Employment Rights Bill
Anna Dixon Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I am a proud member of Community.
It is an honour to speak as this landmark Bill hopefully passes its next stage, finally bringing to an end an era of insecurity and low pay under the Conservative party. This landmark Bill brings in day one rights for workers, a fair pay agreement for social care workers and greater entitlement to statutory sick pay. My speech will focus on and highlight the way in which the Bill and some of its amendments strengthen the rights of care workers and carers, the majority of whom are women.
We have heard already in this debate many proposals from hon. Members on the Government Benches to go further than the excellent proposals before us to strengthen day one rights for employees. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) spoke movingly about pregnancy loss and bereavement, and, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), talked about the need for stronger entitlements to parental leave. All of that will have a really positive impact, particularly on women.
I draw attention particularly to the day one right that strengthens flexible working by default. I invite the Minister to consider giving guidance to employers that they should require flexible working to be advertised. The Fawcett Society has made a particularly strong case for the importance of that for women, and I know that that is also true for carers. If, before applying for a job, they do not know that they can secure that flexibility, many will not even apply. Some 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 huge potential for businesses.
The Fawcett Society survey in 2023 said that 77% of women agreed that they would 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 that they needed. While the Bill makes excellent provisions, I urge the Minister to respond on how we can implement that 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.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for her warm words about carers. Will she therefore support Liberal Democrat new clause 10, which would make paid carer’s leave an entitlement?
Anna Dixon
The hon. Gentleman may know that I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers. We are very pleased that there are now unpaid leave requirements for carers; on other occasions, I have urged the Government to look into going further with paid entitlements for carers. There is a real opportunity to enable the 3 million carers 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. While that is not part of this Bill, hopefully the Government and the Minister will respond to that.
That is the first area of the Bill that I really welcome. The second, which has huge benefit for care workers, is its provisions on pay and conditions through pay agreements. I echo some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), who is no longer in his place, about the huge benefits that these will bring to so many of our valued adult social care staff.
The establishment of the new Fair Work Agency will ensure that everyone is playing by the same rules, and strengthening powers to deal with modern slavery and labour abuse will further extend protections to care workers. Many care workers have come to this country on overseas visas and, having paid extortionate fees in their country of origin, have found themselves tied into accommodation here, on zero-hours contracts and being exploited by the care companies. As such, the provisions in the Bill are very welcome. We know that too many care workers live in poverty; research by the Health Foundation suggests that one in five care workers cannot afford the essentials, either for themselves or for their children. I am proud to be sitting on the Labour Benches as we bring forward fair pay agreements, along with the abolition of exploitative zero-hours contracts, which will finally provide security for our valued social care workers.
In implementing these changes, it is really important that we establish a framework to help home care workers in particular—some of whom I met recently—who are not paid for their travel time or their sleep-in hours, despite the fact that such practices should be illegal. As we take forward the fair pay agreement in adult social care, I urge the Minister to work with colleagues to ensure it is accompanied by an ethical charter for care providers to sign up to. This Government have already shown how serious they are about valuing those who do so much to care for, and provide support to, disabled adults and older people in this country.
The third area I want to mention, which other colleagues have talked about and which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) has addressed in his new clause 102—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I keep looking at the clock. I believe there is an issue; would you please advise me on my remaining time?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Yes, the clock has stopped. You started at 7 pm, but you did take an intervention, so I think you can go for one more minute.
Anna Dixon
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Very briefly, I am delighted that the Government are strengthening statutory sick pay. During covid, many care workers were forced to go into work—at their own risk, and risking those they were caring for—because they were not eligible for statutory sick pay, so strengthening it is an excellent move.
In conclusion, this Bill, together with the proposed Government amendments and some of those suggested by my hon. Friends, will ensure 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 is good for workers, and it is good for women.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my Unison membership.
I welcome the Bill, which is a once-in-a-generation chance to give more power to working people—including those in Ealing Southall—and I support the Government amendments to provide decent sick pay to 1.3 million low-paid workers. I do not support the Opposition’s amendments, which attempt to tie us up in knots in an effort to block working people from getting the rights they should be entitled to.
