Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Chris Law Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 51

Access to employment rights: workers on temporary visas

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, commission an independent report on the extent to which workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law.

(2) In commissioning the report, the Secretary of State must arrange for the report to meet the requirements set out in subsections (2) to (4).

(3) The report must examine the extent to which workers on temporary visas feel unable to assert their employment rights because they are dependent on their employers to sponsor their visas.

(4) The report must make recommendations to the Secretary of State about how the Secretary of State can support workers on temporary visas in the assertion of their employment rights.

(5) The report must be completed within three months of being commissioned.

(6) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is practicable after receipt of the report, publish the report and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.

(7) The Secretary of State must, within three months of receipt of the report—

(a) respond to the recommendations in the report, and

(b) publish the response and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Chris Law.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I believe this is the last of the new clauses to the Bill.

It is imperative that employment rights are universal. Everyone should have access to them, regardless of their circumstances. That cannot just be theoretical; it needs to be applied in practice too. Although the Bill increases workers’ rights for many people, which I fully support, it will make no difference to their realities if they do not have the ability to access those rights or to seek redress when they are breached. To make the Bill as worth while and effective as it can be, we must take every possible action to strengthen it and to ensure that no one is denied their rights. We must do our utmost to prevent scenarios in which denial of employment rights and exploitation can exist.

I have therefore tabled this new clause on access to employment rights for workers on temporary visas. I know that most of us in this room will have had constituents on those visas who have been exploited. If we accept the new clause, it will compel the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill being passed, to commission an independent report on the extent to which workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law.

Workers on temporary visas consistently report that they are unable to assert the basic rights derived from being a worker in the UK. Why is that? Because they are dependent on their employer for not only their job but their ability to live in this country. More often than not, they do not have the same safety nets that others benefit from. For people in that situation, the stakes are simply so much higher.

We know that migrant workers, who often incur large debts to migrate to the UK to work—to address labour shortages—simply cannot afford to report abuse, if doing so risks their jobs and visas. They are justifiably fearful that their employer, who sponsors their visa, will punish them and that they will be left without redress. Time and again, we see cases of workers who face unsafe conditions—including in my constituency and, I am sure, in those of everyone in this room. Whether it is underpayment or sexual harassment, they do not feel able to do anything about it, for fear of deportation. That lets exploitation run rife.

By not addressing this issue, we are allowing a huge blind spot in the UK’s employment rights framework to continue unchecked. Until the Government address temporary and restrictive visas, the gap between workers only widens, entrenching the UK’s tiered workforce and leaving migrant workers behind. That is simply unacceptable. Restrictive visas have created a tiered workforce, where migrant workers face significant barriers to enforcing their rights, driving a race to the bottom in pay and conditions across the UK labour market.

Such visas often limit the sectors in which workers are permitted to work or the employers for which they can work. Workers’ immigration sponsors may also be their employers or responsible for placing them in employment. This results in a vicious cycle, in which migrant workers are doubly punished for speaking out, first by unscrupulous employers and then by immigration enforcement, with a resulting loss of work, income and immigration status. That has allowed a proliferation of abuses, from non-payment of wages to overwork and sexual assault, among a litany of other labour and criminal law violations.

It is important to recognise that workers’ experiences of exploitation can vary, but all these instances need addressed. At one end of the scale, there is decent, well-paid work, with bad practices such as breaches of employment rights culminating, at the opposite end, in severe labour exploitation, such as human trafficking and forced labour. Where minor breaches of rights occur and are not sufficiently addressed, it increases the risk of more severe exploitation further along, as well as driving down workplace standards. Surely the new Labour Government find that totally unacceptable?

In working on the new clause, I engaged with Focus on Labour Exploitation—I have a briefing from it here, which I am happy to share with the Minister. FLEX is a research and policy organisation working towards an end to labour exploitation, and its recent research and policy work has focused on sectors where workers are known to be at higher risk of exploitation.

The new clause, which is intended to be friendly and collaborative, would lead to an investigation into the extent of these issues and how they can be addressed. Any immigration system that does not proactively include mechanisms that enable workers to report exploitation—and ultimately leave an exploitative employer without jeopardising their employment, accommodation and immigration status—inevitably has exploitation baked into its design. To meet its aims, the Employment Rights Bill needs to address that.

It is especially important that the use of restrictive or short-term visas is not allowed to prevent improvements in working conditions and pay in certain work sectors by facilitating access to workers who, due to immigration restrictions, are unable to challenge poor working conditions. One option open to the Government to combat that would be to introduce a UK workplace justice visa, drawing on international best practice. Such a visa would provide 12 months of renewable limited leave for those who have visas dependent on their employment and who have experienced labour exploitation or lost their employment and limited leave through no fault of their own. That would ensure that migrants with work visas who experience such issues have a route to remain and settle in the UK, to enable them to leave abusive work situations and, most importantly, to access justice. The new clause does not propose such a visa, but it is one option the Secretary of State should strongly consider as a way of supporting workers on temporary visas in the assertion of their employment rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration of interests and my membership of the trade unions Community and Unison.

I will note a couple of useful points in response to the important arguments of the hon. Member for Dundee Central about migrant workers and the conditionality of visas. I have worked on migration issues for a long time, so I sympathise with the objectives and the direction that he puts forward.

The new clause essentially proposes an investigation or information-gathering exercise. The new Government have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee, which is a body of experts that is independent of the Government or the Home Office, to look into issues around the conditionality of visas and the different types of worker visa to which he referred. The MAC is doing a lot of important work, and I think it is the appropriate location for that research. I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which is also looking into some of the changes that are happening. I reassure the hon. Member that a lot of the work and thinking on this issue is already getting under way.

The hon. Member raised some substantive points. First, on seasonal or temporary workers who find themselves at risk of exploitation, he referred to the distinction between those whose immigration status is permanent or secure and those whose status is conditional on their employer. I think the point he is driving at with that distinction goes to the heart of the immigration system overall. We have a system in which conditionalities are applied to visa status, whether that is for someone who has come to do a job, for someone who has applied to do a university course or for someone who is in a relationship. He is driving at a philosophical problem in the immigration system, rather than a technical one.

Where employers abuse the system, there are two points to address. First, it is a breach of immigration law and not necessarily of employment law. The hon. Member drew attention to the fact that they lose their sponsorship capacity. When that situation occurs, it is appropriate that we look at it through Home Office immigration regulations. That can be much more effective than trying to crowbar quite a specific point into the UK-wide labour market.

[Chris Law]

The hon. Member’s last point is an important one. When I approached this area of work to decide whether it fitted this Committee or whether it should be considered in immigration legislation, I took some advice. I appreciate, from a home affairs point of view, that this might not be the place for that point. However, it is the place for talking about it, and that is why the new clause has been accepted by the Clerks for debate today. I appreciate that this might also be an issue for the Home Office, but it is clearly an issue for the Minister in charge of employment rights, because at the end of the day it is not immigration rules that need to be changed. This is about making sure that employment rights are fit for everyone, regardless of whether they are here on a temporary or a permanent visa.

[Chris Murray]

That is a very helpful intervention, because it draws me on to my final point. There is a distinction between what rights there are and what rights are enforced. We have seen from the discussion around the fair work agency and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority that the issue is that rights are not enforced. The good part of this Bill is that it sets up a fair work agency that will look at enforcement.

Not supporting the new clause does not mean not recognising the objective that it puts forward. The argument is that this point should and could be dealt with more effectively through other legislative avenues, such as the modern slavery legislation brought in by the previous Government, which they then completely gutted. Looking at how the labour exploitation components of that legislation could be strengthened would deal more effectively with the issues that the hon. Member is raising via his new clause.

[Justin Madders]

Let me start by reaffirming our strong view that every worker has the full right to protection under the laws of this country. That includes migrant workers, as is clear from our plan to make work pay, which recognises that particularly vulnerable sectors are open to abuse from unscrupulous employers. The immigration framework is an important part of ensuring that those who come to this country under visas and sponsorship are protected and that modern slavery abuse is tackled.

Sponsorship is a privilege that comes with certain responsibilities for sponsors to ensure that they adhere to employment rights in the United Kingdom. They must have full responsibility for the work that workers are conducting, and in all cases they must ensure that those they sponsor are paid appropriately and that they act in compliance with relevant legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh says, a lot of work is ongoing in this area, particularly from the Home Office, which recently announced that it would ban from future sponsorship any business found guilty of serious employment law breaches, including failing to pay the national minimum wage.

We are committed to strengthening the enforcement of rights more broadly through the fair work agency. The Committee has heard plenty of evidence that the current system of enforcement is fragmented. Unfortunately, as we know, that often means that not everyone gets the protection that they should have. One of the essential functions of the new fair work agency will be to produce a strategy setting out its assessment of the scale and nature of non-compliance with labour market rules. This is to ensure that the risks of abuse across all sectors and groups of workers are properly understood and captured. In producing the strategy, the fair work agency will need to consult with an advisory board made up of trade unions, business and independent experts. That will ensure that we get a broad view of the gaps and risks in the labour market.

The hon. Member for Dundee Central suggests that this area is a blind spot for the Government. I can assure him that it is not. I have had conversations with the Director of Labour Market Enforcement about the issue, and plenty of work is under way at the Home Office. The hon. Member need only consider the Low Pay Commission’s report to see that the issue is clearly on our radar. An additional report would not add anything to the work that is already under way. I therefore ask him to withdraw his new clause.

[Chris Law]

I appreciate the comments that have been made in this short debate. Just to be clear, the new clause is about issues that are not currently protected under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and are often under-reported. I welcome the Minister’s comments about the fair work agency and the recent Low Pay Commission report, but I must ask about the timeframe. My suggestion—I will try to work with him on this—is that the timeframe be six months beyond the passing of the Bill, so that we can get decisions made. Perhaps the Secretary of State could let us know what kind of timeframe we are talking about, to give us peace of mind that action will be taken for those who are most vulnerable and have come here from overseas. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Schedule 1

Warrants under Part 5: further provision

“Part 1

Application of this Schedule

1 This Schedule applies in relation to—

(a) applications for warrants under section (Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant) or 83, and

(b) warrants issued under section (Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant) or 83.

Part 2

Warrants: applications and safeguards

Applications for warrants

2 (1) Where an enforcement officer applies for a warrant, the officer must—

(a) state the ground on which the application is made,

(b) state the provision of this Act under which the warrant would be issued,

(c) specify the premises which it is desired to enter, and

(d) identify, so far as is practicable, the purpose for which entry is desired.

(2) An application for a warrant must be made without notice and must be supported by an information in writing or, in Scotland, evidence on oath.

(3) The officer must answer on oath any question that the justice hearing the application asks the officer.

Safeguards in connection with power of entry conferred by warrant

3 A warrant authorises an entry on one occasion only.

4 (1) A warrant must specify—

(a) the name of the person who applies for it,

(b) the date on which it is issued,

(c) the provision of this Act under which it is issued, and

(d) the premises to be entered.

(2) A warrant must identify, so far as is practicable, the purpose for which entry is desired.

5 (1) Two copies are to be made of a warrant.

(2) In the case of a warrant issued in electronic form, the copies must be clearly marked as copies.

(3) In the case of a warrant issued otherwise than in electronic form, the copies must be clearly certified as copies.

Part 3

Execution of warrants

Warrant to be executed within three months

6 Execution of a warrant must be within three months from the date of its issue.

Time of entry

7 Execution of a warrant must be at a reasonable time, unless it appears to the officer executing it that there are grounds for suspecting that the purpose of entering the premises may be frustrated if the officer seeks to enter at a reasonable time.

