Asked by: Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat - Dorking and Horley)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of bringing forward legislative proposals to help improve transparency of information for job applicants.
Answered by Kate Dearden - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade)
We are not making the suggested assessment.
There are robust transparency rules for Employment Agencies and Businesses which are state enforced by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate.
Where recruitment is conducted directly by an employer the Common law & Misrepresentation Act 1967 provides protections, there are also other protections under the Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and strengthen by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.
Asked by: Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat - Dorking and Horley)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, if his Department will make an assessment of the potential impact of the ability of UK airports to set forecourt drop off and pick up charges without an upper limit on anti-competitive pricing for passengers and local residents.
Answered by Kate Dearden - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade)
The provision of and charging for car parking at UK airports (including drop off and pick up charges) is solely a matter for the airport operator, as a commercial business, to manage and justify. However, the Government expects car parking at UK airports to be managed appropriately, and for consumers to be treated fairly, which could include providing information on choices for parking, along with information on how to access them.
Asked by: Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat - Dorking and Horley)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, if he will make it his policy to support paid leave for fertility appointments.
Answered by Kate Dearden - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade)
Government is committed to supporting working people to balance work with their personal lives, including those navigating fertility treatment. Whilst the government has no plans to introduce a paid leave entitlement for fertility appointments, employers should treat staff fairly and accommodate reasonable requests.
Through the Employment Rights Bill, we are making flexible working available to more people, more easily, which may help employees and employers agree arrangements that support medical appointments, including fertility appointments. Many employers already offer compassionate or flexible working arrangements voluntarily, and we encourage businesses to take supportive action.
Asked by: Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat - Dorking and Horley)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, if he will make assessment of the potential impact of companies denying employees (a) continuous service pay rises and (b) other accumulated benefits after being transferred from rolling fixed-term contracts to permanent contracts on those employees.
Answered by Kate Dearden - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade)
There are no current plans to make such an assessment. Under the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, employers must not treat employees less favourably because they are on fixed-term contracts than permanent employees doing the same or broadly similar work, unless justified on objective grounds.
Where transfers from one contract to another are being made through fire and rehire, the Employment Rights Bill will make it an automatic unfair dismissal if an employer dismisses an employee in order to change certain core terms in their contract such as a reduction to pay or leave, a change in overall hours or specified changes to shift patterns, unless the employer is in severe financial difficulties and could not reasonably have avoided the need to make the change.