I particularly want to consider the impact of the Bill and the Government amendments on disabled people. Currently, almost 3 million people are off work long-term sick—a record high. Of course, some of those are disabled people who are unable to work. However, there are also many disabled people who desperately want to work, but who 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 worked with Disability Rights UK and Scope to develop the disability employment charter. That charter is a list of improvements to help disabled people get, and keep, employment. Over 240 employers, both large and small, signed up to say that they backed the ideas in the charter—they backed disabled workers’ rights—but the previous Conservative Government saw it all as red tape. They did not listen, and they refused to introduce those changes. They left millions of disabled people who want to work stuck on benefits, and the Opposition’s amendments today are just more of the same.
Those 240 employers that signed the disability employment charter, and the many disabled workers who have been pushed out of their jobs, will be heartened to see the changes being introduced in the new Employment Rights Bill. Many of those changes implement the demands of the charter, including allowing flexible working, more support for trade union disability reps, and strengthening sick pay. Those 240 employers would reject the Opposition’s many amendments whose aim is to frustrate this support for disabled workers.
People are often surprised to learn that low-paid workers are not entitled to statutory sick pay, and that unless the employer company has its own scheme, they can claim statutory sick pay only after three days of being ill. During the pandemic, that led to social care staff, in particular, feeling forced to work when they had covid, potentially passing the illness on. Lack of access to sick pay is a public health issue, and this new law will ensure that low-paid workers no longer have to choose between not being paid and going to work sick. It will also give disabled workers time off to recover from illness rather than struggling into work., becoming sicker, and potentially falling out of employment for the 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.
Deirdre Costigan
No, because many Members are waiting to speak.
I welcome Government amendments 80 to 85, which specify the level of sick pay that low-paid workers will now be able to expect from day one. I know that some employers wanted to pay a bit less and trade unions wanted a bit more, but 80% is a compromise. I certainly do not support the delaying tactics of the Opposition, who have sought impact appraisals that already exist and show that these changes will lead to an increase in productivity and growth if we can get disabled people working when they want to do so.
This transformative Bill responds to a key demand of the disability employment charter for a default right to flexible working. For many disabled workers, the ability to organise their hours around taking medication and dealing with pain or fatigue will mean being able to keep their job rather than ending up sick or being marched out of the door. In line with the charter, this new law also introduces paid time off for trade union equality representatives, a subject that I know we will discuss tomorrow. Negotiating reasonable adjustments can take time, and input from a trained person, whose priority is to keep the worker in his or her job, will make all the difference.
However, Unison research has established that nearly a quarter of disabled workers who asked their employers for reasonable adjustments waited a year or more for help, and some never even received a reply. You cannot do a job that causes you pain, or sets you up to fail, so it is no wonder that disabled people end up out of the door. The disability employment charter calls for a new right to a two-week deadline for at least receiving a reply to a reasonable adjustment request. Currently there is no deadline for such a response, although in the case of flexible working requests the employer must respond within eight weeks. I have had constructive discussions with the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), and I am hopeful that we may see such a deadline included in the “Get Britain Working” plan, which complements the Bill.
Many good employers already support disabled workers, and I pay tribute to the 240 who have backed the disability employment charter and rights for those workers. The Bill and the Government amendments will ensure that there is a level playing field, so that bad employers cannot undercut those who want to do the right thing. They will ensure that more disabled workers can keep jobs that they value, and can contribute to the growth that we need to get our economy working again.
Fireworks: Sale and Use
Anna Dixon Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 639319 and 700013 relating to the sale and use of fireworks.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to introduce the two e-petitions on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Like me, many colleagues will have received countless pieces of correspondence regarding fireworks, so it is no surprise that both e-petitions received significant numbers of signatures. The first received more than 50,000 signatures in the first six months. I particularly thank Chloe Brindley for creating the petition, and for her elegant arguments for banning the sale of fireworks to the general public. Chloe outlines many of the negative impacts of firework use, including animal stress and post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as the impact on our A&E services. Chloe is in the Public Gallery today.