Evidence of authority etc

8 (1) Where the occupier of premises to be entered under a warrant is present at the time when an enforcement officer seeks to execute the warrant, the following requirements must be satisfied—

(a) the officer must produce to the occupier documentary evidence of the fact that the officer is an enforcement officer;

(b) if the officer is asked for it, the occupier must be told the officer’s name;

(c) the officer must produce the warrant to the occupier;

(d) the officer must supply the occupier with a copy of the warrant that is marked or certified as a copy in accordance with paragraph 5.

(2) Where—

(a) the occupier of premises to be entered under a warrant is not present when an enforcement officer seeks to execute it, but

(b) some other person who appears to the officer to be in charge of the premises is present,

sub-paragraph (1) has effect as if any reference to the occupier were a reference to that other person.

(3) If there is no person present who appears to the enforcement officer to be in charge of the premises, the officer must leave a copy of the warrant, marked or certified as a copy in accordance with paragraph 5, in a prominent place on the premises.

Securing premises after entry

9 An enforcement officer who enters premises under a warrant must take reasonable steps to ensure that when the officer leaves the premises they are as secure as they were before the officer entered.

Return and retention of warrants

10 (1) A warrant which—

(a) has been executed, or

(b) has not been executed within the time authorised for its execution,

must be returned to the appropriate person.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) the appropriate person is—

(a) in the case of a warrant issued in England and Wales, the designated officer for the local justice area in which the justice was acting when the warrant was issued;

(b) in the case of a warrant issued in Scotland by a justice of the peace, the clerk of the justice of the peace court in the sheriffdom for which the justice of the peace was appointed;

(c) in the case of a warrant issued in Scotland by a sheriff or a summary sheriff, the sheriff clerk;

(d) in the case of a warrant issued in Northern Ireland, the clerk of petty sessions.

(3) A warrant that is returned under this paragraph must be retained by the person to whom it is returned for a period of 12 months.

(4) If during that period the occupier of the premises to which the warrant relates asks to inspect it, the occupier must be allowed to do so.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new Schedule makes further provision about applications for, and the execution of, warrants under Part 5.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 2

Increase in time limits for making claims

“Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977

1 (1) In regulation 11 of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 (S.I. 1977/500) (time off for safety representatives), in paragraph (2), for ‘three’, in both places it occurs, substitute ‘six’.

(2) In regulation 12 of those Regulations—

(a) in paragraph (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(c) in paragraph (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

2 (1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 66 (unjustifiable discipline by union), in subsection (2)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(3) In section 68A (unauthorised deduction of union subscriptions), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(4) In section 70C (collective bargaining: obligations relating to training), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(5) In section 87 (unlawful deduction of contributions to political fund), in subsection (2)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(6) In section 139 (refusal of employment on grounds related to union membership), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(7) In section 145C (inducements), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(8) In section 147 (detriment for trade union activities), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(9) In section 171 (time off for trade union activities), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(10) In section 189 (consultation in collective redundancy), in subsection (5)—

(a) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (c), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(11) In section 192 (remuneration under protective award), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(12) In paragraph 157 of Schedule A1 (detriment in relation to trade union recognition), in sub-paragraph (1)(a), for ‘3’ substitute ‘six’.

Pension Schemes Act 1993

3 In section 126 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (unpaid pension contributions), in subsection (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Employment Rights Act 1996

4 (1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 11 (written statements), in subsection (4)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(3) In section 23 (protection of wages)—

(a) in subsection (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in subsection (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(4) In section 27N (information relating to tips etc)—

(a) in subsection (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in subsection (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(5) In section 34 (guarantee payments), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(6) In section 48 (detriment in employment), in subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(7) In section 51 (time off for public duties), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(8) In section 54 (time off following redundancy), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(9) In section 57 (time off for ante-natal care), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(10) In section 57ZC (time off for ante-natal care: agency workers), in subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(11) In section 57ZF (time off to accompany to ante-natal appointment), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(12) In section 57ZH (time off to accompany to ante-natal appointment: agency workers), in subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(13) In section 57ZM (time off to attend adoption appointments), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(14) In section 57ZQ (time off to attend adoption appointments: agency workers), in subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(15) In section 57B (time off for dependants), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(16) In section 60 (time off for pension scheme trustees), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(17) In section 63 (time off for employee representatives), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(18) In section 63C (time off for study or training), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(19) In section 63I (requests in relation to study or training), in subsection (5)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(20) In section 70 (rights following suspension from work)—

(a) in subsection (2)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in subsection (5)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(21) In section 70A (rights of agency worker where supply is ended on maternity grounds)—

(a) in subsection (2)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in subsection (5)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(22) In section 80 (parental leave), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(23) In section 80H (right to request flexible working), in subsection (5)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(24) In section 80N (carer’s leave), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(25) In section 111 (unfair dismissal), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(26) In section 188 (rights on insolvency of employer), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996

5 (1) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996/1513) (time off for representatives of employee safety etc), for ‘three’, in both places it occurs, substitute ‘six’.

(2) In paragraph 3A of that Schedule—

(a) in sub-paragraph (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(c) in sub-paragraph (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Working Time Regulations 1998

6 In regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/1833) (rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for the words from ‘three months’ to ‘six months)’ substitute ‘six months’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), omit ‘three or, as the case may be,’.

National Minimum Wage Act 1998

7 In section 11 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (access to records)—

(a) in subsection (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in subsection (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Employment Relations Act 1999

8 In section 11 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999

9 (1) In regulation 27 of the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999/3323) (time off for members of a European Works Council etc)—

(a) in the heading, for ‘tribunals’ substitute ‘employment tribunals in Great Britain’;

(b) in paragraph (1), for the words from ‘complaint,’ to ‘, that’ substitute ‘complaint to an employment tribunal in Great Britain that’;

(c) in paragraph (2)—

(i) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(ii) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(d) omit paragraph (2B).

(2) In the heading of regulation 27A of those Regulations (extension of time limit to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings), at the end insert ‘in Great Britain’.

(3) After regulation 27A of those Regulations insert—

‘Right to time off: complaints to industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland

(1) An employee may present a complaint to an industrial tribunal in Northern Ireland that the employee’s employer–

(a) has unreasonably refused to permit the employee to take time off as required by regulation 25; or

(b) has failed to pay the whole or any part of any amount to which the employee is entitled under regulation 26.

(2) A tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this regulation unless it is presented–

(a) before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which the time off was taken or on which it is alleged the time off should have been permitted; or

(b) within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of that period of three months.

(3) Regulation 27B (extension of time limit to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings in Northern Ireland) applies for the purposes of paragraph (2).

(4) Where a tribunal finds a complaint under this regulation well-founded, the tribunal shall make a declaration to that effect.

(5) If the complaint is that the employer has unreasonably refused to permit the employee to take time off, the tribunal shall also order the employer to pay to the employee an amount equal to the remuneration to which the employee would have been entitled under regulation 26 if the employer had not refused.

(6) If the complaint is that the employer has failed to pay the employee the whole or part of any amount to which the employee is entitled under regulation 26, the tribunal shall also order the employer to pay to the employee the amount which it finds due to the employee.’

(4) In regulation 27B of those Regulations (extension of time limit to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings in Northern Ireland)—

(a) in paragraph (2), for ‘27(2)(a)’ substitute ‘27AA(2)(a)’;

(b) in paragraph (3), for ‘27(2)(a)’ substitute ‘27AA(2)(a)’;

(c) in paragraph (4), for ‘27(2)(b)’ substitute ‘27AA(2)(b)’.

Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003

10 In regulation 18 of the Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/3049) (merchant shipping: rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004

11 In regulation 18 of the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/756) (civil aviation: rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea-fishermen) Regulations 2004

12 In regulation 19 of the Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea-fishermen) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1713) (fishing vessels: rights to rest and leave), in paragraph (2)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006

13 (1) The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246) are amended as follows.

(2) In regulation 12 (notification of employee liability information), in paragraph (2)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(3) In regulation 15 (information and consultation requirements), in paragraph (12)—

(a) in the words before sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in the words after sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008

14 In regulation 17 of the Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1660) (cross-border railway services: rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

European Public Limited-Liability Company (Employee Involvement) (Great Britain) Regulations 2009

15 In regulation 28 of the European Public Limited-Liability Company (Employee Involvement) (Great Britain) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/2401) (time off for members of special negotiating body etc), in paragraph (2)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Agency Workers Regulations 2010

16 In regulation 18 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/93) (rights of agency workers), in paragraph (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Equality Act 2010

17 In section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination etc at work), in subsection (1)(a), for “3” substitute “6”.

Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018

18 In regulation 26 of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/58) (rights of seafarers to leave), in paragraph (6), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new Schedule would increase time limits for making claims in employment tribunals (and, in certain cases, industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland) from three months to six months.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 3

Seafarers’ wages and working conditions

“Amendment of Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023

1 The Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 (“the Act”) is amended in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 23.

Part 1 of the Act: relevant services

2 For the italic heading before section 1 substitute—

‘Part 1

Relevant services’.

3 In section 1 (services to which this Act applies)—

(a) for the heading substitute ‘Relevant services’;

(b) in subsection (1), for ‘This Act applies to’ substitute ‘In this Act, “relevant service” means’;

(c) in subsection (2), for ‘this Act does not apply to’ substitute ‘“relevant service” does not include’;

(d) for subsection (4) substitute—

‘(4) In this Act, “ship”—

(a) includes—

(i) any kind of vessel used in navigation, and

(ii) hovercraft;

(b) includes a ship which is registered in a State other than the United Kingdom.’

Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Act: non-qualifying seafarers

4 After section 1 insert—

‘Part 2

Remuneration of seafarers

Chapter 1

Non-qualifying seafarers’.

5 In section 2 (non-qualifying seafarers), in paragraph (a), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.

Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Act: national minimum wage equivalence declarations

6 For the italic heading before section 3 substitute—

‘Chapter 2

National minimum wage equivalence declarations’.

7 In section 3 (request for declaration)—

(a) in the heading, after ‘for’ insert ‘equivalence’;

(b) in subsection (1)—

(i) for ‘Act applies’ substitute ‘Chapter applies (see subsection (4A))’;

(ii) at the end insert ‘(see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”)’;

(c) after subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) This Chapter applies to a relevant service, subject to provision made by remuneration regulations in reliance on section 4A(6).’;

(d) omit subsections (5) and (6).

8 In section 4 (nature of declaration)—

(a) in the heading, after ‘of’ insert ‘equivalence’;

(b) after subsection (5) insert—

‘(5A) For the meaning of “UK work”, see section 19.

(5B) For the meaning of “national minimum wage equivalent”, see section 4D(1).’;

(c) omit subsections (6) to (10).

Chapters 3 and 4 of Part 2 of the Act: remuneration regulations and declarations

9 After section 4 insert—

‘Chapter 3

Remuneration regulations and declarations

Remuneration regulations

4A Remuneration regulations

(1) Regulations may specify requirements relating to the remuneration of non-qualifying seafarers in respect of their work carried out in relation to the provision of a relevant service (whether or not in the territorial waters of the United Kingdom).

(2) In this Act, regulations under subsection (1) are referred to as “remuneration regulations”.

(3) Remuneration regulations may relate to remuneration in respect of only some of the work carried out in relation to the provision of a relevant service, and may frame such provision by reference to the waters in which the work is carried out or in any other way.

(4) Remuneration regulations may apply to—

(a) all relevant services, or

(b) one or more relevant services of a specified description.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b), a service may be described by reference to (among other things) the route operated by the service.

(6) Remuneration regulations may provide that Chapter 2 does not apply to any extent to a relevant service to which the regulations apply.

Remuneration declarations

4B Request for remuneration declaration

(1) Subsection (2) applies where a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service to which remuneration regulations apply will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least—

(a) 120 occasions, or

(b) if remuneration regulations specify a higher number in relation to services of a specified description and the service is of that description, that higher number of occasions,

during a relevant year (see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”).

(2) The harbour authority must, within such period as is determined by regulations under this subsection, request that the operator of the service provide the authority with a remuneration declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year.

(3) The duty under subsection (2) is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 16(1)(a).

(4) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—

(a) in England and Wales, to a fine, or

(b) in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

4C Nature of remuneration declaration

(1) A remuneration declaration in respect of a service for a relevant year is a declaration within any of subsections (2) to (5).

(2) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided before the beginning of the relevant year and it is to the effect that—

(a) in the relevant year there will be no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or

(b) in the relevant year non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service will be remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them.

(3) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that—

(a) in what remains of the relevant year there will be no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or

(b) in what remains of the relevant year non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service will be remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them.

(4) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that—

(a) in so much of the relevant year as has already occurred—

(i) there have been no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or

(ii) non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service have been remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them, and

(b) in what remains of the relevant year—

(i) there will be no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or

(ii) non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service will be remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them.

(5) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided after the end of the relevant year and it is to the effect that—

(a) in the relevant year there were no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or

(b) in the relevant year non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service were remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them.

Chapter 4

Chapters 2 and 3: supplementary regulations

4D Regulations about national minimum wage equivalent etc

(1) For the purposes of this Part, the national minimum wage equivalent is an hourly rate specified in regulations.

(2) Regulations may make provision for determining for the purposes of this Part—

(a) the hourly rate at which a non-qualifying seafarer is remunerated in any period in respect of any work, and

(b) whether, or the extent to which, a non-qualifying seafarer’s work in relation to a relevant service is UK work.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2)(a) may in particular make—

(a) any provision referred to in section 2(2) to (6) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998;

(b) provision relating to currency conversion.

(4) Subsection (5) applies for the purposes of—

(a) section 4, and

(b) remuneration regulations that are framed by reference to the national minimum wage equivalent.

(5) The Secretary of State must in making regulations under this section seek to secure that a non-qualifying seafarer is remunerated at a rate equal to the national minimum wage equivalent only if their remuneration is in all the circumstances broadly equivalent to the remuneration they would receive if they qualified for the national minimum wage.’

Part 3 of the Act: seafarers’ working conditions

10 After section 4D (inserted by paragraph 9 of this Schedule) insert—

‘Part 3

Seafarers’ working conditions

Safe working regulations

4E Safe working regulations

(1) In this Part, “seafarer” means a person who works on a ship providing a relevant service.

(2) Regulations may specify conditions relating to the working pattern and rest requirements of seafarers who carry out work relating to the provision of a relevant service, including conditions about—

(a) their maximum periods of work in a specified period;

(b) their minimum periods of rest in a specified period.

(3) Regulations may make provision for the purpose of managing and mitigating risks arising from fatigue suffered by seafarers when carrying out their work relating to the provision of a relevant service.

(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, among other things—

(a) require the operator of a relevant service to produce a plan to manage and mitigate risks arising from fatigue suffered by seafarers when carrying out their work relating to the provision of the service (a “fatigue management plan”);

(b) make provision about the contents of such a plan by reference to a specified document as amended from time to time.

(5) Regulations may make provision for and in connection with the training of seafarers who carry out work relating to the provision of a relevant service, for the purpose of ensuring—

(a) the safety of the ship on which they work,

(b) the safety of things on the ship, or

(c) the health or safety of persons on the ship.

(6) In this Act, regulations under subsection (2), (3) or (5) are referred to as “safe working regulations”.

(7) Safe working regulations may impose requirements on the operator of a relevant service.

(8) Safe working regulations may apply to—

(a) all relevant services, or

(b) one or more relevant services of a specified description.

(9) For the purposes of subsection (8)(b), a service may be described by reference to (among other things) the route operated by the service.

Safe working declarations

4F Request for safe working declaration

(1) Subsection (2) applies where a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service to which safe working regulations apply will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least—

(a) 120 occasions, or

(b) if safe working regulations specify a higher number in relation to services of a specified description and the service is of that description, that higher number of occasions,

during a relevant year (see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”).

(2) The harbour authority must, within such period as is determined by regulations under this subsection, request that the operator of the service provide the authority with a safe working declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year.

(3) The duty under subsection (2) is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 16(1)(a).

(4) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—

(a) in England and Wales, to a fine, or

(b) in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

4G Nature of safe working declaration

(1) A safe working declaration in respect of a service for a relevant year is a declaration within any of subsections (2) to (5).

(2) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided before the beginning of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in the relevant year.

(3) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year.

(4) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that—

(a) the safe working conditions have been met in relation to the service in so much of the relevant year as has already occurred, and

(b) the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year.

(5) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided after the end of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions were met in relation to the service in the relevant year.

(6) For the purposes of this section the safe working conditions are met in relation to a service at a particular time if at that time—

(a) the service is operated in compliance with regulations under section 4E(2) or (3) that apply to the service,

(b) the service is operated in compliance with a fatigue management plan that is required for the service by regulations under section 4E(3) (see section 4E(4)), and

(c) the service is operated in compliance with regulations under section 4E(5) that apply to the service.

(7) References in subsection (6) to the operation of a service include references to its operation outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.’

Part 4 of the Act: enforcement of Parts 2 and 3

11 After section 4G (inserted by paragraph 10 of this Schedule) insert—

‘Part 4

Enforcement of Parts 2 and 3

Offence of operating service inconsistently with declaration’.

12 In section 5 (offence of operating service inconsistently with declaration)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;

(ii) in paragraph (a), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’;

(b) in subsections (2), (3) and (4), omit ‘equivalence’.

13 (1) Section 6 (imposition of surcharges: failure to provide declaration in time) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a)—

(a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;

(b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.

(3) In subsection (1)(b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.

(4) In subsection (2)(b)(ii), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.

(5) In subsection (3)(b)(ii), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.

(6) In subsection (5)(a), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.

(7) In subsection (5)(b), for ‘section 4(4) or (5).’ substitute ‘—

(i) section 4(4) or (5),

(ii) section 4C(4) or (5), or

(iii) section 4G(4) or (5),

(whichever applies).’

(8) In subsection (6)—

(a) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’;

(b) in the definition of ‘prescribed period’, for ‘3(5)(a)’ substitute ‘16A(1)(a)’;

(c) in the definition of ‘prescribed form and manner’, for ‘3(5)(b) and (c)’ substitute ‘16A(1)(b) and (c)’.

14 In section 7 (imposition of surcharges: in-year declaration that is prospective only), in subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (a)—

(i) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;

(ii) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘3(5)’ substitute ‘16A(1)’;

(c) in paragraph (c), for the words from ‘within subsection (3)’ to the end substitute ‘—

(i) within subsection (3) of section 4 (and not also within subsection (4) of that section),

(ii) within subsection (3) of section 4C (and not also within subsection (4) of that section), or

(iii) within subsection (3) of section 4G (and not also within subsection (4) of that section),

(whichever applies).’

15 (1) Section 8 (imposition of surcharges: operating inconsistently with declaration) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a)—

(a) for ‘service to which this Act applies” substitute ‘relevant service’;

(b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.

(3) In subsection (3), after ‘equivalence declaration’ insert ‘, remuneration declaration or safe working declaration (as the case may be)’;

(4) In subsection (4)(a)—

(a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;

(b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.

(5) In subsection (6), after ‘equivalence declaration’ insert ‘, remuneration declaration or safe working declaration (as the case may be)’.

16 In section 11 (refusal of harbour access for failure to pay surcharge), in subsection (1), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.

17 (1) Section 12 (provision of information by operators) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;

(b) in paragraphs (a) and (b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (b), at the beginning insert ‘for the purposes of Part 2,’;

(b) after paragraph (b) insert—

‘(c) for the purposes of Part 3—

(i) information relating to the working pattern, working conditions or training of persons working on ships providing the service;

(ii) a fatigue management plan produced by the operator of the service (see section 4E(4)(a)).’

(4) In subsection (5), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.

18 In section 13 (provision of information by harbour authorities), in subsection (2)(b), omit ‘equivalence’.

19 In section 14 (inspections), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;

(b) in paragraphs (a) and (b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.

Part 5 of the Act: general and final provisions

20 After section 15 insert—

‘Part 5

General and final provisions’.

21 After section 16 insert—

‘16A Regulations about declarations

(1) Regulations may make provision—

(a) as to the period within which declarations are to be provided;

(b) as to the wording of declarations and the form in which they are to be provided;

(c) as to the manner in which declarations are to be provided.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) may specify a single form combining different kinds of declarations (but a requirement to provide a declaration in such a form does not require an operator of a service to provide a declaration which a harbour authority has not requested the operator to provide).’

22 In section 17 (regulations)—

(a) in the heading, at the end insert ‘: general’;

(b) in subsection (2)(a), for sub-paragraph (i) (but not the ‘or’ after it) substitute—

‘(i) relevant service,’.

23 (1) Section 19 (general interpretation) is amended as follows.

(2) After the definition of ‘the data protection legislation’ insert—

‘“declaration” (without more) means—

(a) an equivalence declaration,

(b) a remuneration declaration, or

(c) a safe working declaration;’.

(3) Omit the definition of ‘national minimum wage equivalent’.

(4) In the definition of ‘operator’, for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.

(5) After the definition of ‘operator’ insert—

‘“relevant service” has the meaning given by section 1;’.

(6) In the definition of ‘relevant year’, for ‘has the meaning given by section 3(6);’ substitute ‘means—

(a) the period of 12 months beginning with a date specified in regulations, and

(b) each successive period of 12 months;’.

(7) After the definition of ‘relevant year’ insert—

‘“remuneration declaration” has the meaning given by section 4C(1);

“remuneration regulations” has the meaning given by section 4A(2);

“safe working declaration” has the meaning given by section 4G(1);

“safe working regulations” has the meaning given by section 4E(6);’.

(8) In the definition of ‘UK work’, for ‘has the meaning given by section 4(10)’ substitute ‘means work which is carried out in the United Kingdom or its territorial waters’.

Amendment of title of the Act

24 (1) The Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 may be cited as the Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023.

(2) For the words ‘Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023’ wherever they occur in any enactment substitute ‘Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023’.”—(Justin Madders.)

This schedule amends the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 to give the Secretary of State power to make regulations specifying conditions relating to the wages and working conditions of seafarers working on ships providing services currently covered by that Act. Those conditions are enforceable in the same way as existing provisions of that Act.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 113

Power to make consequential amendments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Law]

It would be easy for me to express exactly what the hon. Member for Torbay has just said in thanking everybody who has been involved. My only concern as we go to the next stage is that of all the amendments we have discussed and all the measures that have been proposed, not a single one has been adopted. There is an issue with that in general, because the Government have such a large majority. I guess that is not a bad thing for Labour Members, but it has meant that we have lacked the ability to really pull things apart. I hope that will come at the next stage. That is my only disappointment, but I wanted to put it on the record, because I know that it is a concern shared by other Members on both sides of the House. I hope that the Minister is listening so that we can get far more robust and real opportunities to amend and improve the Bill, which we all wish to see.

[The Chair]

May I thank everybody for their kind remarks? I know I speak for all other Chairs when I say that it has been a very good-natured Committee. Almost everybody has been in a new role: for some people it was their first Standing Committee, for others it was their first leading for the Opposition, and for some it was their first real Committee as a Minister. Everybody has performed pretty well—you should all be able to thank yourselves for that. I also thank the Clerks—behind every amendment is a heck of a lot of work by them—the Hansard reporters, who have done their job assiduously, and the Badge Messengers and Doorkeepers and everybody else involved, not forgetting the electricians who managed to ensure that we kept the lights going.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Harland & Wolff

Chris Law Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am sorry if the hon. Lady missed it, but I was clear that what we have announced today does not change the provisions in the original contract agreed by the former Conservative Government. What has changed is that we have saved all four of these yards, at a time when we could have lost them all through the inability of the previous Government to take the action required, so it is an incredibly positive story. We have saved the position of those yards and guaranteed those jobs, and not for months but for years to come.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

I take this opportunity to wish you a merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I thank the Secretary of State very much for what is wonderful news for all four sites across the UK. Obviously, I am going to be slightly biased towards the two in Scotland, one in Arnish on the Isle of Lewis and the other in Methil in Fife—that is very welcome news in the week before Christmas. I also thank the Government for their co-operation with the Scottish Government over the past months, particularly in the early days when UK Labour had come into government, and I put on record the work that the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, Kate Forbes, has contributed.

