Employment Rights Bill (First sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Greg Smith
Main Page: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)Department Debates - View all Greg Smith's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (First sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsTuesday 26th November 2024
(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 November 2024 - (26 Nov 2024)
The Chair
Thank you. I turn to Greg Smith to ask the first question on behalf of the official Opposition.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Q
Jane Gratton: Let me just say that there is a lot in the Bill that represents what good businesses are doing already, but there are five areas where we have received concerns from members. First, on trade union access and ballot thresholds, increasing access and making it easier and quicker for unions to call strike action does not mean that the union is representative of the workforce, and does not improve the relationship with employers. From our members’ point of view, it simply makes it easier to reach an end point that nobody wants. They can see nothing in the Bill to reassure businesses that the relationship will be better, so we do not think that there should be any change to union access or ballot thresholds.
Matthew Percival: Our members support the idea of thoughtfully designed and appropriately enforced employment laws—a strong floor of rights that supports fair competition in the labour market. It is not as simple as saying that employment laws are bad for business; lots of them are very good. That is why we have supported a number in the past, as well as a number of the measures in the Bill, very much as Jane said for her members.
Your question encourages me to give a quick checklist of the top issues, in the order that they come up in the Bill. There are a number of areas of concern around the regulation of zero-hours contracts, which has less to do with zero-hours contracts and more to do with the issue of guaranteed hours within contracts—it is low-hours contracts as well.
We get a number of concerns about the removal of waiting days from statutory sick pay. We get concerns around the landing of probation periods during the initial period of employment, which are more about the tribunal risk than the sorts of processes that employers might put in place. It is the cost of demonstrating compliance, rather than having a good process, that is more of a concern.
In the redundancy space, we are quite concerned about the increase in the frequency with which people will be put at risk of redundancy and the greater uncertainty for people in that environment, and that there might be an unintended kickback for workers. In the fire and rehire proposals, there is a risk that we might be making it easier to make people redundant than to change contracts, so we might go too far and not find that landing zone where it is a last resort short of redundancy.
In the industrial relations space, there are a number of concerns similar to those that Jane outlined. A big one is that there has been a lot of focus on the trigger threshold for whether a ballot for recognition should take place. Between 10% and 2% is what the Bill outlines, but the far more significant change from employers’ perspective is the removal of a requirement for a sufficient level of support in the result of the ballot. There is a risk that it could, in the extreme, become a simple majority vote in which hardly anyone votes in a large workforce but it leads to recognition.
Alex Hall-Chen: I completely agree with what has been said so far. I would add that a key fear for us is the cumulative impact of all the 28 reforms in the Bill coupled with everything else that is happening in the employment space. Taken as a whole, the measures make hiring someone riskier and more expensive for businesses. Our research shows that businesses will hire fewer people as a result.
We polled over 700 business leaders on this topic in August and 57% said that the reforms would make them less likely to hire. I would say that the situation has actually worsened since then, given recent announcements around employers’ national insurance contributions, so the cumulative impact cannot be overstated. For the first time since October 2020 our data is now showing that more business leaders expect to reduce their headcount in the coming year than increase it. The Bill is a key reason for that change.
Greg Smith
Q
Matthew Percival: It is very difficult to put a number to it, because there are so many unanswered questions in areas where details are intended to be put into the Bill at a later stage. That leads to a wide range of potential estimates about the impact of a number of the measures. Work we are doing at the moment will give us updated figures on sentiment around a number of measures. We are looking to publish that soon, and I will make sure that we include those numbers in our written evidence.
Jane Gratton: The feedback we have had from members has been concern about increased cost, complexity and lack of flexibility to manage the workforce in the way that a business needs to. Members say that there would be a reduced hiring appetite were this legislation to come in, and that they would be less likely to recruit new employees due to the risk and difficulty, particularly under the day one rights, unless there were at least a nine-month probation period with a light-touch approach. There would be a preference for contractors and temporary staff, again to reduce the risk and avoid legal complications. To give some figures, 38% said that there would be a hiring freeze, 25% said that the Bill would result in less pay, and 30% spoke of less investment in their business. There would be significant risks and costs, particularly to small and medium-sized enterprises.
Alex Hall-Chen: In addition to considering recruitment levels at the higher level, we are also getting feedback about types of recruitment and the impact that the policies will have on that. We have had a lot of feedback, particularly with respect to day one protection against unfair dismissal, that essentially boils down to the fact that, under the current system, employers are very likely to take a risk on hiring a borderline candidate who may not have quite the right experience or qualifications, but they will now be much less likely to take that risk because the cost of getting it wrong will be considerably higher. I think there are really important questions about what that means for people on the fringes of the labour market, especially as those are precisely the people the Government need to get back into work to meet their 80% employment rate target.
Justin Madders
Q
On a more general point, Jane in particular said that a lot of the businesses you represent do a lot of the things in the Bill already. Do you think it is important that we have a level playing field so that good businesses are encouraged to treat their staff properly?
Jane Gratton: Yes. There has been a cautious welcome for some of the measures in the Bill—lots of businesses agree with the sentiment that it is about fair pay, security and non-discriminatory workplaces—but the question is around the proportionality of the changes that are being introduced in relation to the problem that the Government think needs to be addressed. From a business point of view, it is about the additional complexity and, in respect of some of the detail of the measures, the restrictions that the Bill will impose.
For example, on changing the “one establishment” rule, the feedback from members has been, “For every change, will we have to consult all our employees across all of our businesses, even if they are doing completely different things at different ends of the country, with different levels of skill and job role? It is disruptive for the business and unsettling for every employee.” It is about the detail. In principle we all want these things, but the detail of some of the measures and the impact they are likely to have is causing a lot of concern.
Matthew Percival: You are right to say there is a live consultation on a number of measures, and the consultations on a number of things are promised to come but have not started yet. That is why I resisted putting a figure on what it would currently cost, because there is a wide variance in what that could end up being. We are committed to trying to find a landing zone for the Bill that means that the Government can deliver their ambitions, which include the Bill not having a negative impact on the ambitions around growth or the focus today, outside this room, on the “Get Britain Working” agenda and an 80% employment rate. We want to stitch all those things together and find that landing zone.
It is a credit to you and to colleagues that the engagement we have had up until now has led to things like some movement on the recognition of the importance of a probation period. There is so much in the Bill and we have only really scratched the surface in terms of what we have been able to get into the detail of so far. We are hoping that through this process, and as the Bill progresses through Parliament, we are able to give the same amount of attention to the rest of the Bill.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from David Hale, head of public affairs at the Federation of Small Businesses, and Dom Hallas, executive director of Startup Coalition UK.
We must stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 10.40 am. Would the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?
David Hale: I am David Hale, from the Federation of Small Businesses.
Dom Hallas: I am Dom Hallas, executive director of the Startup Coalition, which is a lobby group for tech start-ups and scale-ups in the UK.
Greg Smith
Q
David Hale: The impact assessment was quite clear that the bill would be more than £5 billion a year. For example, it did not include any of the consequential impacts on businesses from the changes to unfair dismissal. It merely counted the ability of the Government to change. Changes to unfair dismissal are one of the things that businesses flagged, so £5 billion is very much at the low end of that estimate. You may well have seen the Regulatory Policy Committee say yesterday that the impact assessment as a whole is not fit for purpose.
The only question about the £5 billion, or the £5 billion-plus, is where that cost is borne. Obviously, businesses can bear the cost. People who are not in work can bear the cost, or people who are in work can bear the cost through wages or through lower hours. The £5 billion is a very low estimate, but where that cost falls is the more complex question.
Dom Hallas: The starting point from our perspective is that tech start-ups and scale-ups are unusual businesses—unusual small businesses, frankly. They scale rapidly—they can be growing at 50% or 100% a year. They pay unusually well—disproportionately well. The average salary is in the range of £50,000 to £60,000. They change really fast, because they are scaling and doing things really quickly. They treat staff like royalty—they treat them incredibly well—because it is a highly competitive labour market for technology talent, and they need to be able to hire in it.
That means they really value flexibility. I cannot speak to the £5 billion figure, and the reports out today throw some scepticism on that. What I will not do is sit here today and tell you that this piece of legislation would be disastrous for our ecosystem—clearly not—but what it would do is present a series of speed bumps, a series of bumps in the road, for these kinds of businesses, the cumulative effect of which is to chip away at some of the flexibility that our companies prize.
Greg Smith
Q
Do you think the lack of flexibility, or making the rules more rigid, as this Bill does, and some of the factors that previous witnesses talked about—dissuading people to take on new hires and making the risk of new hires that much greater—will dissuade more people from choosing to leave payroll and start up on their own, whether through self-employment or registering a business?
Dom Hallas: I leave self-employment to one side, but from the perspective of an entrepreneur trying to build one of our tech businesses, the truth is that any number of things the Government may or not do in policy are not necessarily what persuades or dissuades someone from starting a business. The reality is that they are probably going to do it anyway. The question is, are we going to make it harder or easier for them? In truth, what we consistently see—and I think this is where you have the conversations around taxation and the Budget layered on top—is the risk of a number of pebbles in the stream for entrepreneurs that will not prevent them from trying to build their business, because they will crack on and try to do it. One of the things we consistently talk to entrepreneurs about when we ask them about policy is, “What are the challenges you face?” The answer they give far too frequently is, “There are loads of things, but we just have to get on with it.”
I put to the Committee that the question is ultimately how we prevent our policy environment from being seen as a barrier to overcome by the entrepreneur community and the founders who are building these kinds of businesses and creating these kinds of jobs. How do we create a situation that is as open and flexible as possible for them to operate and, therefore, a competitive jobs market that will ensure that the workers are treated really well?
Greg Smith
Mr Hale, do you have a view on that perspective?
David Hale: If the Government had a good process for the Bill, which I do not think they do, we would be exploring what the participation harm is. Part of that is not just whether firms choose to recruit, but who they choose to recruit. On the whether, from a small-business perspective, you might get a contract, you might choose to scale to meet it, or you might not. It is not the case that all small businesses will choose to scale regardless. There is a risk there, and if you increase risk, you lessen the chance that somebody will do that. Part of the importance of participation harm is not just whether, but which people are employed.
We know we have a CV culture in this country. We know that managers at all levels—I am talking not only small employers, but managers in small and large businesses—look down CVs and look for gaps. If people find gaps in CVs, we know that in the UK, they are less likely to feel that that is a risk they can bear. If you add risk to employment, part of the problem is not just whether they take that risk, but who they take that risk with.
Small businesses are currently most likely to take that risk. Small businesses currently recruit most from outside the labour market. If they do not do that—and we know that small businesses are responsive to risk—it is not just small businesses that lose out, but the businesses that in turn recruit from them. Larger businesses might well be more likely to recruit someone who has two years at a small business on their CV or experience doing bar work when they were a student, and they might benefit from the introduction to work they have had. But the whether and who is currently missing from the conversation, and I think that is because we have had such a quick process. That is the main thing. Does the Bill help somebody take that leap? The Government should be making that case. I have not seen a case for how the Bill would help somebody want to recruit more.
Greg Smith
Q
David Hale: There seems to be a big question about whether the Bill should be split up. It is a very large Bill. Overwhelm is the primary response. The second response is, to put it politely, bemusement about what the Government are trying to achieve and how these measures are intended to achieve it. We know the very high level, but the high level does not match the measures. If you are talking about security at work, the Bill does not appear to give extra security at work. There is bemusement about that.
Like most of us, small businesses are scared of getting sued, so there is fear about that. The Bill increases the risk of litigation against small businesses. The next question is about the possible harms of the response to that fear, which are things like the participation harm, harm to the work environment, and harm to individuals and the whole economy from the knock-on effects. I am not sure whether there are 28 or 70 measures—maybe some of you could list them all, but I do not think anyone else could. I do not think a small business would be able to tell you what they are or implement them all at once, so there is a question about whether the Bill should be split up.
Dom Hallas: I agree on the scale point. The Bill has a big impact. The top practical concern from a start-up ecosystem perspective is day one rights and exactly what that means. Obviously, there is an open discussion about the probationary period and exactly how that is going to work. From a start-up ecosystem perspective, the core point is ultimately that you have fast-moving businesses whose needs change, and the experiences of employees change.
The practical impact of the Bill in that area will be that people are less likely to continue to take a risk on someone, even when they have hired them after a probation period, because of the changes the Government are looking at. What we will get is a situation where employees who might be doing well, but not as well as you might hope, are more likely to see their employment terminated at that stage, as opposed to over a longer timeframe, with the business saying, “Well, we can’t take the risk.” So there seems to be a perverse incentive that ends up being created.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Ben Willmott, head of public policy for the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development; Cathryn Moses-Stone, head of policy at the Chartered Management Institute; and Carly Cannings, founder of The Happy Business School. Once again, we must stick to the timings on the programme motion, so this session will have to end at 11.25 am. Will the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Ben Willmott: I am Ben Willmott, and I am head of public policy at the CIPD, which is the professional institute for human resources and people development in the UK. We have 160,000 members, who are mainly HR directors, HR managers and HR advisers working as practitioners in organisations across all sizes and sectors of business. We also have about 15,000 self-employed HR consultants among our membership, who work with tens of thousands of small firms to help build their HR and people management capability.
Cathryn Moses-Stone: My name is Cathryn Moses-Stone, and I am head of policy at the Chartered Management Institute. We are the leading professional body dedicated to raising the standards of management and leadership excellence across the UK. We have more than 220,000 members, and more than 150,000 people are currently studying on one of our management and leadership programmes. Our royal charter defines our charitable mission as increasing the number and standard of professionally qualified managers across the UK.
Carly Cannings: I am Carly Cannings, founder of The Happy Business School. I am a workplace culture consultant, and I help organisations to create happy, thriving, people-centric cultures.
Greg Smith
Q
Ben Willmott: There is no doubt that the cumulative impact of the proposed regulatory changes will be significant. Our members are responsible for making changes to employment contracts and workplace policies to ensure they align with any changes in employment legislation. They communicate any changes to staff and, crucially, ensure that managers have information, advice and, where necessary, training so that they meet any new legal obligations in the workplace.
Of course, we know that there will be a likely increase in the number of tribunal applications, which our members will have to respond to. That has not just potential compensation costs; there are HR and management costs to responding to tribunal claims, even those that do not actually make it to tribunal in the end and those that do not have any merit. Without a doubt, there will be a significant impact on workload.
The other point I want to make is that the time resources spent on those activities mean that employers will not have the time to invest in addressing the skills gap, upskilling staff and supporting technology adoption. That is the other challenge, which may undermine the other productive activities that you want HR and people management specialists to engage in.
So, yes, phasing these measures and really thinking about how they will be implementable is really important.
Cathryn Moses-Stone: Echoing Ben’s last point, which moves the discussion on quite nicely, we know that broadly there is quite strong support for the Bill among British managers. We have polled our managers over the past year and the last month, and in the last month over 75% were supportive of improved workers’ rights as a means to boosting productivity and 65% felt that it should be a top national priority. But obviously these are just changes. We know that they are meant to be the catalyst for implementing better working practices and more improved working cultures; the extent to which they can do that will very much depend on the implementation, which depends on the time and the process that we give to the managers who have to deliver it day to day, on the ground, to get it right.
Our data shows that over 82% of people are accidental managers, which means they go into a management position without any formal management training. If you are expecting them to deliver a whole suite of really complicated reforms, we need to ensure that the consultation period is long enough and that they are consulted in the right ways. Also, things like the fair work agency really have to take into consideration what the legislation means for allowing managers and leaders to upskill to deliver things in the right way, and the agency should not assume ill intent as a first port of call but work with people to understand what it might look like for them in practice, when they deliver it in their organisations.
Carly Cannings: I would probably echo the comments of the other panel members. It is not necessarily a case of splitting the Bill up; it is about giving enough time, and enough time with the detail. On reading the Bill initially, it is quite obvious that there are intentionally large gaps, because they are to be filled by secondary legislation for the most part. It is a case of ensuring that employers have enough time to get used to the changes introduced by the broad brush of the Bill, which should then be followed up with further consultation and enough notice on those changes.
Greg Smith
Q
Ben Willmott: We understand that the changes to the unfair dismissal regime in any new initial or statutory probation period will not come in until autumn 2026 at the earliest—that is the sort of timeframe you need to be thinking about. The other thing is that, because of all the other measures, it would help if you could push that out, as that is possibly the most substantive change that will affect all workplaces. If you could phase in some of the other changes over a longer period of time—say three years in total—that would certainly help.
The other point I have been echoing is that ACAS absolutely needs more resources to support the implementation process. We have called for ACAS’s budget to be doubled to £120 million a year. It is really crucial to support compliance, particularly among those small and medium-sized businesses that we know are more likely to fall foul through accidental non-compliance. They are less likely to know what their employment regulation obligations are and have less resources to adapt to the changes.
Cathryn Moses-Stone: Similarly, we would like to see consultation throughout the whole of 2025, which would be a really nice long period to try to understand exactly what the legislation means for managers. When we are looking at training courses and development for managers and leaders, that does not happen overnight. If there is an understanding that there will be a management gap in some particular area of the Bill, you then have adequate time to try to find the ways to support the people delivering it to upskill, so that they can do it in the right way. Although we cannot give specifics, I think 2026 echoes a decent period of time with implementation.
Greg Smith
Q
Cathryn Moses-Stone: I cannot talk to the specifics of the Bill’s initial cost implications, but I can talk to the cost implications of having really highly trained managers in the workplace. When thinking about general management training, we know that chartered managers, on average, boost a business’s revenue by £59,000. We know that the average pay rise of a chartered manager is £13,000. We see in a lot of our data that there is a direct productivity impact on an organisation from having highly skilled, highly trained managers who are able to implement policies that increase retention, retain talent, boost morale and create a more positive workplace culture, which prevents turnover, which saves a business from losing money.
It probably also comes back to the point that managers need time to get it right and to understand it, so that the burden on their business in the long run is not huge because they have the right amount of time to understand how they will work with their employees so that they do not have to escalate everything to tribunal. The early training period is crucial for the wider cost savings, because we know that there are lots of concerns from businesses on these issues, as well as the broader sentiment of being in support of the Bill.
Ben Willmott: One of the challenges for a business looking to upskill its managers is that that will incur a cost. If we look at the proposed increases in employment costs overall, we see those from the different measures in the Bill and those from the changes in the Budget, which also need to be taken into account. Businesses will have to find the money to upskill and train their managers. That is one reason why we are saying that ACAS needs to be resourced, particularly to help those smaller businesses that are more resource-challenged and have less knowledge and capability around the HR and people-management side of the business, which is so important to this.
Carly Cannings: Ben made a really important point about making sure that small businesses are adequately resourced to deal with the changes. I am, as many employers are—as the statistics bear out—very supportive of raising the standards of employment, and the Bill certainly takes a step in the right direction towards raising standards. The balance that needs to be struck is about making sure that employers, and particularly small employers, are able to cope with the changes.
There are lots of businesses out there already doing really good things, and some of the things in the Bill will be measures, practices and policies that lots of employers already have in place. That is not the case for everyone and, in particular, that might not be the case for small businesses. Echoing Ben’s point, small businesses are more likely to fall foul of the legislation accidentally, rather than intentionally, because they do not have the right access to support and advice in the same way. That is an important point that must not be missed.
Cathryn Moses-Stone: Would it be all right if I added a point? It is true, obviously, that there is a cost to training managers, but that is why we are also really concerned about the proposed defunding of the level 7 apprenticeships, because there will be a huge knock-on impact. Potentially, a huge skills gap could open up in highly trained management across the UK, at a time when businesses are going to be required to know their staff and to implement the legislation in the right way. We are concerned about how that aligns with the development and delivery of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Q
I have a more general question about what you see as the current weaknesses in the employment rights sphere. What do we need to do to give people more protection and security at work? Do you think the Bill addresses that?
Ben Willmott: The introduction of the fair work agency—a single enforcement body—is a positive step forward, but there needs to be further thought about how to improve the labour market enforcement system. We need a long-term strategy to improve labour market enforcement that includes not just a fair work agency but the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Health and Safety Executive, not in a single enforcement body but as part of the strategy. We need measures to improve the efficiency of the employment tribunal system, which we know is swamped, and we need to increase the overall number of labour market inspectors—by international standards the UK is under-resourced on the number of inspectors.
As I have said before, we also need to significantly increase ACAS’s budget so that it can help small firms to comply. If labour market enforcement is about getting the carrot and stick balance right, that is why it is so crucial that ACAS can play that role in helping to raise employment standards. Businesses that are not bad employers—those that are poorly resourced, or might be knowledge-poor or time-poor, particularly micro and small firms—tend to fall foul of legislation because of those issues, not because of any malicious intent.
Cathryn Moses-Stone: I will start with the latter part of the question. We have a lot of data showing the impact of good management practice on both productivity and an improved workplace culture. Much of the Bill falls into that camp. For example, we know that one third of employees have cited negative work culture as a driver for leaving their organisation. That is obviously driven by ineffective management. We know that when managers in organisations have mutual trust and respect with their direct reports, they find that productivity rises. Poorly managed teams have lower motivation, satisfaction and retention. We believe a lot of the elements of the Bill are tied up in driving much of that in a positive way.
The things we are worried about, which echo what I have said before and what Ben has said, come down to implementation—that is, what the fair work agency looks like, how it behaves, how it supports, and how it gives space for managers to upskill. We know that 40% of our managers have expressed some concern about the detail of some of the policy, such as the right to disconnect. For example, what defines business-critical comms, versus just maintaining team comms?