The second e-petition was kindly brought to the attention of the House by Alan Smith, whom I was privileged to meet last week, and I am pleased is also in the Gallery. It is a pleasure to welcome him to the House. The petition garnered more than 75,000 signatures, despite being created only a month ago. Alan’s story is particularly harrowing but, given that we are considering the terrible and traumatic damage that fireworks can do, it is an important one, and I hope he will not mind my mentioning it.
On the night of 28 October 2021, two teenagers, who were under age, went to their local fireworks shop and asked, “What are the good ones to let off at people?” They were not refused service, nor did the owner of the shop ask them for identification. Later that evening, they would take the fireworks they had purchased and stuff them, lit, through the letterbox of 88-year-old Josephine Smith, Alan’s mother, starting a fire that went on to kill her. Not only was that a shocking tragedy and an outrageous, harrowing act, but it shows, without a shadow of doubt, that fireworks are not toys and are not risk-free. If used in that manner, they are weapons that can kill.
Whether through accident or malice, 113 people find themselves spending an average of two days in hospital because of fireworks injuries, and research suggests that the total number of injuries is higher. However, fireworks have impacts far wider than those on the users, as the petitions’ signatories will know. Excessively loud bangs and flashes from fireworks can make the surrounding area feel like a warzone. In Keighley, which I am exceptionally proud to represent, fireworks are used throughout the year, often well into the early hours of the morning. There are times when the night sky above Keighley is lit up under the constant thunder of fireworks. The use of fireworks may peak around and in the run-up to bonfire night, but for many of us it is an issue throughout the whole calendar year. In places such as Keighley, and in many other communities right across the country, many are negatively impacted by the antisocial use of fireworks. Working people who just want to get a decent night’s sleep cannot, because of the sheer nuisance caused by fireworks.
Unsurprisingly, fireworks have a dramatic effect on those who suffer from PTSD. Our veterans may quite literally fear that they have been thrust back into a life-or-death situation, and can be completely debilitated by their use. Other victims of trauma can be triggered even if the event that led to their condition has no connection to the sounds or sights of fireworks. I heard that at first hand just last week, when I met representatives of Anxiety UK, Help for Heroes, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the Firework Campaign to prepare for this debate. I thank them for their time.
As with humans, fireworks can also trigger the fight-or-flight response in animals. Pets and livestock alike are often terrified by fireworks, and unlike us they do not understand the consequences when they are let off. Of course, that leads not only to incredible distress but, in some circumstances, to the injury or death of animals. I have heard in correspondence from across my Keighley and Ilkley constituency of farm animals stampeding as a result of loud bangs, tearing through fences in their panic, injuring themselves and others, and being at risk of causing road accidents. I have also heard much about dogs, cats and rabbits—in fact, almost every single kind of pet—being negatively impacted.
In November, we learned of the tragic death of Roxie, a baby red panda at Edinburgh Zoo. She died on bonfire night due to the stress caused by fireworks being let off throughout the city centre. We must also be conscious of wildlife who do not have a voice but are nevertheless affected. We often forget them but, as those animals are more sensitive to sound than us, they are also impacted considerably. What we hear as a distant rumble can seem to them like a much more threatening, intense experience.
Distressing fireworks are used as tools for crimes in my constituency and throughout the country, as many colleagues have told me. Fireworks are used as weapons against emergency services and as nuisance items in antisocial behaviour by youths. In 2021, firefighters attended an incident in my constituency and came under attack by a group of 15 youths hurling fireworks at them. The fact that the individuals were able to source the fireworks to carry out those acts was incredibly distressing, not only because of those who were impacted but because it shows how easy it is to get hold of fireworks.
Fireworks have many more impacts, not least causing hearing damage, interrupting sleep and affecting those with sensory processing disorders. I hope Members will forgive me when I say that I and others have raised these concerns before. I take this opportunity to stress that I am absolutely still concerned about this issue.