I have a couple of questions. First, given that we are moving forward, are the workers’ current terms and conditions going to continue as they are? Secondly, I have listened to what has been said about future contracts. We know that both yards in Scotland will be protected for the next two years, but can the Secretary of State tell us a little bit more about the longer-term sustainable footing, not least because this company has changed hands three times in the past four years?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations and questions. It was really important to us that we keep all four yards together—there had been an assessment that, for understandable reasons, the Belfast yard was more commercially valuable, so there was a real chance that any unstructured rescue package could have lost the two Scottish yards. There were question marks about those yards in particular, so keeping the business together and protecting the future of those workers was hugely important to us, and I am delighted that we have been able to achieve that.

The job guarantees for the non-Belfast yards will last for two years. The guarantee is for 90% of the overall job numbers, simply to provide the usual degree of flexibility in running that business, but that guarantee covers the majority of the workforce and keeps them in place. The deal also comes with investment in those Scottish yards, so whatever the future holds, those yards will be even more competitive and more able to bid for the kinds of contracts that will secure the long-term prosperity we are all seeking. I am always genuinely willing to work with colleagues across any part of the UK to secure the kind of outcome we have achieved today, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising that.

Post Office Redress and Funding

Chris Law Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I have looked at this issue, which came up at the Select Committee. We write out to ask for further information in order to be able to justify the payment of more compensation, not to query the information that has been provided by sub-postmasters to date. To try to provide reassurance on that point, we are making that explicit in the letters that we send out to sub-postmasters. We are anxious to reduce the stress and concern and, essentially, the trauma that people have gone through already. We do not want that process to be repeated, if at all possible, during the compensation process. Asking for more information is designed to enable us to offer more and fairer compensation to the individuals concerned.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

I am listening in detail about the processes you are going through looking for more information on Horizon. You have mentioned Capture, which goes back to 1992—30 years ago. You have mentioned a lack of information and that you are looking for more detail—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Three times, “you”—it needs to be “he” or “the Minister”, please.

[Chris Law]

Bad habits—must get rid of them. My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am concerned about the Capture system, which is more than 30 years old and had 19 different versions. We do not know who used it, and we do not know who has been convicted for it. The people who have been convicted are probably dying every other week just now. The Minister talks about working at pace, but can he make a flying sprint to get to those people urgently, to ensure that investigations are carried out and that compensation deserved is duly received?

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point—it is something I feel acutely. I have met a number of the sub-postmasters who used the Capture software and were treated very badly as a result by the Post Office, so I am acutely conscious of our collective responsibility to those individuals and their families. Some of the sub-postmasters who used Capture software have already passed away, which only underlines the points he and I have made. I can assure the House that we will work at pace. We are working with the Post Office, and have asked the organisation to go through its records so that we can identify, inasmuch as we can, how many people were potentially victims of Capture. We are also supporting the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in looking at whether convictions are safe.

Royal Mail Takeover

Chris Law Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his questions and his service in the Royal Mail. Clearly, arrangements for those currently in the Royal Mail are a matter for the new owners once the deal goes through, and I am sure that that point will be discussed. He is right that the performance has not been good enough, and we are very pleased to have secured a number of commitments in the deal that were not previously in place.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

I welcome many parts of the statement, not least the part on quality assurance. I would like to know a little more about that because one issue in Dundee, which has the largest teaching hospital in Europe, is that appointments letters often arrive too late, which of course has an impact on the NHS.

I want to focus specifically on the question not yet answered, which is about jobs. In Scotland, 11,000 people are employed by the Royal Mail, and they will be listening today to find out what cast-iron assurances there will be for their jobs. Mr Křetínský recently completed a takeover of a French supermarket, promising in 2023, in the run-up to that deal, that there would be no job losses, but one year later there were plans to cut 3,000 jobs. Can the Minister be very specific today and tell us what cast-iron guarantees he has for the 11,000 people employed in Scotland and those who are employed elsewhere across the UK?

[Justin Madders]

I have no doubt that the Communication Workers Union and the Unite Communication Managers Association would not have spoken positively about the deals that they had struck had they not received sufficient guarantees about the workforce. As I said, the general secretary of the Communication Workers Union has been on the air today, speaking very positively about the commitments that he has received about not just job security but governance arrangements, and about workers having a “meaningful stake” in the success of the business moving forward. This is a really positive deal, and if the CWU is speaking positively about it, I think the hon. Member should be reassured.

Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Chris Law Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Let me pick up on the point about the consultation. We very much recognise the urgency, so the consultation is expected to take place in 2025—this coming year—after which we will introduce secondary legislation. It has been noted that clauses 20 and 21 build on previous measures that received cross-party support, and I commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Dismissal for failing to agree to variation of contract, etc

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 160, in clause 22, page 33, leave out lines 11 to 2.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 161, in clause 22, page 33, leave out lines 22 to 40.

[Chris Law]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. Fire and rehire is one of the most contentious issues that we have heard about over the last years, and I will speak to it in some depth.

First, I want to welcome the measures within this Bill, specifically those in clause 22, that tackle fire and rehire by considering a situation to be an unfair dismissal where an employee is dismissed for refusing to accept contractual variation, or where they have been dismissed to enable the employer to employ another employee, or to re-engage a dismissed employee on inferior terms. Over recent years, there have been several egregious examples of fire and rehire from large and very successful companies in the UK. In January 2021, the TUC found that

“nearly 1 in 10 workers…had been told to re-apply for their jobs on worse terms and conditions since the first lockdown in March”—

that is, March 2020. That is 10% of the working population. Notably, almost twice as many black workers faced fire and rehire as white workers.

The SNP completely opposes fire and rehire, which is an appalling and abusive practice, and I am sure that most members of the Committee feel the very same. It must be outlawed. We have long campaigned to ban fire and rehire tactics and ensure that workers are not the victim of bosses looking to cut costs. I pay tribute to my former colleague, Gavin Newlands, who twice brought forward Bills in previous Parliaments to outlaw the practice, which had the support of over 100 MPs and the backing of all major trade unions, including Unite, the British Airline Pilots’ Association and GMB Scotland. I also commend the work of Chris Stephens who, on a regular basis, stood up for workers against the previous Tory Government and called for an immediate end to fire and rehire.

However, there appears to be a loophole, and amendments 160 and 161 seek to remove it. Amendment 160 would delete subsection (4) to proposed new section 104I, which provides an opportunity for fire and rehire to continue where

“the reason for the variation was to eliminate, prevent or significantly reduce, or significantly mitigate the effect of, any financial difficulties which at the time of the dismissal were affecting, or were likely in the immediate future to affect, the employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern or otherwise to carry on the activities constituting the business, and…in all the circumstances the employer could not reasonably have avoided the need to make the variation.”

Along with many others, I have reservations about that. If employers can point to their likelihood of financial difficulty, they will deploy fire and rehire tactics.

Let me ask some questions. Does the Minister agree with Martyn Gray, who gave evidence to this Committee just a couple of weeks ago? He is the director of organising at Nautilus International, and he made it clear to the Committee how high the bar should be set when he said:

“Quite simply, if directors can sign off the business as still remaining as a going concern, fire and rehire should not be an option…I would set a really high threshold and then allow for scrutiny from the relevant bodies.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 65, Q61.]

Employers’ unions have encountered those who have threatened or implemented fire and rehire to reduce workers’ pay and/or conditions, including companies such as British Airways, Heathrow Airport, Argos, Weetabix, Tesco, Asda and British Gas. All members of the Committee know all those names and are very familiar with them. In fact, more than half of those are in my constituency of Dundee and employ a large number of people.

I want to give an idea of the scale of the profits that those companies have made just this year. Asda made £1.1 billion—we are right in the middle of a cost of living crisis, and that is over £1 billion profit for a retail store. Tesco made £2.3 billion profit, and British Gas’s parent company has said that its profits have fallen to a humble £2.8 billion. Those are just three examples and the others—Heathrow Airport, Argos and Weetabix—are also all in profit. One simple cereal company made £368.8 million. Those are hardly companies in dire financial straits. Can the Minister explain how many of the high-profile fire and rehire cases known since 2010 would fall foul of the requirements within the Bill, and how many would be exempted under this loophole?

I think we all know that although the Bill is well-intended—and we fully support it—if it is not revised, it will fail under that loophole. As Andy Prendergast, the national secretary of GMB, explained in his evidence to this Committee:

“We have seen lots of financial engineering. We see inter-company debt. I think there is a concern long term that we may find cases where companies have engineered a financial position that allows them to do something they otherwise would not. That will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 131, Q135.]

That is twice this Committee has heard evidence that should make us really think about the purpose of the Bill, which I totally agree with on fire and rehire, to ensure that it is watertight.

Can the Minister outline what changes the Government will make to the Bill and what regulatory regime will be put in place to prevent the provision from being exploited in the manner described? For example, will employers have to evidence the financial difficulties before making any decisions on firing and rehiring, or will they need to be evidenced only if an unfair dismissal claim is brought forward? We can clearly see now who holds all the cards. If it is the latter, and claims of financial difficulties are discovered at a tribunal to be unfounded, will employees who have been affected be reinstated on their original terms? These are important questions we need to ask.

In the absence of the detail and guarantees sought, the amendment seeks to remove the loophole altogether. We cannot allow this aspect of the Bill to pass without cast-iron protections against fire and rehire. We cannot wait and see how it plays out in reality, with people’s jobs and lives at stake.

If the provision is to remain—I can clearly see and many others so far have seen that it is a loophole—it is important that further amendments are proposed, not just to clarify definitions of financial difficulties and processes on establishing their veracity, but to ensure that there are further protections to strengthen an employee’s position in relation to any consultations and negotiations that take place when the employer is in financial difficulty. Does the Minister agree that the employer should take all reasonable steps prior to cutting workers’ wages and altering other terms and conditions? Does he agree that all material information should be provided to each union and that as much time as possible must be made available to consult? Does he agree that the employer must comply with any procedural requirements for varying contracts of employment or collective agreement?

Critically, does the Minister agree that the employer should have reduced the remuneration of partners, directors and managers at least to the extent equivalent to that which applies to the workers subject to variation of contract? After all, if an employer is struggling with his company, we cannot have the managerial class carrying on as if it is not affecting them while others have their contracts reduced and their terms and conditions worsened. Does he agree that the employer should have stopped paying dividends to shareholders, buying back shares, or making loans to partners, directors or shareholders, as soon as the financial difficulties became apparent, and renegotiated, to the greatest extent practicable, loans to third parties?

If the Minister does agree, will he give assurances that he will support such amendments being made to the Bill?

[Greg Smith]

I will speak briefly to amendments 160 and 161, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee Central and the Scottish National party. These amendments seek to make the fire and rehire provisions more restrictive, saying that employers cannot vary contracts or re-engage staff on different contracts

“to eliminate, prevent or significantly reduce, or significantly mitigate the effect of, any financial difficulties which at the time of the dismissal were affecting, or were likely in the immediate future to affect, the employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern or otherwise to carry on the activities constituting the business,”

and remove the ability for the employer to do so if in the circumstances

“the employer could not reasonably have avoided the need to make the variation.”

I appreciate that it is quite a convoluted position, but it is clear to me that the SNP is siding with the trade union position that Martyn Gray set out, which is that

“if directors can sign off the business as still remaining as a going concern, fire and rehire should not be an option.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 65, Q61.]

But we heard from almost every witness—

[Chris Law]

I will re-declare that I have been an employer in the past, as well as an employee, and have employed staff; this is not just a union position. I have talked about companies. I can appreciate small businesses and even microbusinesses being really concerned about such issues, because they would impact them directly.

Typically, small businesses keep a very keen eye on where things are going in the future. If people want a good team in their employ, they make sure that their employees know very well what is going on with such issues. We had this debate earlier. I will list again, just to remind people, the relevant companies: Asda, Tesco, British Gas, Argos, Weetabix and Heathrow Airport. They are big companies, with billion-pound profits, that are taking advantage of the current situation. They have already taken advantage up until now—why will this loophole mean that they will not do it in the future?

[Greg Smith]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. He likes to point to the profit lines of many of those businesses. Just because a business is making a substantial profit does not necessarily mean that it does not have to go through significant change in businesses practices in meeting market demands, manufacturing processes as technology moves on, or whatever it might be. I am really not seeking to advocate for anybody to be abused in the way he talks about. I am trying to acknowledge that things change in lots of businesses all the time. No one should be unfairly treated as part of that process, but sometimes, even for the very largest companies, significant change happens—as I say, to manufacturing processes or whatever—that requires a fundamental shift in job descriptions.

I am sure that most of those businesses want to keep their workforces on, but if the contract under which the employee was originally employed talks specifically about processes or ways of manufacturing, or uses of particular bits of equipment, that just do not exist anymore because technology has moved on, there is a requirement for contracts to change. Ideally, that will always be done in a consensual, negotiated manner, but the amendments put forward by the hon. Gentleman and the SNP go too far in shutting down that restriction. I agree with his point about small and microbusinesses, which really will struggle, in an ever-changing world with technological advancement and so on, to meet the conditions he is putting down.

[Chris Law]

We are not talking about technological changes, though, are we? We are not talking about advances that would mean changes to the structure of a business. We are talking about the language that is being used about the likeliness of financial difficulties. To any lawyer, the word “likely”—how long is a piece of string? Someone could argue the case that “likely” means this, while someone else could argue it means that. The language is lax, which is part of the issue.

In terms of financial difficulties, what is a financial difficulty? Does it mean, “We can’t afford the loo roll in the staff toilets so we will fire and rehire,” or something more structural? What I seek from the Minister is assurances that the purpose of the Bill on fire and rehire is very specific: we want to end fire and rehire. Given the current loophole, we have already heard not just from trade unions, by the way, but from businesses—

[The Chair]

Order. You are intervening on the shadow Minister.

[Chris Law]

I apologise. I just wanted to remind the shadow Minister that we are already hearing from businesses. They are clearly looking at this loophole as an opportunity for them in the future.

[Greg Smith]

Of course there will always be some who look for loopholes, but I gently suggest that the vast majority do not. They are good employers who care for their workforce, because, as we have discussed many times over, no business is anything at all without both parts—the workforce and those who risk their capital and so on to make those jobs happen, and to produce the products and sell the services in the first place.

The intervention from the hon. Member for Dundee Central neatly leads on to where I was going anyway. The Committee heard from almost every witness who was an employer or who represented employers that the dismissal and re-engagement provisions in the Bill were already too restrictive and would lead to staff being laid off. The SNP amendments make those even more restrictive, so it is not hard to work out where those witnesses would have gone on this front. Given that risk of lower employment and higher unemployment, I gently ask the hon. Gentleman to consider how the SNP would actually answer that challenge were the amendment to go through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for the contributions in this debate, which deals with one of the central issues we have been grappling with. On this side of the Committee we certainly want to see fire and rehire consigned to the history books. Equally, we do not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles said, want to see businesses feel they have no option but to make people redundant because they do not feel they can take any other course of action. It is about trying to ensure that that is still available without opening a loophole, as it has been described, for abusive fire and rehire tactics to continue. There is an awful lot in the Bill as it stands that will make it a very high threshold indeed for any employer to want to take that step. There will, of course, be further guidance in regulations, where we will home in on the kinds of concerns that have been raised.

[Chris Law]

I appreciate that there is a lot in the Bill, and I appreciate that some Government Members on the Committee think this is a nut to crack. I have asked questions—I hope to hear some of the answers to them—and I want to add another. I raised the issue of “likely”, which is the language used. Will the Minister remark on whether the Department intends to advise on how the word “likely” should be determined? Will he consider whether that will reflect what was set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and a subsequent tribunal judgment, which came to define “likely” as a need to show

“a significantly higher degree of likelihood than just more likely than not”?

[Justin Madders]

I am not familiar with the particular case law the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I will take that away.

It is fair to say that employment tribunals currently do not have the kind of inquiries into a business’s finances and general condition that we are trying to achieve with this legislation. At the moment, there is a fairly broadbrush approach, particularly in terms of redundancies, to inquiries about the business reasons. It is important to draw the hon. Member for Dundee Central’s attention to the words after “likely” in the Bill. It is about an

“employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern”.

That means the alternative is insolvency or redundancies, which is the eventuality that I am sure we all want to avoid. It will ultimately be a question of fact for an employment tribunal to determine whether it genuinely was the only option available to the employer, which is what the Bill will require the employer to demonstrate.

There are a legion of examples of trade unions working constructively with businesses to avoid those kinds of insolvency situations, as a result of which terms and conditions have changed. The hon. Member for Dundee Central quoted Andy Prendergast who, in respect of what happened in the 2008 financial crisis, said in an evidence session:

“It was heartbreaking, but we had to do it because it was the right thing to do.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 131, Q135.]

He was talking about changing terms and conditions in agreement with employers to avoid redundancies and potential insolvencies.

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would take out all of subsection (5) of proposed new section 104I, which is the requirement for the employer to engage with trade unions and have the dialogue that we think is so important in industrial relations. It would say, “That does not matter any more.” The dialogue we are seeking to develop—the tripartite approach—and the move to make the arbitrary take-it-or-leave-it approach that some employers have adopted in fire and rehire a thing of the past, would not matter.

The hon. Gentleman has asked some important questions about what we would expect of employers; I think subsection (5) answers many of them. Further regulations and codes of practice will also deal with them, because we want to make sure we have a situation in which the bar for passing this test is extremely high, but in addition to that—in addition to there being no alternative but insolvency—the employer has to then demonstrate that they have carried out a full consultation with the trade union. That will involve a full explanation of the financial situation. As we develop the regulations and codes of practice, we will flesh that out in some more detail.

[Chris Law]

I am listening carefully to the words the Minister is using. When does the employer carry out that process? Ultimately, they have two options. They can carry it out well in advance to ensure that employees are kept up to speed early on. Some employees may wish to leave under those circumstances and find employment elsewhere. But often, in past cases of fire and rehire, employees have heard at a very late stage or not at all. There is currently no provision in the Bill to say what the timetable should be. I would like to get an indication of the Minister’s thoughts about potential future amendments relating to that subject.

[Justin Madders]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but subsection (5) does set out the requirements on an employer to consult. It would be normal for further detail about consultation to be considered to be in good time when proposals are at a formative stage, as has traditionally always been the case. I see no reason why it would not also take the same form in that instance.

What we are really talking about is a situation in which there is a sudden change in a company’s financial circumstances and it has to act quickly. In that situation, we do not want to force it to go insolvent or make people redundant, if there is an opportunity to save jobs. That is why subsection (5) is so important: because it will encourage and compel the dialogue that we are seeking to achieve. I accept that there is more to be done in terms of honing some of the detail, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment because it would, I am afraid, have unintended consequences.

[Chris Law]

I thank the Minister for his comments. It is helpful to know that there will be further consultation and, potentially, amendments—which may even come from his own side—to tighten up this bit of the legislation. It is critical to the wider Bill and the SNP understands its importance; we just want to see it made tighter—not to put employers in impossible situations in which they cannot negotiate, but so that it is not exploited as a loophole. As it currently stands, employers are already discussing that.

I appreciate the Minister’s response. In that context, so long as it is something that can be further considered and, particularly, brought forward on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)

Employment Rights Bill (Seventh sitting)

Chris Law Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, because she underlines the fundamental point that I am making: most businesses do not want to turn people away. Convenience stores are a great example of that, and are actually some of the most flexible employers out there. My constituency, which is spread across 336 square miles of rural Buckinghamshire, has a lot of small convenience stores, and they are exemplary employers. I cannot think of a problem I have ever encountered with any of them.

I come back to my central argument, which is that sometimes things happen. Nobody has planned for it, nobody wants it, and nobody is in any way happy in that situation, but sometimes these things happen. I fully accept the hon. Lady’s point that the vast majority of employers in this country are good employers. We should celebrate them, and not try to see them through the lens of some sort of Victorian novel. That is not what employers are in this country. They are responsible and want to look out for their workforce.

We had a debate the other day about the symbiotic relationship between the worker and the business owner, which are two sides of the same coin: no successful business could have one without the other. I am not saying that there are not rogue traders out there who seek to exploit their workforce—there are, and there must be proportionate, proper and robust measures in place to combat poor behaviour—but that does not undermine the central point that there must be flexibility that accounts for the realities of the real world.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

I am hearing this argument repeated again and again, but I am struggling. I need an example. Employers insure themselves against floods, fire and everything else. We talked on Tuesday about an empty restaurant giving notice if it was empty. So I am trying to find out what is the exceptional circumstance that the hon. Member is concerned about that he can see in real-life circumstances where the employee would have to lose out rather than the business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Law]

I will just probe a little further. All those points are valid, but they are the responsibility of the business, not the employee—most notably because they have no shares in the business and will not benefit from any profit. Why should they have only the rough end where they end up without income? A company might have five shareholders in a small company. A cabinet-making firm is a good example—I have one in my constituency in Dundee where they all have a stake in it and can equally share the risks and the rewards. The problem with what the hon. Member is suggesting is that the employees are burdened with the risks without any of the rewards. I cannot see where there is a benefit at all. That in many respects insulates the employer and puts all the burden on the employee.

[Greg Smith]

I do accept the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. It is helpful to have this debate to tease out the core issues. The point I would put back to him is that those small microbusinesses faced with that eventuality almost certainly will not have the reserves or contingencies in place to be able to weather such a storm. A catastrophic event that delays perhaps their biggest order of the year by six months, a year or longer—some of the shipping delays in recent years have been undoubtedly severe—means they might go bust. If they go bust, there are no jobs at all. Although I am in no way, shape or form advocating a position where an unfairness is felt by employees, there can in the real world sometimes be an eventuality where it is undesirable—I will concede unfair—but a reality.

Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting)

Chris Law Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Alison Hume]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher.

We in this place enjoy the employment rights that come with our job, which is to serve our constituents to the best of our ability. When we are unwell, we can take time off but we are still paid. Before I arrived here, I spent a considerable number of years working as a freelancer while bringing up my family; I believe that is now called being a worker in the gig economy. I understand all too well the pressure for people to work when they are unwell, as they juggle work around caring responsibilities, as I had to for my disabled son, and worry about money, as our family worried about how we would pay the rent and the other bills if I did not work.

At present, large numbers of workers either rely on statutory sick pay or receive nothing at all if they are absent from work due to illness. Those workers are more likely to be low paid than others. We also heard in the evidence sessions last week that women are currently more likely to miss out on statutory sick pay than men, because they do not earn enough to meet the threshold or have not been in their jobs for long enough. It is estimated that 1.1 million workers earn less than £123 a week and most of them are women who are not eligible for statutory sick pay at all.

In practice, as we heard in the evidence sessions last week and as Minister just referred to, that means that people drag themselves into work despite the fact that they are ill. As it stands, our sick pay system pushes far too many people to go to work when they are ill. Working while in poor health is more common among those from marginalised ethnic groups, people in lower-quality jobs and workers lacking formal qualifications.