We know that with high-quality management training—helping people to understand how to have difficult conversations, prioritise and have emotional intelligence—people can navigate those things much more effectively in the workplace. Our worry is about what the implementation will look like and about how managers and leaders will be supported in respect of the fair work agency.
Carly Cannings: I think the Bill is about raising minimum standards. As I said previously, a lot of employers are doing a lot of good things. Let us be realistic about the impact of the Bill: it is about raising minimum standards. Cathryn alluded to the bigger picture of creating happy, thriving workplace cultures, and it goes far further than that. This is not a call for further legislation; for me, legislation is about raising minimum standards. There is so much more outside and beyond legislation that makes a real difference to whether somebody has a happy, thriving workplace culture, and the benefits of that culture.
Thank you, Cathryn. You have done a very good job of outlining the things that I see in reality and when working with my clients—the factors that play a part in creating a workplace culture. Like I said, for me the Bill is about raising minimum standards.
Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Greg Smith
Main Page: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)Department Debates - View all Greg Smith's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsTuesday 26th November 2024
(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 November 2024 - (26 Nov 2024)
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Q
Good afternoon. May I start with Mr Simpson? UKHospitality has been quite critical of this Bill in the media and in a wider setting. You have just said you represent a very large number of people. Do you think after this Bill is passed and becomes an Act—I think we can safely assume it will, with the parliamentary arithmetic at the moment—there will be more, or fewer, people employed in hospitality in the United Kingdom?
Allen Simpson: I would slightly reject your characterisation. I think in general we agree with the principles behind the reforms, and many of the substantial reforms themselves. There are areas where we will have to nuance the detail of things like reference periods and zero-hours contracts—we will get into that, I am sure. My bigger concern, however, is the aggregate costs of what we saw in the Budget with the regressive impact on lower earners in particular. Will this create more or fewer jobs? I think the Government’s analysis suggests that it is fewer, but let us balance that against making sure that workers’ rights are protected.
Greg Smith
Q
Allen Simpson: I have a red, amber and green list in front of me, so I can tell you what is on the red if that is useful. First, it is the aggregate cost: the cost of this, alongside the employer national insurance and national living wage increases, is going to be a barrier to employment. You can take the 50,000 job losses that the Government’s impact assessment describes or the 100,000 that Deutsche Bank have, but there is an aggregate cost question.
More specifically, there is a question around the variation of contracts—we can talk about that in more detail—and making sure that that protects against what we can probably call a P&O event. Equally, we need to allow for like a restaurant moving from one high-street premises to another so that contracts are not accidentally novated. There are questions around how we manage union thresholds, which we need to think through in detail. Those would be my reds, but equally, I have ambers and greens as well.
Greg Smith
Q
Allen Simpson: There is something around statutory sick pay, which is worth considering. There is a tendency, when we look at what a good job means, to build around the paradigm of an office, when working in hospitality—not unlike my wife, who is a nurse, working in a medical setting—is a different way of working. We need to think about whether or not sick pay kicking in from day two might be more appropriate than day one. Equally, I have an amber around the notice of shifts and how we manage things like major events at Ascot, Wembley or anywhere else. You did not ask, but I will say that for green, I am very supportive of changes in general to zero-hours contracts.
Greg Smith
Q
Allen Simpson: It is about 17% in total. If you look at who those people are, they are largely who you would think—students and people with caring responsibilities. I think about my mum, who worked on what we would now call a zero-hours contract while raising me and my brothers. That 17% is going to skew younger and largely skew female. There is a really interesting question around making sure you have a legal structure that allows people who want to work flexibly to do it, but also making sure that the people who want to work in a more settled, structured way—maybe because they have more responsibilities financially—to be able to do that as well. I broadly think the proposals in the Bill are the right ones.
I have a question about the reference period. I know Ireland has a 52-week reference period for estimating what your set of regular hours is, which possibly feels too long. I have always held 26 weeks in mind as a number which allows you to cope with things like seasonal working, but equally allows the worker the right to choose whether they want to work flexibly or in a more fixed way.
Greg Smith
Q
Allen Simpson: I come back to the point that you need the right legal structure. I think it is legitimate for someone who in practice is working 30 hours a week regularly and has been doing so for the last year to ask for that to be reflected in a different form of contract. That is absolutely right. It is worth saying that the data shows—and it does not matter how you look at this—that most people on zero-hours contracts are happy with that. In fact, if you advertise a zero-hours contract, you will get more applicants. To a degree, as long as it is in the gift of the employee to say, “Well, I am working these regular hours and I want that reflected in a permanent contract”, that is the right balance. However, it is important that the Government move their thinking, as they have, to recognise that zero-hours contracts are a really important social fairness point because they allow access to work for people who cannot necessarily offer their employer set hours every week—again, I come back to my mum when I was a kid. Having that distinction in law is really important.
Greg Smith
Q
Neil Carberry: I will not repeat what Allen said about the aggregate cost of the Bill, but clearly it is an enormous piece of legislation, coming at a time when businesses—particularly consumer-facing businesses—have been through the pandemic, are carrying more debt and are struggling to drive the growth that the Government want. Among my members, as with many business organisations, the tone of the debate about the Bill was changed by the Budget. That was particularly around the shift on the threshold, which directly pushes up the costs of all of the people for whom an employer’s decision to hire is maybe more marginal. I associate myself with Allen’s comments on that.
More specifically, for those who are not familiar with it, our sector places 1 million people into new permanent jobs every year, but it placed 1 million people as temporary workers into workplaces today. So I come at this from the point of view of what do those people need to have good, positive, healthy working lives. Colleagues may remember the attempt to change the conduct regulations to allow agency workers to replace striking workers, which we opposed, because at the REC we believe in protecting temps and putting them in the right space.
The most important thing for our sector is the proposal to apply the same tests and rules on zero-hours contracts to agency workers as to directly employed workers. I will be really frank about that: there is a power in the Bill, we have been through the consultation, and we cannot see how any of the approaches in the consultation work. For some of the reasons that Allen has set out, agency workers are well protected. They benefit from the Employment Agencies Act 1973, from their own set of conduct regulations—the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, passed by the last Labour Government—and from the Agency Workers Regulations 2010.
There is a lot we can do to deliver the Government’s commitment to more certainty for agency workers—it is just not by applying the powers in the Bill. We fear that the Government are trying to avoid direct employers moving to agency to avoid the powers in the Bill. A few direct employers doing that is not worth damaging the employment prospects of 1 million people. For instance, if a supply teacher in a school has worked the autumn term to cover a sickness absence, and then the absent teacher comes back, we cannot see how giving that supply teacher a right to a contract from that school is good for the school or the supply teacher. Ultimately, we think that we will just see a move to using more overtime and lengthening the working hours of existing staff. That will be net negative for the workforce.
I think there are things that we can do on the zero-hours rules to protect agency workers, but it is not applying the proposals in the Bill. More generally, I think our members would say that the Bill feels a little undercooked in its thinking. I think it is a very quick Bill, and that there is quite a lot in it that employment lawyers and our members are looking at and thinking, “How would that work?” A classic example would be the collective consultation sections of the Bill. I do not think it is in anyone’s interests for large companies employing thousands of people to be stuck in perpetual collective consultation when they are shutting down one site with 20 people in it. That is just an example of one of the things that maybe need to be worked out through regulation—lots of this is in regulation—but we need to ensure that we are not putting up barriers to employment with the Bill.
Justin Madders
Q
Allen Simpson: It is more about the unknown. Again, reasonable notice is an important principle and there should be protections. I think that the challenge will be—I notice, by the way, from what I understand from having read what is, again, a complex and lengthy piece of work, that the Government are intending to leave it to case law and employment tribunal systems to figure out what “reasonable notice” means. In general, with different sorts of work, it is reasonable to say that there are different versions of what “reasonable notice” means. If I were going to go and work on an oil rig for three months, I would want more notice of a change of shifts than if I was going to work in the local pub. Therefore, I think it is partly about figuring out what the right starting position for notice is. It is partly about reflecting differences in things, such as whether it comes with a residential element; there are questions around that.
Then there are some practical things that I think will come out in the wash, but do need considering, such as shift swapping. What if two chefs say, “Do you mind covering Saturday, because I want to go out with my friends?” “Yes, of course; that’s fine.” Is that allowed, or can that decision only be taken outwith that notice period? There are also questions around other things. What if you put out a message saying, “There is a shift available; does anybody want it?” Have you made an offer of employment to everybody you have put that message out to? Is there a time after which you are not allowed to do that? One last thing: what if somebody agrees to move their shifts around—so you say on the Friday, “Do you mind coming in this Saturday and you can have next Saturday off?” “Yes, absolutely. Fine.” Is that acceptable?
Therefore, there are there are some practical questions about, first of all, the principle of different suitable notices of shifts depending on different forms of work, and about some practicalities, which I am sure are solvable, around the management of it.
The Chair
Good afternoon. We will now hear oral evidence from Jamie Cater, the senior policy manager for employment at Make UK, and Jim Bligh, the director of corporate affairs for the Food and Drink Federation. We have until 3 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Jamie Cater: I am Jamie Cater, the senior policy manager for employment at Make UK.
Jim Bligh: I am Jim Bligh, the director of corporate affairs at the Food and Drink Federation. We represent thousands of businesses around the UK in the food and drink manufacturing industry in every constituency in the country.
Greg Smith
Q
Jamie Cater: It is worth starting by saying that we welcome the underpinning principles of the Bill. UK manufacturers are committed to providing good, well-paid work. We think that genuine exploitation and bad practice in the labour market should be addressed, so we are supportive of a lot of what the Government are trying to achieve through this legislation.
There are specific measures that reflect policy recommendations that Make UK has made previously on behalf of manufacturers—for example, the extension of eligibility for statutory sick pay, making it an entitlement from day one of sickness and removing the lower earnings limit. We think that is the right thing to do, although we would like to see additional financial support for the smallest employers to help with the cost burden of that—a rebate scheme, as there was during the covid-19 pandemic. Our members also support some of the measures on things such as equal pay, parental leave and family-friendly rights.
I would list four areas of concern for us: two on individual rights and two on collective rights. On individual rights, we have some concerns around the detail of the implementation of the right to guaranteed hours. Some of that detail around the definition of regular working hours and the scope and structure of the 12-week reference period for that right to guaranteed hours will come forward in the secondary legislation. Secondly, we have concerns about the structure of the statutory probation period that will accompany the day one protection from unfair dismissal.
On collective rights, the first area of concern is around consultation requirements for collective redundancy and the impact that that will have on businesses, particularly large businesses, in our sector. We have concerns about the extent to which they will be required to consult and the potential disruption associated with that. The second area is dismissal and re-engagement, or fire and rehire, where there is a very high bar set. We think it is right that there is a robust approach to that practice and we have supported previous measures, such as the existing code of practice. But we are concerned that the approach taken in this legislation might restrict the ability of employers to take the action they need to take and that the way the measure is worded in the Bill is currently too restrictive.
Jim Bligh: We pride ourselves on being good employers of the half a million people around the country who are sector employees. We simply would not be able to feed our population of 70 million people without their commitment, hard work and dedication.
We know that a flexible labour market is the hallmark of a growing economy, and we are keen to protect that. We are very receptive to a lot of the ideas in the Bill, thinking about maternity and paternity provision, the pregnancy improvements, the lower earnings limit for the statutory sick pay rules—which is a sensible thing now we have moved away from that being a state benefit —and the recognition of the importance of flexible working, which our sector offers, too. We are strongly supportive of a single enforcement agency.
There are some areas we would like Government to look at in a bit more detail, and to consult fully with businesses in a way that follows best practice, through 12-week consultations in particular. We note with interest the concerns that the Regulatory Policy Committee expressed yesterday in its analysis.
For us, there are five areas where we think Government could work with businesses and unions to come up with a pragmatic solution that will help meet the objectives of both. For us, those are around unfair dismissal and probation periods; collective redundancies and similar concerns to those other witnesses have expressed today; some technicalities around zero-hours contracts and, specifically, definitions; flexible working and the admin burden that that poses for smaller businesses, now the burden of proof is shifting; and some concerns about the secondary powers of Ministers, which are quite wide-ranging, particularly on ballot thresholds. Broadly, however, we are receptive to the ideas in the Bill, and we look forward to working with Government to implement them.
Greg Smith
Q
Jim Bligh: Unfair dismissal and the probation periods are a concern for us. Most of our sector uses three or six-month probation periods now. About 85% of our members have told us that that is what they will use. About 6% use 12 months. There would be, I think, a concern about a nine-month period—the reduction from two years. It is critical that performance management from day one does not put a significant burden on SMEs in particular, and it is important that we keep the flexibility. If something is not right for the employee and not right for the employer—that performance is not there, that quality standards or whatever are not met—there should be flexibility in ending that employment relationship, on both sides.
What concerns us about the Bill’s proposals is that young people or people re-entering the workforce—which rightly is a priority for Government as well, and I note that Liz Kendall is speaking about this in the House at the moment—could be shut out under the changes that are coming through in the Bill. Our proposal would be to revert to a 12-month probation period. Obviously, people automatically qualify for unfair dismissal on some elements. It is right that those elements are retained, but it is important to us that you keep that flexibility from 12 months, that you have a light-touch approach and a process there as well, but also that we have enough time to implement.
What concerns us is that we are talking now about changes that will come in, I think, in two years’ time—that is a commitment from Government. That period is welcome, but we are not certain what the final provisions of the Bill will be. There is a long commitment to consultation, which we also welcome. Our proposal would be to implement two years after Royal Assent, to make sure that that concrete security and guarantee is there and that the goalposts are not shifted for employees and employers as they start.
Jamie Cater: I would echo that and agree with those comments. Stepping back slightly to look at the bigger picture, it has become difficult for us, with members, to separate out the impact of the legislation and the impact of the autumn Budget—the increase in employer NICs in particular, but in general the tax burden on businesses. That, taken together with the measures in the Bill, increases the cost and the admin associated with taking on people. There is a risk that that disproportionately impacts people on the edges of the labour market, I suppose.
It is very welcome that the Work and Pensions Secretary is today talking about how to reduce economic inactivity, particularly focusing on skills and health. We really support that focus, but there is a danger that the measures in the Bill, combined with the total cost impact, will make employers less likely to take that risk on someone.
On the protection for unfair dismissal in the statutory probation period, we typically hear from members that the usual approach would be to have a six-month probation period in an employment contract. They might then have a bit of additional flexibility for someone who is a borderline candidate if they need to be kept on probation for a bit longer, perhaps if they need a bit more skills training, experience or additional guidance in something before a firm decision is made about permanent recruitment.
Members often talk to us about effectively a six plus three model, where there is a contractual six-month probation period with the flexibility for an additional three months’ probation if there is a bit of uncertainty. The Government’s stated preference for a nine-month statutory probation period feels about right. That is probably the minimum; we would not want to see it go any lower than that. I think our preference would be 12 months, just to give that additional leeway, but nine months is probably about right for what we see reflected in standard practice from our members.
Justin Madders
Q
Jamie Cater: To come back to the impact of things like statutory sick pay, I think that will help with productivity and retention. We see a huge amount of feedback from member companies about their own investment in health and wellbeing, and the positive impact of that in keeping people in work, helping with productivity and reducing presenteeism. I think the measures on statutory sick pay will help with all those things, including reducing long-term sickness absence, reducing presenteeism and improving people’s productivity. I think all those measures are really positive.
However, what we need to be careful of, and what we are concerned about—going back again to the impact of the Bill alongside the autumn Budget—is that it does not reduce or restrict employers’ ability to continue to invest in all those other things that also improve productivity. We have heard concerns about impacts on training budgets, internal budgets for things like occupational health and wellbeing, and investment in technology and new machinery that can help workers to become more productive and efficient. There is a risk that some of the costs associated with the Bill and the autumn Budget mean that those internal investment budgets will be squeezed. There is an opportunity, through some of the measures in the Bill, to improve productivity and improve security for people in the labour market, but we need to ensure that some of those other measures are not undermining those benefits.
Jim Bligh: I agree with that as well, and I endorse everything that Jamie just said. I think that the statutory sick pay clarifications are particularly helpful, and the clarity on parental leave should be helpful too. Flexibility is also important, and we need to ensure that the flexible working practices that are already widespread in our sector, as I know they are in other sectors as well, are protected and clear. I think there are concerns that potentially outweigh some of those benefits, which we are very keen to explore with the Government through the consultation periods.
Greg Smith
Q
Gemma Griffin: Just to make it clear, we are talking about seafarers, so I am not here to represent the shore-based colleagues in our organisation. As it stands, I do not believe—my learned colleagues beside me have more experience with shore-based stuff—that our seafarers are currently covered by the Bill. My understanding is that there is an opportunity today to talk to your good selves about ways or mechanisms by which we may be able to enshrine something for seafarers, so that they can be afforded similar rights and opportunities as shore-based workers.
The key point in the Bill currently relates to fire and rehire. That is the sort of stuff that we as DFDS are very pleased that you will be banning, and I hope that it does actually refer to seafarers as well. For us, that is the biggest concern among the many others that we have, as an operator that is simply looking for a fair and level playing field. That is particularly the case when we talk about the straits of Dover, where we move from UK territorial waters straight into French territorial waters, with no international waters where one might use the normal ways of international seafaring legislation. We are really hoping that we can capture some of the things that we believe our seafarers are at risk of losing if we do not extend the legislation to them in whatever way we can.
Greg Smith
Q
Gemma Griffin: Our land-based staff are already covered.
Greg Smith
But on the question about the unintended consequences of elements of the Bill—
Gemma Griffin: Do I see any unintended consequences for our land-based employees?
Greg Smith
Yes.
Gemma Griffin: No, is the answer, because we are very much trying to create a situation in which our colleagues have rights and are treated fairly. The most important thing is that there is a level playing field and that whoever operates in the same space as us, the law applies to them. If we are all UK-based and have UK contracts, I imagine that would be the case.
To make it clear, my area of expertise is seafarers. I am not really involved on the UK side, so I do not want to overreach and maybe show my absolute ignorance in that respect. I apologise.
Greg Smith
Mr Gray?
Martyn Gray: To clarify, I am a director of organising for a trade union, so I will answer from the perspective of whether the legislation goes far enough, if that is okay.
Greg Smith
Sure.
Martyn Gray: No, is the very short answer to that. It needs to go further in terms of protections for those who work at sea. There are still monumental gaps in the protections that are afforded to seafarers compared with the protections afforded to land-based workers, even under existing employment legislation, and those gaps still need to be closed up.
This legislation comes some of the way to addressing some of the challenges we saw in the wake of the decision by P&O Ferries to terminate, without notice and without consideration, 786 people in March 2022, but it still does not go far enough to place the rights and protections of those who work at sea on parity with the rights and protections of those who work in shore-based roles and with shore-based employment contracts. More still needs to be done, and more can still be done, that will allow for greater protections to be delivered for those who work at sea. That is fully within the remit of this Parliament to legislate for.
Mick Lynch: From my point of view, I do not think there will be unintended consequences. I hope the intended consequences go far enough, but maybe we will have to have more legislation. We had lots of legislation against the unions under previous Governments, so hopefully we can get more legislation in favour of workers and their organisations.
The Bill does not go far enough, but we can improve it during this process. One of the things we would like to see is the power for trade unions to get redress—injunctive power—against people like P&O, which was never considered. We were told that if we took action against P&O—and there was a slim possibility of it—we could be liable for all its revenue loss for every day of trading, which could have been up to £15 million or £20 million a day. That is impossible for workers and their organisations to take forward.
You have to remember that P&O deliberately broke the law to get rid of its workforce and to undermine good shipping companies. We have employers such as P&O and Irish Ferries working out of our ports that undermine good businesses. I just caught the end of the previous session, when the witnesses hoped that there would be a lifting of all boats—to use that pun—to create a playing field that is fairer. It will never be completely level, but it would be fairer on all the good businesses in Britain—British businesses and those working in Britain—to make the pirates, which is what we consider P&O to be, come up to the standards of everyone else doing business here. Businesses should treat their workers well, treat the environment well and treat their passengers well. If you do all those things, you will run a successful business despite a marginal increase in overhead.
Let us not forget that people like P&O are dramatically resourced by the richest people on the globe. P&O deliberately took that step to exploit our laws—as poor as they were, left to us by previous Governments—because it knew it would get away with it. What P&O has got to be aware of in the future is that it will not get away with it without consequences for its business and reputation. Unfortunately, the previous Government allowed P&O to shed its skin and leave it behind, along with all those people it made unemployed, and carry on as if nothing had happened. That is a shame on all those people who allowed P&O to do that.
Greg Smith
Q
Mick Lynch: Not particularly. We make arrangements with our employers—we have private sector employers and public sector employers—through collective agreements. I imagine that we will always create decent arrangements with all our employers, whether they are road transport, rail or maritime, about appropriate release for our people, so that is not a thing that concerns us overly at this time.
Martyn Gray: I have no particular concerns about the way facility time seems to be structured. I think overall it will prove to be beneficial. I know there are some in the trade union movement who would like to see more on that, but again, I think that, with the maritime aspect and the practicalities of working around that, what is proposed in the Bill is helpful.
Gemma Griffin: There is not a problem from our perspective. We see both RMT and Nautilus as partners in our endeavours to do the right thing for our people, so we are fully supportive.