Before I discuss the way forward, it is important to mention the existing body of regulations. The sale of fireworks is banned to anyone under the age of 18, and for the largest fireworks for public use, but that does not stop people buying them, and it does not stop individuals selling them to under-18s. Setting off any firework is also banned after 11 pm, except on certain evenings, but I fear that, as in the case of Josephine Smith, the regulations are not being properly followed, as we all know.
I recognise that e-petition 639319 calls for a ban. Indeed, along with those who signed the petition, some 74% of people more widely who have got involved with the many fireworks petitions to come before the House believe that a ban is the right way forward. I must admit that, personally, I am reluctant to endorse bans when they are not completely necessary, but there is growing evidence, including testimony from the many people I spoke to in the run-up to the debate and from police incidents, that enforcement will never be enough to tackle this issue. Simply put, once those who let off fireworks as part of antisocial behaviour have abandoned the scene, it is extremely difficult to catch the culprits.
Of course, we must recognise the freedom to enjoy fireworks, but above all else we must protect the liberties of those who are so devastatingly affected, because there is certainly no freedom for those who are trapped in their homes throughout the year because of fireworks misuse. If the illegal use of fireworks cannot be curtailed, the only option we are left with is stricter regulation at the point of sale. Although it may be difficult to catch an offender using fireworks, it is surely easier for authorities to ensure that regulations are followed at the point of sale, and to advise fireworks businesses to use discretion when they fear that fireworks may be used improperly.
In a report published this morning, the campaigner Hamza Rehman highlighted the rise in the stockpiling of fireworks across the Bradford district, with fireworks being bought in bulk and stored in private garages to be sold at a later date. I have no doubt that the same is going on in other constituencies throughout the country, and that it could be curtailed if we enforced the laws that are already in place. Even a simple requirement to apply for a permit may be a sufficient barrier to cancel out many nuisance buyers of fireworks, who can currently purchase fireworks as easily as they can a bottle of wine.
Stricter requirements could also be introduced, such as raising the age limit. None the less, we must be careful not to force the sale of fireworks underground and create an even more dangerous situation. I hope that in the debate many other Members will get to the heart of the issue and explore the action we can take, as this issue has been idly discussed for far too long. I know that many Members have raised it in the House time and again.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing this really important debate. Like his constituents, mine next door in Shipley have raised concerns about antisocial fireworks. Under the last Labour Government, the Fireworks Act 2003 and the Fireworks Regulations 2004 were introduced to restrict the antisocial use of fireworks; since then, there has been very little action. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a review to tighten up the regulations is long overdue?
Robbie Moore
I thank my constituency neighbour and friend for raising that issue. The challenge is that although previous Labour Administrations introduced regulations, the stark reality on the ground is that there has been no real change. There is still antisocial behaviour, the misuse of fireworks and people getting away with buying fireworks—in my constituency, and I suspect in the hon. Lady’s—when they are under the age of 18. Having seen the Government’s response to both e-petitions, released earlier today, I do not believe they are willing to go far enough, albeit they have said they are willing to listen. I hope Members will contribute in respect of the actions the Government should take.
Oral Answers to Questions
Anna Dixon Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Gareth Thomas
Let me take the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on his election to this House. I remember well, as I am sure he does, the problems that the people and businesses of Kent had to endure when the M20 became a lorry park, thanks to a combination of poor planning by the last Government and the poor-quality trade deal they negotiated with Brussels. We certainly support the expansion of rail freight, not least as it helps to build the resilience of supply chains. I would be happy to meet him or facilitate a meeting for him with Transport Ministers, to hear more about his campaign.
Anna Dixon
Small businesses such as the Greek Corner in Shipley have benefited from Bradford council’s business growth programme, funded by the towns fund, which provides capital assistance for businesses to create new jobs. The support measures announced yesterday in the Chancellor’s Budget for local authorities and small businesses will be vital to revitalising our high streets. Does the Minister agree that local authorities working with local communities are best placed to direct investment, to help SMEs grow?
Gareth Thomas
Let me take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on her election, too. I agree that local authorities working with local communities are fundamental to supporting SMEs in local economies. That is one reason why, as well as backing local authorities in yesterday’s Budget, we are backing Tracy Brabin, the excellent Mayor of West Yorkshire, with funding to support the priorities of local communities in constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend. It is also why we are introducing measures such as high street rental auctions and a powerful community right to buy, so that local communities can start the process of reviving their high streets.
Whistleblowing Protections
Anna Dixon Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered protections for whistleblowing.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for today’s debate, Sir Mark. This week is Whistleblower Awareness Week, so it is a very timely debate, and one that is long overdue. For as long as there has been misconduct in public activity, there have been brave individuals willing to put their head above the parapet and highlight a problem. There have been brave individuals who have sought to shine a light on the dark recesses of corruption, and those who have said, “Up with this I will not put.”
We would normally think of those people as whistleblowers. We would think of them as being protected in some way, because we talk about protection for whistleblowers as if it is some sort of universal activity. It has, however, been shown to me, as somebody who is relatively new to the world of whistleblowing, that depending on how someone blows the whistle, on their relationship with the organisation about which they are highlighting a problem, and on the way in which they disclose that information, they could or could not be a whistleblower. I shall focus on that today. I shall also talk about the positive steps that the new Government have already committed to, and where I think there is an opportunity for further development of protections for whistleblowing. I will talk about a solution to some of the problems, which I know that people who are interested in the subject are particularly concerned about.
Over the last couple of decades, we have witnessed many problems, challenges and scandals. Those that are timely and pertinent today include the Horizon Post Office scandal, the infected blood scandal, the tragedy of Grenfell, and the scandal of personal protective equipment NHS contracts and public waste. We often talk about whistleblowing after the event, after somebody has said, “This is a problem and we should do something about it.” The problem that leaves is that the damage is already done. We then have to say to those people that although they are doing the right thing, it could come at considerable personal cost and detriment to their character and standing. Ultimately, because of the way in which the current law is written, it could be boiled down to a dispute that ends up in an employment tribunal focusing on the relationship between the whistleblower and the organisation they are highlighting concern about, rather than the act that they were raising concern about in the first place. That leaves a whole series of problems that we need to address. I think there is a way of doing that through new laws, which I will talk about slightly later on in my remarks.
Like many of my colleagues here this afternoon, I come from a trade union background. Too often, whistleblowers end up in a situation akin to the blacklisting of trade union officials. People are willing to stand up and say the right thing, but then find themselves penalised within their sector and get labelled as the bad apple, the troublemaker or the person who has all too often tried to agitate and cause concern, when they are simply seeking to highlight something that is bad and wrong. That puts them at great risk, because the question then becomes, “Do I speak up?” Do they speak up about the bad thing that they see happening? Do they draw attention to misconduct or dereliction of public duty, or do they quietly get along with their job and life and keep their head down? The existing protections for whistleblowers do not give people the confidence to stand up and make that declaration, because of fear for their livelihood, job prospects, career and family. It is often a case of David versus Goliath, where an individual has bravely put their head above the parapet and said, “This is a problem.” Suddenly, the entire resources of large organisations are brought to bear against them.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) on obtaining this important debate on whistleblowing, under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I know from speaking recently to a couple of constituents who are whistleblowers that part of the fear of speaking up, which my hon. Friend rightly highlights, is the imbalance of power between public institutions and the individual whistleblower.
The costs, as my hon. Friend said, are heavy on the individual. They can obviously be emotional, due to the stress of these processes. They can also be financial, when the individual tries to maintain their reputation against the full force of public institutions defending themselves and taking the matter through the courts. Those institutions have full access to public funds, which costs the taxpayer a lot.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister’s promise of a duty of candour could be a step forward in changing that imbalance of power between public institutions and whistleblowers? Hopefully, in time, if the public sector takes that duty of candour seriously, we can reduce the need for whistleblowers to call things out.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I remind Members that interventions are supposed to be brief.