Under the Bill, hundreds of thousands of people will qualify for sick pay from the first day that they are ill. That change and other changes will help to increase productivity, reduce prolonged illness due to exacerbating existing conditions, and lead to better public health outcomes. Lower-paid workers will no longer have to face the unpalatable choice between coming to work and risking spreading infection, or struggling to put food on the table and to pay bills. Those are very real concerns that, as I mentioned, I have faced.

In conclusion, I believe that the Bill will transform the world of work for millions of people across the country. If I may say so, it is a privilege to have played a small part in scrutinising it.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

It is good to see you in your place, Sir Christopher. I will speak to an amendment on this issue shortly, but I will briefly say that everyone in this room, at some point in their working life, will be ill. It is not something that we would choose or desire, and most of us want to get back to work as soon as possible. The problem is that it happens, and when we are off ill we still have bills to pay, families to keep and mortgages or rents to pay. The level of statutory sick pay is frankly woeful in this country—in fact, for those hon. Members who do not know, it is the worst in the developed world. We should all be ashamed of that and we need to really think about it.

I welcome the changes to ensure that everybody gets statutory sick pay, but I find it disgraceful that we have not even touched on its level: it is £116 a week, or £6,000 a year. At some point in our lives, all of us have worked in very low-paid jobs. We have all done that, particularly in the early years. We would never imagine that somebody could live on £6,000 a year. Not everybody is expected to be off for a year, but some are, due to prolonged illnesses.

I will talk about this issue more on my amendment, but before I go into it in detail, I really want to hear from the Minister what changes the Government look to make so that we are no longer the sickest country in the world for being unreasonable, unfair and unjust to employees, and to ensure that statutory sick pay, which is about 17% of the average income—it was 35% when it was introduced—will start to restore the proper justice required for employees.

[Laurence Turner]

The shadow Minister’s comments to the effect that he accepted in practice the arguments on the workplace and presenteeism were welcome. If, through this Committee, we can reach some degree of cross-party consensus on the issue, it would be a real advance and proof of the value of this process. I mean that sincerely.

I turn to the measures. The question of waiting days is as old as the national insurance system. Although many of the incremental changes made in the Bill are welcome, it is time to take a step forward. The case for that step was proven during the pandemic. The Minister quoted USDAW research, and I am obliged to quote GMB research, which found that 90% of care workers could not afford to take time off if they became ill. That meant that during the pandemic, many people were presenting at work either for the duration of their illness or for the waiting period, and we have very good evidence of that. I will quote one example. A study by Dr Laura Shallcross and other authors in The Lancet found that the odds of covid infection in care home residents and staff and of large outbreaks

“were significantly lower in LTCFs”—

long-term care facilities—

“that paid staff statutory sick pay compared with those that did not.”

That was one of the key determinants or predictors of where outbreaks might occur.

To perhaps quote a more human voice, a social worker and member of the GMB said:

“For me, being on a zero-hours contract, I don’t always get work. If I become ill, I don’t get paid. If I get a cold or flu-related illness, I am expected to stay at home without pay, because I may pass the illness on to our service users. It is a very, very stressful life.”

When the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals surveyed its members, 47% agreed with the abolition of the waiting days period, so there is support in this area among private sector practitioners. When the Fabian Society, of which I declare I am a member, looked at this question, it found that the cost to business of adopting that measure would be very low—somewhere in the region of £15 per year for each employee.

As matters of cost have been raised in Committee on several occasions, I shall finish by quoting from the 2010 Black review, commissioned by the then incoming Government, which I think is still the best evidence we have of the cost of the statutory sick pay regime. It said:

“Great Britain has a mixed approach to sickness absence. Although employers in theory bear the cost of Statutory Sick Pay (SSP), the cost itself is not very high. Barriers to dismissal are relatively low (although it should be noted that dismissing someone specifically to avoid paying SSP is illegal). Employers are therefore obliged to bear little cost or accountability for sickness absence, albeit many employers choose to pay more in occupational sick pay (OSP) than the statutory obligation.”

There are many cases where occupational sick pay is paid at a rate higher than the SSP rate. That is of course welcome, and accounts for the majority of employers. For those employers who are being brought into paying SSP earlier, as we have heard, the cost is low, but the changes could make a really significant difference to the lives of some of the lowest paid workers in the economy. This measure is extremely welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

We have had a good debate. Most Members have spoken positively about the need for this change. Obviously, this was a measure brought in temporarily by the previous Government, during covid. They recognised the particular issue at the time.

Before I turn to the shadow Minister’s comments, I wish him the best of luck in the Mid-Buckinghamshire pantomime. I hope he does not become the George Lazenby of the Conservative party as a result. He raised two perfectly reasonable questions. The first was on Northern Ireland. I can assure him that it was not an oversight. It has been introduced as an amendment because, as this is a transferred power to Northern Ireland, we need their consent before it can be included. I think he will understand that putting it in without getting that agreement might have been counterproductive.

On the second point that the shadow Minister made, about abuse of the provision, of course employers already have the power to deal with employees whom they feel are falsely taking time off sick. Whether that is day four or day one, those powers are already there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby made a very powerful speech to highlight the impact on particular groups. The evidence we heard from the Women’s Budget Group last week was particularly important in that respect. Other Members who spoke, my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Northfield and for Stratford and Bow, raised a whole plethora of examples with pieces of evidence in support of the policy. I think it is one that is generally supported.

To deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee Central about the level of statutory sick pay, he may not have seen my opining on SSP at the evidence session last week, or the famous comments from the former Health Secretary about it not being enough to live on. I recognise that. Unfortunately, however, I have to give him the stock answer, which is that the actual level is set by the Department for Work and Pensions. He made a fair point about people on long-term sick, because there is a huge interplay between people on long-term sick and the benefits system, but it is in the Department’s gift to set the rate and to look at how it interplays with accessibility to other benefits, which of course depends on people’s individual circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Statutory sick pay: lower earnings limit etc

[Chris Law]

I beg to move amendment 158, in clause 9, page 26, line 17, leave out “the prescribed percentage of”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 159, in clause 9, page 26, line 19, leave out paragraph (b).

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Law]

I have already touched on the impact that illness has in our lives. Some of us have family members who have been long-term sick. If they have been in employment, £6,000 a year as an annual amount is clearly not going to be enough. I am glad that the Minister has raised the issue and addressed it, and I hope that the DWP can consider those levels. We are still the sickest country in the developed world, and I hope that that will change under this Government.

I will leave my comments on that for the moment, apart from one, which is about the TUC. I am sure that those on the Government Benches will be well aware of this. Previously, the TUC campaigned for an increase in the weekly level of sick pay to at least £320 per week. That is something to consider. I advocate statutory sick pay being based on the national living wage in respect of each hour during which the worker would have worked, but for sickness.

My amendment, however, is small and one that I hope will get cross-party support, largely because it is so modest and seeks to protect the lowest paid workers. I therefore hope to get to a conclusion today. This is not about a hammer to crack a nut, but about a small change that would help the most vulnerable and low-paid workers in our societies.

According to the Centre for Progressive Change, the wording of the Bill will make up to 1.3 million employees worse off. The Bill’s wording specifies that employees should be paid either SSP or a prescribed percentage of their usual pay, whichever is lower. However, that creates a group of workers who will receive even less in sick pay under the new arrangements than they do now. After 14 years of austerity, I am sure that the new Government do not want that to get even worse.

That is because although that group of workers might be earning above their lower earnings limit, reducing their earnings in line with the prescribed percentage would result in a weekly sick pay amount that is lower than statutory sick pay. For example, an employee earning £125 a week will currently get sick pay of £116.75. However, they would only receive £100 for the prescribed percentage of 80% or, worse, £75 for a prescribed percentage of 60%. The lower the replacement rate, the more employees will be affected, with a quarter of a million employees losing out on the 80% rate and 1.3 million employees losing out at the 60% rate.

The amendment would allow for those earning less than statutory sick pay to have their full earnings replaced. Frankly, that is the bare minimum that this Government and this Bill should be doing. That should be a starting point for statutory sick pay, increasing to the point where it is in line with the national living wage.

Employees earning less than statutory sick pay are by definition low earners. The evidence is clear that households with low incomes spend the vast majority of their earnings on essentials, such as rent and food. Cutting the incomes of those employees, even by a small percentage, risks them being unable to afford essential costs, pushing working families into hardship and deepening poverty. The changes in income may be especially difficult to bear during times of ill health, when the ability of households to adapt to budget losses is inevitably reduced.

An example of modelling that has been mentioned already is by WPI Economics. It shows that the direct cost to businesses of providing full earnings replacement would be small, calculated at £125 million per year across the entire UK economy. That is equivalent to £15 per employee per year. Reducing the earnings replacement rate below 100% as proposed would save businesses a small fraction of that already small amount, providing trivial cost savings for businesses. Furthermore, modelling shows that full earnings replacement would generate economic gains to businesses, the Treasury and the wider economy. With direct business benefits expected to be £1.1 billion, businesses would see aggregate net gains of around £1 billion every year from providing 100% earnings replacement.

I reiterate that the amendment makes a small change that should be regarded as the bare minimum. Further reform and increases to the sick pay system need to be implemented. As was mentioned earlier, we learned during the covid pandemic that employees coming into work when unwell can have a detrimental impact on public health and the economy. Those who come into physical contact with many people at work are often the least able to afford to self-isolate without pay or to have access to employer-provided sick pay, and are more likely to engage in presenteeism.

The UK’s current sick pay system contributes to economic stagnation, exacerbates the spread of infectious disease, makes long-term sickness absence more likely and drives people out of the taxpaying workforce. Everything that the Committee has discussed so far, across all parties, is about getting people into the workplace. The increased ill health adds a significant extra cost to the NHS, adds many more patients to waiting lists and increases the UK benefits bill. Workers themselves face financial hardship. There is no upside to the current system.

A meaningful increase to statutory sick pay would immediately turn the situation around. SSP reform would enable people to more proactively manage their health conditions, remain linked to their employers and stay off benefits when they fall ill. Modelling by WPI Economics shows that implementation of an increased SSP rate alongside the other changes put forward in the Bill would deliver substantial economic benefits for the UK, including net gains of up to £800 million for businesses, £1.7 billion for the Treasury and £2.1 billion for the wider economy—all upsides.

The onus is therefore on the Government to either: substantially increase the basic rate of statutory sick pay—although I have heard already that it is the DWP that needs to consider that—benchmarking it to the national living wage rate for normal working hours; use the Bill to amend existing primary legislation to give the Secretary of State additional powers, via secondary legislation, to change how the statutory sick pay rate is calculated; or, at the least, hold a statutory consultation with a timeline to establish what the new benchmark rate for SSP should be.

In the meantime, 100% replacement of earnings for employees earning below statutory sick pay is an easily affordable policy. It brings substantial net benefits to UK businesses, the Treasury and the wider economy. At the same time, it would avoid making over 1 million employees even worse off than they are today when forced to take time off sick. It would reduce hardship among employees with the lowest pay.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that helpful run-through of some of the issues that we are actively considering. He will be aware that a consultation on the issue closed only yesterday, so I would not want to pre-empt the outcome by accepting the amendment today. We understand the various arguments he has advanced that the level should be higher. He will not be surprised to hear that contrary arguments are put forward by some groups around having an incentive to take sick days when they are not needed.

Some of the modelling figures that the hon. Gentleman has come up with do not quite fit with the ones we have on where people would lose out at certain rates, but that will be considered in the round when we formally respond to the consultation. We hope to do so early in the new year, because we wish to put this into the Bill before it finishes its progress. It is something we are actively considering at the moment. I should be grateful if he would withdraw the amendment, so that we can take full account of the consultation that we have just completed.

[Chris Law]

I have listened with great interest to the Minister. I thank him for his comments and for the consultation that concluded yesterday. It would be helpful to hear today what the conclusion of the consultation is. I have made it crystal clear that none of us present want to see those at the lowest end of earnings worse off than they currently are. The Bill has been brought forward in good faith and good will, I am sure, by the new incoming Government to improve the lives of everyone, most of all those at the most vulnerable end. I have spoken to employers and employees quite widely about this, and the feeling I hear constantly is that this is a no-brainer. Delaying would be very difficult.

[Justin Madders]

I understand the point the hon. Member is making, but he will understand that when a Government Department—in this case the Department for Work and Pensions—undertakes a formal consultation, it is obliged to consider all responses before coming to a conclusion. That is why it is premature to agree to his amendment.

[Chris Law]

I thank the Minister for his intervention, but this is not a DWP issue. We are not talking about the level of SSP. We are talking about a sentence in the Bill that puts in a threshold that will make people on the lowest incomes worse off. That is an issue for the Minister for Employment to address rather than DWP. The level of SSP more widely has been discussed, and that may be an issue for DWP to consider. I think there will be disagreement over what that level should be. I have already quoted the TUC’s £320 a week, and I have suggested the national living wage. I look forward to that consultation, but this amendment seeks to strike a sentence out, nothing more.

[Justin Madders]

The very issue that the hon. Member is putting forward in his amendment is the issue that the Department for Work and Pensions is consulting on at the moment, which is why it would be premature to make a decision at this stage.

[Chris Law]

I need to ask for your advice, Sir Christopher, because at this point I would press the amendment to a vote but I want to be charitable and open to understanding what we are expecting from this consultation and when we would be able to bring this issue back—perhaps even during this Committee.

[The Chair]

One of the options open to the hon. Gentleman is to withdraw the amendment today but with a view to coming back to it on Report. Whether he wishes to do that or put the matter to a vote today is a matter for him.

[Chris Law]

Thank you for that advice, Sir Christopher. Based on that, I would consider coming back to this on Report, given the fact that I have not seen the consultation and I would like to work in the spirit that we have done so far in this room to try to bring about the best for all. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 6—Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: lower earnings limit etc.

Government amendment 107.

Employment Rights Bill (Fifth sitting)

Chris Law Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Justin Madders]

On a very fundamental level, if an employee has less money coming than in the previous week, they face a challenge in paying their bills, whether that is their mortgage, their rent or whatever costs they face. That is a very clear challenge to individuals on zero-hours contracts. A great number of studies show that people in insecure work have lower levels of job satisfaction and poorer physical and mental health, and there are also issues linked to lower levels of work productivity. As my hon. Friend mentioned, there is evidence that proper workforce planning is good for businesses, as well as individual workers. I am afraid that any exceptions creating a two-tier labour market would just exacerbate some of the challenges we see in that area. That would create a downward pressure, distort competitiveness at the expense of larger businesses and, as we have heard, create a disincentive for smaller businesses to grow.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

I have heard the Minister reference two-tier rights in employment law several times. I want to raise a fundamental issue in this Bill: zero-hours contracts and the different legal categories of a worker. It is a general principle that labour law should be universal in its application, and our labour rights should apply to everyone who works for others. I just wanted some clarification, as without clarification on the legal status of all those who work, the rights in the Bill are allocated piecemeal.

I will give some examples: some rights are given to employees with contracts of employment; some rights are given to limb (b) workers, such as Deliveroo riders in Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v. Central Arbitration Committee and Deliveroo last year, or gig workers who are denied the status of employees; and some rights are given to other new ad hoc definitions of workers, such as workers on non-contractual zero-hours arrangements. The situation of the false self-employed, including those employed by umbrella companies or personal service companies, as well as anomalous workers such as foster carers, is not otherwise dealt with, and their rights are left opaque. Fundamentally, I am asking whether a new clause is required to ensure that all rights contained within the Bill apply to workers defined as

“any individual who is engaged by another to provide labour and is not, in the provision of that labour, genuinely operating a business on his or her own account”.

[Justin Madders]

I understand the point that the hon. Member is making. I think it would not need a new clause but a new Bill, because there is a whole range of very complicated issues about worker status. It is something that we are committed to looking at in our “Next Steps” document, and there is a whole range of issues in that sector. The hon. Member referred to foster carers—I should clarify for the record that I am a foster carer. Personally, I would not consider that to be employment, but I know there are others who believe that it is. He also mentioned various arrangements within the gig economy, and the shadow Minister mentioned IR35. We can very quickly get into a very detailed argument about who would be classed as a worker and who would not, and that needs a much more considered and lengthy examination. That is why, as much as we would have liked to, we were not able to get it in the Bill in the time allowed, but I absolutely understand the point the hon. Member is making.

On the amendments before us, the disincentive for an employer to grow would, unfortunately, be an unintended consequence of their provisions. There could even be a scenario where there would be an argument in an employment tribunal about how big an employer actually was. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield talked about some of the complicated structures that we see, and we know that some employers deliberately structure themselves to avoid particular laws. That would go against the policy objectives, which are to create a level playing field across the board, avoid undercutting and ensure that best practice is spread throughout.

We must not create a two-tier system. That is not consistent with what we are trying to achieve. It would harm not just workers, but small businesses, and, as the hon. Member for Chippenham said, would create an incentive for workers at smaller employers to leave. If someone does not get any protection for two years working for one employer, they will go and work for someone who will give them that protection. That applies to lots of the other rights as well.

On the unfair dismissal amendment, there was a brief period in the 1980s where there was a slightly different employer size qualification for unfair dismissal. I think it was 21—some way below the number that the shadow Minister is proposing—but even the Thatcher Government decided that was not a tenable situation and removed that in the end. I gently point out to the shadow Minister that the amendment as drafted would not have the effect that he hopes. I hope he will not push it to a vote.

On the issues about the impact on small employers, that is why we have legislated to include a statutory probationary period to ensure that there is not an undue burden on businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

The shadow Minister tempts me to pre-empt what we will put in the consultation. I have had a number of conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles over many years, because he has great experience of the retail sector, where there is a great deal of insecurity of work. People who work in that sector can be on guaranteed hours of 16 hours a week but still face insecurity. Equally, a lot of the people that we are trying to help here have no guaranteed hours at all. There is an argument that anyone below full-time hours—again, there is a debate about what that means—could be within scope.

That is why we are holding a consultation, to enable us to understand exactly who will be affected—whether we are trying to catch everyone or target the people who suffer the greatest insecurity of work. That is the purpose of the consultation. I know the shadow Minister will probably want to get some figures out of me today, but I am afraid I will not be able to oblige.

[Chris Law]

I am sorry to stop the Minister in his tracks, but it is quite an important point. There is in the Bill what I would consider to be a loophole, which enables employers to offer a guaranteed-hours contract where there is work of a short-term nature. There are some issues with that. I would like to know the justifications for it, and whether it is going to consultation. Does it mean that people engaged on such terms will be engaged on a zero-hours basis, or will they be employed on a guaranteed-hours basis? It is not clear in the Bill. If the former, why is it not possible for such workers to have a guaranteed-hours contract if they otherwise meet the proposed statutory criteria? What safeguards will there be to ensure that the power is not abused, in order to avoid a guaranteed-hours contract? I am sure that, in the spirit of the Bill, we want to ensure that that is tightened. There is nothing in the Bill for that, either.

What is the difference between a short-term contract and a fixed-term contract? Will there be a legal status for someone engaged on a short-term contract? Are they an employee, a limb (b) worker, or neither? Lastly, will non-renewal of a short-term contract be a dismissal for the purposes of unfair dismissal in the case of workers who are employees? That is a lot of questions, but I want to know whether there will be further consultation that may result in amendments to the Bill.

Employment Rights Bill (Sixth sitting)

Chris Law Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

On new section 27BE, there is a lack of formality relating to the worker’s right to refuse an offer of a regular-hours contract. Indeed, the risk is that workers could be coerced into rejecting an offer if it is clear that the employer would prefer the existing arrangements to continue. There are similar arrangements in respect of the working time regulations on workers’ right to opt out of the 48-hour working week; by contrast with the Bill’s provisions on zero-hours contracts, the working time regulations do not apply to all workers, and those who opt-out may revoke their decision to do so, although there are arguably no adequate safeguards there either.

The Secretary of State will have the power to make regulations about the form and manner of the notice under proposed new section 27BE, and reference is made to a response time that is undefined, but the question is whether it would be appropriate for Parliament to give the Minister stronger guidance by requiring that the response period should be at least one week; that the worker has a right to seek advice from an independent trade union before making a decision; that the worker has a right to be accompanied by a trade union official under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 in any meeting to discuss an offer; and that the worker may revoke a rejection of an offer at any time on giving one week’s notice to the employer. Does the Minister agree that those safeguards need to be incorporated into the Bill so that an employee is not coerced by their employer into rejecting a contract that is not in their best interest?

[Justin Madders]

A lot of the questions the hon. Member asked will be dealt with by the regulations and by the anti-detriment provisions of the Bill. If he would like to see specific provisions in the Bill, he should have tabled amendments, but I believe we will address a lot of the detail he raised in due course. We are clear that this has to be a freely agreed contract between both parties. The employer should make the offer and the employee should be able to agree, of their own free will, on whether they wish to accept it. We will look closely at the coercion issue, because that has been raised with us.

Government amendment 13 introduces new section 27BEA of the 1996 Act. It will introduce a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to make a potentially qualifying worker aware of their right to guaranteed hours should they meet the required conditions—that is, to draw workers’ attention to the new right and to the fact that they may be eligible for it.

New section 27BF provides for workers to bring an employment tribunal claim to enforce their right to guaranteed hours. A worker may make a complaint if no guaranteed hours offer is made to a qualifying worker; if an offer is made but does not comply with the requirements relating to a guaranteed hours offer, such as offering work for a number of hours that reflects the hours worked during the reference period, or the offer does not comply with the regulations relating to such requirements; if the offer includes a prohibited variation to a worker’s terms and conditions; and if the offer does not comply with the requirements on the use of limited-term contracts, the prohibition on varying other terms, or the applicable requirements where the employer offers less favourable terms.

To ensure that all rights are supported by appropriate protections, the Government amendments have added further grounds. Thus, a worker may make a complaint to an employment tribunal if the employer fails to provide a notice stating that they are exempt from the duty to make a guaranteed hours offer and which exemption applies, or fails to provide a notice stating that a guaranteed hours offer is treated as having been withdrawn further to an exemption applying or to a relevant termination; if the employer gives a notice to the worker stating that they are exempt from the duty to offer guaranteed hours when they should not have done so; if the employer gives the worker a notice relating to an exemption that does not refer to any exemption as set out in the regulations, or that relates to the wrong exemption; and if the employer fails to comply with the duties to provide workers with information about the right to guaranteed hours.

New section 27BG outlines the time limit during which a worker may take their complaint to tribunal. Government amendments have been tabled to allow workers to take cases within six months, as opposed to three months, which is to align the Bill’s provisions with the changes we have talked about already. We have also tabled amendments that are consequential on the new rights included in the Bill, and also on the new grounds to make a complaint to the employment tribunal. Those relate to the additional requirements to serve a notice under new section 27BD, and to the claims related to the information rights.

Finally, new section 27BH provides for the remedies to a well-founded complaint. It provides that tribunals must make a declaration if there has been a breach and may award compensation to be paid from the employer to the worker. In common with other existing employment rights, the compensation must not exceed a permitted maximum, which will be set out in regulations as a multiple of a number of weeks’ pay. I commend clause 1 to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, with three children, I am acutely aware of the cost of childcare. The point I am making, to go back to the one I made earlier to his hon. Friends, is that this is not “all or nothing”. It is about recognising, to refer back to the answer I gave the hon. Member for High Peak, that at certain times, albeit not the majority of cases—in fact, far from the majority of cases—circumstances will arise that are beyond the business’s and the employee’s control, and they will push that business to the very edge. It is not a happy place or a good place to be, but there are some realities here that I think need much more careful reflection.