Greg Smith
Q
Paul Nowak: I think this will be the biggest upgrade to workers’ and trade union rights in a generation. It is very likely that we will see increased unionisation as a result of the Bill, and I think that would be a good thing. Bodies as disparate as the International Monetary Fund and the OECD have talked about the benefits of unions and collective bargaining in modern economies—benefits in terms of improved productivity and business performance, but also benefits for workers in terms of increased pay, better access to things like skills and more equal and fair workplaces. I do not think there is a direct link; you do not pass a piece of legislation and trade union membership and collective bargaining go up, but the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016 and the repeal of the minimum service level legislation—the strikes Act—and other measures in the Bill will help unions to organise. That will be good for employees and good for workers, but good for employers and good for the UK economy as well.
Greg Smith
Q
Paul Nowak: It is important to put that £5 billion into a figure; that is something like 0.4% of the overall wage bill. The TUC has published research today, again involving very moderate estimates. In the impact assessment, the Government talked about potential benefits to the economy from this Bill, in terms of things like improved staff retention, improved productivity and bringing back into work people who are currently outside the labour market—there are now 900,000 or so less people in the labour market than there were before the pandemic. At a very moderate estimate, we believe that that will generate £13 billion for the UK economy.
For a small number of employers, there will undoubtedly be increased costs. If you do not pay sick pay from day one at the moment, or if you use zero-hours contracts, it may well cost you more. Those benefits will transfer directly to low-paid insecure workers. I think it is really important to make the point that most employers do not use zero-hours contracts. Most workers in this country are entitled to sick pay from day one. This Bill levels the playing field for those good employers who, at the moment, are in danger of being undercut by those who play more fast and loose with the livelihoods of their workforces.
Maggi Ferncombe: From Unison’s perspective, the Bill means that in certain sectors, workers will no longer be dispensable. There are some really perilous conditions out there for some of our workers, and we all know that valued workers who are paid a good salary and have better security at work are more productive. In our sector, we find that the public service is then better for service users, it is better for society and it will be better for the economy.
Dave Moxham: I will be brief. We have a productivity problem in Scotland and across the UK, and that is largely because workers are not, either collectively or individually, being sufficiently engaged or consulted, and they are not being sufficiently used to drive productivity and success within their own workplaces. Trade unionism, in my experience, helps with that. We are day and daily inundated with problems in workplaces that are not unionised, which have to be dealt with in other ways. The employment tribunal is full of these situations. Our experience, and it is long held, is that trade-unionised workplaces actually avoid those problems. I would say that we are fortunate in Scotland—it is not perfect—to already have a Government who recognise that collective bargaining and fair work are drivers for success, and I very much hope that this Bill will add strength to that for us and see that approach reflected across the whole of the UK.
Hannah Reed: Thank you very much for the question. We represent working people—that is what trade unions are. Overall, we represent nearly 7 million working people within this country. Being part of a trade union brings clear benefits for working people. It provides them with better legal representation and representation in the workplace to resolve issues at work. It will often provide them with better access to training, and it will provide them with better career opportunities.
We very much hope that this Bill will encourage and enable more people to make the positive choice of joining a trade union, and that could be done by providing a right of access to millions of workers. Regrettably, the majority of workers in this country do not have the option at the moment to meet with a trade union in the workplace. We hope that the Bill, through measures on the fair pay agreement, the new negotiating arrangements on school support staff and the changes to statutory recognition, will enable more workers to have a say over their pay terms and conditions. We also hope that, through the introduction of statutory equality rights, the Bill will ensure that issues such as harassment, bullying, sex discrimination and unequal pay in the workplace can be properly addressed in this country to ensure that all companies meet those standards. We know there are good companies that meet good standards in the workplace, but we would like to see more companies and organisations meeting those standards, and we very much hope that this Bill is a starting point for ensuring that everyone has a decent working life.
Greg Smith
Q
Hannah Reed: There are already statutory definitions in legislation of who is a worker. It will generally be workers—in some instances, it will be employees—who will benefit from the range of rights in this legislation. Our trade unions are also looking forward to working with the Government on their forthcoming review of employment status, the purpose of which may well be to look at extending protections for self-employed workers, such as freelancers and others.
Unite represents a lot of self-employed workers in the construction industry who are not self-employed by choice, and they have fewer rights as a result. We would like workers who face a higher risk of injury in the workplace and who often lose out on pay and conditions, as well as freelancers and others, to have full employment rights. We are working initially from the definitions of “worker” and “employee” that are set out in law, but we very much look forward to the Government bringing forward measures to extend protections to all working people.
Greg Smith
Q
Paul Nowak: Can I make a point first about the symbiotic nature of the relationship between Labour and the unions? We certainly have a shared history and shared values, and in some cases we have unions that are affiliated to the Labour party. The TUC represents those 5.3 million workers regardless of who is in government, and it does not have a formal relationship with the Labour party. Our job as trade unionists is always to want more and better for working people. I think it is important to recognise that this will be the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in decades—I was going to say in a generation, but it is more than that. It will directly benefit millions of working people.
I came in at the end of the last panel, and Mick was talking about sectoral collective bargaining. The Government have indicated that the first fair pay agreement will be in social care. We would love to see that approach—those fair pay agreements—rolled out to other sectors of the economy. That is a point that we will make going forward.
It would be churlish not to accept that the Bill is a big upgrade to workers’ rights and to union rights. This will be the first time that a Government have repealed anti-union legislation in my 35 years as a union activist, and I think it is really important that they do. If we take the minimum service levels legislation as an example, we always warned that it would be unworkable. It was red-flagged by the Regulatory Policy Committee and by the Government’s own impact assessment when it was introduced, and not a single employer has ever used the legislation. We will be positive; there will always be more that we would like any Government to do on behalf of working people, but this is a really important piece of legislation.
Maggi Ferncombe: I agree. To be frank, as the largest trade union in the country, the political stripe of the Government does not matter to us; we will obviously do what we can to improve public services and the terms and conditions and salaries of workers in those public services. You asked what more we would want, but, to be honest with you, we want an extension of what is already in the Bill: the opportunity to have some sort of legal mechanism for collective claims. Individual workers, unions when they are involved, employers and employment tribunals spend hundreds and hundreds of hours trying to deal with individual claims from individual workers. An unintended consequence would be the savings to employers from not having to deal with individual claims that take years to go through tribunals. If there was an opportunity to have a mechanism to deal with it collectively, it would save everyone time and money, including employers.
Dave Moxham: We have a disproportionate number of zero-hours contracts in Scotland, probably because we have proportionally more small businesses as part of the UK economy. We welcome the moves in the Bill to address that. I heard the evidence given by the last panel, and from our perspective the majority of employers do not use them but they have an intensive impact. For the last 10 years, the STUC has run a campaign called BetterThanZero, which goes out daily and talks to these workers, who are predominantly, but far from all, young workers. The impact on their lives—ergo the impact on the economy because of their lack of stability, certainty and security—has a far wider effect than on just the individual and cannot be overestimated. When we look at the provisions currently in the Bill, we certainly believe that what defines a short-hours contract and some of the other things that have yet to be decided need to be quite strong. If you go on to the internet, you can already see discussions among employers about how they will circumvent the proposals, so that will be one area where we will be looking for strength.
Hannah Reed: There is an awful lot to welcome in the Bill, and I will not take up the Committee’s time by listing it. We can submit evidence to you on equality rights, trade union rights and so on.
Like all Committee members, I am sure, we are keen to ensure that the Bill comes out as watertight legislation that makes a real difference to people’s rights. There are some elements of the Bill where we would want to continue working with you as a Committee and with the Government to tighten up what we consider to be potential loopholes, and I will briefly name three areas.
The first is the provisions on fire and rehire. Unite’s concerns are that some of the uses of heavy-handed tactics by employers that we saw during the pandemic and since could still be lawful under this Bill. We are concerned that employers may be able to justify fire and rehire in certain circumstances, and our view is that there needs to be a total ban. We are not confident that the employment tribunals will look behind the corporate veil or question an employer’s arguments for why they needed to use fire and rehire tactics, so we do not think it goes far enough. Importantly, there is nothing in the Bill at the present time that stops the employer from sacking the workforce. While we welcome the Government’s consultation on interim relief, we, like previous participants. would like to see some measures before that that stop the employer and require them to open their books to demonstrate to forensic accountants that changes are needed, and to provide a genuine opportunity for negotiation with trade unions. We are very equipped; we know what needs to be done if changes are needed.
Secondly, we would like to see further measures in the Bill to extend collective bargaining. Very briefly, we recognise that there are important measures on statutory recognition in the Bill, but we would like the Government to consider going further, particularly to ensure that laws prevent the abusive practices seen in the recent Amazon campaign. We would also like faster routes to recognition. Workers often have to wait for six months and are repeatedly asked, “Do you want statutory recognition?” They repeatedly say, “Yes, we want statutory recognition,” but employers are given time to fight against the workers’ will. We think there should be a faster route to automatic recognition.
The last point I would raise is on access. I have already talked about the benefits of working people having the opportunity to meet with trade unions in the workplace, to tackle discrimination and press for better pay and conditions through negotiation. We would like to ask the Government to look at the access measures, to see if there are ways of having a default or free-standing right of access so working people have a genuine right to democracy and representation at work.
Justin Madders
Q
Paul Nowak: The research was based on a very modest estimate, taken from the Government’s own suggestions that there would be improvements on things like productivity, reducing absenteeism and bringing back into the workforce people who currently find it difficult to access the workforce, for example because they have caring responsibilities or a need to balance work and family life. We assumed a 1% uptick across those measures —as I say, a very modest assessment—which meant £13 billion-worth of positive impact on the UK economy.
In many ways, this just reflects what already happens in unionised workplaces. One of the things I do as the general secretary of the TUC is to visit places up and down the country, large and small. Some of the most successful and most productive employers in this country —whether it is Airbus, Jaguar Land Rover, Rolls-Royce or, indeed, our largest private sector retailer—are employers who have close working relationships with trade unions and treat their staff with respect.
This legislation is really important, Minister, because it does what it says on the tin. It is about making work pay, and for far too many people in this country, work does not pay at the moment. We have a problem with low-paid, insecure employment, with over a million people on zero-hours contracts. Overwhelmingly, when you ask those individuals if they would like the right to guaranteed hours, poll after poll shows that 80%-plus say they would. When you play that out in practice—I know that the Work Foundation did some work with Wetherspoons. When Wetherspoons offered their staff a choice between zero hours and guaranteed hours, 99% of their staff took the guaranteed hours. That is good for those workers, but it is also good for employers, because workers who are securely employed, who feel good about their work and who are supported at work are more productive, and employers are more likely to invest in them. I genuinely believe that this legislation is win-win—it is a win for employees and workers but a win for employers as well, and it is good for the UK economy overall.
Greg Smith
Q
Jemima Olchawski: At Fawcett, we really welcome the Bill. Overall, we still have an economy and workplaces that consistently disadvantage and exclude women. That means that they are much more likely to be on zero-hours contracts, to be in low-paid work and to be held back by a lack of access to quality flexible part-time work. Each of those issues is intensified for most black and minoritised women, and for disabled women. The situation results in serious consequences for individual women. We have a gender pay gap of just under 14%. On average, women take home just over £630 a month less than men. It also has a detrimental impact on our economy, because it is a marker of the ways in which women are not fully participating or contributing to the economy at their full potential. Estimates indicate that that means we are missing out on tens of billions of pounds of GDP.
We strongly support the measures as an important step towards redressing that balance. In particular, we are pleased to see the inclusion of equalities action plans as an important way to get employers to drive forward progress on the gender pay gap. We are glad to see the emphasis on the importance of flexible working and the day one right to statutory sick pay, which will have a disproportionate beneficial impact on women, as well as further protection from sexual harassment in the workplace. Some 40% of women experience sexual harassment at some point during their career.
There are areas where we would like to see additional inclusions or things going further. Flexible working is incredibly important for women who have caring responsibilities and continue to do the majority of unpaid care, and having access to flexible work is vital to enable them to progress and earn to their full potential. We would like to see a duty on employers to advertise jobs as flexible, rather than a situation where women have to wait until they are in a job before they can begin that conversation. You cannot move into a new job if you are not sure whether you will be able to replicate the flexibility that you have in an existing role. That leads to women being under-employed and their skills underused.
The day one rights to maternity, paternity and parental leave are important, but they have to be remunerated. There has to be a day one right to pay if we actually want people to take it. Particularly if we want men to take on more caring roles, we need to make sure we have a refocus on remunerated leave, and that includes parental leave. We welcome the fact that there will be a review, but we need to think about this as part of those measures.
I would like to see more around equal pay in the Bill. Measures could be taken that would support women to access fair pay, such as pay transparency and ending salary history questions. The last thing I would like to see more on is making sure that there is proper enforcement of those rights—that the enforcement bodies are properly resourced and have the teeth to ensure that the rights really hold.
Joeli Brearley: It is a big question that you have asked. I support everything that Jemima has just said. We are very supportive of the Bill, but I think there is a lack of clarity on some of the areas that we are particularly interested in. On flexible working, we are really pleased to see that the Government want to make it the default way of working. That is really important, but we need to know exactly how, and what mechanisms will be in place to do that. The current law on flexible working isn’t working. We want to see an advertising duty as well, which I am sure we can explore in a bit more detail later.
We are also very supportive of parental leave being moved to a day one right. It is kind of amazing that that is not in place already. But without it being remunerated, take-up will be very low. We would have liked to see more on parental leave. We have a shockingly low rate of pay for maternity. We have the worst paternity benefit in Europe. This is causing huge problems for families, particularly new families that have just had a baby. They are getting themselves into terrible amounts of debt. Also the way that our parental leave system is structured means that women are responsible for the care of a baby. They tend to take long periods of time out of work, whereas men tend to go back to work very quickly. They fall into the role of breadwinner, and the woman falls into the role of caregiver, and that continues for the rest of their lives—which is why there is such a large gender pay gap.
The redundancy protections are great. Again, we are very pleased to see that, but we need specifics about what it means. We would like to see that pregnant women and new parents can only be made redundant in exceptional circumstances. By that we mean when a business is closing or perhaps when a service has stopped being delivered. It is very difficult, if you are made redundant when you are pregnant or have just had a baby, to get another job. Often you are made redundant and then cannot access statutory maternity pay. These are very particular circumstances. We know that many women are still being made redundant when they are pregnant or when they are new mums; 17% of calls we get to Pregnant Then Screwed are related to redundancy, so it is a big problem.
What we do not have at the moment, but really need, is data that shows us what is happening on the ground. A report was done by the Equality and Human Rights Commission under the coalition Government that found that 54,000 women a year are pushed out of their jobs for getting pregnant or for taking maternity leave, and 77% of new mums experience some form of discrimination. That report was done in 2016, and there was a guarantee at that point that the report would be done again five years later. It is now nine years later and we still do not have any new data to show us exactly what is happening on the ground. Without it we are making decisions in the dark, so we would really push for that report to be done again.
We would have liked to see something in the Bill on non-disclosure agreements. Our research found that 435,293 mothers had been gagged by non-disclosure agreements when experiencing some form of discrimination. It is a serious problem. Again, we do not know what is happening in companies across the country. Women tend to experience this form of discrimination and are then forced to sign these agreements and are given a low amount of compensation. They suffer mental health consequences because of that. We want to see the UK follow what Ireland has recently done, so that non-disclosure agreements cannot be enforced unless the claimant wants them to be. We would also have liked to see something in the Bill on miscarriage leave, because at the moment there is no right to any leave or pay if you miscarry before 24 weeks. We would have liked to see something on fertility treatment. As many of you will know, we have a baby crisis in the UK—we are not having enough babies. We want to encourage people to have fertility treatment, so we need a legal right to time off.
We would like to see something on reasonable adjustments. There are currently reasonable adjustments if someone has a disability, but not if they have a dependant with a disability. Many mothers of disabled children are struggling in the workplace because they need time off for appointments, or whatever it may be. We would like to see a requirement for all employers to publish parental leave policies.
Justin Madders
Q
Jemima Olchawski: There is strong evidence that the majority of sexual harassment experienced in the workplace comes from third parties. This is where someone experiences harassment from a client, customer or patient. Some of those who are most vulnerable would include those working in retail and hospitality. It is essential that anyone working in those environments is as safe as they can be and respected in their workplace. We would consider it essential that employers’ responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment includes third parties, because as a victim, it is not relevant that the person was not a direct co-employee. What matters is the harm experienced. It is absolutely within the bounds of good practice and reasonable steps for employers to address that.
Joeli Brearley: Nothing from me. It is not my area.
Greg Smith
Q
Alasdair Reisner: One of the benefits of being tail-end Charlie is that I have been able to watch some of the earlier evidence, so I was primed for this question. From an industry perspective, the first reaction is that it is a very big Bill, and that does create challenges. We have about 360,000 employers in our industry, more than half of which employ fewer than four people, so even raising awareness of the existence of the Bill is a particular challenge. In terms of how we take things forward, whatever happens during the rest of this process, a big engagement process is required to raise awareness of the outcome.
That said, generally speaking, based on the feedback that we have had, I think there is a lot of positivity about some elements of the Bill, particularly on tackling sexual harassment and looking at improving equality in the industry. I think our members would say that this is stuff that they do as custom and practice already, so it is almost raising the level of the wider industry and trying to cut out poor behaviour among not bad actors in industry, but those that are less developed.
There are a couple of points where we do have particular concerns. One is the redundancy piece. I suspect that, as MPs, you are all sick and tired of people special pleading and saying that their industry is different, but I am afraid that I am going to say that our industry is different. We deliver on a geographical basis, and when a project comes to an end, understandably, there will be cases where redundancy is the only option. To enforce upon the whole business the requirement for consultation feels like it was not the intent of this policy. It seems that we should spend some time trying to find a way through that works and results in productive outcomes. I have seen personally the impact of people being on multiple rounds of redundancy. It is miserable for the individual, and that is what I think we should seek to avoid.
The other area we have some concerns about—we have heard this a number of times today—is day one unfair dismissal claims. In construction, it takes a lot of time to get people ready to work. Coming down from two years to day one feels like a big step for an industry that, as I articulated, may not even be aware that this is coming towards them. We would want to look at how that might work. I am sure you may have questions on that, so I do not want to spend the time garbling on—I would rather give you the chance to ask questions.
Greg Smith
Q
Alasdair Reisner: It is an interesting question. There is the notification element and the consultation element. I suppose we have to ask what the policy is trying to achieve. If it were trying to avoid people almost hiding redundancies by doing them in small units, I do not think we would have any complaints about ensuring that notification was still required. It is where you are forcing people into consultation who are never going to be made redundant, yet they find themselves under the scope of that. Splitting those two things apart—so you would still have the notification, but you would not necessarily have the consultation for those who are unaffected—is something we are exploring. I do not want to say that that is the silver bullet that will solve things. We have not even discussed that collectively as an industry; we are just trying to consider what options might be on the table.
Justin Madders
Q
Alasdair Reisner: It is a cliché, but we rely on the people we work with, and they must be represented. Having good, positive relationships with the employees’ representatives is crucial. The CIJC has for decades provided us with that vehicle—I should say that it is not the largest overall; it is just the largest in the construction sector. I think back to covid, when we needed a relationship with the workforce that provided us with the independence —I have to say that Unite was brilliant at that time—to engage with the rest of the industry to say, “We’re all working collectively towards a common good.”
From discussing the Bill with members over the past few days, I know that one of the potential concerns is that it might in some way undermine existing collective agreements. I do not think that is written in the Bill; it is more in the discussion that has happened prior to the Bill. That is something we would like to protect. I am not going to pretend it is all sunshine and roses—sometimes it can be quite challenging—but I think we would want to ensure that whatever the outcome of the Bill, there is a strong, positive partnership between the employers’ representatives and the employees’ representatives.
Employment Rights Bill (Third sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Greg Smith
Main Page: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)Department Debates - View all Greg Smith's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Third sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsThursday 28th November 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 November 2024 - (28 Nov 2024)
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Q
Claire Costello: We are very supportive of the opportunity provided by the Bill. As a co-operative, and a very old co-operative at that, the health and wellbeing of our colleagues is incredibly important to us. We are very supportive of the principles of what we are looking to drive for here, but the challenge around the detail needs to be looked at.
For example, what does it mean to have a probationary period that enables a colleague to join you and ensures, first, that you give them the right opportunities to develop and grow and, secondly, that, if they are not suitable, you have the opportunity to enable them to leave the business? I will give you a couple of stats. Of our leavers last year, 75% had been with us for less than two years, and 36% of the people we asked to leave the business had been with us for less than three months. That is a really good example that shows that it just does not work out sometimes.
Could the probationary period be a barrier with unintended consequences? Yes. Are there things you can do around that to minimise it? I would say so, but again, we need to make sure the detail of the Bill does not drive unintended consequences. It must leave enough flexibility for employers within the broader groups represented on the panel and for us. We want to support people from disadvantaged backgrounds and bring ex-offenders into the organisation. We are working very hard to support them across a number of areas, so we do not want that to be an issue. We would work really hard to make sure that it is not an issue at the Co-op, but ultimately, on a broader footprint, it is something to be mindful of.
Greg Smith
Q
Claire Costello: I think it is more about the fact that the Bill will drive more tribunals if people feel that they have a route to do that, so that might make people a bit reticent. There is also the timescale. We have a three-month probationary period, so nine months is fine, but there is a point about day one rights to leave. That does not stop you supporting a new starter into the business and, if it does not work out, being able to manage that exit, but it is about doing it without incurring significant costs at every single level. That does not mean just the formalised cost of going through an employment tribunal, but the time it takes to hear a case within the business. Good organisations make sure it is heard at different levels, and then a grievance is raised and you have an appeal. It is very time consuming to do it in the right way, but that is what we want to do. Again, it sucks up time, resource and cost within an organisation, when what you want is to spend the time enabling people to be successful, and driving productivity and driving the benefit for the business you work in.
Greg Smith
Q
Claire Costello: Not yet, because there is not enough detail for us to do that. We are really keen to see what the more detailed asks look like.
Greg Smith
Q
Claire Costello: Yes, there will be on-costs from the Bill. Do I think it is the right thing overall? Again, we are broadly supportive of where it is heading, but there will be on-costs in there.
Greg Smith
Q
Helen Dickinson: Thank you very much for this opportunity. We are probably going to end up violently agreeing with each other, but let us see how we go.
There is real alignment on the objectives of the Bill: to improve working practices, have the right culture between employees and businesses, and weed unscrupulous employers out of the system by targeting them. It is great to have the opportunity to talk to you. I am sure that, from a Co-op and a wider retail industry point of view, many responsible businesses are already undertaking some of the processes in lots of parts of the Bill—things like the right to flexible working—and I think everybody is supportive of and aligned on proposals like a single enforcement body.
Building on Claire’s comments, the challenge comes in certain areas where the devil is in the detail. Claire mentioned probation periods; what does the guidance and the framework for a fair dismissal process look like? I have a list: guaranteed hours, union recognition and collective consultation. In all those areas, there is some detail that we can delve into to see where the challenges might sit. It is about making sure that the implementation does not end up in the scenario where too much cost is added, or too much process is put in place that disincentivises employing people from a disadvantaged background or in the entry-level jobs that the industry is so good at providing. Part of that is in the Bill, but a lot relating to how some of these things will get implemented will be done through the consultation process that comes after. Shall I dip into guaranteed hours, as an example?
Greg Smith
Please do.
Helen Dickinson: A reference period is conceptually a good idea—the question is whether it is too short. I know that some people who appeared in front of the Committee earlier this week suggested that it should be slightly longer. I think requiring a business to offer the hours of that reference period in every single circumstance does not really take into account the peaks and troughs, the flexibility that retail businesses need or that lots of people who work in retail already have, and how the actual implementation could be framed to give people the opportunity to opt out or to have the right to request, as opposed to the right to have.
That is an example of where the implementation could be very onerous, very expensive and disincentivising, or, if it is implemented in a way that actually works for businesses and employees—because a lot of people value that flexibility—can create the win-win that the framework and the objectives of the Bill are seeking.
James Lowman: I agree with much of what Claire and Helen said, so in the interests of time, I will not repeat that. To give a bit more flavour on convenience stores, we see ourselves as an exemplar of flexible, local, secure working—98% of colleagues have a contract, and zero-hours contracts are used very little. More than a third of our colleagues walk to work. We are the ultimate local, flexible employer. Most requests for flexible working, whether in the formal, legislative framework or not, are agreed to, because if you have good people, you want to keep them in the business and you want to accommodate what are usually other responsibilities, which are often about care for children or older relatives.
Specifically on probationary periods and early rights, 84% of people who work in our sector have been there for more than one year. Most people who have been there for that period of time stay on. Half of people working in our sector have been there for more than five years, so we have a longevity of employment, but there is a spike of people who move on quite quickly because it is not right for them. Seasonality, of course, could cause that. There is a particular challenge when we are talking about encouraging our members, as we do, to look at bringing in people from typically underutilised backgrounds, whether that is care-experienced people, ex-forces or ex-offenders. We produced a document with the Retail Sector Council last year looking at opportunities for those people.
For everyone starting a business, there is always a chance that it just does not work out. It just does not transpire that it is the job for them. Sensible probationary periods—they do not have to be too long—will allow that to play out without undue risk to the employer.
The final point I would make is that in an independent business—we represent some large businesses, but 71% of convenience stores are independently operated—the person running the business is the finance director, the buying director, the marketing director, the operations director and the HR director. No specialist resource is being called on, so additional processes to manage someone leaving the business are particularly burdensome for smaller organisations who do not always have people like Claire and her colleagues to help them through that.
Greg Smith
Q
James Lowman: There are probably three things. First, those issues are becoming a challenge in the recruitment and retention of people. I understand that from the point of view of colleagues, who go back to their family and find that their family is not comfortable with them going to work in an environment where they can be subjected to violence, with inadequate support from the police and others. That is probably a generous assessment from me.
There are particular provisions in the Bill related to employers taking all reasonable steps around preventing harassment. That concerns our members, because, as they see it, they and their colleagues together are the victims of crime, so they then need to have responsibilities for how the 15 million customers a day who use convenience stores might behave. That needs to be very carefully brought out in guidance and regulations, in terms of what those reasonable steps are, because it would be unfair to put further burdens on businesses that are already the victims of crime.
I do not believe that the provisions in the Bill would make it harder to recruit on that basis, other than what we talked about in some cases, particularly where there is a higher-risk appointment and retailers are less comfortable making it due to the difficulties of moving that person on, if it was the right thing to do. Harassment is an angle on that, but the Bill’s provisions would not make markedly worse what is quite a challenging situation with recruitment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
Q
Claire Costello: As an employer, we are really pleased to see that it will level up. There are a lot of things in the Bill that we already do. We are delighted to have really good relationships with our trade unions, and we have had access to rights on day one, from a flexibility point of view, for a lot of years. It would be good to see that levelling up across businesses, but I will hand over to my peers here, because they speak on the industry’s behalf, whereas I speak on behalf of an organisation.
Helen Dickinson: I think the answer to the question is, “As long as we do not end up with unintended consequences for responsible businesses.” There are examples that we have already highlighted, and I am sure that we can find some more. The goal surely has to be to ensure that the detail of the measures is firmly targeted at the unscrupulous. That is good for everybody, because it levels the playing field and gets rid of poor practices. I think everybody here would be 110% aligned behind that.
At the moment, the risk is in certain parts of the Bill. There is obviously a very open and sequenced consultation process, so the most critical thing is the adequacy, the collaboration and the ability of unions, employers and Government to work together to ensure that we do not end up with those unintended consequences. I am sorry to say, “It depends,” but the answer is that it depends.
James Lowman: I agree: it does depend. Just to give you a flavour of how flexibility works in our sector, a lot of changes to shift patterns are from colleague to colleague, often through apps or WhatsApp groups. That is the reality of how shifts change. One of the people working shifts is often the owner of the store, so it is very much something that they are doing with those colleagues.
It is really important that the Bill, in wanting to codify and formalise some of those rights, which is good and fine, does not remove some of the flexibility and the informality, which is part of what gives flexibility on both sides. One of the reasons why we have great staff retention in our sector is that people want those local jobs where they have that flexibility; it fits in with their lives. It is really important that in framing regulations and guidance, we deal with things such as how businesses can respond to late changes in availability. There are often circumstances completely beyond our control—for example, there could be a massive delivery disruption or extreme weather changes. These are the realities of running a store.
Helen Dickinson: So does sickness.
James Lowman: And sickness, which we may come on to. Those factors are particularly challenging in a small store. If you have 16, 17 or 18 people working in a large store and you are one person down, that is a problem. If you have two or three people working in a shop and you are one person down, that is catastrophic in the context of that shift. That shift is important to customers, the other colleagues and the business. In enshrining greater flexibility it is important that we actually deliver greater flexibility, rather than inhibiting the flexibility that is already baked into the way we operate day to day.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Joanne Cairns, head of research and policy at the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and Liron Velleman, head of politics at Community. This session can continue until 12.40 pm.
Greg Smith
Q
The Chair
I should have asked you to very briefly—in a sentence—introduce yourselves. Will you do so at the start of your answers? Thank you.
Joanne Cairns: I am Joanne Cairns. I am the head of research and policy at USDAW, which represents over 360,000 members, mainly in the retail sector, but we also have members in distribution, food manufacturing, pharmaceuticals and a number of other sectors.
We do not share the concerns about the impact assessments. We think that the impact assessments demonstrate the impact of the Bill. There are obviously areas that need further clarification, which will be looked at through consultation. In terms of the impact on our members, we believe that it will be extremely positive, particularly for low-paid workers and women workers. The TUC analysis estimates that the reforms in the Bill will benefit the wider economy by over £13 billion a year, which it considers to be a conservative estimate.
Greg Smith
Sorry, £30 million?
Joanne Cairns: No, £13 billion. That was one of the more conservative estimates in the range that it looked at. That would be through reducing workplace stress, improving staff wellbeing, resolving disputes, reducing workplace conflict and increasing labour market participation.
Liron Velleman: My name is Liron Velleman. I work at Community union as the head of politics. We represent about 45,000 members across the economy, from steels, metals and manufacturing to the justice sector, education and early years, and the self-employed. Of course, we would always welcome any more evidence to show why the Bill would impact our members positively. Our members have been crying out for this change for the last 14 years, and even longer than that. It is important that we continue to make sure that the Bill does what it says on the tin, which is to make work pay but also to make our members’ and their families’ lives better.
Greg Smith
Q
Liron Velleman: At Community, we are confident that the Bill would represent a positive step for our existing members and would allow for greater coverage of trade union membership across the sectors we work in. For example, in the third sector or in education and early years—especially in early years, where, in some of the private provision of nurseries and early years settings, there is not currently as much trade union coverage—the Bill would make it easier for people to join a trade union and see the benefits of membership. On whether it would bring full unionisation of the economy, I am not sure it would necessarily go that far, but some of the onus is on trade unions to make sure that we are delivering, in a modern way, the best way for working people in this country to understand the benefits that they could receive by joining one of our unions.
Joanne Cairns: I agree with Liron. We have good relationships with a number of major employers where we are recognised. You heard earlier from the Co-op. We are recognised there and by a number of other major employers. However, across the retail sector, trade union membership is currently at around only 12%, which is a similar level to the rest of the private sector. Very often, the reason people have not joined a union is simply that they have not had the opportunity to find out about what a union does—nobody has ever asked them to join a trade union. We think that the rights that the Bill will bring in around access to workplaces will be particularly important. The Bill will also simplify the statutory framework around recognition, which is currently extremely burdensome and makes it very difficult for trade unions to gain statutory recognition, particularly with larger employers.
Justin Madders
Q
Joanne Cairns: Across the whole economy, precarious employment is a major issue. There is clearly a need for policy intervention in the labour market. The TUC estimates that one in eight people are in precarious employment, and that has risen by 1 million people since 2011. It has risen nearly three times faster than secure employment. That is certainly backed up by what we see with our members. Living standards have fallen quite significantly, and the impact of insecure work on our members is significant.
Of our members, 40% tell us that they have missed meals to pay their bills, 73% cannot afford to take time off work when they are ill, 15% struggle to pay their bills every month, and more than half have told us that financial worries are having an impact on their mental health. The level of statutory sick pay and the three waiting days for it is an issue of major concern for our members, as is having contracts that do not reflect the hours that they normally work. We welcome the Government taking action in those areas.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Nye Cominetti. We have until 1 pm for this panel. Could you briefly introduce yourself, Nye?
Nye Cominetti: Hello, everyone. Thanks for inviting me along today. I am principal economist at the Resolution Foundation, a think-tank based just down the road. Our mission is to improve living standards for families on low to middle incomes. As part of that, we research and write about the labour market, along with various other issues. We have been interested in the employment reforms since they have been under way.
Greg Smith
Q
Nye Cominetti: Sorry, is the question whether the impact assessment is fit for purpose or whether the regulations themselves are fit for purpose?
Greg Smith
Well, the Regulatory Policy Committee has said that eight of the impact assessments for this Bill—the separate columns—are not fit for purpose. Do you think the Bill had its tyres kicked hard enough before it went into Second Reading and Public Bill Committee?
Nye Cominetti: It is very hard to assess the impact of the Bill, as many of the details are yet to be determined. The Government said that they wanted to do this within their first 100 days, and they managed to do so, but that meant that they had to leave many “fill in the blank later” bits in the Bill, so I do not particularly blame the civil servants in the Department for Business and Trade for having struggled to come up with clear numbers on the costings and the potential impact.
For example, on the right to a regular contract, the impact on business will depend on how “low” is defined, in terms of the qualifying threshold that workers will have to reach. It will depend on how businesses have to go about making the offer to workers. It will depend on how regularly those offers have to be made, which relates to the reference period. In the light of all those unknowns, it would be very difficult for the Department to have come up with firm numbers. I think in the end they said £5 billion, but it is hard to know whether that is a good or a bad number.
I would not be so negative as to say that they have failed in any sense; I just think that they were given a very difficult job. As more detail becomes available, it would be great if the civil servants who have already put a lot of thought into the process could come back and say, “Now that we know a bit more about what is actually going to be happening, here is our updated view on what the impact of the regulations might be.”
Greg Smith
Q
Nye Cominetti: No. I can describe in general terms how we might think about the potential impact, but I think any researcher or economist who tried to put a number on it would be misleadingly specific or misleadingly accurate. Not only do we not know what the direction of the impact might be—it could be that there are small positive or negative impacts on the size of GDP—but it is very hard to get a sense of the scale of the impacts. If you want some kind of judgment, the impact on economic growth will probably be very low—very close to zero. My expectation is that it will possibly be negative, but that is an incredibly hard judgment to reach, because you can point to impacts in both directions.
It is very uncertain, but the important point to make is that that does not mean that we should not be going ahead with these reforms. We should not be pursuing only those reforms where we can say, “The impact on GDP will be x,” even if not very confidently. One of the first things that this Bill should do is improve working lives for workers. It may be that we cannot put a monetary value on that, or that there is no associated impact on GDP, but to me that is the main and the first reason why many of these reforms should be undertaken.
Greg Smith
Q
Nye Cominetti: The same number, would be my best guess.
Greg Smith
What do you base that on?
Nye Cominetti: Internationally, we can draw scatter plots of the employment level in a country and the extent of employment regulation, and basically those lines come out flat. You have some countries with very high employment and very high levels of regulation, and some countries with lower employment and high regulation, so there is no clear relationship with the employment levels across countries. That is confirmed by the OECD, which has done lots of detailed work looking into the impact of periods when countries have either rowed back on reforms or expanded them.
What we do see in the employment data is that when you beef up the reforms around dismissals for individual or collective workers, you tend to see lower hiring rates. So the rate at which workers move around the economy will probably slow down if you make it significantly harder for employers to fire workers, and that gives rise to potential implications for productivity growth. Now, I still think those effects will be small. When the Office for Budget Responsibility, in one or two years’ time, starts putting the numbers into its forecasts, I expect them to be very small indeed. My expectation is that the employment level will be very, very narrowly lower if anything.
To give you some sense of scale, the OBR said it thinks that the employer national insurance contributions bill will be about £25 billion, and that that would lower the employment level in this country by 0.2%. The DBT said that it thinks the direct costs of the measures, including sick pay, are in the order of magnitude of £5 billion. If you compare those numbers, that starts to give you a sense of the scale of potential employment effects that we are talking about. I am sorry not to give you a more exciting answer, but my best guess is that the impact on employment levels will be small.
Justin Madders
Q
Nye Cominetti: It is a good question. One of the ways that I like to think about this package of reforms is that it extends to low-paid workers the kind of everyday flexibilities and dignities at work that people in professional jobs such as me and you take for granted. It is not the case that all low-paid workers hate their job or face the risk of losing their job every week, but it is the case that they experience a higher level of insecurity than higher-paid workers do.
You can look at that in various ways. In recessions, low-paid workers are more likely to lose their job, so they face a higher risk of losing their job in downturns. They are also more likely to rely on statutory sick pay if they fall ill, so for many low-paid workers, falling ill comes with an income shock. That is not the case for someone like me: if I fall ill, I go home and pick up an online meeting or two if I can, but if I cannot, I will get paid as normal. That is not the case for many low-paid workers, so that is a real insecurity.
Obviously, there are zero-hours contracts as well. For low-paid workers, I think roughly one in 10 is on a zero-hours contract. For higher-paid workers—the top fifth in the hourly pay distribution—it is a vanishingly small number and very uncommon indeed. I am sure that you have heard plenty of evidence about the kind of impact on security that zero-hours contracts can bring to some—not all—workers.
The most illuminating statistic is probably that 2 million workers say that they are fairly or very anxious about unexpected changes to their hours of work. You might think that that is because that comes with not just an impact on their life—“I do not know which days I’m going to be working next week, and I have to make it work alongside childcare”—but a potential income risk as well. In many respects, the working lives of low-paid workers are less secure than those of higher-paid workers. My hope is that some of these measures will go some way to redressing that balance.
Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Greg Smith
Main Page: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)Department Debates - View all Greg Smith's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsThursday 28th November 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 November 2024 - (28 Nov 2024)
The Chair
Welcome back. Will the witnesses introduce themselves, please?
Mike Clancy: I am Mike Clancy, general secretary of the Prospect trade union.
Andy Prendergast: I am Andy Prendergast, GMB union national secretary for the private sector.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Q
Mike Clancy: The primary purpose of the Bill is to reset employment relations, and trade unions are an important part of that. I have the privilege of sitting on the ACAS council, which is a tripartite body responsible for overseeing good employment relations and good practice. That demonstrates that unions, employers and independents can work together successfully. I see that as the primary purpose.
The reality is that in so many jurisdictions that have positive employment relations and that are addressing their productivity challenge, unions play a very important role. An objective to have the right level of trade union membership in the economy, so that working people have a voice, is at the heart of the Bill. Previous Administrations have restricted the ability of working people to have a voice. So there is a real opportunity to, first, improve employee relations; secondly, ensure that working people generally have a voice; and thirdly, ensure that unions are part of the fabric of the economy in a way that addresses the challenges ahead. I would say that the Bill can deliver all those objectives.
Greg Smith
Q
Mike Clancy: The key thing we would like to see is that access to workplaces is not confined to physical premises, but is also digital. That applies where union recognition already exists. We need to ensure that we can address the workplaces of today and tomorrow, not just those of the past. Physical access is important, but many workplaces have remote, hybrid, virtual working arrangements, so we would want the Bill to be amended to ensure that digital access, in a way that is compliant with data protection, is addressed.
Greg Smith
Q
Mike Clancy: It probably looks like ensuring that the best practice from employers now—who allow us access to their intranet and to electronic and digital means, in terms of their staff—becomes the norm, and that it complies with data protection. That happens in workplaces up and down the country now, but some employers see the law in a different way.
An important thing to get across is that if you start to talk to an employer about organising their workplace, the best way to do it is by consensus. That means understanding the employer—understanding the nature of their product and what their concerns may be—as well as making sure that their workforce’s aspirations, if they want a collective voice, are delivered in a way that works successfully for all parties. The access conservation needs to reflect the nature of the workplace as it is now, not just as it has been. It should not be confined to physical premises.
Andy Prendergast: From our point of view, this is very much a 21st century Bill for a 21st century economy. It is not about looking back; it is about trying to make sure that what we have is fit for purpose, moving forward. Unionisation rates are around 20% at the moment. If we look at a graph of unionisation and also at a graph of rising inequality and the fall in productivity, we will see that they are almost perfect correlations. We believe that collective bargaining is a way of improving things. That has been identified by organisations as diverse as the World Economic Forum and the Church of England. If the Bill ends up with higher levels of unionisation, which leaves lower levels of inequality, we believe that that will be a good thing.
On where the Bill is lacking, I think, like Mike, that we need to make sure that there is a digital aspect of access. Many of our members working for gig economy platforms in parts of the new economy do not have the old workplace that we traditionally know. It is not a factory and not necessarily an office. So we have to talk about how rights can be accessed by people who work remotely, who work from home, or who simply do not have a workplace.
There is one area where the Bill could be strengthened. We welcome the improvements in statutory sick pay, but we do not believe that they go far enough. We did a survey today of care workers at HC-One that shows that over one third cannot afford to take sick leave. We saw during the pandemic that having people go to work when ill, potentially spreading diseases, is bad for everyone. We think something could be done on that later that would ultimately help workers and help the economy generally.
Greg Smith
Q
Andy Prendergast: They key thing for us is that everyone who ultimately wants to join a trade union has the option to do so. It is important that people are aware of their rights, aware that they can join trade unions, and aware that they have a right to, for example, SSP on day one, statutory holidays and the minimum wage. Rights that people do not know about and that cannot be enforced are ultimately no use. This is shamelessly partisan, but I would like to see union rates being far higher, and I think that the economy as a whole would benefit from that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
Q
Andy Prendergast: I think the Bill is a major step in the right direction. One of the big problems that we have seen, certainly over the last 30 to 40 years, is the huge increase in insecurity in the workforce. That tends to have a massive impact on the individual concerned and their ability to fully partake in the economy, and to make long-term commitments through mortgages and loans—the kind of stuff that drives the economy. Ultimately, we have seen that as they have lost their guaranteed hours—in zero-hours jobs, for example—and there has been the removal of their employment rights, those people are less able to exercise those rights. So we see the Bill as a major way of moving industrial relations forward.
We would also point to the work around the pandemic. In the last 14 years, we were very much locked out of Government in most areas, yet when the pandemic came around, there was a fantastic bit of work between the CBI, the TUC and the Government, with Rishi Sunak standing on the steps of No. 10 talking about the fantastic work that led to the furlough scheme, which saved millions of jobs and millions of people from poverty. What surprised us is that that great work was then stopped virtually as quickly as it happened. If we look at other G7 countries, a tripartite system is what drives higher levels of productivity, lower levels of inequality, and ultimately, higher levels of investment and economic outcomes. We think that the Bill is a long overdue step in the right direction of moving some power back towards workers and away from businesses, too many of which exist for exploitation.
Mike Clancy: I echo those comments. If we look at the responses from the business community, yes, there is going to be some anxiety about the detail and how it will work—again, I reference my experience not just in ACAS, but from working with employers more generally—but we find ways to do this and operate in practice successfully. Good employers have nothing to fear in the Bill. That is not just good employers that are larger, and we think that with the right degree of consultation, which the Government have committed to, we will be able to address those areas where there are a few wrinkles and things to ensure work in practice.
We have to reflect on what the alternative was. The deregulatory, more de minimis approach to employment regulation applied previously, and if that trajectory had continued, we would not have addressed the issues of precarious work and productivity, and we would not have been able to do that in a way that looks at the workforce of the 21st century, as opposed to looking backwards.
There is a lot in the Bill, but that is not surprising. There will probably be a long period of adjustment. With the right consultation, I think we will get to a position where we look back at this as a milestone in changing how we do things, a paradigm shift in relations. I think that it will drive better engagement not just for unionised workforces, but for workforces more generally, because that is where employers will see that they can answer the challenges on the next generation of technology insertion and organisational design, and make sure that they can get the talent that they need.
The Chair
I do not know what the collective noun for professors is—a proliferation, perhaps. Anyway, could you please introduce yourselves briefly?
Professor Bogg: I am Professor Alan Bogg, and I am a professor at the University of Bristol and a barrister at Old Square Chambers.
Professor Deakin: I am Simon Deakin, and I am a law professor at the University of Cambridge.
Professor Simms: I am Melanie Simms, and I am professor of work and employment at the University of Glasgow.
Greg Smith
Q
Professor Deakin: I would not say that it has holes in it. It is perfectly normal to legislate in this way and defer complex matters to regulations. As a potential Act of Parliament, it is no more or less complex than similar Acts that we have had in the past. Labour law has always been complex and very granular. There are many provisions in the Act that will take effect without the need for further delegated legislation, and there are quite detailed schedules. I do not have a problem with the way it has been drafted, but there are issues with its scope and coverage, which we might go on to discuss.
Professor Bogg: It is a very ambitious piece of legislation, and it was delivered at lightning speed—in 100 days—which is an important part of the context. The collective labour law dimension of what is in the Bill is actually very simple. Much of it is in the form of repeal, and there are some proposals for tweaks to the existing structure. In terms of the collective dimension, I do not think the Bill has holes in it. It gives a tolerably clear indication of what the relevant provisions will look like and what needs to be done.
In terms of the individual provisions, it is fair to say that there is detail that needs to be worked out on day one dismissal protections and on guaranteed hours, but those are very complex issues and I do not think there is anything unusual about that. It is the beginning of a conversation, not the end of the conversation, and that is why we are here today.
Professor Simms: I am not actually a professor of law; I am a professor of work and employment, and general employment relations. I am always interested in the system as a whole, and how law and the implementation of all kinds of other pressures collectively shape employment relationships.
I agree with my two colleagues that the Bill is a very useful starting point. Law can only ever go so far in determining the rules of the employment relationship. It will always rest on wider social systems, economic systems and so on.
Greg Smith
Q
Professor Deakin: The RPC said that about some of the impact assessments—it raised a red flag over some of them. They are concerned not so much with the legal drafting as with the economic effects of the law. The impact assessments are engaging in a cost-benefit analysis, which is attempting to put some numbers on the impact the law might have on the economy in terms of cost to employers and knock-on employment effects. Actually, they have quite a strict protocol to deal with. What counts as a cost is set out in some detail in protocols that we could discuss. For example, the cost to private parties—to employers—counts as a cost even if that is simply redistributing to households and to workers. From an economic point of view, we would be interested not so much in the private cost, but in the impact on the economy as a whole. Do these laws interfere with the way markets work? Are they going to lead to unacceptable costs, or will they produce countervailing benefits?
As a scholar interested in the economics of law, and having researched the impact of labour law, I was surprised by some comments in the RPC documentation. I was very surprised to read the RPC suggest that there may not be inequality of bargaining power in certain sectors, such as the public sector or transport, where there are very large employers, some of which are effectively monopolies. There will probably always be some inequality of bargaining power between individual workers and even smaller employers, but we have trade unions and collective bargaining because there is that inequality of bargaining power. The part of the Bill that addresses the ability of unions to organise, and to organise industrial action, in sectors where there are very powerful employers does seem to me to address a fundamental issue of inequality of bargaining power.
Elsewhere, the RPC asks for more evidence about asymmetric information and productivity. I thought the impact assessments were actually very good, in citing secondary sources on those very issues, and also balanced. They cited—I should declare an interest—work I wrote, but they also cited other work. You will see scholars cited in the impact assessments who have a less positive view than I do about the economic effects of labour laws. There are no citations at all in the RPC documentation. Now, that may be because that is not the job of the RPC. Fair enough, but I should have thought that the RPC request for more information and clarification from the Department for Business and Trade could quite straightforwardly be met.
Professor Bogg: I support much of what Simon said. Focusing on the collective reforms, there has been scaremongering about re-unionisation of the economy and how radical this all is. You would think that we were going back to 1965 in terms of the reform of the strike laws, when actually we are probably going back to 2015 with a few tweaks. The minimum service levels framework is being repealed, but as far as I am aware it was never used. There was a prospect of its use once, but it was so inflammatory that the employer in the ASLEF dispute stepped back from using it. The Trade Union Act 2016 ballot thresholds will be repealed. In that context, and with a few proposed adjustments to strike law, this is not very radical. It takes the UK from a hyper-restrictive framework in comparative terms, to a restrictive framework in comparative terms. In terms of the overall international context, even if all of this makes its way on to the statute book, the UK will still have one of the most restrictive strike laws in Europe.
Professor Simms: I could not agree more. It sets out an agenda that would be regarded as incredibly restrictive in many comparator countries. I think it is better than what we have at the moment, which is such a restrictive context particularly for trade unions and strike action. Concerns have been raised by the International Labour Organisation about the UK’s restriction on strike activity. In my judgment this, as drafted, does not take us fully into compliance even with some of the concerns expressed by the ILO—it is still incredibly restrictive.
Greg Smith
Q
Professor Simms: We have to be realistic about the resource capacity of our trade union movement at the moment. There are certainly things in the Bill that will make life simpler for trade unions—not necessarily easier, but it will require less resource to, for example, organise for a ballot, or to organise a re-balloting during a period of industrial action. At best case, that frees up some capacity to get on with the nitty-gritty of representing workers in the workplace and solving workplace problems. I cannot prove that that is going to happen, obviously, but that is certainly more than possible. But will it free up sufficient capacity to try and organise in the breadth of the retail sector, for example—lots of small employers? Personally, I think that is unlikely. I do not think that the UK trade union movement has that resource capacity at the moment.
Professor Deakin: Historically, what drives unionisation and strike levels is the economy. High inflation drives strike action and tends to drive union membership. Union membership, union activity and strike activity are highly sensitive to the wider economic context, which at the moment probably does not favour a massive increase in union membership. I would be very surprised if this particular measure moves the dial much on membership, and I do not think it will move the dial much on industrial action either.
What could happen, especially with the arrangements for sectoral pay bargaining, is that many workers, whether or not they are in a trade union, would benefit from sector-wide collective norms. That would be the case where the arrangements come in for two sectors that are mentioned in the Bill, and hopefully that is just the start. Other European countries and many countries outside Europe have sectoral collective agreements that, in effect, set a floor for an industry or sector. I am not sure whether you would call that re-unionisation, but I think the coverage of collective agreements is perhaps more important than simple membership, although unions depend on membership for their finances. The economic effects will turn very much on coverage.
Professor Bogg: As I said, the reforms to strike law are fairly modest, and I think that is true of collective bargaining laws. There are two incremental nudges towards sectoral institutions in two sectors, and there are some very modest tweaks proposed to the statutory union recognition procedure—lowering the preliminary membership threshold, potentially, and removing the majority support likely threshold—but it is difficult to see. I do not know what re-unionisation means, I must confess, but I will be very surprised if you see a radical upsurge in union recognition as a result of these very sensible but cautious changes in the legislation.
Justin Madders
Q
I want to ask you in particular, Professor Deakin, about the impact of the regulations on increased productivity and innovation—the general economic benefits. Do you think that that will have a positive impact on such issues?
Professor Deakin: I think so. The evidence internationally is that there is a strong correlation between stronger labour protection and both productivity and innovation. I think that sentiment in the research community has shifted very much in the past 20 years. That is partly because we have better data and probably better methods. Certainly, a generation ago, the World Bank was quite hostile to the idea of labour law and said that labour laws, in aiming to help workers, might harm them. That, however, is no longer the World Bank’s position. The World Bank has said that there can be too little labour law in an economy—too little protection for innovation and productivity.
Of course, productivity has many causes, and the way we regulate labour is only one issue. If we are talking about labour law, though, these reforms are essential to help improve the productivity position. Will this law on its own lead to an improvement in UK productivity? Not necessarily, because that depends upon how we regulate other areas of the economy, and that is affected very much by the way corporate governance works and also by training and other aspects that are not all covered by the Bill. But is this Bill essential in the area of labour law for improving economic performance? Absolutely. Does it go in the right direction? Yes, it does.
The research we have done in Cambridge, which I mentioned in my written evidence, shows that, on average, strengthening employment laws in this country in the last 50 years has had pro-employment effects, for various reasons. That is, as I said in my notes, not a predication or a forecast, but historically in this country, stronger labour laws are not associated with unemployment.
Professor Simms: Could I chip in as well and emphasise the point that Simon has just made about skills and training? Skills and training of managers—the professionalisation of managers—and of our workforce are really crucial ways of shaping productivity and innovation. They intersect very strongly with some of the issues in the Bill.
In general, the push to professionalise management of work—the managerial decisions—is a really important part of that more complex story that Simon has just spoken to. The signals through the law, but also through other areas of policy, to managers, organisations and employers about the professionalisation of their management are a really important thing that the state can do to support that general up-tick in productivity and innovation in general.
The Chair
Good afternoon. Thank you very much for coming along. Would each of you introduce yourself, please?
Luke Johnson: My name is Luke Johnson. I have been an entrepreneur and investor for the best part of 40 years, and I am currently the co-owner and the director of various businesses employing roughly 10,000 people.
Michael Lorimer: I am Michael Lorimer; I am the chief executive of the DCS Group. We employ about 600 people. We are in the fast-moving consumer goods sector, and we have the world’s biggest non-food clients. When you buy shampoo, shower gel or Fairy liquid from a convenience store or a discount retailer, we have probably distributed it and indeed made some of it, because we have a manufacturing division as well. That is quite unusual, I think—for a distribution business to actually invent a manufacturing business—in the last 10 years. We are based in Oxfordshire and Redditch, in Worcestershire.
Greg Smith
Q
Luke Johnson: I think you need to put it in context. From my various decades of creating businesses and jobs, I would say that we now have among the highest ever levels of tax burden and of overall regulation and legislation, and that this is a high-cost country. Job vacancies have been falling for at least 15 months. Unemployment is going up. Interest rates are massively higher than they used to be. Insolvency specialists tell me that they are rubbing their hands because they think that next year will be very busy. I would say that even if we do not suffer a technical recession next year, it is odds-on that there will be a serious slowdown. I am at the cutting edge of businesses, and, in some cases, some of my companies might not survive next year. I do not know how many Committee members have ever been involved in starting and growing a company and keeping it from failing, but it is not much fun.
The idea that now is a good moment for small and medium-sized businesses—which, let’s face it, are the future; they are the ones that disproportionately innovate and, actually, disproportionately create most of the jobs. They are the ones that are the next big businesses; every business started as a small business once. On the idea that companies that can barely afford any form of HR could stomach a big new Bill of 150 pages and 28 measures, they will not even have time to read it. The idea that they can adopt something like this when they are facing quite possibly—we have to remember that they have the hangover of two years when so many of them were shut. They have legacy debts and energy prices. Electricity prices in this country are the highest of any developed nation. Try manufacturing things here now. The timing of this is beyond belief, and that needs to be put into context. Whether £5 billion is the real cost or not, it is death by 1,000 cuts because you never know until you get a big tribunal what the real cost is, for example.
Michael Lorimer: I agree. Obviously, a Bill like this does not exist in splendid isolation if you are running a business. Luke has identified the increased costs of doing business, which are severe and impact small to medium-sized enterprises most, which, as you will be aware, represent 80% of the employment in this country. There was the news yesterday about the White Paper, “Get Britain Working”, and as a top line, I am very supportive of that. I think that is absolutely brilliant. Getting 2.8 million people back into work is something I am very passionate about. In Banbury, we are beside an area of deprivation, with a lot of people on benefits, and a lot of young people who are feeling quite depressed about life. We would love to be offering those people jobs—I cannot emphasise that enough. For six months of the year we have temporary staff coming in, and we are very glad they come—they come from different countries, work very hard and do great work for us.
My concern, without being able to give you a number on it, is that for some of the riskier hires that might come from the areas around where our business is based—in other words, people not in education, employment or training, kids who have not worked before, or people who have been unemployed for a long time; you hear on the radio every day that people in their 50s cannot get a job—businesses will be very slow to take a risk because of the day one legislation that is coming down the track. We have an HR department, so we can deal with this to some extent, but as you slide down the road and find businesses that employ maybe less than 20 or 10 people, there will be deep concerns and perceptions that this is just too expensive and scary.
I was hugely encouraged by the White Paper—I think the top-line aspirations are absolutely the right ones. It is the same direction of travel, towards 2 million jobs, that the Jobs Foundation have published a report on this week, and that the Centre for Social Justice are focused on. I would exhort all of you politicians, regardless of your colour, to get behind the concept of getting Britain working. But my fear is that this torpedoes a lot of those plans—genuinely, that is my fear.
Greg Smith
Q
Luke Johnson: We are still grappling with the fallout from the Budget. There are millions of pounds of additional tax that some of my companies will have to pay, and a 6.7% increase in the national living wage, when average inflation is 2% or 3%. As for the idea that many businesses have already given deep thought to this new piece of 150-page legislation—when we already have such things as the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Equality Act 2010, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and many other pieces of legislation—I dare say that large companies have given it some thought, but most of the businesses I am involved with are not so big. I think they will wait and see what the final result is before trying to measure whether it leaves the business smaller.
With any piece of legislation like this, we have to remember that it is not just the current jobs affected, but the unseen jobs and opportunities that were never created. I urge you to look at the fact that, for the first time in many years, the number of businesses being created in this country has been falling or stagnant for five years. That is more or less the first time in decades. If we lose the full employment we have enjoyed and the enterprise economy that we have managed to create—I believe it to be much more fragile than some might believe—it will be incredibly hard to get back. Jobs do not just fall from the sky. They appear because companies are created by risk takers, and they take a risk with every job they create. Jobs only exist because they are helping that business to progress, and 80% of jobs are nothing to do with the Government—they are private sector. If you crush the private sector, you crush jobs. All the research shows that the single most important ingredient for a happy society is jobs. Without jobs, you do not have civilisation.
Michael Lorimer: Our turnover is in the public domain, so I can share it with you. We will probably turn over about £370 million this year. We are in a high-turnover, very tight-margin business, so if we make £10 million net, that is about the height of it. It is very difficult to estimate the increased cost of national insurance contributions and the national living wage, because not all the details are yet clear, but we think it will be somewhere between £1.5 million and £1.8 million. That is quite a big chunk out of our net profit.
We do not have a huge problem with it. We are a company that believes strongly in creating prosperity. The national living wage is something that our hearts have no problem with, because we would like to see people getting paid correctly, but we have to mitigate that. That is something that we just have to get on with. Our company has grown successively every year since it started 30 years ago, in top line, bottom line and people numbers.
I need to stress this again to you: the passion that we have is growth and job creation. When we see people coming into the business, working their way through it, earning more money, developing their career and prospering, that is what brings us the greatest joy of all. My concern, which I have to repeat, is that businesses smaller than ours—following on from Luke’s point, we were a small business at one stage—are going to find it very hard to get on that growth trajectory.
Justin Madders
Q
Michael Lorimer: From my perspective, there is a pretty good balance between employer and employee at the minute. I am sure you could unpick that, and there could be cases for either side, but as somebody who runs a business in, quote unquote, a “fast-moving environment”—in fact, Luke Johnson’s business is much faster-moving even than ours—where you are focusing on driving your business and trying to get results, I think that there is actually a good balance. I am not particularly in favour of tinkering too much with it. That is my personal view.
Luke Johnson: I would slightly differ, in that I think some areas are increasingly onerous for employers. Increasingly, when I talk to entrepreneurs, they are looking to outsource, offshore or automate rather than employ people. Not all of that is legislation and regulation; post furlough and lockdowns, there is a vast amount of talk among employers and owners of businesses about workforce motivation. That goes back to a point that Michael made earlier about the number of people not in work who are of working age and able-bodied. I think this is an issue for society as a whole, and I think a happy society is one in which people are productively occupied.
I am surprised that you say that many employers want greater protections for their staff. They are very entitled to give them to them if they want. They do not need to rely on the Government for that; they can just give them better contracts if they want.
There are a number of concerning aspects to the Bill, which could be counterproductive if the objective is higher living standards. As I understand it, this Government’s priority is wealth creation, prosperity and jobs. Ultimately, although I do not believe that this legislation will be devastating to employers, I think it will be damaging for job creation and therefore counterproductive to wealth creation and to achieving higher standards of living.
The Chair
Sorry; I think that is enough. Perhaps if you have more to say, you will be able to bring it out in answer to questions.
Greg Smith
Q
John Kirkpatrick: I am not sure you would necessarily expect me to answer that question directly, Mr Smith. Nevertheless, I will say that yes, you are quite right: impact assessments are very important to us.
Let me say a bit more about that in the context of the Bill. As an example, I will take some of the provisions designed to improve opportunity and to regulate particular forms of contract. We know from our work that women and disabled people have lower rates of employment than men and able-bodied people, and we know that younger workers are more likely to be in zero-hours contracts than workers of other ages, and so on and so forth. The measures in the Bill that are designed to protect the interests of those people with protected characteristics may well be beneficial to them, but not if the result is that those jobs then vanish rather than improve.
What I would put back to the Committee, and potentially to the Government, is the real importance of assessing up front the likely implications of the measures that Parliament wants to put in place. If it does enact the measures, subsequently reviewing and monitoring them to know what impact they have actually had would be really important. I should probably put in my advertisement, at the end of that comment, that it seems to us that only if they do that will the Government be fulfilling their obligations, under the public sector equality duty, to assess the impact of the things they want to do on those in whose interests they seek to act.
Margaret Beels: I would address the question in a similar way, in the sense that when we look at the labour market, we see the job situation being very flexible, but one person’s flexibility can be another person’s precariousness. We are about to publish some research—in fact, we will publish it tomorrow—that is based on a survey of workers, which demonstrates that about 10% of workers are in precarious work and about 8% of workers get stuck in precarious work. That is the matter that needs to be addressed.
Greg Smith
Q
John Kirkpatrick: The answer is that it is hard to tell. You have already heard evidence on that—I heard some of the evidence this afternoon and you have heard other evidence in other sessions—from others who are arguably better qualified to answer the question than I am. As I say, I encourage you as a Committee to encourage the Government to ensure that it thinks that point through carefully, as you consider the Bill, and to bear that advice in mind as you scrutinise it.
Margaret Beels: My office has not done that analysis and I would be guessing if I answered the question.
Justin Madders
Q
Margaret Beels: I took on this role in the expectation that there was going to be a single enforcement body, which the previous Government had referred to but did not bring about. I was strongly supportive of the creation of a single body and accordingly I am supportive of the creation of the fair work agency.
From my perspective, which involves looking at what has worked under the existing arrangements and what could work better, I went back and looked at the recommendations in the strategy that I most recently published, on 11 November, and it had 12 recommendations. I looked at them and considered how things are working out now under three bodies with different governance, different plans and different ways of doing things, and whether I think that under a fair work agency regime those things would be done better. A fairly quick assessment is that half of them would definitely be done better; the other things would probably be done much the same. The ones that relate to having a better joined-up approach, to greater efficiency and to better sharing of information among bodies are the things that I think the fair work agency will do a lot better.
The Chair
Dr Stephenson, would you please introduce yourself briefly?
Dr Stephenson: Thank you very much for inviting me here this afternoon. My name is Mary-Ann Stephenson. I am the director of the UK Women’s Budget Group, which is a feminist economics think-tank that works to analyse the impact of economic policy on women and men, and on different groups of women and men.
Greg Smith
Q
Dr Stephenson: We think this Bill marks an important step in the right direction in improving the rights of women in the workplace. We particularly welcome the provisions on zero-hours contracts, which will benefit over half a million women. We also welcome the changes to statutory sick pay; 73% of those who currently do not qualify for sick pay because they earn too little are women.
We welcome the fair pay agreement in social care—I know that the previous speakers talked about social care, and it would be good to talk a bit more about that. Obviously, women are the majority of workers in the social care sector, but they are also the majority of those needing care. Improving pay and conditions for social care workers will also have a beneficial impact on the recipients of care, because it will reduce turnover in the sector, which is a really big problem at the moment. There would also be a knock-on impact on unpaid carers, the majority of whom are also women—care is very much a female-dominated sector.
We welcome the improved day one rights to paternity and parental leave. These are often seen as particularly beneficial to fathers and partners, but we believe that women will also benefit from them. Women’s unpaid work is at the heart of their economic inequality; women do 50% more unpaid work than men. The time when a child is born is often the point at which the distribution of unpaid work gets fixed. Most parents go into parenthood thinking that they want to have a more egalitarian sharing of care than maybe their parents did when they were growing up. But as one person described it to me, “You wake up one day, and you suddenly find yourself back in the 1950s,” because of the very limited rights that fathers and second parents have. So we think that this policy will benefit women as well.
We welcome the greater protection against pregnancy and maternity discrimination. We know that you heard earlier this week from the Fawcett Society and Pregnant Then Screwed about flexible working and sexual harassment, and we very much support their positions.
There are some areas where we would like the Bill to go further. On statutory sick pay, for example, we think that the Government needs to increase the rate. The low rate at the moment means that even those who are entitled to it often continue to go to work when they are ill, which is not only bad for them, but bad for public health—
Greg Smith
Q
Dr Stephenson: At least at the level of maternity pay, for example. We are one of only four countries in Europe that does not extend some right to sick pay to self-employed people, so we think we should do that.
We were disappointed that the Government went back on their original proposals that people who were previously on zero-hours contracts who had shifts cancelled at the last minute should be reimbursed for those shifts. That is a particular problem for women, who often have to arrange childcare if they are in paid work, so having a shift cancelled means not just the loss of the pay, but paying out for childcare.
We think that this is a missed opportunity to improve rights to maternity pay—we know that that is under review—but particularly to deal with the discrepancy between statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance for people claiming universal credit. At the moment, statutory sick pay counts as pay for the purposes of universal credit, but maternity allowance counts as a benefit, so you lose universal credit pound for pound. If you are not entitled to statutory maternity pay and must go on maternity allowance, you are basically losing whatever money you get off universal credit. We are also supportive of the call from the Fawcett Society and Pregnant Then Screwed for a duty to advertise jobs as flexible.
We think that underpinning all this is the problem with our civil legal system; having improved rights at work is only as important as your ability to exercise those rights. Since the reduction to civil legal aid under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, the only area of employment law that is covered by legal aid is discrimination law. Many people do not even know that they have a discrimination case until they see a lawyer in the first place, so if this Bill is to have the effect that the Government want, they need to look at provisions around civil legal aid.
Greg Smith
Q
Dr Stephenson: Yes, that is something that we have also called for. This is where a woman loses a pregnancy before the point at which it counts as a stillbirth. Late pregnancy loss can be extremely traumatic and have health implications for women as well as psychological implications, and we think that the right to paid leave in those circumstances is really important.
The Chair
We now come to the finale—the Minister. Can you briefly introduce yourself for the record, please?
Justin Madders: Good afternoon. My name is Justin Madders. I am the Minister for Employment Rights, Competition and Markets. I also state for the record that I am a member of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
Greg Smith
Q
Justin Madders: Thank you for the question. I think the first thing to say is that it is not that unusual. In the last three years, there have been 10 red-rated Bills. Obviously, as the shadow Minister, you will be aware that it was your Government that introduced those. I think there is a challenge here that that all newly elected Governments face: obviously, we have a clear manifesto commitment to deliver on our agenda to make work pay and a clear manifesto commitment to introduce the legislation within 100 days of taking office. That means that, by definition, there is not the time and scope for the normal dialogue and informal conversations that you would get between the Department and the RPC before the final impact assessment is published. I think there is a fundamental challenge there.
As you would expect, we undertook quite a lot work in opposition to develop our policies, but because that is not part of the formal process, we were not able to take that into account. The alternative was for us to wait six or 12 months before we got that impact assessment into a position where the RPC was happy with it, and I do not think the public would really forgive us for having that hiatus between taking office and legislating.
It is also worth saying that, if you look at the individual assessments, two thirds of them have been greenlit, so they are getting approval from the RPC. We acknowledge that there is more work to do on some of them, and we will continue to work with the RPC. I also have a little sympathy with some of the difficulties that the RPC had in coming to its conclusions.
A good example of that is the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which the RPC has noted was red-rated when it was introduced as a Bill anyway. As that Act was poorly evidence-based in the first place, and has never actually been used since it came into force, it was very difficult for the RPC to have any real evidence on what the impact of a repeal would be. Our critique would be that the reason for that is because it was unworkable anyway, but I understand in the circumstances why the RPC would have some difficulty making a judgment on that.
On some of the other measures where it said that there was no evidence base, such as some of the equalities measures, we heard some pretty clear evidence both today and on Tuesday—for example, from the Fawcett Society and Pregnant Then Screwed—about some of the real impacts on individuals of the policies in the Bill. I would also say that I do not think there was any real evidence that there is not a need for this legislation. The general thrust from most witnesses was that this Bill would deal with some of the challenges in the labour market. Although not every witness said that, that was generally the case. Of course, as we move forward and get more evidence, we will happily work with the RPC to try to improve those reds to greens.
Greg Smith
Q
Justin Madders: I think it is important that we stick to our promises, and this measure was very popular with the public during the election. I think they wanted to see action quickly. We have had 14 years of atrophy and decline in the labour market—you are obviously not going to agree with that comment, but that would be our analysis—so the need to act quickly was there. A lot of these provisions will not actually become law for a number of months, if not years—in particular unfair dismissal, which we are saying will come in in autumn 2026 at the earliest. There is an awful lot more time to continue to engage and consult, and we intend to do that. Of course, because of the very detailed nature of employment law, a lot of it is developed in secondary legislation and also codes of practice. That is the completely normal practice, and that is why a lot of it is framed in this way.
Greg Smith
Q
Justin Madders: Yes, I do. I have to say, I did not agree with much of their evidence. I think it would be fair to say that they are outliers in what we heard while we engaged with businesses. Most businesses understood the importance of engaging and of enhancing workplace rights, and see the benefits of it. I can provide you with a list of all the organisations we have engaged with. It is certainly over 140 organisations. The majority of those are employers or employer organisations, so I think we have been pretty comprehensive. We are continuing that next week and will continue to do it for the rest of the Bill’s passage.
Greg Smith
Q
Justin Madders: I have sympathy with what was said there. The first thing to say is that the rates for maternity leave and allowance are set by the Department for Work and Pensions. I probably cannot say much more than that at this stage, although I have had some initial discussions with that Department about what we can do to reform this area, because we recognise that it is quite an outdated system.
Greg Smith
And on bereavement leave?
Justin Madders: Again, that is something I am sympathetic to. I understand that the Women and Equalities Committee is undertaking an inquiry on that at the moment, and we are going to see what it says.
Sarah Gibson
Q
Justin Madders: There were two questions there. On probationary periods, there will be more work done on that. The evidence that I picked up is that most employers feel that six months is about the right period. The reason why we have expressed a preference for nine months, which we are obviously engaging on anyway, is that we recognise that there will be occasions when people might be on the cusp of being hired or fired at that point and the employer just wants a little bit more time to work with them. We think that is a reasonable point, and we have responded to employers’ concerns on that.
As we move forward with this legislation, we will certainly be looking to ensure that all businesses, particularly small businesses, have readily available and easily understandable resources so that they know what they need to do. We do not want to pass a lot of laws that allow employers to fall into traps. We want them to comply with best practice, which is what we are trying to set out in this Bill.
Employment Rights Bill (Fifth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Greg Smith
Main Page: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)Department Debates - View all Greg Smith's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Fifth sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsTuesday 3rd December 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 December 2024 - (3 Dec 2024)
The Chair
Good morning, everyone. Will everyone please switch their electronic devices off or to silent mode?
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. The purpose of grouping is to limit, in so far as is possible, the repetition of the same points in debate. The amendments appear in the amendment paper in the order in which they relate to the Bill.
A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first; in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate by bobbing that they wish to speak in the debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, new clauses or new schedules, I shall again call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendments in a group to a vote—including grouped new clauses and new schedules—they will need to let me know. I shall use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following the debates on relevant amendments. I hope that explanation is helpful.
I remind Members about the rules on declarations of interests, as set out in the code of conduct. We will not go around the room now, but if you want to speak, you should declare your interest at that time.
Clause 1
Right to guaranteed hours
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 137, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“27ABA Reference to an employer
(1) For the purposes of Chapters 2 to 4 of this Part, references to an ‘employer’ do not apply to an employer defined as a small and medium sized enterprise under subsection (2).
(2) For the purposes of this section, a ‘small and medium sized enterprise’ means an organisation or person employing 500 or fewer employees.”
This amendment would exclude small and medium sized enterprises from the Bill’s provisions on zero hours contracts.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 138, in clause 7, page 24, line 33, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—
“(3) In paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after ‘shall’, insert ‘, in the case of an employer with fewer than 500 employees,’
(3B) In subsection (1), after paragraph (b), insert—
‘(c) may, in the case of an employer with 500 or more employees, refuse the application only if—
(i) the employer considers that the application should be refused on a ground or grounds listed in subsection (1ZA), and
(ii) it is reasonable for the employer to refuse the application on that ground or those grounds.
(1ZA) The grounds mentioned in subsection (1)(b) are—
(a) the burden of additional costs;
(b) detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand;
(c) inability to re-organise work among existing staff;
(d) inability to recruit additional staff;
(e) detrimental impact on quality;
(f) detrimental impact on performance;
(g) insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work;
(h) planned structural changes;
(i) any other grounds specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.’
(4) After subsection (1ZA) insert—
‘(1ZB) If an employer with 500 employees or more refuses an application under section 80F, the notification under subsection (1)(aa) must—
(a) state the ground or grounds for refusing the application, and
(b) explain why the employer considers that it is reasonable to refuse the application on that ground or those grounds.’
(5) After subsection (1D) insert—
(1E) The steps which an employer with 500 employees or more must take in order to comply with subsection (1)(aza) include, among others, any steps specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would exclude small and medium sized enterprises—here defined as employers with fewer than 500 employees—from the Bill’s provisions on flexible working requests.
Amendment 139, in clause 16, page 30, line 24, at end insert—
“(1D) For the purposes of subsection (1A), an ‘employer’ means an organisation or person employing 500 or more employees.”
This amendment would exclude employers with fewer than 500 employees from the Bill’s duty for employers to prevent harassment.
Amendment 141, in schedule 2, page 110, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
“1 In section 108 of the Employment Rights Act, for subsection (1), substitute—
(1) In the case of an employer with 500 or more employees, section 94 does not apply to the dismissal of an employee unless the employee has been continuously employed for a period of not less than two years ending with the effective date of termination.”
This amendment would exclude employers with fewer than 500 employees from the removal of the qualifying period for the right not to be unfairly dismissed.
Amendment 142, in schedule 2, page 112, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) shall apply only to employers with 500 or more employees.”
This amendment would exclude employers with fewer than 500 employees from regulations relating to removing the qualifying period for the right not to be unfairly dismissed.
Amendment 140, in clause 22, page 33, line 44, at end insert—
“(aa) ‘employer’ means a person employing 500 or more employees.”
This amendment would exclude employers with fewer than 500 employees from the Bill’s provisions on dismissal for failing to agree a variation of contract.
Greg Smith
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, on this bright and breezy December morning. It will be the new year by the time we finish our consideration of the Bill—let us see whether we are all as fresh after Christmas as we are today.
I shall briefly talk through the Opposition’s rationale for each of the grouped amendments. The lead amendment, amendment 137, seeks to exclude small and medium-sized enterprises from the Bill’s provisions on zero-hours contracts. The amendment is part of a set of amendments in my name intended to ameliorate the burden of the Bill for small and medium-sized businesses, defined as those with 500 or fewer employees.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Justin Madders
I refer to my registered interests and my trade union membership.
The shadow Minister might well have anticipated my question. Obviously, we acknowledge that the Bill is being brought through at good pace, which means that sometimes mistakes occur. I cannot help but notice that the amendment on today’s paper is slightly different from the one that appeared in previous weeks, which excluded businesses with 500 or more employees, rather than 500 or fewer. Will he clarify whether he is seeking to cosy up to big business or that was indeed an error?
Greg Smith
I am almost grateful for the Minister’s intervention. He was very perceptive to note the minor clerical error in the amendment that was previously submitted. That has now been corrected. Of course, the Conservative party stands with all business, but particularly with small and medium-sized enterprises, which, I can clarify for the record, we define as those with 500 or fewer employees.
The Regulatory Policy Committee has rated as red the identification of options and the choice of the policy in the Bill on zero-hours contracts and guaranteed hours. That means, in effect, that the Government have not justified the provisions in the Bill, the problem they are trying to solve, why they are needed or why they would work. The provisions on zero-hours contracts will create additional burdens on all businesses. The Opposition are particularly concerned about smaller businesses, which have less resource and resilience to cope with the measures: they do not have large HR or legal departments to help them navigate the additional requirements that will be placed on them. The Institute of Directors told us in its evidence that
“crafting the requirement for accessing guaranteed hours as something that employers need to be constantly calculating for all employees whenever they work beyond their fixed hours, and then making offers to people, some of whom would want to receive those offers and some of whom would not, seems to us the most administratively complex and costly way of delivering on the proposal.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 11, Q4.]
I am confident that the Minister will try to refute these points and somehow paint the amendment as creating a two-tier workforce, which it would not. I urge the Government to recognise the bureaucracy burden and risk that the zero-hours contract provisions will create for smaller businesses in particular. Providing for guaranteed offers of hours after 12 weeks would create a lot of additional administration for our small and medium-sized enterprises. I gently ask the Minister how credible he thinks it is that employees will reject offers made and that the process will have to start all over again.
Amendment 138 is similar to amendment 137 in what it seeks to do, but excludes small and medium-sized enterprises—again, defined as those with fewer than 500 employees—from the Bill’s provisions on flexible working requests. The RPC has said that the Government have presented “little evidence” that employers are refusing requests for flexible working unreasonably. When I talk to businesses in my constituency, I do not come across any complaints that flexible working is being refused unreasonably; I find many businesses that have, certainly in the post-covid era, made huge offers to their employees of working from home, mixed hours and working around the school run, or whatever it might be. It does not seem to me to be a particular problem in most businesses that I speak to. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to present some of his evidence for the necessity of these provisions. What led to the decision that these flexible working clauses are needed? If they are not, I urge the Government to accept our amendment to exempt SMEs from them.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
The amendments may create a two-tier workforce, as the shadow Minister suggested. Does he know how many employees in the UK would not have the benefit of these rights if we made the amendments he is suggesting?
Greg Smith
I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but the Opposition’s concern is that the burdens that the Bill’s provisions—including this one—place on many businesses will actually result in fewer jobs in the overall labour market in the United Kingdom. I cannot for one second accept that anybody in this House wants there to be fewer jobs in the economy as a whole. If small businesses are placed under the burdens that are addressed by the amendments, and do not make additional hires or take the risk on individuals for jobs, we will be in a very bad place. If small businesses—the backbone of our economy—are not hiring, not growing and not going on to become medium-sized and large businesses, the people who pay for that are workers and people looking for a job or to progress their careers.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I refer the Committee to my membership of GMB and Community, and to my former membership of the Employment Lawyers Association.
I am somewhat confused by the shadow Minister’s comments. On the one hand, he says that every business in his constituency offers flexible working already and therefore there is no requirement for this legislation; on the other hand, he says it is such a burden to businesses that it will stop them employing people. If everyone is doing it already and we are still employing people, what is the problem?
Greg Smith
I did not say that every business is offering flexible working. I said that, having visited businesses in my constituency, I am yet to find a problem around any business’s offering flexible working, or any employee or constituent with a complaint about an inability to get flexible working—quite the opposite, in fact.
If we consider the cumulative impact of all the measures in the Bill, they will certainly place a burden on business. The Opposition are trying to ensure that we take only those measures that will work—only those that will have a direct positive impact and will not be a burden on the HR department. Well, most small businesses do not have an HR department; often, it is the director or another member of the team who has to take on that additional job and understand the burden of regulation, on top of whatever their main contract has them doing. If we get rid of the measures that are simply not necessary, that will mean less of a burden on businesses, notwithstanding the point, which the hon. Member for Gloucester rightly highlighted, that the majority of businesses that I speak to do not have a problem offering flexible working—perhaps some businesses in other Members’ constituencies do.
The point of going through the Bill line by line in Committee is to metaphorically kick the tyres to ensure that its provisions are not a burden on business and will not have unintended consequences. As I said earlier, I cannot for one second believe that anybody in this House wants to see fewer jobs in the overall economy.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration of interests. I have run a small business for the last 20 years. It would probably even be considered a microbusiness, because a lot of professional services are. In the south-west, acquiring and retaining professional staff is extremely difficult for small businesses—certainly, retaining them is. Does the shadow Minister not think that if we create a two-tier system, where someone working for a larger business has better rights than someone working for a small business, it will be even more difficult for small businesses to hire and retain staff?
Greg Smith
The point we have to look at, across the six amendments that we are considering in this group, is the reality of small and medium-sized businesses. I congratulate the hon. Lady on running her own business. I was self-employed for 15 years before I was a Member of this House, so I understand the challenges. Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economy but, by definition, because they are small or medium sized, they struggle—as she rightly says—not just to employ across the piece, but to obtain the legal advice, HR advice and professional services to help them navigate the panoply of regulations, rules and laws that this place has passed over the generations, as the current Government are seeking to do again through this Bill.
The way I look at politics, the best way to govern is to ensure as light a touch as possible on business and to limit the necessity of sourcing additional HR and professional services and so on that small businesses just cannot afford. If they are forced down the route of sourcing expensive professional services, that will have a knock-on effect on the real wages that they can pay to their staff and on the ultimate cost to the consumer of whatever service or product they are providing—that is a basic law of economics.
Although I would never advocate a two-tier approach in principle, there is a real difference between businesses in our economy that can simply have massive HR and legal services departments, without having to outsource them or bring them in at expensive rates, and businesses that cannot. If we accept that reality, perhaps we can look at the burden of additional regulations that might be necessary to help real people and real businesses to grow the economy, so that small businesses can become medium and then large businesses, and can be successful.
The Opposition tabled amendment 138 to exempt small businesses from the flexible working provisions. As I said, small businesses are being clobbered by the Government. Retail, hospitality and leisure relief has been cut, which has led to increased business rates bills, and employer national insurance contributions are going up, which Bloomberg economists estimate will cost 130,000 jobs. I cannot see the justification for putting those provisions in the Bill. We would be grateful if the Minister could provide a full and frank rationale for them—or, if not, support our amendment.
Amendment 139 would exclude businesses with fewer than 500 employees from the Bill’s duty on employers to prevent third-party—I stress third-party—harassment. Of course, harassment in any form is totally, deeply and completely unacceptable in our country, and I am in no way trying to say otherwise, but the RPC has said that the Government have not provided “sufficient evidence” of the prevalence of third-party harassment or its impact to justify the approach taken in the Bill. I genuinely believe that every hon. Member wants to ensure that nobody in this country is harassed in any way, but, through that lens, we need to understand the evidence for the necessity of this particular provision about third-party harassment.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration of interests and my membership of the trade unions Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.
I am pleased that the Bill will increase protection from sexual harassment, being one of those middle-class women of a certain age—the Government’s commitment to holding workplace offenders to account cannot come soon enough. Last week, we heard that there is strong evidence that the majority of sexual harassment in the workplace, particularly in retail and hospitality, comes from third parties—a client, customer or patient. Surely, the hon. Member would agree that it is essential that employers can take reasonable steps to prevent harassment by third parties, because the net effect on the victim is the same whether that behaviour comes from a direct co-employee or a third party.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who makes an accurate and fair point. I repeat that harassment of any form, sexual or whatever, is deeply and totally unacceptable and wrong, and must be stamped out. The point that the Opposition are probing in amendment 139 is the proportionality of the impact on businesses—particularly small businesses—given the control that they have over third parties, and whether other laws that are already on the statute book should be used to fully ensure that anybody guilty of any form of harassment is brought to justice under the law. We are trying to understand how the particular measure in clause 1 would work, and its proportionality.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I again draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions.
Does the shadow Minister recognise that the prominent case of the Presidents Club harassment, which was exposed by the Financial Times some years ago, did apply to an employer that employed fewer than 500 people? That was specifically in respect of sexual harassment. The House has accepted the principle that measures should be put in place to prevent third-party sexual harassment; it did so last year, through the private Member’s Bill process—including for the SMEs that the shadow Minister refers to. The most famous case on third-party harassment was the Bernard Manning case in 1996, which covered racial harassment; and recent tribunal judgments, including in 2019, have exposed gaps in the law. So does the shadow Minister recognise that there are important proven cases of third-party harassment that go beyond the current legal framework, that would be remedied by the provisions in the Bill?
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will not seek to mislead the Committee by saying that I am across the Presidents Club case, but I am aware of the Manning case. Undoubtedly there are holes in the law, because harassment does take place in workplaces and outside workplaces up and down the land. Conservative Members categorically want that stamped out and want those guilty of those offences to face justice. However, as we go through the Bill line by line, we need to ask ourselves, “Does this proposal work, or are there other laws—criminal laws if necessary—to ensure that the authorities have the absolute ability to bring such prosecutions and ensure that those guilty of these horrible crimes are brought to justice?”
Amendments 141 and 142 are part of the set of amendments around ensuring that SMEs are not given undue burdens. These are about excluding employers with fewer than 500 employees from the removal of the qualifying period for the right not to be unfairly dismissed. RPC, which has had a lot to say about the Bill, has said that the day one unfair dismissal rights are estimated to cost businesses around £43.2 million per year.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister may be familiar with this line of questioning, because it is basically the same issue as earlier. I may have misinterpreted the way that amendment 141 interplays with the Employment Rights Act 1996, but the amendment refers to
“an employer with 500 or more employees,”
although the explanatory note then says 500 or fewer. Will the shadow Minister clarify what the intention is?
Greg Smith
I am clear that it should be 500 or fewer. I will not pretend to guess how some of the misdrafting may have occurred; it happens to all parties when they are in government and in opposition. I can remember a couple of errors in Bill Committees when I was sat on the Back Benches on the opposite side from the then Opposition. I apologise to the Committee for any errors. For the clarity of the record, we mean 500 or fewer employees when we are defining an SME.
To be asked to give Government the power to make regulations with no idea what the regulations imposed on businesses will be, is clearly not a position we want to be in. The Government admit that the day one unfair dismissal rights could have negative impacts on employment and hiring, which could include incentivising employers to turn to temporary or fixed-term workers. The day one unfair dismissal rights could make it more difficult for those unemployed or economically inactive to access jobs, through overall negative impacts on employment and/or a strengthening of insider power. Alex Hall-Chen from the Institute of Directors warned the Committee that
“under the current system, employers are very likely to take a risk on hiring a borderline candidate who may not have quite the right experience or qualifications, but they will now be much less likely to take that risk because the cost of getting it wrong will be considerably higher.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 8, Q2.]
There are important questions about what that means for people on the fringes of the labour market, especially as they are precisely the people the Government say that they need to get back into work to meet their 80% employment rate target.
We should all reflect on this point from the evidence that we heard last week: very many people in our society deserve a second chance in life. They might have made mistakes before, or be on a path to rehabilitation from offending or something else—whatever it might be—and I would hate it if people who found themselves in that position were not able to get a second chance. Employers that are willing to give second or even third chances should have the best empowerment to do so, to get people who find themselves in that position into work and on to the path to a better life.
I fear that the unintended consequence of the legislation will be to shut many people who find themselves in that position out of the ability to get a job, to improve their lives and to get themselves on to a better path. SMEs will feel the burden of the new regulations particularly acutely without large HR and legal teams, as I have said.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Bill as drafted seems to skew a competitive advantage in favour of large businesses. Earlier, my hon. Friend mentioned that small and medium-sized businesses are the key to economic growth in our country. These amendments will enable them to compete evenly because, as he says, they do not have large HR functions, or the support mechanisms that large businesses have. The amendments will redress the unfairness in the Bill.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that input. He is absolutely right, and his argument hits the nail on the head. The point we are trying to get across through the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friends in Committee is that small businesses sometimes just do not have the resource to go through the heavy, burdensome regulations that big businesses can navigate. Mega-businesses probably have more employees in their HR or legal department than most small businesses have altogether.
Laurence Turner
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way; he has been generous with his time. On the point about perverse incentives, does he accept that if this group of amendments were in force, it would create a perverse incentive for the creation of umbrella companies and other forms of employment law evasion? If we are to enforce the provisions that we seek to pass in the Bill, instead of introducing a new dimension to employment law through the exemptions that he proposes, the only way to do that is to have a consistent approach across employers.
Greg Smith
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about umbrella companies. He almost tempts me to get on to one of my hobby horses, which is IR35, but that would be way out of scope, so I promise not to go there.
My principal point is that there are always unintended consequences. And yes, in some respects, while acknowledging the reality of the contribution that small businesses make to our economy and their ability to meet a heavy regulatory demand, there may have to be other steps around that to prevent the further perverse incentives that the hon. Gentleman mentions. But I come back to my central argument: if we clobber small businesses down, there will be fewer jobs, and small businesses will not be growing, which means that the whole UK economy is not growing. His Government purport to want to see the economy grow. The Budget flew in the face of that, but, if we take as read the desire of all Members to see a growing economy in the United Kingdom, we cannot have that without small business, medium-sized enterprises or, frankly, the self-employed.
Let us not forget that, as we came out of the 2008 crash and through the coalition years, a huge part of economic growth came from the growth of self-employment, which led to those self-employed registering as companies, growing and—many of them—being a huge success story. If the Bill has the unintended consequence of reducing the incentive for entrepreneurs to set up on their own, start a business and employ people, that is a very unhappy place to be.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
I refer the Committee to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my trade union memberships. When the shadow Minister listed the groups upon whom growth depends, he seemed to miss a rather large group—the workers. Does he accept that the purpose of the Bill is to create good employment and valued workforces? As we heard in evidence, good employment and valued workforces lead to increased productivity. Opposition Members are often keen to refer to the cumulative burden. As we are now on their fourth or fifth amendment, all in the same vein—about excluding millions of workers in this country from the benefits of the Bill—does he accept that the cumulative effect is to create a set of wrecking amendments that will remove the benefits of this Bill from millions of people in this country?
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes his point well, but I fundamentally disagree that these are in any way, shape or form wrecking amendments. Where we have common ground and where we do agree is that, of course, no business is anything without its employees—the people who actually do the work. However, where I think he and I may disagree, and I do not want to put words into his mouth, so I invite him to intervene on me again if I get this wrong, is about the person who has risked their capital—who has either borrowed money or risked money to have to start that business— who runs that business, who is the director of that business, being as much a working person as everybody else within it. Businesses only exist because of human beings—before our AI overlords come in and take over everything, way into the future. Of course, workers are at the hub of that, but the people who run the businesses are as much working people as everybody else.
To come back to the central point, there will be no workers, or fewer workers, if there are not people to actually employ them in the first place. If the Bill’s unintended consequences are that SMEs—and perhaps larger businesses, but to be frank, it is more likely to be SMEs—are disincentivised from taking people on, disincentivised from growing their workforce, I do not think anybody will be happy.
Michael Wheeler
The shadow Minister invited clarification and an intervention. I do not think that anyone is disputing some of what he says, though we will dispute much. In the context of the Bill, he talks much about, as he put it, the mounting burden, but with little evidence—though he seems to quite like evidence when referencing the RPC. Does he accept, though, that the fundamental principle of the Bill is a rebalancing within the economy between workers and their employers, that nothing in it goes beyond that, and that some rebalancing is actually needed within that relationship for growth across the whole economy?
Greg Smith
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Of course, it is no surprise that a Labour Government would seek to bring in such a Bill. We knew it was coming; it was in their manifesto. We will come to the question of whether they really needed to rush this out in 100 days, given the number of Government amendments that we will consider later. It is, by definition, a rebalancing, and I hesitate to say this for perhaps the fourth, fifth or sixth time, but this process is about kicking the tyres.
I welcome our debate in Committee. The point of a Bill Committee is to go through provisions in far more detail than we can on Second Reading in the main Chamber, or even on Report or Third Reading further down the line. Even if Conservative Members would not have gone about making changes in this way, we need to be certain that the Government of the day succeed in their aims. The Labour party has a mandate to govern the country and we want to be a constructive Opposition. Although we might not agree with everything that the Government do—or maybe nothing that they do—it is in the country’s interest that they succeed. Therefore, kicking the tyres on the Bill and ensuring that unintended consequences are ironed out in Committee is a good debate to have and a fundamental purpose behind why we will all will spend our Tuesdays and Thursdays together through to the end of January.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
On the cumulative effect of the pressures that are building on business, during our evidence sessions last week with various witnesses, the compelling point was made that we should not look at the Bill in isolation. The impact assessment states that the costs are a minimum £5 billion a year for business. Some witnesses thought that that was actually an underestimate, and that the true figure will be higher and will grow when more details emerge as we go through this process. We should also look at the Bill alongside decisions such as the equalisation of the national living wage for young people, the increase in employer’s national insurance contributions and other business taxes that were in the Budget. I thought my hon. Friend might want to say something about the cumulative effects of all those decisions.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend is right. The cumulative impact of other measures should be considered in the round. I might gently push back by saying that some of those matters are perhaps not fully in scope of the amendments that we are discussing. However, he is absolutely right that the Bill has to be considered in the light of other factors relating to other decisions in Government, be that fiscal events or other legislation. That goes to the nub of this set of amendments. This is about whether some of the measures are proportionate given the Government’s original intent in the Bill, and whether some of the original intent in the Bill, from which these amendments seek to exclude SMEs, will be the metaphorical straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Amendment 140 excludes employers with fewer than 500 employees from the Bill’s provisions on dismissal for failing to agree a variation of contact—this is also part of our set of amendments. We have questions about the wisdom of clause 22, or at least we seek reassurance from the Minister that it will not prevent employers from improving working conditions or working practices. I would like to remove yet another burden on small and medium-sized business unless and until the Government can prove that that measure is needed and proportionate, and that, critically, the benefits will outweigh the costs.
Alex McIntyre
My experience in business goes way back. My parents ran a small business and, although I would not say I was a worker at it, I helped out from the age of nine. I got my first job at a small business when I was 12, and I worked in the hospitality trade throughout my school and university years, all at small and medium-sized enterprises. I spoke last week about the fact that I was on a zero-hours contract for the most part while I was there. I then became an employment lawyer advising businesses, from start-ups to FTSE 100 companies and global conglomerates. So I have some experience in these matters, and I am very grateful to be on the Committee.
Let me go back to my experience on a zero-hours contract. We are talking about amendments that would take out SMEs from many of these provisions, and I want to draw on two of my experiences and say why I think this issue is important. I mentioned the first last week: when I was on a zero-hours contract at the hotel that I worked at in my later teens, everybody in that business was on a zero-hours contract. As a 15-year-old, I was quite happy to be on a zero-hours contract. I had to balance it with playing rugby and my studies, but in the summer I could flex up and work longer hours. However, for many of my colleagues, that was their full-time job; it was the job that paid their rent or mortgage—if they had been lucky enough to buy a house—looked after their kids and provided the heating each winter. But when it came to it, it was open to abuse, and the manager I had would vary hours based not on demand, but on whether she liked the individual or not.
I remember vividly that one week a colleague refused—quite rightly, I would say—to take the manager’s personal shopping up to her fourth-floor flat, because he was really busy behind the bar; he was the only barman on shift. He usually worked between 50 and 60 hours a week; for the next month, he was given five hours a week. He had two children, and rent to pay. I just do not agree with the amendment suggesting that that is fine and that that abuse of someone’s rights could continue indefinitely.
Greg Smith
I think that we have had a good—possibly lengthy for a Bill Committee—debate on this group of six amendments. My fundamental concern and argument is around the cumulative impact and the risk of the unintended consequence—I do not think we have got the reassurance we require on that—that these measures could actually dissuade SMEs. I accept that we can debate how to precisely define SMEs, from the Liberal Democrats’ quite low-ball position of around 20, to the 249 mark, or to the 500 mark in our own amendments but, if the net result—the unintended consequence—is fewer jobs overall in the economy, nobody wins.
I certainly want to reassure the Committee, on the point about third-party harassment, that the Opposition absolutely want all forms of harassment stamped out, for sure. I thank the hon. Member for Gloucester for sharing his personal story with the Committee; clearly what happened to him was wholly unacceptable, and I am very sorry that he had to endure it, as many other people do around the country. The question that we are posing is whether this the right law to do it, or are there other laws required to be as firm as humanly possible to stamp down on those unacceptable behaviours? Our point stands—that concern stands—that this measure could, in the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield, actually create a “perverse incentive” for employers not to give people that chance in life, not to grow their workforce, and not to take that risk or that gamble that, in turn, would grow the economy, which I think we all want them to do.
As we are mindful of the need to probe this measure a little bit further and to get some of those definitions right, we reserve the right to revisit this on Report but, for the time being, we will not be pushing any of those six amendments to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 149, in clause 1, page 2, line 29, leave out
“a number of hours (‘the minimum number of hours’) not exceeding a specified number of hours”
and insert
“two hours or fewer per week (‘the minimum number of hours’)”.
This amendment defines the number of hours that would constitute a “low hours” contract.
Hopefully we can have a little bit more speed with this debate. In amendment 149, we seek to define a low-hours contract to mean that fewer than two hours’ work is made available during the week. I want to be clear with the Committee that this is a probing amendment, because we are not saying that two hours should constitute a low-hours contract. The Opposition want to know how the Government would define a low-hours contract. The probing amendment will hopefully enable us to understand the Government’s intent fully.
The Government have sadly failed both to consult widely with business and to conduct proper policy development work, and they have thereby introduced a Bill without giving Members across the House a clue as to the actual objective of the definition of a low-hours contract. This is a simple and straightforward probing amendment. I would be grateful to the Minister for some clarity on the Government’s definition of a low-hours contract and on what that definition will be used for.
Michael Wheeler
I appreciate that the shadow Minister has said that it is a probing amendment. I wish it was not quite so ridiculous, in all honesty—it is an utter low ball—but I will speak to it and to the clause it seeks to amend.
Greg Smith
I know the hon. Gentleman is new to the House, but sometimes one has to be a bit ridiculous to prove a point and to get answers. Does he agree?
Michael Wheeler
Well, I agree on my newness, and maybe as I gain more experience, I will encounter more ridiculousness in this place than I already have—in fact, I am sure I will. I wish to speak to the amendment, despite its probing nature. In my view, and I hope the Minister would agree, the clause is designed to promote stability and financial security for those who currently lack it because of the number of hours that are baked into their contracts. To set the bar as low as two hours would run counter to that purpose.
The measure has been widely trailed and debated in the run-up to the election and in this Committee. I highlight a few things that I hope the Minister will speak to with a view to that purpose. I hope that we would all agree that tackling the insecurity that millions of people in our economy face is a worthy aim, and that that is not limited just to those on zero-hours contracts but includes those on low-hours contracts who regularly work more than their set hours.
I spoke of a rebalancing earlier, and that is about fairness and the quality of employment. As part of that, it is only right that, where need is demonstrated, employees are offered—not given; there is still an element of choice—the opportunity to have those hours baked into their contracts, as is set out in the Bill. That would improve their financial security, their work-life balance, the predictability of their hours, and their ability to live their lives, to which their income is incredibly important.
I am looking forward to hearing the Minister roundly reject this amendment, but I also want him to address some other parts of the clause, specifically the inverse of the amendment, the phrase,
“not exceeding a specified number of hours”.
I hope we would want to see this measure apply to as many workers—
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for clarifying that this is a probing amendment, and possibly also that it is a ridiculous amendment, although I am not sure that that is the best way to persuade us to accept it. He will not be surprised to hear that we will not accept it.
An important point has been raised, and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles has asked a number of questions about what the amendment is trying to achieve. As I understand it, the amendment would mean that only workers on zero-hours contracts or arrangements, and those with two hours or fewer guaranteed per week, would be covered by the regulations. It would also remove the power to make regulations setting the maximum number of hours for those low-hours contracts to be in scope of the provisions.
The low-hours concept will be crucial in determining how many workers end up in scope of the right to guaranteed hours. That is partly intended as an anti-avoidance measure, to prevent employers from avoiding the duty to offer guaranteed hours by moving a worker on to a contract guaranteeing a very small number of hours. I think we can all see that, if the shadow Minister’s amendment were accepted, we would soon be talking in the lexicon about two-hours contracts, rather than zero-hours contract, and that would not deal with the questions of stability and security that we are trying to address.
We will consult on what we mean by low hours. We think it is very important to get this point absolutely right, and we understand that pitching it at a level that works for both the business and the worker will be absolutely critical. We are committed to working in partnership.
We are looking to clarify the provision in regulations. We understand that there are arguments about the detail being in the Bill, but the counter-argument is that putting the details in regulations gives us more flexibility to review the provisions as we move along. It is fair to say that we do not expect the number to end up being two hours. I do not think there has been any evidence put forward for that.
Greg Smith
As I said to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles, sometimes something a little obscure is needed in order to get noticed and to get an answer.
There is a serious question on what constitutes a low-hours contract. The Minister has just said he will consult, but presumably he will consult on a range—the consultation document will not be a blank piece of paper inviting people to say exactly what they think. What is the range in which the Government believe a low-hours contract should be defined, which will be within that consultation he has promised?
Justin Madders
The hon. Gentleman asked so many questions that I did not have a chance to make a note of them. A lot of the issues he raised will be dealt with by amendments that we will debate today or later in the Bill’s passage, but I take his points. We are trying to legislate in a way that prevents unintended consequences and loopholes. I would say to the shadow Minister, “Watch this space,” and encourage him to take part in the consultation, but we cannot accept his amendment.
Greg Smith
It is no surprise that the Government are unwilling to accept the amendment; it is a probing amendment, so we would probably have been quite upset if they had. The fundamental point I still want to get at, while making clear the probing nature of the amendment and that we will withdraw it, is that while I am half reassured by the consultation, it is critical that there is clarity and definition for businesses out there that want to understand what is coming down the line in this piece of legislation. Everyone knows the parliamentary arithmetic at the moment; this will become law at some point during this Session.
While it is never an ideal scenario to legislate first and consult second—it is far better to do it the other way round—we need greater clarity, as soon as is humanly possible, on how the Government intend to define low-hours contracts as they go to consultation. I cannot accept that there will not be some floor and ceiling within the range that the Government seek to consult on, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 152, in clause 1, page 3, line 2, after “not” insert
“on a fixed-term contract or”.
This amendment will exempt a worker on fixed-term contracts from being categorised as a “qualifying worker”.
This too will hopefully be a relatively straightforward debate. The amendment seeks to exempt workers on fixed-term contracts from being categorised as qualifying workers. This is a probing amendment in my name, on behalf of the official Opposition. We would like to understand why it is proportionate, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, for the provisions on guaranteed hours to apply to workers on fixed-term contracts, given that we still do not know the length of the reference period. Is it proportionate for a business to have to make an offer of guaranteed hours to a worker whose contract will in any event come to an end just after the reference period? In last week’s evidence sessions, some witnesses talked about workers who are perhaps on a very specific construction project with a definite end point—when the railway station is built, there is nothing left to build on that project—so it is not possible to escape the fixed-term nature of some contracts. Without knowing the length of the Government’s proposed reference period, it is impossible to make a judgment on the effect of extending guaranteed hours to workers on those fixed-term contracts. I should be grateful if the Minister would provide clarity on that, so that this probing amendment can be put to bed, or further questions can be asked down the road.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister will not be surprised to hear that we will resist the amendment. First, it is important to note that the Bill does not ban the use of fixed-term contracts, or seek to force employers to make workers on fixed-term contracts permanent. That is not our intention. We recognise that in some cases, a fixed-term contract will be the most appropriate one for both worker and employer. For example, under the Bill’s provisions, it would be reasonable to enter into a limited-term contract where the contract is entered into for the worker to perform a specific task, and the contract will end once that task is completed. Many fixed-term contracts also already have clearly stated guaranteed hours within them.
However, where a fixed-term contract is used, we think it is important that within that fixed-term period, workers have the same right to guaranteed hours as those on permanent contracts. For eligible workers, if the fixed-term contract does not guarantee more hours than what are considered to be low hours as set out in the regulations—which we will come to in due course—and is longer than the anticipated reference period of 12 weeks, which we will continue to work on, then employers will be required to offer a guaranteed-hours contract for the remainder of the contract, reflecting the hours worked regularly over the reference period. The amendment would create a serious loophole in the legislation, allowing employers to use fixed-term contracts to evade the purposes of the legislation entirely. There would be no mechanism to prevent the use of a fixed-term contract for 12 weeks or longer, so eligible workers would not have certainty of their hours. We would open up a serious loophole, which I am afraid unscrupulous employers would exploit. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Greg Smith
I accept the points made by the Minister, but I still think there is a relative concern. We in no way, shape or form want to create loopholes—certainly not for any unscrupulous employer, and I want that to be very clear and on the record—but we do totally accept that there are some very legitimate fixed-term contracts out there, such as certain construction projects.
Greg Smith
I hope, from the nodding coming from the Government Front Bench, that Ministers agree with this. We will withdraw the amendment, but this point needs considerably more debate as the Bill progresses to ensure that while no loopholes for the unscrupulous are created, and that protections are there for employers around fixed-term contracts.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 151, in clause 1, page 3, line 2, after “worker” leave out
“(but see section 27BV for power to make provision about agency workers)”.
This amendment is consequential on the amendment that removes the ability of the Secretary of State to make regulations to make provision for agency workers to have similar provision to the right to guaranteed hours.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 150, in clause 4, page 23, line 24, leave out “2,”.
This amendment removes the ability of the Secretary of State to make regulations to make provision for agency workers to have similar provision to the right to guaranteed hours.
Greg Smith
There are just a couple more Opposition amendments to go before we get to some Government ones. Amendments 150 and 151 propose to exclude agency workers from the provisions on the right to guaranteed hours. The provisions in the Bill relating to agency workers are another example of the Government’s not having done proper policy work before introducing the Bill. I fully understand their desire to get it out within 100 days, but sometimes, if a Government have a mandate for five years, 100 days can seem quite quick.
The Bill specifies that the right to guaranteed hours with reasonable notice of the cancellation of a shift does not apply to agency workers, but it includes a Henry VIII power to extend those provisions to agency workers at a later date. I therefore ask the Minister the following questions. Why is it not straightforwardly on the face of the Bill that those provisions apply to agency workers? Why the Henry VIII power? What is the policy decision? In the Government’s mind, are agency workers included in the principle, as well as the letter, of this legislation? We have concerns about these provisions, which could be extended to agency workers. How would the employment relationship then work? Who would dictate the hours? If it is the end user rather than the agency, surely they become the employer? It all becomes rather confusing.
Is this measure an attempt to ban agency working by the back door? I think everyone would accept that agency workers are sometimes some of the biggest heroes in our economy, as they fill gaps when full-time workers on contracts are unable to get to work that day, for whatever reason—be it sickness or anything else—particularly in key professions such as nursing, healthcare and teaching.
Until the Government can explain their intention, the Opposition do not believe it is responsible for the House to give them the powers to entirely change at a later date the policy position set out on the face of the Bill. We need clarity right now, so that this Committee, and the whole House later in the Bill’s progress, can come to a proper, informed decision.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for tabling these amendments. He will again be unsurprised to learn that we will not be accepting them.
The Bill fulfils our pledge to end exploitative zero-hours contracts. We are introducing a right to guaranteed hours to eligible workers on zero and low-hours contracts, to give them the greater security and stability that all workers deserve. Although workers may choose agency work because they value flexibility, they can also experience the one-sided flexibility and insecurity that we have talked about already. If we do not include a power to include agency workers, there is a risk that employers wishing to evade the Bill will simply shift their workforce on to agency work to avoid giving them rights.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Much employment law, particularly in relation to agency workers, is dealt with by regulations; that is appropriate because of the detail required. It is not a break with the past, albeit I accept the criticisms that we may be seen to be taking part for ourselves; I think it is entirely consistent with the way this has operated previously. It is something that we shall now consider in terms of the responses to the consultation. For those reasons, I think the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire should withdraw his amendment.
Greg Smith
I accept many of the Minister’s points about the consultation, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater has made clear, there is a Henry VIII power here. When legislation as wide as this is proposed, it is a big problem to have such a lack of clarity about where it will lead for agency workers, who are such a critical part of our economy and our workforce across many sectors. Given the Henry VIII element, we seek a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 143, in clause 1, page 3, line 17, leave out “with the specified day” and insert
“18 months after the day on which the period began”.
This amendment defines each initial reference period as being 18 months long.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 144, in clause 1, page 3, line 19, leave out “with the specified days” and insert
“18 months after the day on which the period began”.
This amendment defines each subsequent reference period as being 18 months long.
Greg Smith
This is the last group of Opposition amendments for a little while. Amendments 143 and 144 would specify the length of the reference period as 18 months. The RPC, which was widely referenced in the first set of amendments, has said that the Government have not justified why they are pursuing—
Michael Wheeler
It is a quick intervention: I am just wondering whether the amendment’s reference to 18 months is another example of the ridiculousness that we were talking about.
Greg Smith
It is certainly probing. Like earlier amendments, it is intended to spark debate so that we can understand where the Government sit on the issue, what is coming down the line and what businesses can expect in the real world once the Bill receives Royal Assent at some point next year.
The last Conservative Government removed exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts, tackling those contracts that were potentially exploitative. The clause that the amendment seeks to amend is based on the flawed assumption that employers will exploit their employees and that all the power in the relationship lies with the employer. There is no doubt that some do, but the Opposition do not hold the presumption that all will. Those that do should be challenged, but the vast majority do not seek to exploit their employees.
The London School of Economics has found that zero-hours contract jobs have 25% more applicants than permanent positions in the same role. That flexibility is clearly sought after by employees. The author of the study said:
“Policymakers should be cautious with how heavily the use of zero-hours contracts is regulated.”
The RPC has asked the Government to clarify the likelihood that the Bill’s provisions on zero-hours contracts will increase unemployment and worklessness, and how far that risk is mitigated by zero-hours contracts remaining potentially available. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified the extent to which they will remain available. What is his view on the impact that the policy will have on workers who might like to work fewer than the guaranteed number of hours a day? Some people may desire that.
We believe the legislation should include the exact length of the reference period. I accept Government Members’ point about the 18-month figure, but as I said to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles, it is about triggering a debate, kicking the tyres and getting to a reasonable but considered position on what the reference period should be. The Opposition’s point is that we should know what it is. It is not just politicians in this House and the other place who need to know, but the real businesses, entrepreneurs and drivers of our economy who employ real people. They need to understand what the legislation is going to specify and what the rules are by which they are going to have to play the game.
Laurence Turner
The Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023 sets the reference period at 12 weeks. The hon. Gentleman says that 18 months is probably an artificially high number. Does he think that the 12-week reference period, which the previous Government supported just 12 months ago, is in about the right place?
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the previous Government set the reference period at 12 weeks. What we do not have clarity on is whether the Bill will change that. Will the new Government shorten it or lengthen it? It is about clarity. This is a rushed Bill, published in 100 days. We do not have the answers or the hard data that we need for debate and that individual Members need so that they can go to businesses in their constituency and take a view before they vote on Report or on Third Reading.
We heard from several witnesses that the length of the reference period needs to account for seasonal work. UKHospitality has put 26 weeks forward as a sensible length. That is not necessarily the Opposition’s position, but we would be foolish to ignore the evidence that the hospitality sector presented to us last week.
The amendment is intended to test what the Minister is planning and—ever the most critical question in politics—why. How will we ensure that the length will not be overly burdensome and that it will take account of the different needs of so many sectors?
Sarah Gibson
Like previous amendments, the amendment highlights a serious concern among quite a lot of local businesses to which I have spoken, especially SMEs, which is that a considerable amount of detail has not been included in the Bill and is being left to secondary legislation. Although consultation is highly welcome, it needs to happen as fast as possible, because the interim period between seeing the Bill and getting the detail is causing a huge amount of stress and uncertainty for businesses working in ever more complicated conditions.
Greg Smith
Of course it is on the absurd end of the spectrum, but as I said to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles, that is to highlight the issue. Sometimes, when we have a total lack of clarity and of the information that real businesses need, as the hon. Member for Chippenham highlighted, we throw in a stone to try to get a proper answer. That is what the Opposition seek, and I will be incredibly grateful if the Minister now tells us what he wants the reference period to be.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for intervening, but there is not a total lack of clarity. We have been clear all along, including when we were in opposition, that the reference period should be 12 weeks. However, we want to continue dialogue with businesses to ensure that we get the right answer to the question of how long the reference period should be for guaranteed hours. As we heard, it is an established period that has been used in the previous Government’s legislation, in the workers’ predictable terms and conditions provisions and under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010. It is an established principle in law that 12 weeks is about right for a reference period. Nevertheless, we will continue to consult and engage with businesses, trade unions and all employers’ organisations about whether it is right.
At the moment, our considered view is that 12 weeks is the right period; we certainly do not believe that 18 months is. [Interruption.] I think the shadow Minister is nodding. We do not think that 18 months is a realistic proposition. I understand the point about seasonal work, but 18 months would take us through half a dozen seasons. He will probably accept that that would not necessarily work.
As for why this measure is needed, the shadow Minister said that the Opposition do not presume that all employers set out to exploit their workforce. I make it clear that the Government do not presume that either; we believe that good businesses are good for their workers and good for the wider economy. We heard plenty of witnesses give evidence last week about the good industrial relations that they practise and the benefits for their workers. The point of the Bill, however, is that we know that not everyone is a good employer. We need to weed out bad practice, because we believe that all workers deserve the same protections in the economy.
The shadow Minister asked whether zero-hours contracts will still be available for those who might not want to work guaranteed hours. He will be aware that the legislation does not compel an individual to accept an offer of guaranteed hours; it has been set up in that way for the individual. There are examples of people—possibly including my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester in his earlier years—whom zero-hours contracts suit better. If that is what he genuinely wants to continue working on, he is entitled to do so.
The hon. Member for Chippenham asked about the speed at which we are operating. I think she wants us to go faster, so she might need a word with the shadow Minister, who wants us to go a little slower. We are clear that we will take our time before we introduce a lot of the provisions, because we want to get the detail right and we want to engage with businesses. An awful lot of the press coverage is understandably raising anxiety levels, but a lot of it is based on speculation rather than on the law, because the law has not yet been set: the Bill has not been passed, and the regulations and the codes of practice that will follow have not been produced. It is important that we take our time, because we want to work with businesses as we produce information going forward.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater made a point about seasonal work that we heard on various occasions during our evidence sessions, but I think my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester has answered it: if an employer knows that they will be busy for particular parts of the year, a fixed-term contract is the answer.
On the question of business experience, I can claim to have set up my own business when I was 17—I am not saying that it was a FTSE 100-listed effort or anything—and before I was elected I worked in the private sector for 20 years.
We do not think that the shadow Minister’s amendment would deliver the policy outcome that we seek. I suspect he recognises that, too, so I invite him to withdraw it.
Greg Smith
Of course we will withdraw the amendment, but the critical question is why the Minister has referred to 12 weeks, but it is not in the legislation. As he considers tabling amendments of his own in Committee or on Report, I urge him to lock that in, so that certainty for business is on the face of the Bill, rather than things being left open.
Justin Madders
If we put 12 weeks on the face of the Bill, would the Opposition support it?
Greg Smith
Our own legislation last year cited 12 weeks. There is clearly a lot in the Bill that we oppose because we just do not think it works in the interests of British business or workers, but 12 weeks would at least give us some certainty that would be consistent with the previous Government. 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 (Sixth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Greg Smith
Main Page: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)Department Debates - View all Greg Smith's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Sixth sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsTuesday 3rd December 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 December 2024 - (3 Dec 2024)
Justin Madders
Amendment 11 will introduce a duty on employers to inform workers when an exemption applies and the employer is exempt from their obligation to offer a worker a guaranteed hours contract. Any exemptions to the duty to offer guaranteed hours will be defined in regulations.
Amendment 11 will also introduce a duty on employers to inform workers where an offer of guaranteed hours already given is to be treated as withdrawn because a relevant termination has taken place. That will ensure that workers are aware of when they are not receiving a guaranteed hours offer because an exemption applies. It will allow workers to check that the exemption is applicable to them, and then enable them to enforce their right to guaranteed hours where an exemption is not applicable.
Associated consequential amendments 14, 19 and 44 will ensure that workers will be able to take a complaint to an employment tribunal if the worker is not provided with a notice of exemption or a notice of the withdrawal of an offer already made. That will also be the case where a notice has been provided but should not have been, or where a notice has been provided but cites the wrong exemption.
Amendment 13 will introduce a new duty on employers that will ensure that workers who would likely qualify for a guaranteed hours offer are aware of certain information about the right to guaranteed hours. That will help to ensure that workers are informed about the new right and can therefore take decisions about their working hours during their reference period based on the information they receive about their possible right to a guaranteed hours offer.
Further consequential amendments 15, 23 and 45 have been made to ensure that a worker may enforce their right to be informed about the right to a guaranteed hours offer by taking a complaint to an employment tribunal. A consequential amendment 20 has been made to define the period within which a complaint of this nature may be taken to a tribunal. I think we might get to that later in relation to the general application of extended time limits.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. As a precursor to my comments on these specific amendments, I note that the sheer volume of Government amendments that we are considering really goes to show that the Bill might have met a political objective in being published in 100 days, but that it was not ready to be published in those 100 days. At worst, that is a discourtesy to the House and, at best, it shows that the legislation simply has not been drafted properly. These changes simply would not have been necessary had due diligence been done on the Bill before it was published.
I would like to focus on amendment 13 from this group of amendments. That amendment requires employers to give their employees access to certain information to be specified in regulations—we are back to our old friend of regulations to come. Let me ask the Minister the following: what information will amendment 13 require employers to make available? Why? And what further burden will be imposed later down the line by regulations, thanks to the power taken in the clauses? Employees will be able to take their employer to a tribunal for not providing this information, as provided for in amendment 15, so I suggest to the Committee and the Minister that it is vital that we can understand the requirements that the clause will place on employers.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s questions. No doubt during the passage of the Bill we will come back on several occasions to that point about the number of amendments. I just place on record my gratitude to the civil service and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for their work in getting the Bill published to the parliamentary deadline that was politically set. Of course, lots of Bills have amendments as they progress. As is consistent with our wish to engage thoughtfully, we may still have further amendments.
As for the shadow Minister’s questions, it is entirely usual to put that sort of detailed information in regulation, and we would not normally specify it in a Bill. We are trying to ensure that workers who are captured by the zero-hours legislation are aware that they are captured by it and are entitled to certain rights, such as the offer of a guaranteed hours contract. This is about making sure that some of the most vulnerable people in society, who are often exploited by zero-hours contracts, are at least given the information to ensure that their rights are enforced. We will work with businesses and employers, and representatives and trade unions on the precise detail of the information to be provided, but this is about making sure that all parties are aware of their legal obligations. I hope that the shadow Minister understands that this is an important part of the legislation.
Amendment 11 agreed to.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 1, page 8, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert—
“(6) For the purposes of subsection (3)(c) (and subsection (4)(b), which applies subsection (3)(c))—
(a) subsection (8) of section 27BB (when it is reasonable for a worker’s contract to be entered into as a limited-term contract) applies as it applies for the purposes of that section;
(b) it is to be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that it was not reasonable for the worker’s contract to have been entered into as a limited-term contract if the work done by the qualifying worker under the worker’s contract was of the same or a similar nature as the work done under another worker’s contract under which the qualifying worker worked for the employer—
(i) where the period in question is the relevant reference period, during that period;
(ii) where the period in question is the offer period, during that period or the relevant reference period;
(iii) where the period in question is the response period, during that period, the relevant reference period or the offer period.”
This amendment adds a rebuttable presumption to the existing provision made by proposed section 27BD(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The presumption will apply when determining whether there has been a relevant termination for the purposes of that section such that the duty to make a guaranteed hours offer does not apply or a guaranteed hours offer that has been made is to be treated as withdrawn.
The amendment will close a potential loophole that could mean that workers might not be entitled to a guaranteed hours offer if they are employed on a series of limited-term contracts to undertake the same or similar work. It will do that by adding a rebuttal presumption, that it will not be considered reasonable to have entered into a limited-term contract where a worker undertook work that was the same or similar in more than one contract during the relevant period. That means that the relevant termination provisions would not apply and the employer would not be excepted from its duty to offer guaranteed hours. An employer would have to offer guaranteed hours to the worker, even if that worker’s last contract was terminated at the end of the relevant period, unless it was reasonable for the employer to have entered into a limited-term contract with the worker and the presumption is rebutted, which could then lead to a relevant termination.
Under proposed new section 27BB(8) of the Employment Rights Act 1996—as referred to in the amendment—it is “reasonable” for an employer to enter into a limited-term contract with a worker if the worker is needed only to perform a specific task and the contract will end when it is performed; if the worker is needed only until some event occurs and the contract will then end; or if the worker is needed only for some other temporary need to be specified in regulations.
To be clear, whether it is “reasonable” for the employer to enter into a limited-term contract during the relevant periods affects only whether the right to guaranteed hours applies. If such a contract is not “reasonable”, it is still a lawful contract and may, of course, be an acceptable means of conducting business. As such, the presumption introduced by the amendment would apply only to determine whether there was a relevant termination of a limited-term contract, where a worker is engaged on a series of limited-term contracts doing the same or similar work. The presumption will not prevent an employer from engaging a worker on a series of fixed-term contracts, but it will act as an anti-avoidance measure to ensure that an employer cannot get around its duty to offer guaranteed hours by engaging the worker on a series of limited-term contracts even though they are actually doing the same work.
Greg Smith
Amendment 12 states that it is to be presumed by tribunals
“that it was not reasonable for the worker’s contract to have been entered into as a limited-term contract”
if the work done
“was of the same or a similar nature”
as the work undertaken by other employees, with the following conditions:
“(i) where the period in question is the relevant reference period, during that period;
(ii) where the period in question is the offer period, during that period or the relevant reference period;
(iii) where the period in question is the response period, during that period, the relevant reference period or the offer period.”
I have stressed the wording of the amendment because I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what protection the clause is designed to give employees. The vast majority of businesses reading that could easily be forgiven for getting slightly confused. Why is that wording necessary, particularly on this measure, to create the protections that I think I understand the Government want to achieve? The amendment might result in confusion from most businesses.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this amendment. It makes a lot of sense to make sure that we avoid the opportunity for unscrupulous employers to try to get around the legislation by entering into a series of short-term/fixed-term contracts so that they do not have to make anybody an offer.
We spoke at length this morning about making sure that responsible employers are encouraged, but ensuring that the loopholes are closed is equally important. Although Government Members are seeking to comment on the number of amendments, this is an example where the amendments are excellent and very well thought through. It makes an awful lot of sense to take into account the responses from experts and the consultation responses that the Department is receiving to make sure that the legislation works not only for businesses, but for employers. The amendment is very sensible, and I encourage everyone to vote in favour of it.
Justin Madders
This group of amendments is not quite as daunting as it sounds, because they all deal with the same point, which is the extension of time limits for making claims.
New schedule 2 amends time limits for making claims in employment tribunals from three months to six months. In recent years, as we know, demand has increased sharply. Increasing the time limit from three to six months will help to reduce pressure on the employment tribunal system, allowing parties to try to resolve their differences before resorting to formal litigation. The amendments apply to time limits for the majority of employment tribunal claims, including claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Equality Act 2010. If Members are interested, the full list of claims is set out in the new schedule.
Government amendments 16 to 18, 22, 28, 29, 33 to 36 and 83 ensure that the change is reflected for cases relating to rights that will be introduced by the Bill. Amendments 16 to 18 and 22 will increase the time limit for taking a claim to an employment tribunal that relates to the right to guaranteed hours from three months to six months. Amendments 28 and 29 will increase the time limit for taking a claim that relates to the right to reasonable notice of shifts from three months to six months. Amendments 33 to 36 will increase the time limit for taking a claim that relates to the right to payment for a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift from three months to six months. Amendment 83 will increase the time limit for taking a claim that relates to whether a worker, or a former worker, believes they have been subject to a detriment by an employer on grounds of industrial action.
Finally, Government amendment 21 is a small technical amendment, which will correct an incorrect section reference. The words “this section” currently refer to section 27BG, which relates to time limits for bringing a complaint, but they should—as I am sure everyone noticed—refer to section 27BF, the correct section under which a complaint may be brought to an employment tribunal.
On a more general note, Members may be aware that a number of years ago, the Law Commission recommended that the time limit for bringing employment tribunal claims should be increased from three months to six months. This set of amendments simply seeks to implement that recommendation.
Greg Smith
Quite a list of amendments and edits to the 100-day-old Bill.
I will start where the Minister left off. The amendments extend the time for employees to bring a case to the employment tribunal from three to six months if they believe their employer has breached the duties imposed by the Bill. That includes the provisions around zero-hours contracts and the right to reasonable notice. In that light, a reasonable question would be: why were the provisions not included in the Bill on introduction? What changed? Was that an oversight, or something never originally intended to be included in the Bill? What is the rationale? Furthermore, what is the rationale for increasing the period from three to six months? That is not a modest change—not a matter of a couple of days, a fortnight or something that most people might deem reasonable; that is a substantial shift. It is only right and proper that the Minister, when he responds, gives a full explanation for such a huge change from the original provisions in the Bill.
Data from His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service shows the backlog in employment tribunals, with outstanding cases increasing 18% on last year. To add in additional burdens will add to the overall burden on the service, so as part of the consideration of the Bill and of the amendments it is crucial to understand what the Government will do not just to clear that backlog, but to create the capacity in the service to deal with the increase in demand that the Bill will undoubtedly bring about. I shall be grateful if the Minister will comment on his discussions with the Ministry of Justice to deliver on that.
Businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, rely on the tribunals service being able to process claims quickly so, if the Government are to bring about such a huge and significant change to demand on the service, they should put in place the relevant steps. Have the Government undertaken any assessment of the impact that such an extension will have on employment tribunals, or the likely number of claims? It would help to know what, under the amendments, the Government’s assumptions are—will the level of increase that the Opposition fear come about?
Is there a model—I fully accept that such models are rarely 100% accurate, but they give the country and the service planners an important ballpark figure to be working around, going into the future—and, off the back of that, what is the impact on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises? If there is no such modelling—if there is no ballpark figure that the Government are working to—why not?
My final question on this group of amendments is: why does the Minister believe that it is proportionate or sensible to double the window in which an employee can bring a claim? Surely the three-month window is sufficient. As I said, the Opposition would like to understand why that doubling is so necessary.
Alex McIntyre
Apologies, Mr Stringer, if I inadvertently used “you” in my previous intervention. That was a mistake; I apologise.
I am grateful to the Minister for tabling these amendments. This is an important set of suggestions to extend time limits for bringing lots of tribunal claims. In my previous professional experience, the change will benefit businesses up and down the country, because one of the biggest issues for anyone involved in advising employers on employment law is the rush to bring employment tribunal proceedings, owing to the three-month time limit. It often stops negotiations from progressing fully, preventing an out-of-court agreement being reached at an early stage. In a commercial setting, most businesses are given six years to bring claims under contract against other businesses. It is only really in employment law that we have such a narrow window for people to bring their claims.
I am interested in the shadow Minister’s comments on employment tribunals—they are broken, but the responsibility for breaking the employment tribunals sits firmly on Opposition Members. We had years of under-investment in our courts and tribunals, and we have really long backlogs. The issue there for employers is that, given the actions of the previous Government, they are spending far too much money on people like me, as such proceedings take a significant amount of time.
Greg Smith
I understand why, in our combative political system, the hon. Gentleman wants to bring up the previous Government’s record. I gently suggest that the covid pandemic had a big impact on all court backlogs, be it tribunals or otherwise, and I ask him to reflect on the fact that the Bill will add to the pressure on the tribunal service. How much does he think it will add? Given that the Labour party is in government and in charge, rather than just pointing the finger at the previous Government, can he tell us what will materially happen to increase capacity in the tribunal service?
Alex McIntyre
The Committee received a submission from Lewis Silkin, a leading legal expert in the field of employment law. It says that some of the Government’s proposals will lead to a reduction in claims, and certainly in complex claims such as those that many employees with less than two years’ service may make under the Equality Act 2010 because they do not qualify for unfair dismissal rights.
The tribunal deals with unfair dismissal claims very quickly. