was proud to host an event last Thursday talking about
event last Thursday talking about
endometrial issues and I'm not sure people realise how debilitating this disease can be for people in the
workplace who deserve the same regard as anything in terms of
mental health, the Menopause
Strategy I find to be a big hole in the bill.
I'm trying to take everything at face value but I think
there are many flaws which have been
outlined by the frontbench and many members but I'm trying to say where I think there are significant gaps.
The honourable lady had been talking about nondisclosure agreements and I
thought in the point made by the
already insured some of the floors in the psychological abuse category.
She made the example that the person
suffering at work was made to apologise to colleagues and I think that should be examined further
because why would you have to apologise to colleagues? They must
have complained it was distressing
for them and this is why there are unforeseen circumstances in the wording.
That is not to say that I
do not care. I think the honourable member said many things I could
agree with. Please do not say that this side of the House does not
about abuse in the workplace.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my honourable friend for a giving way. Does he think some of the problems he is identifying is because the bill is being rushed
because the bill is being rushed through the chamber?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
through the chamber? I do. I am trying to make that a serious point because theirs is a big deal and one of the flagship
big deal and one of the flagship issues of policy for the government to bring that many amendments to the
to bring that many amendments to the floor, I've heard somebody saying 12
hours, it does not make up for the 21 days that were done in committee
to examine the bill piece by piece
and I do feel that it has been rushed for political purposes and I would say that the reason why we
have these debates is to explore these issues and try to make
legislation a better piece of work and I'm trying to talk about where I
have seen flaws.
I worry when we see being losing the platform at universities and people saying that
they feel emotionally put upon with trigger warnings on things and I
think it is an abuse of some of the protections we have tried to put in place and I think that there are
people who will try to abuse this
and I'm saying, can the legislation be tightened up? be tightened up?
16:35
Richard Burgon MP (Leeds East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Thank you. It is always a
pleasure to follow my close
neighbour and I welcome this bill. It has to be put in the historical
perspective. For much of the last decade, every time we've seen
Employment Rights Bill or Trade Union Bill, it has been an attack on
the rights of workers part this bill
makes a real difference on the rights of working people because
they have been kicked around for too long and it is right we do not accept a situation where it is fine for workers in this country to be some of the easiest to start in this
continent and the easiest to mistreat.
Workers in our country
deserve better employment rights and this bill sets about putting that in place.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
He will have heard in response in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
He will have heard in response in particular to the PM -- P&) disaster that there is going to be a bill and
that there is going to be a bill and will he agree with that? I certainly would agree with my honourable
would agree with my honourable friend and they never got round to it and all we heard from the Conservative Party in government
Conservative Party in government
about the P&O issue was crocodile
tears. This bill contains important advances like establishing
bereavement leave and equality and menopause action plans and the
people on zero hours contracts anything from the policy and the 9
million people have been with their employer for less than two years benefiting from the right to claim
unfair dismissal from day one.
To
address that, it seems to escape the understanding of many members
opposite that this does not mean that employers cannot dismiss people, it means they cannot dismiss people unfairly and saw the opposite
side are arguing for the right for employers to dismiss people
unfairly. The only way that you can claim unfair dismissal from day one
at the moment before the legislation comes as if it is discriminatory and
so as it stands, and deploy six months into someone contract and
there they are stacking them because they do not like people in green
jumpers because they find the voice irritating records they would be
unfair dismissals and people, as it stands, do not have the right to be
unfairly dismissed until they have accrued two years of service and
perhaps the party opposite us to come about that.
Moving onto my own amendment, and I welcome many
government amendments but also amendments put in from this site including the many important
amendments put that in by the Member
for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East done a good job the important
amendment on sick pay and the
amendments put in by my good friend, the member for Bradford East and the
honourable members who have put down such important amendments. In relation to my amendments, it is the
new clause 6 which correct what I consider to be a historic wrong.
The last Labour government brought in
the groundbreaking Equality Act 2010, which we can all be proud of
and as part of that there was statutory discrimination questionnaires when I was employment
lawyer, I kept track of the amount
of times we used the statutory discrimination questionnaires to smoke out discrimination in the
workplace, for the in relation to
age, disability, sex, race, sexual orientation, maternity, the
reassignment, religion, marriage, civil partnership. I bumped into my
old colleague on the train and he made the point that statutory questionnaires also...
I make no
apologies for having friends that are trade union lawyers. These
people have to get out more. He made the point that it would show when
there was a claim about a good chance of succeeding in helping to
manage expectations and initiatives when they were not pursued or settled but it helps to smoke out discrimination in workplaces, helping not just the particular
individual employee but helping to tackle dissemination against workers
more widely in the workplace and the truth is that in 2025, we are seeing
similar rhetoric from politicians in this country and around the world so
it is important as ever to have the mechanisms in place to tackle discrimination in workplaces across
the country.
That was part of the last Labour Government's pioneering
Equality Act 2010 and shamefully the Conservative government of 2014
abolished the equality questionnaires as part of their attack on workers rights and in the
consultation response was 83% of respondents said it was wrong to
remove this important mechanism for
workers to unmask and tackle discrimination. 83% of respondents
get the party opposite, whilst in government, aided and abetted by some of their friends, ploughed
ahead in any event.
The reason I've
put in the new clause 6 is I think it's an important opportunity for the new Labour government to right
the wrong of the Conservative government and reinstate an
important advance in the 2010 Equality Act. I look forward with
interest to giving the Mr's respond to this letter. The Minister will not accept the amendment to the bill, I invite them to come forward
with a proposal to reintroduce the statutory equality questionnaires as
soon as possible in the future.
It made a real difference and help some
claims going to tribunal and also
empowered workers to smoke out discrimination in their workplaces, not only for their benefit but the benefit of their colleagues in the
work base and to the benefit of
wider society. We need it now, in 2025. I look forward to the response from the Minister of.
16:42
Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy
Speaker. There are a number of
important issues today but I rise in support of the new clause 16 because as it stands self-employed people
are not entitled to adoption aid and this creates a barrier I've been the
selfless act of adoption is made hard. A constituent of mine is a self-employed mother who discovered the significant gap in the financial
support system whilst the possibility of adoption. Kirsty and her husband have a son, Charlie, a
bright-eyed four-year-old with an
unshakeable love of trains and he often popped about too much he wanted a little sibling could be his assistant train driver.
After years
of trying to conceive a second child for deciding opening their hearts
and home to a child through adoption
was the best option but one of her
close friends who were self-employed and in the process of adopting informed her she was not entitled to the same financial support reached and statutory adoption pay. Unlike
biological parents who qualify for maternity allowance or employed doctors eligible for statutory adoption pay, self-employed adopters
fall into a financial support void.
Statutory guidance allows local authorities to make means that the payments equivalent to these 11 C
for the self-employed but such support is not guaranteed and there
is no legal appointment to supply it.
Even worse, 90% of self-employed
is when surveyed on adoption and
permanence in 2022 reported social
work had never advised them about discretionary payments at the possibility of receiving them. Adoption provides children with the opportunity to thrive in a
permanent, loving home, often completing a family, as I tried the
great of seeing for myself and my
role as approach adopted aunt and I hope people across Mark Pawsey
self-employed people are dashing across the House will see that
self-employed people are no less
entitled to adopt anyone else.
There are enormous and growing pressures facing foster care which will only worsen if the number of adoptions continues to decrease. As of
September 2024, there are 4.39
million self-employed people and if
we can remove these barriers and empower those who are self-employed to guarantee financial support for adoption, we could reverse these
worrying trends in the number of adoptions and that would allow billing adopters like Kirsty and her husband to be financially able to do
so. The financial case is
compelling.
Research by the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies UK showed that adoption
saved the UK economy £4.3 billion through improvement in health, education and employment specs,
compared to a comfort children
remaining in care. The CVAA also found that this £1.3 billion worth
of value is created when each child is adopted, underscoring the societal benefits of increasing
adoption. I rate this glaring gap in the financial support system several
times in recent months and I fretted that ministers in a constructive debate in Westminster Hall and with the Leader of the House recommended
the Leader of the House recommended
I'm sure the Minister will mention this in summing up, but I encourage
the government to support the amendment to grant entitlement to statutory adoption pay to the new
clause 16.
We should be removing any barriers so potential parents can
adopt and some of our most vulnerable children can join their
forever families. forever families.
16:47
Michael Wheeler MP (Worsley and Eccles, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I would like to refer the house to my entry of the register of interest, my proud membership of the
GMB. It was an honour to serve on the Public Bill Committee for this
historic piece of legislation, and this bill represents a watershed moment, a turning point for working
people in our country, working people who for too long have been
left behind plagued by stagnant growth and a soaring cost of living.
The measures contained within this 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 some of the proud background representing workers, I
wholeheartedly welcome the spirit and provisions and I believe it will
meet Labour's promise to deliver a new deal for working people, and new
deal that will make work pay. Whether it is planning exploitative
contracts, ending the scandal of fire and rehire or protecting employees from unfair dismissal from
day one, this will support a workforce that is valued. It recognises trade unions as the force for good in the workforce that they
are, encouraging positive productive and harmonious partnerships between
and harmonious partnerships between
companies and unions.
We enjoy broad support from employers such as modernising family friendly rights
to meet the needs of today's workers and the creation of the fair work
agency from being cynically undercut
from scrupulous 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 and I
am therefore delighted that this bill removes the three-way wages and the lower limit providing greater
security to financial working people when they need it most.
An issue remains that setting the amount a
low-paid worker receives has the unintended consequence of reducing
sick pay for those who were at or
slightly above the lower earnings limit. Low-paid will be the most effective. I believe this is an oversight, one that is contrary to
the spirit of legislation and I call on the ministers to close this gap. Turning now to the right to regular
hours contracts, the proliferation of one-sided flexibility throughout
the workforce has been one of the most damaging labour market developments of the last 14 years.
It has left workers vulnerable to sudden changes of income as the
hours of change from week to week. The right to a regular hours contract is therefore one of this bill is most important provisions.
However, limiting this right to a
specified number of hours and unnecessarily excluding those for the threshold for benefiting from
the right while giving employers a reverse spending to those who
already have more hours. I raise these points not to be critical because I believe that what we have
in front of us is 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, and this
bill takes giant strides forward in ensuring that people's jobs are fulfilling, that they are protected
whilst at work and that they take home enough to make ends meet. This bill restores fairness to the balance of power between employers
and employees, and it is good for workers, for productivity and for growth. It is therefore good for
business as well.
I would suggest to the house that anyone serious about fairness at work and increasing
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill. Minister talks about this bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister talks about this bill being good for growth but does he have any concerns at all for the
have any concerns at all for the government's own assessment that
says it will cost £5 billion to businesses? Can he express any concern at all about the impact on growth, the downward impact on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
growth? A bill that promotes good secure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A bill that promotes good secure work across the economy is something that we shouldn't shy away from and I believe, if I'm correct, the
figure referenced represents no .5% of the cost to 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
affections of the working classes.
Daily he failed in that endeavour. I
would ask all the honourable members opposite with their opposition to
this bill, when did the Conservatives give up even trying to be on the side of working people?
16:52
John Cooper MP (Dumfries and Galloway, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
If growth is the intended
destination as my friends in Dublin would say, you can't get there from here. For this bill, so long on
amendments, so short on detail, cannot be reconciled with this
government's mantra of growth. By their own estimate, the bill will
cost business £5 billion, so easily dismissed by the member from Eccles. The serious amount of money, so the
only growth is in the amount of red tape that this will snare businesses. It is why I am in favour
of clause 87.
This requires estate
for the objective of the economy and its growth in the medium to long-
term. The Secretary of State must recognise the importance of this. I
saw him days ago boasting of working abroad together to deliver growth at
home. I love fantasy film as much as anyone but the Secretary of State is
in danger of jumping the shark with this level of safe history beyond a snapping point. Growth at home is a
feeble amount and this bill is its
enemy.
So lacking in detail is this bill clearly scrapping together to be the government's own first
hundred days deadline that is the equivalent of Parliamentary blank cheque. Sign here and we will fill
cheque. Sign here and we will fill
in these details later, and this is a cage without a key into which we
are being asked to walk. I have seen this before with the S&P's woeful
proposal for Scottish independence. Scots will brighten up to see through the smokescreen then. Members across the house be able to
discern the dangers here?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Does my friend agree that it is quite clear that the government hasn't done the work in order to get
hasn't done the work in order to get the bill in the right position and the right place for it to be introduced into this house in the
introduced into this house in the first place which has been exemplified by the Committee stage and how much drafting had to be done
and how much drafting had to be done at that, and it should have been stopped at PBL, never being allowed to get to this floor.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to get to this floor. I agree with my honourable friend and he is an experienced parliamentarian and he knows that
parliamentarian and he knows that will arrive at this stage with a telephone directory of amendments is
quite an incredible situation. But how could any state of business and
stand over the antigrowth regulations for parts one, two and
four of this bill. Even a trainee solicitor could see that we strip
out flexibility for both employees and employers, making it less likely for people, especially young people
will be hired for that all-important first job.
Whether your employee
rights if you haven't got a job. As
someone who bends his elbow, I am familiar with the occasionally coarse atmosphere in pubs. My daughter took a part-time job while
studying at university but I see nothing useful for her in the bid to make employers liable for third-
party harassment. It is why support the amendment to exclude the sector
from this owner's clause. Aside from the fact that my daughter was well capable of dealing with the rude sexist strapless clients under
existing laws, this clause risks the
bill becoming a busybodies dream.
If
our amendment. The public bar will no longer be the culprit of free speech place and the purview of
something censorious of orthodoxy. Set as we are NSC of troubles with
global turmoil, are we so afraid of off-colour jokes or political views
and re-establish the banter police.
It passes the quality legislation in
a bid for self-justification. With this bill, that accusation could rightly be levelled at this
government to. government to.
16:57
Ms Stella Creasy MP (Walthamstow, Labour )
-
Copy Link
-
I would be proud to see this bill progress through Parliament and to
develop accordingly and that is what the amendment before us offers the chance to do. May I pay tribute to
my good friend on the work she has done and the member for Sheffield
for the work they are doing. In the short-term available to me, I want
to move formally new clause 7. It reflects a manifesto commitment made by the Labour Party which 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 with how we treat dads and I want to treat
everybody who assigned this amendment because it sends the message that we care about our fathers in this country, paternity
leave in the EU, we have the worst as the member for Hitchens pointed
out in the entire.
Two weeks, just
enough to realise that you might eventually get three hours sleep in
a row at some point. There is a good reason why competitors treat our dads better. 16 months of freedom,
eight months each for each parent.
France, Spain, Norway, Luxembourg, at least six weeks. Why do they do
that? Because dads make a difference. Yes, this bill will give
them a day one right to paternity leave, but just two weeks. And one in five dads in this country don't
take any leaf at all.
35% of them because they can't afford to do so. They need a paid and protective
right to benefit from paternity leave. It benefits them and it benefits their kid. It is better for
the mental health of their father and means they take fewer sick days.
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 don't have kids, because of maternity discrimination, we pay the price.
We
all know employers who don't employ women in their 20's and 30's because
women do babies. This strengthens maternity's commendation powers and
inadvertently reinforces that message if we don't bring forward legislation to support fathers. I'm
glad the members opposite are supporting and I wish they were voting with us. The gender pay gap
does exist but it is basically a maternity pay gap because the
motherhood penalty is all too real. By the time of the first child, woman's wages are 1/3 below a man
within 20 months.
You might say that
is to do with working part-time but that is even when women returned to the front. One in nine mums has been
made redundant or forced out. Women are considered 10% less competent in the workplace when they become mums
as if juggling things make you less able to do things rather than more. Childless women are eight times more likely to be promoted. Conversely,
dads are considered more committed
to be paying for their children. I don't want to deal in caricatures.
I want to deal in cash in the time
available to me because above all, supporting maternity and its own
right is good for the economy. It helps boost women's participation
helps boost women's participation
Countries with a repaired -- better paid paternal leave a smaller gap in
closing that gap toothed ring £23 billion into the economy.
billion into the economy.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
She is talking about the benefits of the amendment to fathers but does she accept the effect of the bill is
she accept the effect of the bill is negative and harmful to everyone it
negative and harmful to everyone it is stripping £5 million away from businesses and is now good to the economy so it is no good if it is helpful to fathers if the net effect
is bad for everyone.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is bad for everyone. A wish the honourable gentleman had been listening. I have just
pointed out it would bring £23 billion to the economy and that is why we pay for this because it is cost neutral. Mothers are already
paying for the childcare in lower wages, opportunity, progression.
Salaries had died 33% after the
birth -- salaries are set by 33%
after the birth of the first child.
A consultation, a review could be explicit about looking into these issues and how to share the cost
benefit fairly saw men and women can equally contribute to society and
look after their children equally.
A
consultation should be explicit it is looking at self-employed parents. There are nearly 1 million self- employed dads who pay £1.1 billion
in national insurance contributions and do not get any paid parental
leave at all. We know that only 2%
of fathers have taken the other option in the 10 years it is
available because it is not paid. We must be explicit that any review
looks at the pay as well as protecting it. Many do not take the
shared leave and above all this is about our kids.
God knows, we love
them dearly but we can understand why 20% of the voices take place in
the first five years after you have the child, because of the unequal situation be put parents and the pressure it creates, mum and dad
killed. We must have a proper
commitment with the proper timetable and look at how we deal with mum and
dad killed and all those people who
have said they have struggled. You do not get the time to work at the
crux of your children as a father.
Mums will be the ones who do more childcare and travellers get pushed
further away from dear children. If we get this right, if the government
is serious about families, and I
believe that they are, they must show us the detail because every
parent, the father, the non-birthing parent, the mother, will have the time to be the best parent they can
be and that is why these policies are popular with Conservative and
Reform members. That is why it makes
a difference and this change is overdue and I hope ministers are listening to why it matters to show
there is a commitment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I have to discuss the Royal Assent that the king has signified
Assent that the king has signified
17:04
Gregory Stafford MP (Farnham and Bordon, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Royal assent for the following acts. The Crown Estate act 2025, and I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
call the Member for Stafford. It is always a pleasure to follow
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is always a pleasure to follow the king. I write on behalf of my
the king. I write on behalf of my constituents who are opposed to this fundamentally antibusiness Employment Rights Bill and nothing
Employment Rights Bill and nothing has highlighted more clearly than the old adage that where we think
the old adage that where we think the Labour party are wrong, they think we are evil and nothing from
think we are evil and nothing from that side of the chamber has given
any consideration to the concerns raised opening remarks by my honourable friend, the Shadow
Chancellor this bill has been botched together and simply put
together to assuage the paymasters
of many Labour members on that site.
This bill highlights Labour's complete misunderstanding of to help business, employees, the economy
overall with a government that talks about drawers but legislates to destroy it. This government talks
about being progrowth, pro-business, but the bill does the opposite. It
will lead to slower growth under an
avalanche of legislation. Even the own government impact assessment which has been mentioned concedes
business will face a staggering £5 billion in additional costs. It is
an economic straitjacket that will chalk innovation and job creation.
-- choke. Members on the other side
of the House do not seem to realise that being pro-business means being
poor worker because if businesses do not exist will be no one to employ
them. The vast majority of these businesses are small and medium-
sized and many operate in the
hospitality sectors which rely on flexibility to survive but the attack on the zero-hours contract
threatens to wipe out opportunities for students, part-time workers, those juggling multiple job to make ends meet.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to my honourable
friend for giving way. Among the 5000 small businesses in his constituency, has he come across one
constituency, has he come across one who have said that they are in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
who have said that they are in favour of this bill are lobbied him to vote for it? My honourable friend makes a good
point and I would say this, I am happy for him to come to my
happy for him to come to my constituency or indeed any other of my abilities to meet all of the
people who tell me what the damaging effect this will have on their small
business. The simple fact is that this government has not consulted with small business properly
because, if they had, this bill would be scrapped.
I think about the
University for a Creative Arts students who rely on flexible work
and those picking up shifts at the
pipe I mentioned earlier. These people are saying they are likely to endanger because of the bill and
that is why I support the new clause and amendment of zero-hours contract. UK hospitality has been
clear that for 90% of workers, this is the preference and they are
relied upon to manage fluctuating
demand and removing Ridley to job losses.
There is no job security if
you do not have a job. The House Of Commons Library Briefing supports us
and finds it provides flexibility for employers and employees. That is
why I support the new clause 83 and
amendment 283 which look at this issue before the government recklessly legislates. It has been
made clear that banning zero-hours contract without the very workers
government pretends to protect yet again the ministers flow ahead, blind to the economic damage they
are about to unleash.
Onto amendment
286 and clause 86, the government's proposal to grant employees the
right to claim unfair dismissal from day one is another reckless intervention which has been raised
with me by small businesses every day. Amendment 286 and the new
clause 86 will seek to introduce an assessment before this comes into
force and without this, businesses will be discouraged from hiring in the first place. Flexibility in
employment is not one-sided and benefits for the workers and their
employees.
Similarly, the rate to
request flexible working must be
assessed properly. The new clause 84 and amendment 284 right to demand the Secretary of State assesses the
impact of clause 7 before it comes into force. Rush policy-making will not help anyone and will create
uncertainty. It will drive business away. It's essential we accept
clause 87 because we have to do an impact assessment on how this will
affect businesses. I feel the clock
might not have started and saw I
will draw...
I will carry on. I am
conscious of my honourable friend's intention to speak. This government seems to have learned nothing from
history. We have history lessons, most of which take us back to the
1970s, from the opposite benches but economic success does not come from shackling businesses with red tape,
giving trade unions and check, but providing an environment to hire, invest, grow.
17:11
Steve Witherden MP (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I am proud to declare my
membership of the Unite union and refer members to my entry in the
register of financial interest. Before I was elected I was a teacher
for 20 years. Today, as we welcome the transformative division, I think
of former students. Their lives will be significantly improved by better
be significantly improved by better
wages, stronger workers rights, a fairer economy. This bill is a
welcome tangle get -- this bill will
get rid of the fire rehab.
Workers are striking against the apologies
of the fire rehire practice by creating a new right to claim
automatic unfair dismissal if you are employed to carry out the same duties. This bill takes a vital step
**** Possible New Speaker ****
towards signifying security and autonomy. I will give way. I thank my honourable friend for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my honourable friend for giving way. His giving his trademark passionate speech. I wonder if you
passionate speech. I wonder if you will agree that by removing this, it'll give the young people to use
it'll give the young people to use to teach that brand they get into the workplace they will be looking
**** Possible New Speaker ****
at careers, not just jobs. I thank my honourable friend for the intervention and I wholeheartedly agree with everything
wholeheartedly agree with everything he has said. Thank you. I'm also
pleased to see the government amendment encouraging greater employer compliance and increasing compensation for workers subjected
to fire and rehire by raising the
maximum period from 90 days to 128.
My tabled amendments seek to protect against this practice further, ensuring any clause in an employment
contract allowing employer to change the terms without the consent of the
employee will be unenforceable, especially in cases of unfair dismissal related to refusal to
accept changes.
This will further help to redistribute the power
imbalance between employers and employees which currently allows low
wages and bad working conditions to become commonplace. The bill takes
crucial step towards banning exploitative zero-hours contract, ensuring all workers have
predictable hours and offering security for their day-to-day lives.
I am pleased to see amendments
extending these protections to
agency workers. All of us have felt the effects of a system that had left so many behind. Flatland wages,
insecure, falling living standards.
Not just my former pupils but millions across the country will benefit from the biggest upgrade to
rights at work in a generation and I'm proud to support the government
in this historic step towards better employment across the country and look forward to the full delivery of
the plan to make available. the plan to make available.
17:14
Alison Bennett MP (Mid Sussex, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise to speak in support of NC
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to speak in support of NC
10 which would make carers leave mandatory. We have the opportunity
mandatory. We have the opportunity to give carers a fair deal across the country. The government has the
the country. The government has the opportunity to build on the act of 2023, introduced by my honourable friend, the member for North-East
friend, the member for North-East Fife and take the next step in juggling work and care for people.
juggling work and care for people.
Carers UK estimates the value of them being able to work as £5.3 billion and when I have met major
employers like HSBC and their employees who have benefited from
the policies, they are clear that having those policies in place to
support killing is -- caring is better for the employee and the
employer and members benefit from the support and are able to do the best for their families. Backing the amendment of the Liberal Democrats to make it entitled would be the
right thing to do on a human level but also would support the
The mission to spend less, this is a
no-brainer.
We must be doing everything we can to help those carers that can and want to work to
do so. The government has simply
indicated it will review the implementation of carers leave and consider whether there is a need to
change the current approach. I urge the government in the strongest possible terms that changes needed
and the time is now. Those 2.8
million people who juggle a job and carers responsibilities are going
above and beyond to care for those they love while also contributing to our economy.
And for many of those
carers, they are on low incomes. They are often women and can't
afford to use their right to carers leave unless it becomes a paid right. We must acknowledge their
work with a fair deal for them. I know this is something that my
constituents deserve and they deserve that. We must be adaptable
while also seeing the benefit. This
really can be a win-win. We are also
really can be a win-win. We are also
pushing for an amendment to make characteristic.
When applying for jobs quality quality monitoring does not ask whether someone has unpaid caring responsibilities. There is
also no direct requirement for reasonable adjustments for carers in
the workplace. We encourage those who might otherwise leave employment
to stay, making our economy more resilient and protecting their own family's finances because we know
that being a carer makes you much more likely to falling to poverty.
Carers research also tells us that almost half of those who left employment early to fulfil a caring
responsibility so they would have stayed in employment later if paid
care existed.
It seems it helps
carers, helps those they care for and it is good for our economy. I
hope the government can see it with the same clarity and do the right thing in supporting these
amendments. Thank you.
17:18
Mrs Sarah Russell MP (Congleton, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I need to highlight the house that I am a member of the trade unions and refer to my register of
interest. I would like to speak to various bits of this legislation.
There is so much in it, and so much
is really pleased with what we are bringing forwards, but the first pass legislation that I want to
address is section 22 which is where we are going to bring forward in
future legislation more protections for women who are pregnant, on maternity leave, and in the period
following maternity leave.
I represent large numbers of women who
were either made redundant or trying to come back from maternity leave,
or who their employer worked up and
decided a underperforming within 24-hour is of them announcing their pregnancies. I literally had a
client to had been brought into the company totally seller, doing
incredibly well, got promoted, and as I say, literally announced the pregnancy and is now on a
performance plan. Because they were kind and didn't want to do that to
her while she was pregnant, they were very generously offering her a settlement so she didn't have to go
through it.
Lots and lots of perfectly decent people don't really
understand why it is that they are losing their jobs and it is because
they are pregnant. We are finding that 23% of women who have a baby
have been either sacked or made redundant while pregnant on
maternity leave or within a year of their maternity leave ending. It is
a really widespread problem, so it is fantastic that we have got section 22 which will bring in the potential for the Minister to bring
forwards steps to expand the protections available in terms of
how we can do it because there are pregnant women out there who need
that protection literally today.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On this point, she is giving eloquent speech has great expertise in this area. On the reported cases of dismissal of pregnant women or
of dismissal of pregnant women or new mothers, does the honourable lady agree with me that it is
lady agree with me that it is dramatically underreported because of the use of NDA's in companies while taking action or recent
mothers.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
mothers. They are definitely problematic and they are definitely concealing the extent of the problems that
the extent of the problems that women suffer when they announce their pregnancies. The second element that I really like within
this legislation is about us improving the right to request flexible working. Those on the
benches opposite have questioned why we would do this. The answer is that
part-time is still a term of abuse in this country. While that is still something that people say fairly
regularly within workplaces, and popular panels, we still have a
problem, so this legislation should help to improve that.
They have also talked quite a lot about section 17
and the third-party harassment elements here and I just think it is
worth getting into some of the
detail. So there is a defence to protect your staff if you have taken all reasonable steps to prevent that harassment occurring. Employment
tribunal's have been interpreting the meaning of the word reasonable for a long time and in a
discrimination claim, there is a three-part judiciary, a judge,
someone with some employer experience, and someone with some employee experience, sometimes my
trade union or elsewhere.
When they talk about reasonable steps, it is
only reasonable steps. It is not everything will step in the entire history of the University anyone
**** Possible New Speaker ****
could dream up or imagine. The lady is speaking very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The lady is speaking very powerfully on this. Does she agree that this amendment is used by the Conservative party to condone
Conservative party to condone something that is offensive, despicable, and they are trying to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
defend the indispensable? I completely and utterly agree
with her, and actually, a lot of what is coming from the other side
what is coming from the other side is scaremongering. A lot of the discussion behaves as though
employees were unexploded bombs.
They should have been treated fairly in the first place. They were extremely distressed by their experience in the course of what
they had gone through, so I don't think that when people have unfair
dismissal rates a little bit sooner that they will all just be rushing
to employment tribunal is the moment something goes slightly wrong in the
workplace.
I think most people want to do is get up, go to work, do a
decent job, get paid for it and go home. I think that is what we will continue to see after this
legislation passes. Most employees want to look after employees perfectly reasonably, most want to do a reasonable job and that is what
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will continue to happen. I have been rather unsuccessful
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I have been rather unsuccessful this afternoon finding someone on the government benches who has concerns about the £5 billion cost
concerns about the £5 billion cost to businesses this bill will bring. Can she express concern over £5 billion costs and downward pressure
billion costs and downward pressure on growth that this bill brings according to the government's own
**** Possible New Speaker ****
assessment. My concern is that those in the benches opposite are talking about
benches opposite are talking about employees as if they are unexploded bombs and they are talking about
employers as if they are unlikely to ever recruit anybody ever again and
I don't believe that to be true. Most employers will do a sensible
assessment of whether or not having that additional member of staff is going to bring benefit to their business and then they will recruit
them.
So, I think it is important that we do make sure we do is cut
through some disinformation and scaremongering to make sure that when we bring this legislation
forward, we have a good set of information ready to go as they have really great information online
already, encouraging employers to look up on YouTube information
videos, looking at fact sheets to make sure he is really clear that we
have access to free advice which is important for small businesses, for them to be able to see clearly what
is and isn't required of them because the position stated here is
doing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would like to speak in favour
of new clause 105. The labour of use it seeks to address is the wrongful use of substitution clauses by gig economy workers, and to agree
17:25
Nick Timothy MP (West Suffolk, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
economy workers, and to agree fairness and justice in the market so there is transparency which can
be delivered by the introduction of a comprehensive register of independent contractors. This will
help ensure rights are not suppressed through competitions but it will also support the
enforcements of right to work checks. Migrants with no right to
work it is not give benefit to taxpayers who have followed the
rules, and yet substitution causes allow abuse of immigration and
labour laws.
Before addressing this, I would also like to commend new clause 30 proposed by my honourable
friend the member for Bridgwater which I have myself signed in
support. This would give everybody the right to take time off to carry
out police duties. This is a right
that other people will receive. Turning to my amendment, ministers have said that they will consult on
employment spaces and move towards a two-part legal framework that identifies people who are genuinely
self-employed. I support this ambition and I am grateful to the
Minister for his warm words during the committee, this provides a way to resolve abuse and hold big
employers to account.
There are 4.7
economy workers in the UK including 120,000 official riders at beats and
delivery, two of the largest delivery companies. For years, we have heard about the rampant labour
market committed by contractors with
these companies. From late 2018, there were 14,000 fraudulent journeys according to transport for
London. In addition, Amazon and just dates have been linked to lamer market abuses, and much of this
abuse has been through the legal loophole created by substitution clauses. Amazon tells its couriers that it is their responsibility to
pay your substitute at any rate that you agree with them, and you must ensure that any Institute has the
right to work in the UK.
It is a dereliction of duty to pass with
right to work checks onto these workers. But these companies clearly have an interest in maintaining the
status quo where undocumented migrants have the lowest fees in the
delivery acts. Data shows the effect of this abuse on order fees. Just
eat riders saw their fees drop by
14.4% to £5.59 in 2023. There was a 3.4% drop during the same period,
3.4% drop during the same period,
falling for £4.41, and delivery has blocked its order fee data from being published.
These figures are
not adjusted for inflation, and it is clear to see how things have
changed for workers. By exploiting
those with no legal rights to be here, companies are privatising profits and socialising costs.
Promises from these companies have not made the problem go away. We
should all be appalled by this state of affairs because nobody should be above the law. Doing random checks to years ago, the Home Office found
two and five delivery riders who were stopped working illegally.
That
same month, 60 riders were arrested in London for immigration offences, including working illegally and
holding. Imitation. Last month, delivery sacked over 100 riders who
shared their accounts with illegal migrants. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Insurance companies
report unauthorised riders involved
in personal injury cases. This is happening because undocumented migrants are renting rider accounts
for between £70 and £100 a week. Profiles have been bought for as
much as £5000. EI paper found over 100,000 people on Facebook groups where identities have traded for
years, including one group in less
than 18 months.
Illegal migrants using social media apps to rent
accounts and share information using social media apps to rent accounts and share information on a significant scale. Today we only
have figures from press examinations but you can find copious examples on
the internet. Legal workers have repeated problems to the police but
they compete for orders and have led to violent clashes between legal and illegal riders in Brighton including
physical beatings and damage to People are working illegally round- the-clock for lower fees and never know when their last payday might
be.
These group chats to share information and avoid Home Office
immigration rates for so we don't even know how many substitution riders the right at any given time for these companies. A spokesperson
for the drivers and curries union
said, sleep or has allowed some bad people to come through. They are not foetid so they could do anything.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank him for giving way. Obviously he hopes the government will be able to step in to support this amendment. What do you think
this amendment. What do you think would be stopping the government from taking the action to support this very sensible amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
straight away? Identity where the government shouldn't support the cinnamon at
shouldn't support the cinnamon at
shouldn't support the cinnamon at all. In fact it seems to be quite an obvious example of labour market news, but the difference with lots of the provisions of this bill is that it doesn't directly benefit
that it doesn't directly benefit trade unions who pay for the Labour Party. And I was quoting the at drivers and curries union, and what they said, and sadly we know there
have been many sexual assaults and attacks committed by substitution workers.
This amendment proposes is
the robust regulation of substitution clauses. Amazon,
Google, delivery and the rest would have to do their due diligence and just like everyone else ensure all
their riders are who they say they are and have the right to work in this country. Introducing such a
change would reduce labour abuse, protect our communities and deliver
**** Possible New Speaker ****
a fair labour market. I refer to my register of
17:32
Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Independent)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I refer to my register of interest, and also I suppose just to inflame matters more, I'm the chair of the all-party parliamentary group
of the all-party parliamentary group as well. Next month is the third
anniversary of the P&O scandal. Some
members may recall what happened. 800 are empty members turned up for work, and they were sacked by a
video, and many of them were marshaled off their vessels by
trained bouncers, guards who dealt with them roughly.
After that there was a reaction right across the
House if I recall, and across society that this was repellent and
shouldn't happen in a civilised society. And the Labour Party then
gave the commitment that it would
introduce legislation that would be installed in law the seafarers
charter, and that's exactly what this bill is doing. So I welcome it wholeheartedly and congratulate the Minister for doing it. But as you can guess, we say this is just the
first step because there is so much more to do, particularly within this sector where they still have
exploitation going on and where compared with shorebased workers,
many are still.
Within the legislation itself, new clause 34
introduces government amendment,
extends the protective award from 80 days... 90 days to 180 days. We were looking for an uncapped award to be
frank because what P&O did is they built into the pricing the finds
that they were going to take. As a result of their unlawful behaviour.
So we didn't matter to them. They simply priced it in. In addition to that, we were looking for injunctive
relief. Now I thank the government for now entering into discussions about injunctive relief.
If you
recall many employers can get injunctive relief on the tiniest
error by a union in balloting procedures but workers can't, and what we are asking for is A-level playing field. And we were hoping
the amendment would be brought forward to the bill today, but we are hoping the government will enter
into those discussions and go further. If it isn't.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I wonder if my honourable friend recalls the evidence of Peter Hemsworth, Chief Executive of P&O to
Hemsworth, Chief Executive of P&O to the Business and Trade Select Committee where he openly flouted
Committee where he openly flouted and broke the law and had no regard for it. Was he as horrified as I was to see that in this House and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
disappointed at the lack of response from the party opposite? I think across the House it took
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think across the House it took a long while to recover from the anger at the behaviour he had in front of the Select Committee in that way. He was acting with impunity because he'd been able to
price these sorts of finds in. And it was a cross-party view that we were angry about that behaviour. And that's why the charter is so
important to us. And that's why injunctive relief open to trade
unions would give us an adequate starting point of getting some sort
of justice.
There are a whole range of other issues that need to be
addressed, and in terms of section 47 schedule four, the government is
introducing the ability to monitor
the behaviour of companies, harbour
masters monitoring some of it, but basically abiding by health and safety practices because some of the practices in the past are terrifying to be frank, but what we want to do
essentially say health and safety is
more about some basic health and safety legislation comments about
rosters, how long people are working, and we still have some ferry contracts where people are working for 17 weeks without break at the moment.
So we want to ensure
the regulations cover rosters, in addition to that we want to see it covering holiday pay, sick pay,
pensions and ratings training as well so we can start getting some form of accountability within this
sector. And say it's not too much to ask for. You know we give the
shipping owners, we've given them £3 billion worth of tonnage tax
billion worth of tonnage tax
exemptions. And actually in return the employment of British seafarers.
I don't think we have a single job as a result of that 3 billion.
So there's a need now to have proper regulation within that sector. One
of the amendments I put forward is just for the government to stand back once a year and bring a report
to this House on how the work is going on in terms of the implication of this legislation but also updating about what's happening with
regard to the implications of maritime law and International Labour Organisation conventions and the impact on the sector in
particular. A lot of the debate around this has been around the ferries.
We want to ensure it
applies to all vessels not just the ferries. So one of the things that was brought forward by the Labour
front bench at the time when we were dealing with the seafarers wages
legislation was that if a ship came into a harbour 52 times a year, this
legislation would apply. Now unfortunately, I don't know why
that's been extended to 120 times a year. That means thousands of these
workers will lose out as a result.
It won't be applied to them. So I'm asking the government to have another conversation about that and
see whether or not we can refer --
revert to the original number when the scandals happen. There is much time very briefly interested in the
extension of bargaining rights of way across the economy, starting with doing it with social care, but
I have to say that what I've seen from the proposals in the
legislation, does not like the sector or collective bargaining to
me.
Looks like an extension of pay review bodies. In fact the legislation itself it says any agreements within those organisations cannot legally be
accepted as collective bargaining.
And what I'm worried about is just give the example, in the legislation
is not clear about who employs and how the members of the negotiating
body are appointed. What we were expecting would be 50% employers, 50% trade unionists. I put amendment to try and secure that. It's the
same we think that the negotiating body should elect its own chair, not be appointed by the Secretary of
State.
We want these to be independent and successful. Because
I see this as the first step in rolling out central collective bargaining in semi other sectors of
our economy because it is desperately needed because of the lack of trade union rights and low pay that there is. This is a good
first step, but there's a long agenda to go through, so I look forward not just to today's
legislation going through, I look forward to the honourable gentleman bringing Employment Rights Bill two
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in the next 18 months. I rise to speak in support of new
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to speak in support of new clause 74 in the name of the right honourable member of Sheffield Heeley and pay tribute to of course my honourable friend the honourable
my honourable friend the honourable member for Oxford West and Abingdon
member for Oxford West and Abingdon who have campaigned on these issues for a long time. New clause 74 looks to ban nondisclosure agreements
to ban nondisclosure agreements prevent workers from making a disclosure about harassment,
17:40
Wera Hobhouse MP (Bath, Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
including sexual harassment. And we've talked about sexual harassment in the workplace for the last five
hours I think or four hours. NGOs were initially designed to protect trade secrets by restricting the sharing of certain information, but
in recent times they have taken on an entirely different and quite
sinister role. NGOs have essentially become the default solution for organisations and individuals to set
cases of misconduct, discrimination and harassment, keeping the extent of such incidents unaccounted for.
Incorporating clear provisions to ensure transparency in cases of harassment would strengthen protections for all workers.
Data
protections for all workers. Data
from the count by my silence campaign has revealed that some deeply worrying statistics about the misuses of NDA's. In a survey of over 1,000 people experienced
harassment and discrimination in the workplace, 25% reported being forced to sign an NDA. While an additional
11% stated they cannot say due to legal reasons, implying they are
also signing an NDA. Four times as
many women as men sign NDA's, and NDA's are used disproportionately against women of colour.
During
committee stage, the Minister said that the government had reservations about changing the law in this way
as there may be unintended consequences. I struggle to understand why the government has committed to banning universities
from using NDA's in cases of sexual misconduct, harassment and bullying that has not committed to extending
these protections to other sectors. Lily NDA is being used in a totally different way to what they were
designed to achieve. We must stop this before more victims are silenced, and I've heard the
Minister saying early earlier that at least he is looking at what this
new clause is trying to achieve.
Despite my concerns around the
misuse of NDA's, this bill as a whole has many very positive provisions and particularly
importantly, it finally legislates for protecting workers from third-
party harassment. This is something I brought forward in my original work is protection, which recently
became law. However amendments to my billing committee in the House of Lords but also by the Conservative
Party blocked, so that such
liability was not created, that protection from sexual harassment in the workplace by third parties.
And we have all discussed several times
this afternoon. I'm most pleased that the gum has now committed to
making workplaces safer through this protection because that is what it's all about. Creating safer workplaces
is good for everyone, including
business despite what the party next to me are saying about this. A study by culture shift found that 66% of businesses believe preventing sexual harassment is very important. 66% of
businesses. I don't know what members here are talking about their inboxes being full.
I have not seen
a single email of a business writing
to me that they are worried about protecting their own employees from third-party harassment. But according to work nest, three
quarters of employees, employers are still concerned about protecting employees from harassment by third
parties. They are concerned. Businesses are concerned that they
cannot protect their workers from third-party harassment. Clearly businesses want these protections
included in the bill. Tumi people still suffer from third-party
harassment at work.
Amendment 2 AA, trying to include these important
provisions is plain wrong. Employers have a duty to ensure the safety of their employees, not just from other employees but from other third
parties. He may interact with them in the workplace. This responsibility should be part of a broader commitment to workplace safety, and if the Conservative
Party was truly committed to a world without harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace, why are
they still condoning offensive language and behaviour as banter and
free speech? Rather than taking a step supporting businesses and
protecting workers from sexual harassment in the workplace as
proposed in the law.
Again I'm grateful that the governor has now completed my work is protection act
as it was intended a year or two ago. Although I remain concerned
about the misuse of DNA, I welcome any provisions in this bill. I'm
proud to walk through the no lobby's when we come to vote on amendment 288, and I hope all like-minded
people will join me in the lobby.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I refer the House to my entry in the register of members financial interests, and I'm a proud member of
17:45
Jess Asato MP (Lowestoft, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
interests, and I'm a proud member of the trade unions USDAW, Unison and
At domestic abuse charity for six years. That's why I rise today to
speak in support of new clause 22, table to my name and with the support of colleagues across the House. I'm an officer of the domestic violence and abuse all- party parliamentary group. The
secretariat of which is ably provided by Women's Aid and I've brought this amendment forward following evidence presented to the group and with the draft support by
the law firm Hogan lovers, this new clause would reply employees with five or more employees publishing
domestic abuse policy, outlining the support they provide to workers who are victims of domestic abuse.
2.3
million people predominantly women, experienced domestic abuse each
This is not a niche issue it's one that pervades every level of society
often with devastating effect. We know for example that about 100,000
people in the UK are at high and imminent risk of being murdered or
seriously harmed by an abuser. Some members may wonder how Domestic
Abuse Act rates to employers and question whether this new clause is necessary. To them I say Domestic
Abuse Act is a workplace issue.
Up to 75% of women who experienced
Domestic Abuse Act targeted at work. We know that perpetrators often
harass women at their workplace with phone calls or by arriving unannounced. Abuses can also be colleagues. Research by the TUC
found that 16% of victims said that their perpetrator works in the same
place that they did. Jane Clough for
example, a 26-year-old nurse was stabbed 712010 by her former
partner. Annex ambulance technician outside the hospital where they had
worked and met.
Victims need and deserve more support from their
workplaces, this is an issue number of trade unions and the TUC have campaigned for alongside domestic abuse charities, the Commissioner
and survivors themselves. One survivor told Domestic Abuse Act
save lives, everyone at work new. They must have done. I wish someone
had said something, asked me how I
was. I think my manager had known what to do or say she would have liked to help, but the conversation
just seemed too hard perhaps.
It's important to note that previous government introduced guidance on
this issue alongside the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, but without a mandatory duty on employers remains a lottery as to what support victims
can expect. The employers initiative on domestic abuse estimates that only five% of employers have a
policy. Domestic Abuse Act of course also has a financial impact on the
victims and organisations they work for, over one in five women take
time off work because of abuse, and 86% of victims they abuse negatively impacts their work performance due to them being distracted, tired or
unwell.
Abuse stamps career progression and research undertaken by Vodafone and KPMG has found that the potential loss of earnings from
each victim is £5800 per year. This clearly has severe knock-on impact
with businesses and the economy. In 2019 the Home Office estimated that
domestic cost the UK economy around £14 billion per year in lost
economic output. Mandatory domestic abuse policy is therefore co-worker,
pro-business and pro-growth. Indeed a study in New Zealand found that introducing Domestic Abuse Protection Notice there has cut the costs to businesses and led to increased levels of productivity.
Embedding Domestic Abuse Act and ethos and practices of companies here in the UK is a vital step I'm happy to say some organisations have
, led by the pioneering employers initiative on domestic abuse which
supports over 1,800 businesses large and small that collectively comprise over one course of the U.K.'s workforce. I'm glad that companies like Sainsburys, Argos and Poundland already offered employees paid leave
to enable victim survivors to attend appointments or safe safe accommodation. But we need all workplaces and all victims covered.
Victim survivors deserve far more support than they currently receive, and workplaces are often the only safe place for victims to seek
support and safety.
A culture of
shame or stigma, fear of not being believed or even a concern about losing their job duty disclosure is failing victims should be seen as a
key duty which would secure their health and safety. I'm grateful to
the Minister for his remarks acknowledging the government's commitment to victims of abuse in
commitment to victims of abuse in
But we would like to see something more, at least a task force of domestic abuse charities, employees and trade unions with input crucially from survivors and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner.
That
would complement the strategy and we need a much clearer commitment from the department to move this important issue forward full stop I look forward to working further with ministers across departments, the
member for Gloucester on his Ten Minute Rule bills to introduce paid domestic abuse leave. Victims of domestic abuse cannot wait. Thank
you.
17:50
Aphra Brandreth MP (Chester South and Eddisbury, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I would like to draw attention to my registered interest. As honourable and right honourable
friends in these benches have orally said, the floors in this bill are
numerous. The impact will be to damage businesses and ultimately employment opportunities. I'm deeply
concerned about the cost my consequences for our economy both nationally and in my constituency of
Chesters and Eddisbury. This government has said it wants to grow the economy. But this bill penalises
and stifles those that do just that.
Businesses of all sizes, investors
and entrepreneurs, these are the
people who grow our economy. Only if
we grow our economy can we invest in our much-needed public services, only then can we give the significant increases in investment for defence that I needed more than
ever at this time. We ought to be empowering businesses to deliver
growth, yet this bill adds burdens on business to such an extent that by the government's own admission it
will cost the economy up to £5 billion annually.
Probably much more
than this because I believe that is a fairly conservative estimate. Survey after survey has shown that business confidence is through the
business confidence is through the
floor. Of course I don't need a survey to tell me that because my inbox already has a steady stream of local businesses reaching out to
share with me the detrimental impact of budget and their concern about the impact from measures that will
be brought forward from the spell. Every week I'm visiting and meeting with business owners across Chesters
and Eddisbury and the message is consistent and clear.
How can the government expects to grow the economy when it penalises the growth
creators. I want to speak to amendment 288 as tabled by the opposition but I think offers a reasonable and pragmatic compromise to mitigate against the unintended consequences from placing a duty on
consequences from placing a duty on
employers to prevent third-party harassment in the hospitality sector. I have listened to the debate so far on this closely, let
me say strongly that harassment of any sort is absolutely wrong and I do not for one moment condone or
excuse harassment in any way, the hospitality sector or indeed in any
area.
The reality however is that in a pub, in a restaurant, in a social setting a hospitality setting,
things may be said that not always acceptable and as has been made
clear this is not condoning sexual harassment, this is setting out that we simply cannot legislate for
people's words language in every
context. We must have free speech. Surely it is reasonable to protect our landlords and restaurant owners in the hospitality sector and make provisions within this bill, that
has to pass at all and exempt them from there.
It cannot be fair that
we expect landlords to be responsible for every conversation that takes place in the premises. It
is also important for me to make clear from the many landlords and restaurant owners across Chester South and Eddisbury that I have met
since becoming the MP, whether it be
people who run pubs, that employee
welfare is a top priority for them. I know that they do everything they can to treat staff exceptionally well and to protect them from third-party harassment of they want
their staff to be safe and secure, but by making such businesses liable for other people's behaviour and language is a step too far and will detrimentally impact our hospitality
sector.
As I conclude, let me reiterate my deep and fundamental concerns with this bill as a whole.
I will not be supporting it today, there are amendments that have been tabled by the opposition that will improve the bill and I hope these
will be supported because they are pragmatic and give a glimmer of hope to businesses in what is otherwise
very damaging legislation. When members on the opposition benches spoke today I hope they will consider the consequences of this
bill and how it is detrimental to growth.
Something the government has
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sought to pursue. I refer members to my register of interests on the fact that I am a
interests on the fact that I am a trade union member. This government was elected on the promise of the
was elected on the promise of the biggest boost to workers rights in a generation, that is exactly what this bill will do. The previous
this bill will do. The previous government oversaw a system that left working people paying the price for economic decline.
Insecurity,
17:55
Sarah Owen MP (Luton North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
for economic decline. Insecurity, Measures in this bill will make a
serious difference to working people's lives. 9 million people benefiting from day one protection against unfair dismissal. Around 4,000 mothers returning from maternity leave who are dismissed each year, they will be protected.
1.3 million people on low wages will receive Statutory Sick Pay for the first time full stop in Luton North
and elsewhere these rights will make a real meaningful difference to people, especially those in new jobs on lower incomes or insecure
contract.
As a former care worker I
know that the fair pay in adult social bringing workers and
employers to agree pay conditions across the whole sector will be transformational and is long overdue. During COVID when many carers risk their lives and their families to care for others, the
last government handed out claps,
bin bags the PPE and said that accent carers of the food banks will top this government is delivering the recognition that care is skilled
and valued to a vitals society.
I
would like to speak in my role as chairman of inequalities, our
committees report in January showed the need for bereavement following pregnancy loss. My wholehearted
thanks to all who gave evidence and led to the report and amendment that followed in all of the members who
supported the since, thank you very much and from across the House. But especially to the brave women who shared their experience of losing a
pregnancy with our committee. All of them had the option of only six leave, every single witness said it
was time for change.
Sick leave to grieve the loss of pregnancy is not appropriate. Firstly it means that
women workers were left fearful that HR processes would kick in following sick leave, secondly Rhian short -- reinforced the feeling wrongly that
there was something wrong with them. Was something wrong with their
bodies for top thirdly it made them feel unable to talk about their
miscarriage with both their employers and their colleagues in the way that it should be. As if it was something shameful to approach their boss about.
From small
businesses to big business like the Co-op group and IIe, many employers already offer bereavement following miscarriage. As well as the largest public sector employer of women the
NHS, they all show that doing the right thing is good for workers and good for business. Now I am so
pleased to hear the commitment from the Minister today to work with the other place to see miscarriage bereavement realised. This Labour government would become only the
fourth country in the world to recognise the need for bereavement
following miscarriage, that is truly world leading.
It would be a leading
light in a world that seems to be taking a backward step in women's
rights. Though this is not paid as I
will write in the amendment this is a significant step forward will stop it doesn't just provide rights but goes a long way into furthering how we talk about pregnancy loss in
society as a whole. The miscarriage is no longer ignored, it is no longer stigmatised as a sickness,
people have been moved to tears of joy, relief and raw emotion that their loss is now acknowledged and
things will change.
Later tonight in the privacy of my home I will probably be one of those two. I will
give way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can I commend the honourable lady for her passion, her compassion as well, for her honesty, for her
well, for her honesty, for her delivery of the subject through government, through the Minister tonight in this chamber. We recognise the honourable lady's
recognise the honourable lady's commitment to this task but she has set herself to achieving this
set herself to achieving this chamber tonight this government will deliver that for her. I welcome it as well because the honourable lady has and always has and the chamber
has and always has and the chamber has lost loved ones, mothers with
miscarriages, sisters with miscarriages, family members and workers with miscarriages, all of those things that happened in those the reasons why the honourable lady
is something special tonight we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
commend her for it. Thank the honourable member for Strangford for that kind intervention and for many member
intervention and for many member support throughout the years. I had experienced pregnancy loss while being an MP and I have to say the
being an MP and I have to say the kindness of fellow colleagues in this place really got me through, but I do have to say that at no
but I do have to say that at no point did any of them wrap their
arms around me and say get well soon, they all said I'm sorry for your loss and I'm so glad that today the Minister has committed that the
the Minister has committed that the law will reflect society's review -- view around miscarriage.
I would like to thank the DBT team for the
meeting the challenge set up by
their women and equalities can commissions especially the Minister. Some of our committee members are committed to this and were enabled
by our excellent clerks. I want to thank the members who have supported
my amendment and our amendments and the campaigning work of so many
people because many people in this, many members have been very kind and
have expressed gratitude to me for tabling this amendment but actually
this is a team job.
This was team work and campaigning that spans many
years, campaigning work from inspirations like myelin class, my friend them and for Sheffield Hallam, the former member Angela Crawley to brilliant organisations
like miscarriage organisation and
others and all of their supporters. I want to say a special thank you to Vicky and her team at miscarriage
Association. Both professionally and personally you are a voice for so many during the darkest times. Thank
you. This change means the law will finally catch up with society's views on pregnancy loss, it is a
giant leap forward in the recognition that miscarrying is abridgement, not an illness, and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
workers legally have the right to It's a particular pleasure to follow my former colleague and
follow my former colleague and honourable friend the Member for
honourable friend the Member for Luton North. What she has said today will have a special resonance I
will have a special resonance I think with many people who are following this debate in this chamber and beyond, and she's done a valuable public service, and we thank her for it. As is customary,
18:01
Laurence Turner MP (Birmingham Northfield, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
draw attention to my declarations of interest and my membership of GMP and Unite trade unions and because
time is limited I restrict my comments to opposition amendment 2 90 on the school support staff
negotiating body or triple SMB. This
amendment seeks to set disapply the triple SMB statutory remit in
respect of both academies and local authority maintained schools, and in that respect it substantially
different and more damaging from the civil amendment brought forward at committee stage. If it was carried
today, it would have the effect of
reducing protection for many school support staff workers who are in employment today.
The vast majority of school support staff workers are
already covered by collective bargaining, almost 80% directly,
more indirectly. But the existing agreement, the National joint Council does not serve support staff
or employers well. Last year, teaching assistants were paid just
£17,400 on average. 90% of these
workers are women. I have spoken to some who have relied on food banks
and payday loans to make ends meet. There are 1,800 school support staff workers in my constituency of
Birmingham Northfield, and they deserve better.
Most schools
struggle to recruit for these roles,
according to research by the National foundation for educational research, and at one point during the pandemic, teaching assistants the second hardest role to recruit
for after HGV drivers. This is not just about pay. As a Harper versus
Basil case showed, substantial liabilities exist for employers as well from unclear and outdated terms
and conditions. And as the Confederation of school trust
representing Academy employers, the time has come to move school support staff out from under the local
government negotiating umbrella.
Indeed, the requests from school
employers was for the bill
establishing a floor, not a ceiling, and this point was addressed at committee stage. We might then ask why this amendment has been brought forward. It is an contradictory to
the amendments, contradiction to the amendments the opposition frontbench
brought forward and the children well-being schools Bill committee.
And it was the party opposite after all that the school teachers review
body on a statutory footing back in the early 1990s, so why will they not support the same step for school
support staff? They are not seeking
to amend the bill.
Similarly in respect of the adult social care negotiating body, despite the similarities between the two
policies. So I fear that the answer is that school support staff, the
majority of people who work in school are suffering from the soft
prejudice of an equal knowledge and interest that divides the workforce into professionals and ancillaries.
This outdated attitude should be confined to the dustbin of history
where it belongs. It was rejected in this place almost 20 years ago when
a process that became the triple SMB began.
This is not a measure whose
time has come. It is long overdue, and I wish to say a little about the
importance of this measure the SEND. Classroom-based support staff spend the majority of their time
supporting SEND learners. They are essential to schools models of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
inclusion. He's giving an excellent speech
referring to a really important group of people. As a former teacher
myself, I recognise the huge importance the school support staff provides the classroom. Would you agree with me that they don't support learners? The actually
support learners? The actually support teachers too and have a wide influence on the school community?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
influence on the school community? I do agree. And I think it makes a very important point. And when we look back at the national agreements
look back at the national agreements in the early 2000's, which led to the expansion of support staff
roles, the justification was that they would alleviate pressure on
teachers and answer the quality of teaching in classrooms, that's exactly what school support staffers
do every day. So these roles are
essential for SEND support.
The contracts these people are employed
under are so squeezed that no paid time is available for professional development or training. In other
words, we cannot resolve the SEND crisis without contract reform. And
we cannot achieve that contract reform if a drift and delay that is
the legacy of the 2010 decision to abolish the school support staff negotiating body continues. So to
urge the opposition, even now to think again and not push this
amendment to a vote. In a time remaining, I wish to say a few words about the provision in respect of
hospitality workers and their right
not to be subject to third party harassment.
When the honourable member the bath he was formerly in her place brought forward her
Private Member's Bill in previous Parliament, that Bill contained the same provisions which have been
advanced now. At the start of debates in the House of Lords, the
extension of protection to all reasonable steps was supported by the governments of the day. Baroness
Scott leading for the Conservative Party said that these measures would
not infringe upon the freedom of speech. In fact they would
strengthen it.
The Conservative front bench was right then, and they
are wrong today. In conclusion, this bill is incredibly important. Employment law in the United Kingdom
has tended to advance by increments. This bill measures progress in
strides. I'm proud to have had some association with it through the Public Bill Committee stage. I thank
the departmental team who were part of that process, and the other
members of the committee, and I will
be proud to vote in favour of the extensions to the rights and that they are when they are brought
forward to a vote tonight.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Andy McDonald. As a proud trade unionist, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As a proud trade unionist, I refer the House to my entry in the register of interests. Today marks a truly historic moment. The most
18:08
Andy McDonald MP (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
truly historic moment. The most significant expansion of employment in more than a generation. And I
want to extend my congratulations to the sector of state and Deputy Prime Minister for their efforts as well as express my enormous gratitude to
the employer must write minister the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough but his time in
engagement with me over recent months in discussing the measures in
this bill. I also wish to acknowledge the dedication of the Bill committee members as well as
the countless trade union offices, Labour Party members and staff members who have worked tirelessly for decades to bring us to this day.
This is a milestone we have long strived for and on a personal note, I extend my sincere thanks to the
Prime Minister for entrusting me while in opposition with the responsibility of delivering
Labour's Green Paper, the new deal for working people. I speak in support of the government's
amendments and will touch upon my own tabled amendments selected for discussion. Specifically, I support
government new clause 32 and government new schedule one, which extends guaranteed our protections
to nearly one million agency workers.
This is a crucial step,
aligning on my own amendment 2 64, and I'm pleased to see the government taking this forward. The
TUC has rightly emphasised that for these rights to be effective, they
must apply to all workers, including its essential to prevent
unscrupulous employers from preventing new rights. Exploitative
taxis by a minority of employers designed to avoid responsible 80s
and deny workers job security remains a deep concern. And this is precisely why I've consistently
advocated for a single employment status.
I've tabled new clause 61 because I believe that establishing
a single status of worker is a necessary step to ending unfair
employment practices. The government
is making work pay next steps document, published alongside the bill, Stacey's intent to consult on moving towards a single worker
status. At second reading I noted that we cannot truly eradicate insecure work until we establish a
clear and unified employment status.
Since then the director of labour enforcement Margaret Beales told the Business and Trade Select Committee that the whole business of
employment status needs to be
addressed.
She further noted you can properly consult until the cows come home on this issue. It's about time
to do something about it. The TUC also urged a rapid review of employment status to prevent tactics
like bogus self-employment from proliferating as employers respond to new rights. I welcome the select
committee's recommendation that the government must prioritise its review of employment status, and
address false self-employment so that these reforms roll-out
alongside this employment Bill. I also acknowledge the amendment tabled by the committee chair,
seeking to establish the deadline for this consultation.
I urge the government to accelerate progress on
this front, but take reassurance and the fact that this issue is well
understood at the highest levels. Turning to collective redundancy, the unacceptable practice of fire
and rehire, a cast reported in 2021 the use of fire and rehire tactics
by employers is prevalent in the UK and has increased since the
pandemic. Nearly 1/5 of young people say their employer has tried to rehire them on inferior terms during
rehire them on inferior terms during
it.
Many will recall how P&O shamelessly broke the law, choosing to pay compensation rather than comply with their legal obligations because they calculated that
replacing their workforce with cheaper labour would ultimately be
more profitable. I welcome the government's consultation on
collective redundancy and the introduction of new clause 34, which doubles the maximum protective award
for unfair dismissal workers to 180 days pay. While this may deter some
employers, I question whether it is a sufficient deterrent to prevent further abuses. The TUC has raised
concerns that merely doubling the cap still allows well resourced
employers to treat their breach of their legal obligations as the cost of doing business.
Instead they
proposed a stronger deterrent, the introduction of interim injunctions to block fire and rehire attempts
and approach I saw three new clause 62. Mick Lynch, the outgoing general
secretary of the RMT told the Bill
committee that union should have the power to seek injunctions against employers like P&O. He rightly
pointed out that the power is all with the employers and the unions currently lack the legal means to stop mass dismissals before they
happen. My amendment offers a solution, giving employees immediate redress through an injunction if
they can show their dismissal is likely to be in breach of the new law.
This would ensure they remain
employed with full pay until a final
ruling is made. I encourage the Minister to address this issue in
his response and to indicate an openness to considering injunctive powers within this Parliament.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The honourable members played such an important role in the
such an important role in the developed of these policies, making a really wide-ranging speech. Could
a really wide-ranging speech. Could you reflect on the importance not just of individual rights but also collective rights in his remaining
**** Possible New Speaker ****
remarks? Grateful to my honourable friend for the intervention. He highlighted a critically important issue that this is about making that shift, and
this is about making that shift, and the reversal of the client in selective bargaining should be
selective bargaining should be looking for the ILO standard as per the European Union to get to 8%
across the piece. But I also note the government, the concerns of the
TUC and Unite regarding government
clauses 90 to 96 around the establishment issue and urge them to engage with unions on these issues.
In closing, much has been said about wealth creators, but there needs to be a recognition that working people
are wealth creators and they are entitled to their fair share. The chair of the Select Committee calls
for consensus. At the core of this discussion, has to be the good well-paid secure unionised
employment is good for our constituents, our businesses, and for our economy. And this Employment
Rights Bill is crucial, and
essential step along that road to a brighter economy and a brighter
18:15
Imran Hussain MP (Bradford East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
It's an absolute honour to follow the honourable member for
Middlesbrough and Thornbury East and I know the whole house will join me
in thanking him for the work he has done in shaping the bill before us
today. The Employment Rights Bill which I am also part of today, a
small part in shaping presents a once in a generation opportunity,
this bill is testament to the values
we stand for, a fair days pay for a fair day's work, dignity, detection and bargaining powers for workers and a safety net for the most
and a safety net for the most
vulnerable when they need it most.
There is much to celebrate in this bill as we've heard from excellent contributions in the House today,
and I also put my name to many of
the excellent amendments that we've heard honourable member speak to today in the House. I do feel all of
those are designed to strengthen this excellent bill further. However
I will focus my remarks time not permitting on my amendments in
respect of Statutory Sick Pay. As we
all know and as has been said very eloquently in this House today time and time again, the current system
isn't just insufficient, it is completely and inexcusably broken.
We have the worst system in Europe, frankly shameful. Workers are
entitled to just 17% of the average weekly wage. Yet the cost of living
doesn't suddenly plunge 83% when
workers are sick, their energy bills, the grocery tab, nothing else has discounted. So why does SSP remain such a paltry sum? Being
forced to survive on £180.75 p per week if you are lucky enough to get that in the first place leaves
workers exposed to financial hardship, it forces many to make the
difficult decision to go to work when they are unwell, therefore it is quite right in this bill the
government has put forward major
Reforms full stop removing the three day waiting period so that workers are entitled to sick pay from day one of illness, extending sick pay
to all workers by removing the lower earnings limit and implement an affair earnings replacement
percentage of 80 %, these performs will -- reforms will directly benefit over one million low-paid workers, a disproportionate amount
who continue to be from women and
young people.
There is much more we can do to strengthen this bill and this is why I put forward to
amendments that I believe will strengthen this bill and ensure that no worker is left behind. I first amendment amendment seven calls for
sick pay to be aligned with the national living wage, let me begin
by making it clear that operating SSP's with businesses as well as workers. Six in 10 employers agree
it is simply too low for workers to survive on. We know this because the poverty rate amongst those claiming SSP is more than double than among the overall working population.
My
amendment makes it clear if you are working full-time you should not be paid poverty wages when you are
unwell. No one should have to choose between their health and their financial security which is why my amendment would immediately raise SSP to around 67% of the average
weekly wage putting us on par with many of our European counterparts. The second amendment new clause 102
is about ensuring fairness. Whilst it is welcome the government's
proposed system, the reality is that 300,000 workers may actually end up
worse off than they are today.
Those who earn slightly above the current
low earning limit of £123 up to £146 per week would receive 80% of their
earnings which is lower than the SSP rate they would receive today. We cannot allow anyone to be left
behind, whilst it's true that removing the waiting period puts
more money in people's pockets from the beginning of the period, workers taking over four weeks off due to long-term conditions going through
cancer treatment, recovering from serious operations and suffering from mental health crisis will face the biggest losses under the new
**** Possible New Speaker ****
system. Which is why... Does he agree with me that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Does he agree with me that the research finding that the cost of present he is in the private sector
present he is in the private sector of mental health alone is £24 billion per year shows that reforming Statutory Sick Pay is the
reforming Statutory Sick Pay is the most pro-cost, pro-productivity policy we could pursue?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
policy we could pursue? Absolutely. My honourable friend is absolutely right and he makes the case brilliantly in terms of some of the nonsense arguments that we have heard from the opposite benches
today with regards to productivity. It is absolutely right thing to do, but also it would lead to much
improved productivity, better,
healthier, happier workforce and much better for the employer as
well. I thank him for that. It is why my amendment ensures that every
worker receives at the very least the same amount of sick pay they would have done under the current
system and not a penny less.
So I urge the government to support these
amendments which are very much in the spirit of this legislation. I
know, I will give way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank him for advancing this bill, in Northern Ireland 13 months after restoration the proposed NI good jobs bill hasn't been removed and doubt is growing that it will in
and doubt is growing that it will in fact pass -- pass, workers and businesses in Northern Ireland are
businesses in Northern Ireland are paying the cost of dither and lack of ambition does he agree with me that those same barriers to people
that those same barriers to people on sick pay were also applied to women on maternity leave and would
he support in principle my amendment new clause 23 to raise to the living
new clause 23 to raise to the living wage standard Statutory Maternity Pay for the later parts of maternity for women?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Absolutely, my honourable friend again makes the case brilliantly. I
again makes the case brilliantly. I absolutely would in principle support that like I do because the challenges are exactly the same. I
challenges are exactly the same. I said in the beginning of my speech today that many of the amendments, if not all, certainly not the ones
if not all, certainly not the ones from the opposite benches but the ones from these benches are
ones from these benches are constructive and designed to improve this bill further.
That brings me
this bill further. That brings me onto my point I have had great
pressure working together for many months on this, therefore he would know that I come to this with
absolute position of sincerity to
strengthen this bill further, and of course while I'm fully understanding
of the fact that amendment seven is a probing amendment, I note that one
will not be voted through the lobbies today, however I think it does reflect the ambition that we
should rightly have because it is shameful frankly that we are one of
the lowest when it comes to Statutory Sick Pay and we are in the
situation we are in and our partners across Europe quite rightly are much
better than us on this.
The second amendment new clause 102 I would ask
the Minister to seriously consider
that and once again that does not ask for any immediate action today, what it does ask the government to do is come back to this House in
three months, report back that nobody will be worse off as a result
of these measures. I don't think that is ever unintended consequence
of the government's excellent measures that they have put forward so I look forward to my honourable friend and further engaging with me
on that.
Finally I want to end by
paying tribute to the millions of workers were the backbone of our
economy, it is my hope that with the amendment we have proposed today we can take significant steps towards a society that rewards workers instead
of punishing them, that treats them with dignity instead of malice and when no one must choose between
their health and their livelihood.
18:24
Ian Byrne MP (Liverpool West Derby, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I would like to place party in
the record am currently a member of
Unite and GMB and refer members to my registered interests. I like the to take the opportunity to play
tribute to my good friend Terry Jones a trade unionist you sadly
passed away this morning and
supported this bill wholeheartedly. 45 years after Margaret Thatcher began her worn trade unions this
bill is usually welcome and overdue. It is a step to turn back time and
strengthen the power of workers for top in a former life before this places industrial organiser I saw
how difficult it was to build industrial strength in workplaces
with restrictive legislation supported by previous governments of all colours.
This bill will hopefully begin along last effort to turn back the tide. Members are
fully discussed key measures in this bill and there is so much to welcome in the spell. I congratulate the
employment minister for his efforts in getting the bill to this place
and I also congratulate him on his
team taking two points of Arsenal. This is not the end of this bill
though, this needs to be the
beginning. We want to tackle the injustices done to the working class from low pay and poverty to sordid
inequality put up we need to empower the institutions for the working class, and being locked out on the
scale of the problems that public sector workers to DWP workers, let
that sink in full stop 60% of those who ran on emergency food aid are in
work.
That tells you how broken the labour market is for Sony people, economic growth goes hand-in-hand
with fixing this broken economic settlement. Hence the importance of
this legislation today. I will focus my comments this afternoon on the amendment we are discussing today but for the record I want to note
that being debated with two new clause I tabled emboldening trade
union rights. My amendment today
three to six and 327 strengthening protections against unfair dismissals but my brief time I want to focus on amendments tabled by colleagues for the my friends and
colleague member for Middlesbrough and Thornbury East has tabled a series of crucial amendments to
strengthen the spell and he also deserves a huge amount of credit for
getting the spell to this place.
This includes amendment 265 3267
which enhance the spell on Zero Hour contracts. These contracts give workers precious little control over their lives to allowing bosses to dictate shifts with little or no
notice and leaving workers vulnerable to gross expectation. It's no wonder workers overwhelmingly prefer regular
contracts. Example when Wetherspoon's added the option of
guaranteed hours for its workforce 99% of workers opted for guaranteed hours with just one% choosing as Iran-Contra model. These amendments
would help ensure that when we say we are banning exploitative Zero
Hour contracts we actually mean it.
The Member for Middlesbrough and
Thornaby East has also tabled new clause 62 365 strengthening the bills protection against the disgraceful practice of fire and
disgraceful practice of fire and
rehire. I've seen in my own family the devastating impact this cruel practice has in destroying livelihoods, my brother was a victim of fire and rehire at British Gas.
This immoral practice should never ever again be able to be used by rogue employers as a weapon against
the working classes of this country, and I fully support the strengthening amendment.
Finally the
Member for Bradford East tabled amendment 75 to raise Statutory Sick
Pay to the national living wage. New
clause 102 to guarantee workers don't lose out under the new fair earnings replacement proposals. Should have learned from the
pandemic that no one, no one should be forced into work when they are
ill. These are moments in others help to make that a reality and I would hope the Minister and the Frontbencher listening. Devastating
consequence of Thatcher's assault on working trust working class amenities and trade unions are seen in towns and cities cross country
for the once vibrant town is a hollowed out, industries destroyed within secure working places and low-paid on unionised jobs.
This never-ending team loop must be
broken so we can build communities
that been forgotten betrayed and abandoned by successive governments in stature. This bill must be decisive step in breaking away from the failed settlement and finally
the failed settlement and finally
**** Possible New Speaker ****
building a country works for us all. I refer the House to my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I refer the House to my declaration of interests, I'm a proud trade union member and in my career I've campaigned on more
career I've campaigned on more rights for staff in schools, teaching assistants, better
teaching assistants, better bargaining rights for care workers, I've campaigned for people to have
contracts that reflect the hours they work and I've campaigned for Statutory Sick Pay from day one so I am really proud today that this bill
am really proud today that this bill will deliver all of those things for working people up another country
18:30
Lola McEvoy MP (Darlington, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
and much more. I'm writing to speak
and much more. I'm writing to speak on the issue of parental leave and this has come up through many amendments to the bill today and
amendments to the bill today and across the House. I've spoken on the terrible inequality of dad's rights and paternity pay three times in
and paternity pay three times in this chamber since I was elected in July, in my main speech the international men stay debate and
international men stay debate and again and in the debate on this bill in October last year.
I really welcome clauses 11 and 12 and clauses 20 and 22 which support
clauses 20 and 22 which support dad's rights and will encourage more men to take their paternity leave entitlements. In the last Parliament
might friend the Barnsley North introduced a private member spell in
April 2024, this bill protection for redundancy pregnancy and family
leave, extended the protected period from redundancy for parents. The protected period is the length of
time that a member of staff must be off -- affording appropriate suitable post should their job role be at risk of redundancy, this protected period applies to the mother for 18 months after her child
is born, and two adopted parents for 18 months after their child arrives in England Scotland or Wales from
overseas or the date of the adoption placement starts, and protection applies for 18 months for those
These are the only groups of parents
included the extension of the protected period.
Dad is taking maternity leave are left out. Dads
may benefit from these if they adopt
a child, which is great. They may benefit from these protections if they take more than six weeks of
shared parental leave. But that's OK paternity leave have no such protections and this is obviously wrong. In Darlington, dads and mums
raise parental leave and that's rights on the doorstep all of the time. Pregnant and screwed estimated
that 74,000 mothers a year lose their job whilst pregnant or taking
maternity leave.
It's absolutely appalling, and Magellan members bill in the last Parliament whilst Lily
act to protect women from this utterly appalling motherhood penalty. My honourable friend was right to take action to protect working mums but I urge the
government now to take action to extend these protections to dads in the upcoming parental leave review. Clause 21 of this bill directly amends the same part of legislation
to offer further protections to pregnant women. This is absolute right. Once again the additional rights extend to mums, parents taking adoptive leave and parents
taking shared parental leave, rightly we want those people to be protected.
They also extend to
bereaved families, which is very father's, which is important as well, but they don't extend to those
taking maternity leave. So into space and of the argument that dads can benefit from adoptive leave,
In anticipation of the argument that dads can benefit from shared parental leave, I just want outline
why it's not working as a policy or a law currently. So 5% of dads take shared parental leave, and that's because it's a bit of a gimmick. Firstly, the second partner mostly
the father of the child is more likely to take a smaller share of the shared parental leave, which is often less than six weeks and therefore wouldn't clarify may qualify for additional redundancy
protections.
Shared parental leave
Others want to go back to work should absolutely be able to do so.
If they want to go back early and not use therefore maternity rights, obviously we support that. My views are not in conflict with the rights of mothers. They are in addition and
support of them. And shared parental leave is an anti-mother policy. Despite only 5% of fathers and partners take it. Fathers, mothers and babies need time together. They
need time to bond, time to heal, time to adjust to the earthshattering experience of becoming a parent together.
As happening practices that dads often
the breadwinners go dutifully back to work, sleep deprived and under heavy societal pressure to provide
for the unprotect their new families. He's got to keep that job,
families. He's got to keep that job,
So many women are facing maternity discrimination. I absolutely appreciate the effort and scale of this landmark legislation and appreciate the fast reaching scope of the measures in it. It will
improve many many lives, and I'm a pragmatist and hopeful that we can get an increase in paternity pay, but for now I'm simply asking for parity for paternity for dance
rights.
72% of the public support more protection for dads but only
one third of dads take paternity leave. Some things badly wrong here
and I urge the Minister to listen to the campaign group if this is an estimated 4,000 as you take paternity leave a year lose their jobs because of it. My generation
and those younger than me are the
keenest yet for more family time. Their primary concern has got to be
paying the bills. The rate of paternity leave, the huge swathes of discriminative attorney mothers and the lack of protections mean that dads can't even take what they are
entitled to, and we've got to change that.
I'm proud of this bill and proud of our government, and I'm very hopeful for dads.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. And I refer the House to my entry in the register of members interests. And declare that
18:35
Ms Polly Billington MP (East Thanet, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
members interests. And declare that I'm a proud member of the GMB. I stand today to speak against the
amendment 289, which takes away the
duty for employers to permit... Would take ability for employers not to permit harassment and make sure that it did not apply the
hospitality sector and sports
venues. The first time I was harassed at work was when I was 14 years old. Waiting tables at a charity event. The second time was
when I was 16, in a bistro, except
this time I was being paid for the experience.
After that, it was when I was a student working in a bar,
and then when I worked in a canteen, then a warehouse, and it's because
of this experience, one shared by people of both sexes and all ages, but particularly for young and particularly women, that across this
country that I was, I'm not going to
lie, absolutely gobsmacked by the amendment tabled by the shadow
Secretary of State for trade the protection from harassment laws, which would exclude those working in
hospitality sector or sports venues.
The government, the Conservative Party is arguing that some kind of
harassment is OK. That if you are working in the hospitality sector,
or in a sports venue, it's fine. Tories seem to believe that if you
go to a pub, you're right to harass our staff is greater than their
right not to be. Now I have to say I think this is quite an extraordinary thing to argue for, but I'm glad they are at least being honest with
us. Jobs in hospitality are often insecure work, on low pay and reliant on tips.
In Margate,
Ramsgate and Broadstairs, thousands of people work in jobs like this. So
I don't see why it would be deemed acceptable for them to be harassed in a job but not if they worked in
an office. I will give way to the honourable gentleman and then the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
honourable lady. Thank you. I refer to my register of interest. I'm a proud member of the GMB. Although right honourable
the GMB. Although right honourable member agree with me that actually even more concerning is calls from
even more concerning is calls from the opposition benches, particularly the former Home Secretary and right honourable member for Fareham and
honourable member for Fareham and Waterlooville who is calling for the Equality Act to be scrapped, which
Equality Act to be scrapped, which would mean that sexual harassment would be completely removed from the workplace and also equal pay.
This
workplace and also equal pay. This is a really troubling agenda from the party opposite, and it's in keeping with this amendment I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
believe. Grateful to my honourable friend for that intervention, and it is indeed a very very worrying direction of travel from the party
direction of travel from the party opposite. Now on these benches, we think you shouldn't be allowed to
think you shouldn't be allowed to harass any workers. I honestly did not expect this to be a
not expect this to be a controversial statement. And maybe I'm being uncharitable, so I'd
I'm being uncharitable, so I'd really appreciate if the shadow Secretary of State, who is now his
Secretary of State, who is now his place, could answer a few questions.
When did it become a Conservative Party policy to allow staff to be harassed? Why does this only apply
to staff? I just want to continue with these questions and then I will give way. Why does this only apply
to staff working in hospitality and sports venues? And why does this not apply to all workers? Why is it all
right to harass bar staff but not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
office staff? I will give way. I think of for giving way. I know she hasn't been in the chamber the most of this debate, so she will
most of this debate, so she will have missed many of the discussions where my honourable friends
where my honourable friends explained nuance of our position on this. And that is the law of
this. And that is the law of unintended consequences. That publicans and nightclub owners
publicans and nightclub owners should be responsible for policing the words of their customers.
That
the words of their customers. That is clearly not a tenable situation.
But what I will repeat is the words of all of my colleagues on this side
of the House that sexual harassment
is abhorrent. We do not condone it in any shape or form, and I ask her to withdraw the insinuation that
anyone on the side of the House has
**** Possible New Speaker ****
any truck with such behaviour. Very grateful for her contribution. I would like to emphasise that I listened in a lot
emphasise that I listened in a lot of detail to the opening remarks of the debate when we were talking, her colleagues were talking about
colleagues were talking about amendment 289. And I heard very clearly, for example Some confusion about whether sexual harassment was
about whether sexual harassment was naturally a crime or a civil offence. So I won't take any lessons from the party opposite.
About their
from the party opposite. About their understanding of employment law, or indeed what is considered acceptable
indeed what is considered acceptable when you are at work. So this amendment, I have to say is utterly
disgraceful. I'm proud this has brought forward a bill to stop
workers being harassed wherever you work. It's just a shame the
Conservative Party doesn't agree. The right honourable gentleman thinks it's wrong the pub landlords and indeed the right honourable lady apparently, it's wrong that pub landlords will now have to be
responsible for having to kick out customers first piece talking about
it being a banter ban.
But pub managers have always known the importance of keeping rowdy behaviours in limits and protecting the staff and customers from being pestered or made the unwilling bout
of so-called make jokes. I will not
give way. This law will strengthen their hand. In the words of the greatest pub manager of all time,
Peggy Mitchell, the opposers of this
amendment, get out of my pub.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. What a speech to
18:41
Dr Jeevun Sandher MP (Loughborough, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. What a speech to follow. I can't quite quote Peggy Mitchell, but I will absolutely try to live up to that particularly
to live up to that particularly brilliant remark. I rise today is a proud member of the GMB. I happily
refer members to my register of interest. And today I rise to speak to the amendments relating to part
three of the bill, new clauses 37
and 38. These amendments will strengthen the bargaining power of
social workers, and by doing so, create a stronger working relationship between employees and
employers.
A stronger relationship
that both sides will invest more in. That means higher wages for those who look after our parents, and it also means more training and a
healthier social care workforce. Both sides invest more, both sides
benefit more. Pro-worker, pro- business, pro-growth. That is what these amendments, and that is what
this bill will achieve. Before
entering this place, I was a trade union rep. And I worked with my
colleagues to help stop a 33% pay
cut in my workplace.
Workers
speaking as one voice or happier and productive. One voice to work with employers, one voice to set out what
it means to increase productivity. That is why this bill is a pro-
growth bill. I move now to the
specific amendments. Social care workers are amongst the lowest paid
in our economy. One in six are legally paid less than the minimum wage. Little proper certification,
reward or recognition skills means at their is little training. Poor
conditions mean that almost half suffer from work-related stress.
Low
pay, little progression, poor conditions, that is why 1/3 of social care workers leave the sector
each year. That is what this bill,
and that is what these clauses fix. Today's adult social care
negotiating body means more social care workers speaking as one voice,
gaining higher wages, better conditions and more training. And these benefits don't just appear on
payslips. It means less time spent
worrying about paying the bills, better time with families, more time reading to our children.
It makes
workers more productive, benefits employers. It makes life worth
living. And those on the opposite benches so that life can improve.
They talk a lot of fear today instead of Hope and the change we can achieve. They will likely vote
against our amendments, will likely vote against the bill. And in doing so, they denied to their
constituents better wages and indeed
a better life. We cannot simply sit back and hope that wages rise that training will magically appear or
conditions will get better on their
own.
We have to act to make it so. And these amendments and this bill by giving social care workers the ability to negotiate for higher
wages, better training and better conditions does exactly that. By
giving them the power to speak with one voice, benefiting employee and
employer. Pro-worker, pro-business, and progrowth. That is what this
bill stands for. That is what I stand for. And that is what we stand
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for. I draw the houses attention to my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I draw the houses attention to my register of members interests. As a trade union activist for 40 years, and a former regional official, have
and a former regional official, have a genuine sense of pride in seeing this bill make its way through the
this bill make its way through the
18:46
Neil Duncan-Jordan MP (Poole, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
It seeks to redress the imbalance in the workplace that has existed for far to long. Many of the amendments before us strengthen existing
rights, so as to ensure that unscrupulous employers are unable to
frustrate, delay or act unreasonably
when dealing with their workforce, either collectively or as individuals. But other amendments
such as new clause 101 in my name seek to introduce new rights and protections for groups of workers
that have hitherto been forgotten or
overlooked.
That is why this clause calls for the establishment of a regulatory body for foster carers.
Currently those who employ foster carers, local authorities, charities
or independent fostering agencies also serve as de facto regulators
with the power to register and deregister workers. This puts too
much power in the hands of the employers and according to the
foster carers branch of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, illustrates a structure within the sector that fails to
bring consistency, transparency, fairness or decent outcomes for the
children and young people in their care.
The new regulatory body would
therefore accredit educational institutions to provide standardised
training courses and once completed
these courses would remain on a carers work record. At the moment every time a foster carer starts with a new provider they are
required to do the training again. This is both unnecessarily costly
and time-consuming. The body will also be responsible for maintaining
a central register of foster care workers and will ensure proper standards of care and deal with
fitness to practice cases.
As with the very best regulatory bodies it
will include those with lived experience of foster care. But one
of the key roles of this proposed body will be to standardise the employment rights available to
carers such as maximum working hours, entitlement to Statutory Sick Pay and protections against unfair
dismissal. Is also looking at the important issue of collective
bargaining. Through this we would hope to see improvements in pay, minimum allowances, holidays and
pension entitlements. As the UK continues to lose foster carers at an alarming rate the time is now for
this basic oversight that will help ensure we have enough safe and loving homes the vulnerable children
loving homes the vulnerable children
who need them.
My other series of amendments from 316 to 323 relates to the issue of redundancy. Over the
years I have negotiated with a number of employers over hundreds of redundancies and it's based on first-hand experience that I'm
seeking to improve the existing legislation. Amendment 316 would require an employer to hold meaningful consultation even if they
were preparing to make less than 20 staff redundant. Something many good
employers already do of course, whereas 317 and 318 introduce
greater sanctions on those who fail to consult part properly.
Moment 319
would treat workers dismissed under fire and rehire is being made
redundant, and ensure they received greater remuneration as a result. The amendments 323 to 323 will seek
to improve to the level of
redundancy pay. By removing the 20 year limit on entitlements, by ensuring that someone for example
with 10 years and six months service relieves 11 -- receives 11 years
redundancy pay rather than turn,
basis the statutory redundancy calculation on months rather than
unscrupulous employers to exploit
the system and treat the staff unfairly.
These amendments would seek to redress that balance and I hope the government will consider
ways in which these issues I piloted today will be included in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
legislation. I am a proud trade union nest and
I refer to my register of interests. I would like to commend my honourable friend the Minister and
18:50
Nadia Whittome MP (Nottingham East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
honourable friend the Minister and Deputy Prime Minister for introducing this landmark legislation as well as my honourable
friend member for Middlesbrough who did a huge amount of work on this is
the shadow minister. All of them have dedicated their lives to standing up for working people and
this bill is the culmination of that work. And the work of trade
unionists over many many years. I
would like to speak in support of amendment NC-17 three. My own
experience of taking time off work as an MP and the contrast with the
experience of those on Statutory Sick Pay made it clear just how
badly reform is needed.
A couple of years ago, longer than that now,
when I needed to take a Leave of Absence because of the severity of
my post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, I received full pay and a
phased return. But for many workers this is a million miles from their
experience. The UK has some of the worst six pay entitlements in Europe, the fact that this bill will
mean that sick pay is paid from day one instead of after day three is
very welcome, as is the removal of the eligibility threshold,
increasing access to more than one million low-paid workers.
But we must acknowledge that without increasing the rates the low level
of statutory pay will continue to place a terrible burden on those
already poorly paid. That is why
amendment seven tabled by my honourable friend the Member for Bradford East is so important.
However these are far from the only issues, another problem is the
inflexibility of Statutory Sick Pay and that's why I've worked with the
mental health charity mind to table this amendment. More than 8 million working age people have long-term
health conditions and experience challenges that work.
Statutory pay as it currently stands does not
allow for proper phased return or for workers to reduce their hours during periods of ill health.
Statutory Sick Pay can only be paid
for a full day of sickness, so if a worker needs 1/2 day for instance then SSP cannot be used to cover the
hours that they are not working. If we force people to return to work
before they are ready, whether that is because they can't afford to remain on Statutory Sick Pay or because a phased return isn't an
option for them, then they are four more likely to be trapped in a cycle
of poor mental well-being and to fall out of work completely.
This amendment would mean that sick pay
would be paid rata, so by hours
rather than days, to allow for that
greater flexibility. Years of successive government reviews have come to the same conclusion, that a flexible statutory thing pay model
would improve lives and better support people to remain in work. I
have appreciated many engaged with
me on this issue and I hope that the government will commit to looking at further, especially as the cost to the government would only be
administrative, but the impact that it would have on people's lives would be huge.
The labour movement
for long fought long and hard for the right to Statutory Sick Pay, the
right to sick pay at all, and proper
support for those with long-term illness and disability whether in
work or not because our movement and our party exist to stand up for the
whole of the working class. I want to conclude by saying how crucial it is at a time when more people are
affected by sickness and disability that this government supports them
and does not scapegoat them for the failures and the political choices
Just to begin with as a young worker
I experienced the precarious nature
the world of work along with many of my peers in the late 1980s.
That
18:55
Mary Kelly Foy MP (City of Durham, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
lack of knowledge, knowledge about
our rights and the fear of being sacked if we complained, about terms and conditions is what made me, what
and conditions is what made me, what politicise me in what may be a lifelong trade unionist and a member
lifelong trade unionist and a member of Unite and Unison. Today I wish to speak about the amendments in my
speak about the amendments in my name, new clause 92, rolled up
name, new clause 92, rolled up
holiday pay for regular -- irregular hours workers and party workers and, new clause 93, working time regulations 1998 records.
Alongside
most colleagues in this House along with the trade union movement and
the millions of workers who will benefit from its provisions I really warmly welcome this Employment Rights Bill. I thank everyone who's
campaigned long and hard for it. The
majority of people spend a huge portion of their lives in work. Work should be an opportunity to be
fulfilled, to live fully and to
support ourselves and our family to develop as individuals and contribute to society. But the
reality is that for too long and 40 many, the world of work has been and is a world of uncertainty and of
ruthless exploitation.
Often stripping people of their dignity
and their worth. For millions, there is a struggle to obtain, secure
work. This strengthens the hand of employers to drive a hard bargain to benefit their balance sheet and
their profits. For those who can secure work, working life can remain
unclear and insecure. It can include
regular and uncertain employment, uncertainty about ours, about
payments, and about vital matters such as holiday pay and entitlement. While others in this House boast of
their endless push for so-called flexible labour markets, the reality is very different for those on the
other side of the employment contract for the workers.
The last
government has spoken about cutting
so-called red tape, when they really meant reducing the working rights of people and strengthening the powers of boardroom billionaires. In
relation to workers in these sectors and particular is that I have submitted these amendments, although the amendment proposed would benefit all workers. It's widely known and
acknowledged that some employers can use the so-called rolled up holiday
pay as a device to tackle the obligations to provide paid time off
on holidays. Holidays and breaks from work are essential for workers
and our recognised factor in delivering an effective organisation in the public and private sector.
So-called rolled up holiday pay is a
mechanism by which an employer adds holiday pay to basic pay throughout the working year but does not
provide it separately at the time of taking the holiday. It's acknowledged, including by ACAS,
that this creates a risk that the worker may feel under pressure not
to actually take any holiday or to take less holiday than they are
entitled to. This is particularly at risk of workers in the sectors of the economy where their work is
irregular.
Along with being a regular there work tends to be lower paid. This pressure on these workers
is immense. The first of my amendments new clause 92 seeks to
address this risk, it was a risk accepted underdressed by the
European Court of Justice. The second of my amendments is new clause 93 and that would ensure that
working time is accurately recorded by employers. Colleagues across the
House may recall that record-keeping
requirements under the working Time regulations were watered down by amendments laid down by the previous
government in November 2023 following the U.K.'s withdrawal from
the EU.
They believe that it was too cumbersome to require employers to
maintain accurate records on behalf of employees, referring to it as time-consuming and disproportionate
reporting. What a load of rubbish. With advances in modern technology
there is no excuse for an employer to fail to accurately and precisely keep records of the working time
contributed by the worker. The onus of managing their own records should
be shifted from employees to allow them to focus on their own roles without the added administrative
requirements was this government
Employment Rights Bill will indeed deliver a new deal for working
people and I wholeheartedly support it.
But I urge the Minister to take account of the issues that I've raised and to accept these
amendments, they will strengthen the provisions and increase protection for the sections of workers who need
for the sections of workers who need
19:00
Anna Dixon MP (Shipley, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I draw attention to my register of interest, and am a proud member
of community trade union. It's an
honour to speak as this landmark bill passes hopefully its next stage, bringing in an era of
insecurity and low pay under the party opposite, finally to an end.
This landmark bill bangs on day one rights for workers, a fair pay
agreement for social care workers, and greater entitlement to statutory
sick pay. As the focus for what I'd like to speak about, I'd really like
to highlight the way in which the bill and some of the amendments ready strengthen the impact for care
workers, the majority of whom are women.
We've heard already in this
debate many proposals from
honourable members on this side to go further than the excellent proposals before us to strengthen
day one rights of employment, including from the Member for Luton North who movingly spoke about
pregnancy loss, bereavement as well as the Member for Walthamstow and talking about the need for stronger
entitlements to parental leave. All of these will have a really positive
impact particularly on women. I critically want to draw attention to
the day one right in terms of the strengthening of flexible working by
default.
And invite the Minister to consider giving guidance to
employers that they should require
flexible working to be advertised. The four society have made a particular strong case around the importance of this for women, I dunno that's also the truth for
carers. If they don't know before applying for a job that they can
secure that flexibility, many people will not even apply. So 40% of women
who are not currently working said that if flexible work was available
to them, it would enable them to do paid work.
So we are missing out on
a huge potential for businesses. And
the Fawcett Society in 2023 said 77% of women said they be more likely to apply for a job that advertises
flexible working options while 30% had had to turn down a job offer
when employers were unable to offer the flexible working they need. So
while the bill makes excellent provisions, I would urge the Minister perhaps to respond to this about how we can implement this in practice so that carers and
particularly women can have the confidence to apply for jobs and know that they can have those
flexible working requirements.
I will briefly give way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank her for her warm words about carers. She therefore support the Liberal Democrat amendment which
**** Possible New Speaker ****
entitlement? He may know that I am co-chair of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
He may know that I am co-chair of the APPG on carers. And indeed, I know that we are very pleased that
know that we are very pleased that there is now unpaid leave requirements for carers, and I think
requirements for carers, and I think I have on other occasions urged the government to look into going
further with paid entitlements for carers, and indeed I think there is a real opportunity to enable the 3
million carers who are in paid employment to remain in employment
and to stop the loss of an estimated 600 people per day who leave work due to their caring responsibilities.
So while it's not
responsibilities. So while it's not
part of today's bill, I think it's something that the Minister will respond to. The second area I would
really like to welcome that has huge benefit for care workers is the
benefit for care workers is the
bill's provisions around the pay and conditions through pay agreements. And I echo some of the comments of the Member for Loughborough who is no longer in his place about the
huge benefits that this will bring to so many of our valued adult
social care staff.
So the establishment of the new fair work agency will really ensure that everyone is playing by the same
rules. And strengthening powers
against modern slavery and labour abuse will further extend protections to those care workers, many of whom have come here on
overseas freezers and to have then found themselves having paid extortionate fees in their country
of origin being here tied into accommodation on zero hours
contracts and being exploited by the care companies. So it's very welcome
to see the provision here.
We know that too many care workers live in
poverty. Research by the health foundation suggested that someone in five can't afford the essentials, either for themselves or their children, and I'm proud to be
sitting here on these benches as we
bring forward fair pay agreements along with the abolition of exploitative zero hours contracts which will provide finally got security for our valued social care
workers. So in implementing this,
it's really important that we establish the framework to enable home-care workers in particular,
some of whom I met with recently who were not paid for their travel time or their sleeping hours, despite the
fact that these should be illegal.
So as we take forward the fair pay agreement in adult social care, I would urge the Minister to work with
colleagues to ensure that there is an ethical charter surrounding this
that care providers sign up to. And obviously this government has already shown how serious it is
about valuing those who do so much to care for and provide support to
disabled adults and older people in this country. So the third area that
I think other colleagues have talked about and on which the Member for
Bradford East in their new clause 102, yes I believe I keep looking at
the clock whether there is an issue if you please advise of my remaining
time.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The clock has stopped, you started at seven, but you can intervention so I think we will go for one more minute. I will very briefly say that I'm
delighted the government is strengthening the statutory sick pay. Many care workers were forced
pay. Many care workers were forced during COVID at their own risk and the risk of those they were caring for to go into work because they were not eligible for statutory sick
were not eligible for statutory sick pay, so I think this is an excellent what move we are strengthening that.
So this bill together with the proposed government amendments and
proposed government amendments and some of those suggested by my own colleagues on the side will ensure that the 1.5 million people working
that the 1.5 million people working
in adult social care can get fair pay guaranteed hours, statutory sick pay and day one rights. It's good for workers and it's good for women.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I draw the houses attention to my register of interests and my Unison
register of interests and my Unison membership. I welcome the Employment Rights Bill, a once in a generation chance to give more power to working people, including in Ealing
19:08
Deirdre Costigan MP (Ealing Southall, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
people, including in Ealing Southall. And I support the government amendments to pay decent sick pay to 1.3 million low-paid
workers. I do not support the opposition's amendments that attempt
to tie us up in knots in an effort to block working people from getting the rights they should be entitled
to. I want particular consider the impact of the bill and the government amendments on disabled
people. There are almost 3 million people currently off work on long-
term sick. A record high.
Some of them of course are disabled people who are unable to work. However,
they are also many disabled people
who desperately want to work. But they have been kicked out of their job because their employer refused to make simple changes that would
allow them to succeed. In my previous role as National disability officer for the country's biggest
trade union, Unison, we work with
disability rights UK and Scope to develop the disability employer charter, list of improvements to help disabled people get and keep
employment.
Over 250 employers both
large and small signed up to say they backed the ideas in the charter. They backed disabled workers rights. The previous Conservative government saw it all
Conservative government saw it all
as redtape. They didn't listen and refused impairment these changes. They left millions of disabled people who want to work stuck on benefits. And there amendments today
are just more of the same. But those 240 employers who signed the
disability employment charter and the many disabled workers who have been pushed out of their jobs would
be heartened to see the changes being introduced in the new Employment Rights Bill.
Many of which impairment the demands in the
charter. Including allowing flexible working, more support for trade
union disability wraps, and strengthening sick pay. Those 240 employers would reject the opposition's many amendments that
try to frustrate this support for
disabled workers. But to turn to the government amendments, people are often surprised to learn that if you
are a low-paid worker, you aren't entitled to statutory sick pay. And
unless your employer has its own scheme, you can only claim star Hendry sick pay after three days of being ill.
During the pandemic, this
letter social care staff in particular feeling forced to work when they had COVID, potentially
passing the illness on. Lack of access to sick pay as a public health issue, and this new law will
ensure low-paid workers no longer need to choose between not being paid or going to work sick. But it
will also allow importantly, disabled workers time off to recover from illnesses rather than
struggling into work, becoming sicker and potentially falling out
of employment long-term.
Being paid to take a few days off to recover could save them and the economy a
lifetime of being left on the scrapheap. I welcome government
amendments 80 to 85. I know there are many people waiting to speak. I welcome the amendments which layout
the level of sick pay low-paid
workers will expect from day one. I
note some employers wanted the paper lesson trade unions wanted a bit more, but 80% is a compromise. I certainly do not support the delay tactics of the opposition who are
looking for impact appraisals that already exist and show that these
changes will lead to an increase in productivity and an increase in growth if you can get disabled people working when they want to do so.
This transformative bill
introduces a key demand in the employment disability charter for a default rate to flexible working, and for many disabled workers being
able to organise the hours around taking medication and dealing with pain or fatigue can mean they are able to keep their job rather than end up sick or marched out the door.
In line with the disability employer
charter, this new law also introduces paid time off for trade union inequality wraps, which I know
we will discuss tomorrow.
But having a trained person to help you negotiate reasonable adjustments, can take time and input from that
person whose priority is to keep the
work in their job will make all the difference. But Unison research has shown that nearly 1/4 of disabled workers who ask their employer for reasonable adjustments waited a year
or more for help. And some never even got a reply from their
employer. You can't do a job that
causes you pain or sets you up to fail. So it's no wonder disabled people end up out the door.
The disability employment charter calls for a new right for a two-week
deadline to at least get a reply to
a reasonable adjustment request. Currently there is no deadline for a response, unlike flexible working request for example where the employer needs to respond in eight weeks. I have had constructive
discussions with the Minister for disabled people about this, and I'm hopeful that we may see this
included in the get Britain working plan, which complaints today's bill.
Many good employers already support disabled workers.
And I pay tribute
to the 240 employers who have backed the disability employment charter and back rights for disabled workers. The Employment Rights Bill and the government amendments will
ensure A-level playing field so that employers can not undercut those who want to do the right thing, and will ensure more disabled workers can
keep jobs they value and can contribute to the growth we need to get our economy moving again.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Please keep remarks to four minutes. I refer to my register interest
19:13
Alex Sobel MP (Leeds Central and Headingley, Labour )
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I refer to my register interest and my membership of the GMB for 20 years. I'm speaking for support for
years. I'm speaking for support for neutral 72 my name, which attempts to put a duty on a clause to investigate whistleblowing concerns,
managing whistleblower disclosures. In recent years the scandals rocked
In recent years the scandals rocked
the country only to be ignored. Scandals with thousands of victims such as the Post Office horizon,
Faced a wall of silence first we saw the worst at Yorkshire cricket club in my constituency where after years of racist harassment and abuse, despite the number of players who
admitted to racist remarks or actions, Yorkshire cricket club's leadership refused to accept the mistakes and refused to release the full support.
It was only three
going through the DCMS Select Committee the full-scale issue was
raised and the club became known. These fellows have a tragic hidden cost that places significant strain on the taxpayer and the cost of whistleblowing report has found the
avoidable costs incurred for failing to listen to whistleblowers in the
cases, 460 cases, 460 million 426 million for top is unacceptable for
the taxpayer to bear the burden of failed systems and failed legislative frameworks. It's for this reason we need new legal duty
to investigate whistleblowing.
This new clause would ensure the employers must take reasonable steps to investigate any protective disclosure made to them. This new clause will pay large employer
channels for procedures for reporting. By ensuring disclosure investigate to prevent scandals such
as horizon from occurring ensure the harm in the work place is dealt with early on for this new clause is
proudly pro-work and pro-business, tackling one of the long-standing issue of current whistleblowing
issues. The status quo only provides an after the event remedy. This clause ensures to protect
whistleblows from the start.
You gave research found that 76% of
employers want a legal duty to
investigate was blowing. In light of recent scandals, businesses are realising the value of whistleblowers to help undo
wrongdoing in their own companies. Yogi recommend that all employees should be required to meet statutory whistleblowing and fully recognise
This new clause requires employers
to take reasonable steps making sure they don't always enquire might require an investigation was this a once in a generation opportunity to
revolutionise whistleblowing lawful
Disclosure act 1998 was ground
breaking at the time but since UK has fallen behind on comparative jurisdictions such as the EU and Japan whistleblower protections will top I hope the government consider supporting this new clause or
equivalent measures which is good for workers, businesses and taxpayers.
I hope the Minister will meet with me about this matter following today's debate. Through this new clause we can take action
to ensure whistleblower supported, businesses given the tools and taxpayers are spared from bailing out state scandals will top out state scandals will top
19:16
Catherine Atkinson MP (Derby North, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I draw attention to my register of interests and I am a proud trade union member. I would like to give
my full support to the measures in this landmark bill. In Derby we make
this landmark bill. In Derby we make
nuclear reactors to trains, cars and aeroplane engines that get people and goods to where they need to go,
the production operations that help put food on our tables. We don't just have large companies with big economies of scale we have thousands of small and medium-sized companies
as well.
Many businesses that I have
visited, large and small are investing in their workforce, want to pay them properly and provide
stable, secure work that enables their employees to build lives and
families. What they want is A-level playing field. So that they are not undercut by competitors who don't play by the rules, avoid their
responsibilities and exploit those who work for them. When people are stuck in insecure, low-paid work,
planning for their future is impossible. It is wrong that so many people have no idea whether they
will have five hours of work that
week or 50.
Wrong that they have no idea whether they will earn enough
to pay their bills. Wrong that they
can have paid for childcare, be on a bus to work and get a call just saying they are no longer needed. What is shocking is that we have 2.4
million people in a regular work -- irregular work like zero contracts or agency jobs and I'm proud that
this is the government and this bill
that is taking action to end exploitative zero hour contracts and with the men and 32, 33 to ensure that agency workers are also
protected.
At the second reading of this groundbreaking bill I spoke also about the importance of
Right isn't worth the paper it's
written on unless it is enforced and the provisions that we make, the guidance that we set, the laws that we pass are only as strong as the enforcement that there is. For part
of my career as a barrister I had the honour of representing working
people. But I always knew for the many who did seek justice through tribunal's there were many many many
who didn't feel able to take action.
Low paid and exploited workers can be reluctant to speak out about
abuses of their rights. Last year we
celebrated 25 years of the Labour government bringing in the National Minimum Wage. But the Low Pay Commission estimates that one in five workers receiving it were not provided with the correct pay in
2022. At the second reading I called for the strengthening of the fair
work agency, which will enforce the
National Minimum Wage, Statutory Sick Pay and a wider range of rights such as holiday pay so that everyone
plays by the same rules.
I am hugely pleased to see that new clauses in
this bill will strengthen the powers
of the fair work agency. Like for example as we will be talking about tomorrow new clause 57 gives the
agency powers to bring proceedings to Employment Tribunal in place of a worker. This could make a huge
difference for workers. It helps protect businesses from being undercut by acting as a real
deterrent. The sooner that these
workers are in place soon
enforcement can begin, the sooner justice will be delivered and this will bring us better protections, better productivity and better growth.
19:20
Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I called the Minister to windup.
just mention the Member for Gateshead and central Wycombe who is
celebrating his 40th birthday today,
and what a great way to spend his birthday. I know he has been one of
the people who has worked tirelessly over many years in different guises to help us get where we are today,
and given the number of speeches and contributions made is not going to be possible to pay tribute to
everyone in the time that I've got
or indeed reference every speech and every moment but I will do my best to cover as much as possible.
I will
start with the Member for Nottingham
73 relates to significant structural changes to the Statutory Sick Pay system, I thought she made a very personal and persuasive speech and I
agree with her that phased return to work are an effective tool supporting people to stay in or return to work, helping to reduce
economic act activity and the cost to businesses of sickness absence will stop by removing the waiting
period employees will be entitled to Statutory Sick Pay for everyday work missed, this better enables phased
return to work for a double sporting someone who normally works five days a week to work a three day week with
the other two days paid assist people stop the simply would not be possible under the existing system and we are committed to continuing
to work closely with employees to develop and implement a system that
is fair supportive and effective in kickstarting economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity.
I know will continue to have conversations in respect of
that. Turning to new clause 102 the
that. Turning to new clause 102 the
Who I pay tribute to his work as a shadow minister, the changes we are bringing in through this bill mean that up to 1.3 million low paying
employees will now be entitled to Statutory Sick Pay and all eligible employees will be paid from the first day of absence benefiting millions of employees, new percentage rate is simple to
understand and implement and with the removal of waiting periods
internal modelling modelling from the Department for Work & Pensions shows most employees even those who make nominally less per week will
not be worse off over the course of their sickness absence.
Now turn to
the speech from my right honourable
friend it was her first speech from the backbenches I think I don't think she will be on them for very long if she continues to make contributions like that, I thought
it was an excellent speech and the way she spoke about her constituent really hammered home the importance of tackling the areas of non-this does make disclosure agreements. I
like to pay tribute to her ongoing efforts to ensure victims of this
conduct and bullying can speak up about their experiences and get the help and support they need.
I also
want to thank the honourable member for originally tabling the amendment
last week and for tabling sadly another horrific story about the
abuse of MDA's and the Member for Bath for her contribution as well in
this area because we do know there are legitimate uses of MDA's but I want to be clear, we've had too many
examples of it today, this should not be used to silence victims of
harassment or other misconduct. I understand honourable members want to ensure protection relating to
harassment across the economy and I hear what honourable members have said, however I have to acknowledge
that this would be a wide reaching
change and would take take a significant step without properly engaging with workers and employers and stakeholders and assessing the
impact on sectors across the economy.
I want to reiterate that I recognise that nondisclosure agreements are an important issue which warrant consideration and we
will continue to look into the issues raised stop my honourable friend faced you want me to go
further and I look forward to engaging with her and with organisations in respect of this.
The Member for Bridgwater's new clause 30 would give employees who
are special constables the right to time off from work to carry out their voluntary police duties and I would join him in paying tribute to
special constables who make an invaluable contribution to policing across the country.
It would not be appropriate to support additional legislation on this matter without a
comprehensive analysis on the impact such a change could bring to policing. We have debated this before as you know that the committee and my officials have been
in discussion with colleagues at the Home Office to learn more about this
With staff Association for special constables and the Association for special Constabulary officers, I recognise this legislation is now
half a century old and needs looking at what we can't support the amendment MM and tonight there's a least one member of the Conservative benches you support increasing
Employment Rights Bill to I will turn to new clause 7 from the honourable member for Walthamstow, I
want to start by recognising the key role that parental leave plays in supporting working families, the arrival of a child is transformative for parents and the government understands and values the
absolutely vital role fathers and partners play in raising children and we want to support them and I
commend her for her work in this area.
We already talked about
statutory plate framework in life
Of protected paternity leave ensuring they can't be required to
work while claiming that leave, will be discriminative against by their employers are taking it. I do recognise what my honourable friend the Member for Darlington said about the limitations of those protections
and I pay tribute you have for her work on this issue. Paternity leave is available to the father of the child or mother's partner irrespective of their gender, this
can be taken by the father or partner at any point in the first year following the child's birth or
adoption.
I do want to make and acknowledge the wider point made by the member Darlington which is that
we need to do more to ensure that parental leave system as a whole supports working families, as a government was committed to doing this I recently met with working
families to discuss this very issue.
Through this bill we are making paternity leave and unpaid parental leave day one rights and meaning
leave day one rights and meaning
To give notice on the first day To give notice on the first day of employment removing any continuity of service requirement.
This brings them both into line with maternity leave and adoption leave, supplying the system. Were also committed to
reviewing the parental leave system, this review will be conducted separately to the implement rights bill and workers orally underway across government on planning for its delivery it will commence before
Royal Assent. We are scoping the work ready across the departments and is already underway and of course we will want and expect to engage widely with stakeholders as
part of that review process. I'm not going to take any interventions but
I would expect the honourable friend to be engaging with us in respect of
that.
Turning to the Member for
Leeds East and his amendment in the reinstallation. This would partially reinstate a similar measure that was sponsored by the previous Labour government and this government continues to have sympathy with its
continues to have sympathy with its
continues to have sympathy with its
Was somehow found to be a helpful tool while government will not support the cinema today we will "consideration to the impact of the repeal of the statutory questionnaire and any steps that may
be needed during this Parliament.
I would like to thank two people who have been very instrumental in shaping our offers.
That the review into parental rights which I understand is going to begin in June will go ahead, can he confirm when he talks about stakeholders, will that include trade union colleagues because many
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of us are very happy to withdraw our amendments tonight on the basis that working people can be part of this conversation. I would fully expect us to consult with all relevant parties, I
consult with all relevant parties, I don't think she has any worries in respect of that. I want to pay tribute to two people who have been instrumental in shaping our thoughts
instrumental in shaping our thoughts on this, first of all the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornbury East and my noble friend the Member for
my noble friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Sol Hull North, they brought some amendments in relation to employment status and
in relation to employment status and I think it's important that we say we are taking action in respect of
we are taking action in respect of those who work for umbrella companies and we've been clear that some reforms in the plan to make
work pay will take longer to underpin that my undertake
implement.
We see consulting on a simple depart framework is a longer goal but ensure members that we are
committed to that. I also hear what my honourable friend said about his concerns about fire and rehire, we are looking very closely about how
our reforms will work in practice. Turning to new clause 17 seeks to
create a legal definition of kinship care to be used to establish eligibility for kinship care leave.
New clause 18 aims to establish that entitlement for kinship carers with a minimum of 52 weeks of leave being
available for eligible employees, I'm pleased to say for the first time this government Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill will create a legal definition of kinship
care of the purposes of specific measures in the bell.
And be
Legislation will ensure that all local authorities have a clear and
consistent understanding of what constitutes kinship care. I'm also pleased to say the governance recently announced a £40 million package to try new kinship announced, this is the single biggest investment made by this
comment on kinship care to date enabling children to be raised within their communities with their extended families. I turn now to the little Democrats amendment which we
previously debated in committee. Commit the government to introduce entitlement from employees with
caring response penalties to be paid the usual wage while taking Carer's Leave Bill was we have stressed the governance committee and supporting
employed unpaid carers and engaging with ministers and bodies in
relation to this the Carers Leave Act 2023 2023 only recently gave employment carers knew right to time off work.
We are reviewing this
measure and considering if any
I recognise many of the LibDem amendments have come from a good place, but they have to decide whether they are going to Manchester
United or Manchester city because their speeches were littered with concerns about the increasing cost from this bill, yet every amendment
seems to only add to that. I understand they are coming from good place, but they have to make a decision whether they support this
bill or not. I hope they can make that before tomorrow night, but at least they are here unlike the new kids on the block behind them.
Pay
tribute to them for actually turning up today. I will now address the
points raised by the opposition party in relation to harassment set out in the amendments to 288 and
289. These amendments seek to exclude the hospitality sector and sports venues from the obligations unemployed not to permit the harassment of their ploys by third parties or alternatively to remove
clause 18 altogether, thus depriving employees of protection from all types of harassment by third parties
under the Equality Act. Let's be clear, this covenant is committed to making workplaces and working conditions free from harassment, and
so we must protect employees from third-party harassment.
And what underline two important points in relation to this clause. The first relates to the expectations it
places on employers. And like to
assure the House that employers cannot and do not expect it to
police arbitral every action of third parties. Instead employers simply need to do what is reasonable and what is reasonable of course depends on the specific
circumstances of the employer. Further, the steps that an employer can reasonably take in respect of
the actions of third parties in their workplace are clearly more limited to the steps they can take
in respect of their employees, and this will of course be something the employment tribunal will take into account when considering the facts of the case.
The second point I
would like to emphasise relates to
the constitution of harassment. Far too often I've heard objections that this clause implies it will make
employers liable if there staff are harassed by third parties. I think that was reflected by the fact that the party opposite did actually support a similar measure in the
previous Parliament. The shadow Minister did ask in his opening
remarks what evidence this was showing as being needed, and of
course the NHS 2023 staff survey showed that 1/4 of all staff
harassment bullying or abuse, Unite survey said 56% of their members had
suffered third-party harassment, which is presumably why UK
hospitality in reference to the committee said they supported the measures in principle.
So I will
work with them to make sure it protects everyone in the sector because I believe everyone who works in this country deserves protection
from harassment, and I think it's incredible that the party opposite cannot see the difficulty with
arguing against that. I will turn out to the amendment new clause 105 by the honourable member for West Suffolk in relation to substitution
clauses. I think it's fair to say we
were aware of the risks and we've been working closely with the Minister for border security on
illegal working by migrants in the gig economy and the role substitution clauses play in facilitating that.
We will continue to work closely with the Home Office
on this issue. The opposition have also tabled new clause 87. This
amendment would have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to the U.K.'s international competitiveness and UK
growth when making any regulations under part one and two of this bill. The government is only laser focused
on this key objective. Our plan to
Make Work Pay is a progrowth package and sets out an ambitious agenda to deliver our Plan for Change.
By ensuring employment rights are fit
for a modern economy, contributing
to economic growth. The plan will bring the UK back into line with our international competitors and directly address our low growth, low
productivity and low pay economy. And they may laugh but they are the people who deliver that economy for
so many years. So international competitiveness and growth are at the heart of what we do. Pay close
attention to the potential impacts as we develop regulations to implement the measures of this bill.
At the point of small business support, I can remind members that
are due had a meeting with inkwell last year who said introducing these changes will help create a happy and productive workplace and create A-
level playing field for employers, and that's exactly what we want to achieve with this bill because we understand the best of businesses
want to look after their staff and treat them well. It's good for business, good for workers and good
for the wider economy. The opposition's narrow view seems to be
everything that is good for workers is automatically bad for business.
We absolutely reject that analysis.
So in conclusion, giving people a baseline of security in respect of
work is fundamental. It's clear that we need a change from a system where people don't know what hours they
will get from one week to the next, don't know whether people with caring responsibilities ever get the
same benefits are flexibly as their employers, where a minority of rogue employers can fired and rehired
where and why care workers and teaching assistants have all been undervalued for far too long.
It's time to end these injustices, time
to Make Work Pay.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that new clause 30 to be read a second time. As many
as are of that opinion, say, As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The
"Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it. The question is that new clause 30 to be added to the bill. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the
that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it,
contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it.
We come to
the ayes have it. We come to government new clauses 33 to 38. I call the Minister to move clauses 33 to 38 formally. The question is that
new clauses 33 to 38 be added to the bill. As many as are of that opinion
say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it.
New clause 7 has been selected for
separate decision.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Withdrawn.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Withdrawn. New clause 10 has been selected
**** Possible New Speaker ****
New clause 10 has been selected for separate decision. I call Steve Darling to move new clause 10 formally. Moved formally.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Moved formally. The question is that new clause 10 be added to the bill. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of
are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." Division! Clear
19:38
Division: Employment Rights Bill, Report, New Clause 10
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is as The question is as on The question is as on the The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary,
opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." Tellers for the ayes are Charlie Maynard and Bobby Dean.
Charlie Maynard and Bobby Dean.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, order. The Ayes to the right, 95. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Ayes to the right, 95. The The Ayes to the right 95, the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Ayes to the right 95, the Noes to the left were 323. The
New clause 30 has been selected for
separate decision. I caught Ashley
Fox to move new clause 30 formally. The question is that new clause 30 be added to the bill. As many are of
that opinion say, "Aye", and of the
19:53
Division: Employment Rights Bill, Report, New Clause 30
-
Copy Link
The The question The question is The question is as The question is as on The question is as on the The question is as on the Order Paper. As many are of that opinion
say, "Aye", and of the contrary,
"No". The tellers for the Ayes Paul Holmes and Jerome Mayhew, the Tullus
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order Order order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The ayes to the right were 189.
The noes to the left, 324.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The noes to the left, 324. The ayes to the right, 189. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The ayes to the right, 189. The noes to the left, 324. So the noes
New clause 87 has been selected for
separate decision. Michael Greg Smith to move new clause 87 formally. The question is that new
clause 87 be added to the bill. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No."
20:05
Division: Employment Rights Bill, Report, New Clause 87
-
Copy Link
"Aye." Of the contrary, "No."
The question The question is The question is as The question is as on The question is as on the The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary,
"No." Tellers for the ayes are Paul Holmes, tellers for the noes Gen
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lock Lock the Lock the doors.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, order. The eyes to the right, 106. Nose
to the left, 340.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to the left, 340. The eyes to the right, 106. The nose to the left, 340, so the nose
I I call I call the I call the Minister I call the Minister to I call the Minister to move
amendments 8 to 50 and 79 to 85 formally. The question is that amendments 8 to 50 and 79 to 85 and
79 to 80 5B made. As many of that
opinion, say I've the eyes have it. Amendments to hundred and 88 has
been selected for separate decision.
I called Greg Smith to move the
amendment formally. The question is
that men and 288 be made. Division.
20:20
Division: Employment Rights Bill, Report, Page 34, Amdt. 288
-
Copy Link
The question The question is The question is only The question is only Order The question is only Order Paper. The question is only Order Paper. As
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just Just because Just because it's Just because it's your Just because it's your birthday,
Mark Ferguson, doesn't mean you can
carry on talking. Order order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
carry on talking. Order order. The ayes to the right, 105. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noes to the left, 409. The ayes to the right were 105, the noes to the left were 409. The
noes have it, the noes have it.
I called the Minister to move
amendments 86 to 161 formally. The question is that amendments 86 to 161 be made. As many as are of that
opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes
have it. We come to government new schedule one. I call the Minister to move new schedule one formally.
The
question is that new schedule one be added to the bill. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it,
the ayes have it. I call the Minister to move amendments 51 to 78
and 240 to 245 formally. The
question is that government amendments 51 to 78 and 240 to 245
he made. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have it. There will be further considered what date? Tomorrow.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Tomorrow. Tomorrow. Now we move on to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Tomorrow. Now we move on to the next program of business. Motion four on, forgive me, I was going to
struggle over this word. Ecclesiastical law. Minister to move. The question is as on the
move. The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary,
have it. We come onto public petition. Petitioner, Alison Hume.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. I rise to present this petition about the proposals for a
20:34
Petitions Alison Hume MP (Scarborough and Whitby, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
petition about the proposals for a 24-hour mini casino in Whitby. I really hope that planning officers
take note of this petition, which has been signed by seven
constituents on paper and a further 412 online. The petition shares the concern of Whitby residents that a
planning application has been submitted by luxury leisure. To open
a 24-hour adult gaming centre in
Whitby. Residents are particularly disappointed that the site of the proposed gaming centre is that of
the Halifax bank branch, which is due to close shortly.
Leaving the town without any bank branches. It further declares that what residents
of Whitby want is access to banks, shops and services, and not a 24-
hour gaming centre. The petitioners therefore request that the House of
Commons urges the government to encourage North Yorkshire Council to reject the application for a 24-hour
adult gaming centre at the site on
adult gaming centre at the site on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Petition, proposed Thank you. Petition, proposed 24
hour adult gaming centre in Whitby.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
hour adult gaming centre in Whitby. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn. The question is that this House do now adjourn. And I called Gavin
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Robinson. Thank you. And can I through you
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. And can I through you thank the Speaker for the selection of this adjournment debates. Today
of this adjournment debates. Today is 11 March, and on 11 March since
2004 in those dreadful bombings in Madrid, there has been the European
victims day, victims of terror day. And this occasion gives us the
opportunity to reflect on terror, on
the innocent victims of terror. As a House, it gives us the opportunity
20:37
Adjournment: European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism and Northern Ireland
-
Copy Link
to reflect on the impact such acts of terror have had on this institution. On this House of
institution. On this House of Commons. When I'm selected here in 2015, I entered Parliament alongside
2015, I entered Parliament alongside Jo Cox, who is memorialised to my right. She was cut down by far right
20:37
Adjournment: European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism and Northern Ireland Rt Hon Gavin Robinson MP (Belfast East, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
Copy Link
-
right. She was cut down by far right extremists. I served for many a year
extremists. I served for many a year with David Amess and had a great relationship with David, and he was struck down by Islamic terrorists.
struck down by Islamic terrorists. And when you look to either side of the chamber, you will note under the
door, three heraldic plaques, one to the Reverend Robert Bradford, one to
Ian Gow and one to Erin Eve, all parliamentarians serving their
country cut down by Irish Republican terrorists.
And little known behind
your share there are two further plaques, won the Sir Anthony Berry
who was killed in the Brighton bombing, Republican terrorists, and
to its left, Sir Henry Wilson who was at the time of the First World War a hero of this country, latterly
an Irish Unionist Member of Parliament cut down by Irish Republican terrorists, and so occasions like this give us the opportunity to reflect. But it's
important for us as parliamentarians to consider what we can do in the
best interest of those we represent.
And legacy continues to be a sore
enough in -- in the Northern Ireland
that has not healed. Whatever
constitution and aspiration, affected by the onslaught of terror we faced. I'm privileged to sit on the Northern Ireland Affairs
committee, but much more so was privileged last week alongside colleagues who were present in the
chamber today to meet with a number of organisations who represent the interests of innocent victims. We
met with the 174 trust, met with the
victims at wave trauma centre.
We met with the victims represented by
Seth, south-east Fermanagh and Enniskillen victims organisation. And the most profound thing they
said to us within the county, 42
people were killed. 40 of them by Republican terrorists. None by
loyalists because the people from Anna didn't turn to taking the law into their own hands. The people
from Anna but there trust and faith
in Law & Order. And to the parts of
our statement out there to protect us, and its most profound because there are a few other organisations, there is no other county in Northern
Ireland where it is true that that can be said.
But there was one recurring theme throughout the
engagement we had during the course of those two days. And that was that
of those two days. And that was that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
victims want to truth and justice. And I commend my honourable friend the mammoth East Belfast for
friend the mammoth East Belfast for bringing this forward? His passion for victims as long-standing. Does
for victims as long-standing. Does my right honourable friend degree that we need to set in stone the truth of victims in Northern
truth of victims in Northern Ireland? And for all the attention given to the 10% of victims, the
given to the 10% of victims, the families of the 90% of victims who
families of the 90% of victims who suffer in silence, will this day ensure the true victims stories are told and remembered without any
**** Possible New Speaker ****
whitewashing whatsoever? I appreciate the intervention
because there is a task on the part of government with the legislation they are considering at the moment
they are considering at the moment on storytelling, on reconciliation,
on the narrative that people wish to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on the narrative that people wish to share the truth is told and that there truth is known. I see the honourable lady for South Belfast standing. I know his time is precious and
want to associate myself with the remarks he made about members of this House, that it was a moving
visit we had last week with victims in Belfast and for manner, people
who were murdered by perpetrators from various sides of the conflict.
And it showed their continuing pain and fortitude as the opening weeks
have done as well.
And from the SLP's part, we support a parallel
Dublin enquiry on that. Does the member agree with me that in the current legacy discussion, a moment
is coming, and opportunity where we can assert that it's the needs of victims and not those perpetrators
that are primacy and we can't afford to squander that opportunity?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Grateful for the intervention. And I think she is right that we cannot squander the opportunity, but
cannot squander the opportunity, but for too long, I've heard voices within government say the one thing that the parties of Northern Ireland
that the parties of Northern Ireland can agree on is their opposition to
can agree on is their opposition to the legacy act. But for very different reasons. And very often we don't get the opportunity to fully explore those very different
explore those very different reasons, and for our part we will never stand in the way of justice.
And we will always support innocent
**** Possible New Speaker ****
victims. I thank my honourable friend for
giving way, and for securing this really important debate on such a
moving subject. I too was very honoured to go with him and other
members of Northern Ireland. And it was profound and moving last week. I wonder if you would agree with me that as part of dealing with this
legacy, in relation to the independent commission reconciliation and information
recovery that as he says truth, justice and reconciliation must be intentional parts of the body going
**** Possible New Speaker ****
forward? It was interesting to hear the reflections of some who say why do I
reflections of some who say why do I need to reconcile? I've been blown
need to reconcile? I've been blown up. I've been shot. I've lost my father, my mother, my sister, my brother. Why is the onus on me to
brother. Why is the onus on me to reconcile? I should be honoured for the sacrifice I have made or been
the sacrifice I have made or been forced to go through, but where is somebody coming along to say I'm sorry? That you did not deserve what
sorry? That you did not deserve what occurred to you, your family members, that you didn't need to
live through the pain, that you don't deserve the scars that you bear? And so there is much more
focus and I agree with you entirely, much more focus required on reconciliation.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Much obliged. As someone who had the honour of hosting an event on
the honour of hosting an event on this day for all the years I was a member of the Northern Ireland assembly, I commend the right
assembly, I commend the right honourable member for securing this
honourable member for securing this debate. But as he agree with me -- does he agree with me that one of the abiding and insidious herds to
the abiding and insidious herds to victims of terrorism is the constant glorification of those who made them
glorification of those who made them victims? And particularly when it
comes to those who sit in government in Northern Ireland by their attendance at events commemorating
those who were delivering death and destruction to our streets? Isn't
that one of the most hateful and insidious things that can be done to
evict him, the read from a decision
that it brings? -- Re traumatise Asian.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Two things on that. First I'm glad he organised for 13 years I think an event at Stormont too
think an event at Stormont too European victim of terror day. And also that it occurred yesterday, so
also that it occurred yesterday, so his legacy lives on, and I was pleased to attend it as I have on
pleased to attend it as I have on many occasions in the past, but on his second point, he's absolute you right, yesterday I had the
right, yesterday I had the opportunity to meet again.
We let -- we met last week, but we met again.
we met last week, but we met again.
I reflected to them that resonate so much with this point about the glorification of terror, particularly from those who have a responsibility to live by supports
and have a responsibility to fulfil the political offices they hold, and yet they attend commemorations and
glorify those who revelled in terror. And the excuse they always
use is that we have a right to remember our dead.
That's what they say. They have a right remember
their dead. But yet Margaret and Ruth lost family members by simply
turning up to remember the war dead. On Remembrance Sunday in
On Remembrance Sunday in
Enniskillen. So for them, to hear their political leaders saying we do this because we have an entitlement to remember our war dead, Margaret and Ruth and their parents were
offered no opportunity to remember rightfully those who sacrificed for
rightfully those who sacrificed for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
When he talks of truth and justice, he will be aware that the
justice, he will be aware that the Northern Ireland sentences act means
that if prosecutions carry on, no one will serve more than two years in jail. And if prosecutions carry
in jail. And if prosecutions carry on, they will do everything they can
to cover up the truth in defending themselves, so when people criticise the legacy act which did propose a
truth and reconciliation commission, aren't they really criticising the
measure which would have given a much better opportunity for the truth to come out once the threat of
prosecution was removed given that the punishment wouldn't fit the crime even if someone were found
**** Possible New Speaker ****
guilty? The gentleman knows that I have
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The gentleman knows that I have high regard for him and we explored these issues at great length when he chaired the Select Committee and I
chaired the Select Committee and I was but a lonely member of it. The truth is that there are hundreds if
not thousands of individuals in Northern Ireland who have been prosecuted already. How often do you
prosecuted already. How often do you see them go to meet their victims or
see them go to meet their victims or the families of their victims? How
often do you see them try to apply a balm on a wound that has never
healed.
So when I started on this before the explosion of interventions about truth and
justice, it is important that for the last number of years, the terminology from this chamber has
been very clearly that you are not going to get justice but we can
offer you truth. And the only you
can get truth is if we deny justice. And that is what the legacy act pre-empted the people of Northern
Ireland. That is why we opposed it. They want justice. They want the day
They want justice.
They want the day
in court. They have had to suffer this for decades now. We didn't
support the Belfast agreement because of the release of prisoners. Those who take life could be sentenced for two years, sentenced
for much longer but only have to
serve two. Nor did we support
amnesties because the approach that denies justice is one that will
never allow the wounds to heal. I
want to reflect on the number of institutions that we have that are
supposed to age justice and truth and reconciliation in Northern
Ireland.
One of them is the police office in Northern Ireland. The
police ombudsman office was established to allow members of the community that didn't support the
police to buy into the police, to get confidence within the police, but I'm sorry to say that we have a
police ombudsman for whom I have no confidence. None whatsoever. A
police ombudsman that obstructed the notion of collusion, was struck down
notion of collusion, was struck down
by the courts of behaviours. She was struck down by the courts.
More
recently, she has been missing in action. She is fit to do the job, unfit to do the job, being
investigated by the West Midlands police herself, and whether she is
obstructing in her role or not, I
will raise one gentleman, Alan Black, a workman who was out to work
with his colleagues. All of them
were Protestants and in 1976 in
Kingsmill were attacked by the IRA. When asked to identify themselves, the one individual as a catholic was
allowed to leave.
11 of Allen's colleagues were murdered that day
for no other reason than that they had a Protestant faith and Alan survived. He went to the police
ombudsman looking for answers 14 years ago. He had an inquest that
years ago. He had an inquest that
concluded 11 months ago. And what do we hear from the ombudsman's office? They are ready to report that there
has still been no outcome, no
publication and no report for Alan. Allen is an old man now.
He is an ill man because of the attack he
suffered, yet he put his faith in the organisations that were setup to instil confidence for him and for
members of the community and he has received nothing. The enquiry
started five weeks ago. The first
few weeks for testimonies who lost so tragically that day. Four months after the Belfast agreement was
signed. Four months after society was meant to bask in peace and yet
29 people were killed that day.
The enquiry has a cross-border
dimension. The bomb was constructed
and planted by a provisional IRA bomb team and escaped the public of
Ireland, and they need to be a Republic of Ireland enquiry, and the
honourable lady indicated her support for such an enquiry in the south. It is for this reason that
things are required. And what do we have so far? Reluctance on behalf of
the Irish government. They have
single to to do anything except criticise the government for the
last few years.
They allow people to hide in the Irish Republic. They wouldn't extradite terrorists from
the Irish Republic and yet today, they stand and look square NEI at
the family of victims who say sorry, we're not going to do that for you. We are not going to give you
answers. The same bomb team responsible for 20 bombings in 1997
and 1998, and a making their mark and making their voice heard in the
run-up to peace negotiations. It is an outrage. And the Irish government
still stand back and say they won't provide an enquiry is a disgrace.
They have offered honeyed words for years and yet they do nothing to aid the sorrow because they won't
provide the conditions that allow us to challenge, challenge Dermot
Jennings. Who is accused of having said we will let one more through, lads, because he knew the bombing
team. Who is going to challenge and question the intelligence officials. Who is going to ask the questions?
Our enquiry can't do it because they don't have the powers, and we know
we are considering a memorandum with the Irish government, and that is important.
But if it doesn't allow for the production of people and
papers, it will never work. It is weather has to be an enquiry in the
Republic of Ireland as well, and I am glad there is cross support for that. The committee of Northern
Irish justice, I struggle with that. They published a brilliant support
in the last four weeks castigating
the Irish Republic for their total failure to do anything of legacy
over the last 30 years. They have no legacy bombings.
They have no legacy investigations, no historical team,
no ombudsman service. They have no infrastructure whatsoever to answer
questions on legacy, and no infrastructure whatsoever to aid the
healing of the past.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just on that issue, what concerns many people is that when things happen in Northern Ireland that are
of particular disposition, it can be the case that public violence government goes quite heavily to press our government to do certain
press our government to do certain things, but on many occasions, when there are things happening which our government should be making
government should be making representations to the Republic's government, that they failed to adequately do so.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
adequately do so. He is absolutely right. There was a summit last week and not one word
a summit last week and not one word of these issues emerged from it. The Irish government said they are not
quite ready yet to withdraw their challenge against the British
government for the legacy act. They ruled against an amnesty being provided just as we did, but they decided to challenge their
neighbours and the British government through the European courts. They decided to do that without trying to address these
issues and yet when the onus is on them, when the shoe is on the other foot, they offer nothing.
The
Northern Ireland Assembly passed a
motion to say that the Irish government should hold an enquiry. I
agree. It was amended by the DUP, and it was unanimously supported by every party in Stormont. That is a
message that I hope the Minister will take to the Irish government
about the strength of feeling on this issue. Look a lot of victims in the eye last week but we can't
continue for year after year to look victims in the IN say nice things and offer no hope.
Offer no truth
and offer no hope. Offer no truth
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and offer no justice. On the debate that has happened
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On the debate that has happened in the assembly, amended by the DUP, so often in this place, when all parties stand together in the
parties stand together in the assembly, will he join with me in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
assembly, will he join with me in asking the Minister to respond to that? Yes. I am very grateful I took
that because I am grateful for your latitude. I am delighted you are
latitude. I am delighted you are here today and I hope you respond positively. I hope you represent the pain and the anguish that you have
experienced. There is a long way to go in terms of providing answers. We
won't be found wanting, and I hope
the Labour government won't either.
20:56
Fleur Anderson MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Northern Ireland Office) (Putney, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate this evening
on the European Remembrance Day for the victims of terrorism and
Northern Ireland. I congratulate the member from Belfast East on securing this debate and speaking so
eloquently and powerfully on what is, for so many people, a painful and difficult subject matter. As the
right honourable member describes, acts of terror had a devastating and
unimaginable impact on the individuals, families, and the communities affected. Indeed, that
violence has been brought to our very doorstep and we stand in solemn remembrance of the members of this
House taken from us by acts of terrorism while representing this.
Most recently, as the member mentioned, they include Joe Cox,
brutally murdered in 2016, and said David Amis in 2021. Both whilst
serving their constituents. I knew them both, as he did, and miss them,
and I feel their loss very
personally. Those who have sadly been lost to terrorism are remembered by their families, their
loved ones, and by a nation that stands still and importantly stands together when these tragedies occur. As my honourable friend has said,
acts of terrorism had a pronounced effect on communities in Northern Ireland for over 3000 people being
killed by terrorists during the course of the troubles, and behind
every individual murder of countless family members and others whose lives are changed forever by
unthinkable loss and heartbreaking circumstances.
I have listened to many of those harrowing stories
personally. Recent research reminds us that as many as 30% of people have conflict -related trauma and
that this is being passed through generations as well and we must
never forget that. Thankfully, Northern Ireland is a place of relative peace and stability, but the threat from terrorism remains
with the current threat assessed as
substantial. And I would like to pay tribute to the PS and I and the services that continue to work
tirelessly to keep us safe.
I had the privilege of attending the awards last week in Belfast to celebrate and honour bravery of some
exceptional officers who put their lives on the line for us every day.
In Northern Ireland, many days acknowledge the pain and suffering
caused by the troubles and reflect on what more we can do, and sadly,
memorials and remembrance of commemoration can be challenging and even divisive. That is why this
government, in seeking to address the legacy of the troubles, is committed to bringing forth a
memorialisation strategy to support inclusive structures and initiatives to help all in Northern Ireland including future generations to
reflect on those lost and we will continue to work to support those
civil society groups that are working tirelessly to promote reconciliation.
The right honourable
member mentioned SEF, and there is
wave, and those who came here in Westminster. As many other subjective portraits and silent
testimony exhibitions which is in the National portrait Gallery, and I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
recommend visiting. I thank the gentleman for securing this debate and I thank the
securing this debate and I thank the Minister for giving way and I would like to make the house aware that as part of the Northern Ireland affairs
part of the Northern Ireland affairs committee, I met with victims from all sides last week but I especially want to highlight the incredible
want to highlight the incredible work that they do to support victims of terrorism. With the Minister agree with me that organisations like these are crucial for
like these are crucial for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
like these are crucial for Outstayed the agree, and I'm very glad they've been mentioned this
evening. But NHS resources are vital such as the regional trauma network I visited with Mr Nesbitt as well for the moving onto the legacy act,
acknowledging and addressing the suffering of victims of violence was an important aim for the Belfast good Friday agreement, but this is a task that I agree remains
incomplete. The government takes his responsibility to victims and survivors of the troubles extremely seriously. Which is why we've been
working with victims and survivors and all interested parties to
correct the mistakes of the last government to put in place measures that will provide answers, accountability and acknowledgement for families who have waited too
long already.
In December this active state Northern Ireland later
draft remedial order to correct several of the human rights deficiencies in the legacy act,
including removing the bitterly opposed conditional immunity scheme which would have granted immunity from prosecution for those who carried out the most appalling
terrorist crimes. And the secretary of state will be bringing forward primary legislation that will reform
and strengthen the independent commission reconciliation and information recovery. On the police
ombudsman, my honourable friend
refers to the police ombudsman for Northern Ireland.
And the government was pleased to see the basement recently returned to work following
an extended period of absence. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on legal proceedings, but
for families who are waiting to receive the ombudsman's report, I understand the concern and frustration in delays in
publication. Many of those families have already encountered too much delay in seeking information and
accountability. And note the ombudsman's office is doing all it can to publish reports and I'm afraid I don't have time because I
want to respond to the issues raised by the right honourable member.
The honourable member Belfast East has
rightly highlighted a number of troubles related cases have cross- border dimension, including
Kingsmill murders, which are an appalling example of the pain and suffering inflicted on civilians
during the troubles. It's right to acknowledge that the implication of
truly holistic legacy mechanisms that can provide families across the UK and Ireland with as much information as possible about the
circumstances of their particular case will require the cooperation of both UK and Irish governments to
facilitate the disclosure of information held by authorities in both jurisdictions.
This government
considers the Irish government to be an essential partner in the process
of seeking a way forward on legacy issues that is human rights compliant and can command public
confidence across communities. And in the Omagh Bombing enquiry, last month's comparative hearings have been a painful reminder of the
impact of cowardly terrorist actions
on communities and families. Victims don't need hearings or inquiries or commemoratives days to note this. They live with this every day. This active state has received political
assurances from the Irish government regarding its full cooperation with
the UK enquiry.
This is important and should be welcomed, and I know that the Irish government is
currently working at pace to determine how this is facilitated in
practice through a memorandum of understanding, but his comments in the chamber today will not have gone unnoticed. While the details of
those arrangements are ultimately a matter for the enquiry, which is really independent of government, enquiry with the honourable member
that they should provide the greatest level of cooperation from
Irish authorities and the government's forward to seeing these details in due course, and in the meantime our focus remains on
ensuring that the UK enquiry has been established is able to successfully fulfil its terms of
reference.
So I close by remembering, by remembering all of those who have been killed by
cowardly terrorist acts and pay tribute to everyone he was carrying
on. Not getting over what has happened, but getting on and working around the gap of people or of their
own life that they had before,
carrying on display grief that seems to engulf, with getting up every day when it's not getting easier, with remembering people who should be
here and are not. Not getting on not giving up on getting answers and justice for their relatives, for
their families and friends.
In the memory full who died, we will keep
taking action against terrorism and for peace and yes, and for justice.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We will remember. The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it.
21:11
Oral questions: Justice
-
Copy Link
21:11
Fleur Anderson MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Northern Ireland Office) (Putney, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
This debate has concluded