[Chris Law]

rose—

[Greg Smith]

Here we go.

[Chris Law]

I have been both an employer and an employee in a number of situations, including in retail and hospitality, which we have been hearing about. The hon. Member talks about emergencies, and I understand that emergencies can happen—I have been an employer when we had an emergency situation. What usually happens in those circumstances is that people find other things to do. There is always stuff to do in a business—stuff that might otherwise get put to one side—so there will be an opportunity for employees to work with employers in emergency circumstances.

What I do not understand is this. At what point, in the hon. Member’s mind, do employers notify employees? When do they say, “Look, there’s a situation—it’s an emergency. There is no chance at this time that I can help you come in. Would you consider not taking hours in this instance?” The hon. Member has talked about lived experience; I have spent many years in hospitality—I trained as a chef, and I know exactly what it is like working in restaurants and hotels. Lots of things happen, including empty restaurants, but there is also an onus on the employer to make sure that the restaurant has enough people in of an evening. If they are not there, it is not the employee’s fault; it is the responsibility of the business. If the business is on its knees, then frankly that is in no way the fault of employee—unless, of course, they are not turning up for work or something. In truth, is it not the case that a business in that position is just not viable?

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is right that there may well be something else that can be done—perhaps a stocktake, or making a start on refurbishing the place, or whatever it might be—but that will not be the case in every circumstance. I can only repeat the point that I am not making this argument in respect of the majority of cases, or those that might affect a business that is already in distress; I am making it in respect of those few occasions that might take a business to that point or much closer to it. I cannot imagine that anybody on this Committee, or indeed any Member of this House, would want to see that unintended consequence.

Employment Rights Bill (Third sitting)

Chris Law Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 28th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Q For context in respect of a previous question, the record shows that “re-unionisation of the economy” was language used in a question by the shadow Minister, not in an answer from a witness.

The Bill covers part of the “Make Work Pay” agenda. Are there other measures in the “Make Work Pay” document published earlier this year that should be included in the Bill?

Liron Velleman: The Bill clearly represents a great step forward in improving workers’ rights. For some of our members, it is in some ways a Bill for employees’ rights, rather than an employment rights Bill. Our members in the self-employed sector are looking for rights and protections to reflect the nature of the work that they do. In the “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document, there are clear suggestions that there will be greater rights and protections for self-employed members, but that is a priority that we would like to see as part of the Bill, to fully grasp the current employment landscape in this country.

There is also a point around the consultation on new surveillance technology in the workplace. Clearly, technology in the workplace is one of the biggest benefits to lots of our members and to businesses, but it is also one of the biggest challenges when we think about the new world of work. Making sure that workers understand and are trained on, and can get to grips with, technology in the workplace, surveillance or otherwise, is vital to ensuring that they have the best rights and protections at work. Those two things would be our strong priorities for the Bill.

Joanne Cairns: For us, one of the key areas is statutory sick pay. The removal of the three waiting days and the lower earnings limit is extremely important and will make a massive difference to a lot of low-paid workers. However, the Government committed to strengthening SSP, and we would like the level of SSP to be looked at. It is well documented that the current level of SSP is below what people can afford to live on. If you earn the national living wage, you earn only around a quarter of your salary when receiving SSP, which has a significant impact on low-paid workers. That said, the removal of the three waiting days is extremely important and will make a big difference.

In respect of the right to guaranteed hours, which we warmly welcome, it is very important that the way it is implemented covers as many workers as possible. The commitment from the Government was that everyone would have the right to a contract that reflects the hours they normally work. We are concerned about the inclusion of the term “low hours” in the “Next Steps” document, which we feel could have the unintended consequences of making the right apply less widely than it should, and potentially undermining its effectiveness.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Q I want to ask Joanne a little bit about USDAW’s experience dealing with Tesco. Tesco is one of the biggest employers in my constituency and it has a live case in the Livingston distribution centre regarding fire and rehire. I know that USDAW has put a lot of resources into taking Tesco to court over its distribution centres elsewhere—it won and then unfortunately lost on appeal. In our attempt to ban fire and rehire, do you think it is reasonable to include in this Bill a clause that basically allows a “get out of jail free” card? If we look at those who have tried to exploit fire and rehire so far, it is P&O, British Gas, Tesco, British Airways—they are not small companies. The clause says that if the company is in financial difficulties then fire and rehire could be continued. Do you think that should be taken out of the Bill altogether?

Joanne Cairns: We welcome the Government’s commitment to tackling fire and rehire. It is an issue not only when fire and rehire tactics are used, but when they are used by employers in negotiations as a form of threat to try to force unions or individuals to accept terms that they may not be happy with. Around a third of our members have been asked to change their contracted hours to support business need in the last 12 months, and one in five of them said that they felt forced into agreeing to the change, having been threatened with fire and rehire. It is a major issue. You referenced our legal case against Tesco, which demonstrates that this issue affects members in all sorts of workplaces.

Our preference would be for an outright ban on fire and rehire, and we would prefer the provision to be removed. If that provision stays in the Bill, our concern would be about the use of the word “likely”. We would like either for the word “likely” to be removed in reference to financial problems, or, at the very least, for there to be stringent guidance and a high bar set for the definition of “likely”.

Liron Velleman: At Community we had a similar case on fire and rehire back in 2021 with Clarks shoes. Our members at a distribution centre in Street in Somerset were threatened with a huge reduction in their hourly wage and the removal of their sick pay and coffee breaks. After a long campaign from our members in the union, and solidarity from across the UK, we managed to force the company to reverse its decision through ACAS mediation, but it clearly should not have been allowed to happen in that way at all. Our general secretary said at the time that, until fire and rehire is outlawed, no worker is safe from the harms that it can cause.

We hugely welcome the Government’s efforts to end fire and rehire, but we have similar concerns to USDAW about how the language about “likely” financial distress will be used in reality, given that it is rarely good-faith employers that use tactics such as fire and rehire in their workplaces. We do understand that there might be absolutely exceptional circumstances where the business would otherwise close. The question is whether the word “likely” will cast the net too wide and allow bad-faith employers to continue fire and rehire, even if the stated intention is for that not to happen.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Q In our evidence sessions earlier this week we heard concerns about changes to collective redundancy, and particularly the changes to the “one establishment” rules. What are your views on the provisions in the Bill?

Liron Velleman: We rarely deal with collective redundancy on multiple establishments, other than for a few establishments, but it is important for the Committee to understand that collective redundancy is not always a huge battle between employers and unions. It gets into the news that this employer and that union are fighting to the death over something, but usually collective redundancy is an opportunity for employers and unions to sit around the table and try to minimise the impact on the workforce. Even with employers that unions might have a difficult relationship with, collective redundancy is usually an opportunity to do that.

It is very well known that Tata Steel recently announced collective redundancies at its steelworks in Port Talbot in south Wales. The original stated redundancy figure was around 2,500, but after work between the unions and the employer, that number has been heavily reduced through cross-matching and through finding training opportunities. Unions are not there just to say, “We are going to keep our members’ jobs for the sake of it,” and scream from the rooftops. Collective redundancy is an opportunity to allow mitigations to protect workers. Any improvements to rules around collective redundancy—whether that is reducing the number of employees needed to start a collective redundancy scheme, increasing the timeframe for that to happen, or looking at the establishment rule—are hugely welcome.

Joanne Cairns: On the establishment rule, we are very pleased that the loophole is now being removed. We took a significant legal case on behalf of our members who were employed in Woolworths, where 27,000 employees were made redundant in a single redundancy exercise when the company went into administration. In 200 stores with fewer than 20 employees each, there were 3,000 employees who were not entitled to any protective award even though collective consultation had not taken place. That was purely because they were employed in establishments with fewer than 20 people, even though the decisions were being made far above that level and affected 27,000 employees. It is just common sense that that is now being corrected.

We are aware that the issue of scope has been raised in this Committee. We went back and looked at the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Clause 23 of the Bill would not alter what section 188 of the 1992 Act says about

“the employees who may be affected by the proposed dismissals or may be affected by measures taken in connection with those dismissals.”

It would not mean that workers are being consulted over redundancies that do not affect them; it would just mean that workers who are affected by the redundancies, or their representatives, would be consulted regardless of the size of the establishment that they are working at. We do not see people being involved in consultation exercises that do not affect them; that will not be a result of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

Q I was struck, in the impact assessments, by the statements that a number of the costs, but particularly more the benefits, or potential benefits, of these measures cannot currently be quantified. There are, of course, well-advertised problems with UK labour market statistics at the moment. Realistically, what more could the Government do in respect of future measures to better capture the full range of costs and benefits associated with employment law?

Nye Cominetti: You are right: labour market statistics are not currently in a good place. The Office for National Statistics’ labour force survey is in the doldrums in terms of response rates; so if you wanted to increase the resources going into that, I would welcome that, as a researcher. Realistically, many of these knock-on benefits are incredibly hard to estimate. Personally, I think we have to accept a world where we say, we know that workers will benefit in terms of wellbeing from some of these measures. I do not think you need to put a monetary value on that to say it is worth doing, personally, but I know that is not necessarily the way that Government Departments think about these things.

In terms of the costs—businesses will be saying, “If you do this measure, I will have to reduce hiring by this much”—I think we could be moving from relying on what businesses say. I know that many businesses will be engaging with these processes in good faith, but the history, for example with the minimum wage, is for businesses to say, “If you raise this cost there will be dire consequences: job losses will look like x and y,” and in the end that does not turn out to happen because businesses find ways to adapt. That does not mean that will happen this time—there is no guarantee that you can keep pulling off the same trick of raising labour costs and not triggering an impact on employment—but looking for evidence on what has actually happened in response to similar changes in the past or in other countries, rather than relying on what businesses say, might be a better guide. But that might be controversial.

[Chris Law]

Q I am sure you welcome some of the proposed changes to statutory sick pay. One key problem with it is the level of sick pay. People still go to work ill because the level of sick pay is simply not enough: £116.75 averages 18% of the average weekly wage at the moment. That is half the equivalent percentage when it was introduced in the 1970s, and it is the lowest of all OECD countries. Would you like to see a threshold put into the Bill by which that is measured, so that we can get statutory sick pay that stops people going to work when they are ill?

Nye Cominetti: Thank you for the question. I was hoping to get the chance to talk about sick pay specifically. That is one area where the Government have gone halfway to addressing an area of insecurity. Removing the lower earnings limit is great; the lowest earners, mainly women working few hours, all have access to SSP now, which is excellent.

Removing waiting days is an important change as well. It will no longer be the case that you have to wait four days to receive anything and, as you know, for most people who are off sick for a few days with a cold, that is a one or two-day situation, not a week. Those measures are good, but what they do is extend a very low level of coverage to more workers. As you say, we have not resolved the fundamental problem that if SSP is what you rely on, as is the case for a majority of low-paid workers, you will still face a very serious income shock if that is what your employer ends up paying you when you do that.

Raising the level of SSP comes with a much bigger cost. First, it would be employers that would pay it, and then the Government would face a decision about whether to reimburse, perhaps, smaller employers facing the largest cost, as has happened in the past. It is a more costly measure, which is why the Government have not done it, but I hope that they have it on their list to address it soon because, as you say, it remains the case that for our low-paid workers, falling sick means earning less and facing an income shock. I do not think that is right.

You can either look at high-paid workers who do not experience that shock, or you can look at the vast majority of rich countries who have set in place a statutory minimum much higher than we have in the UK. That is not the case in the US, but almost all European countries—not just the Scandinavian countries that we look to as the far end of the scale in terms of welfare state provision, but the vast majority of countries across Europe—have a sick pay system that is much more generous and offers much more protection to workers than does the system in the UK. So yes, I would agree that that remains a glaring unaddressed problem.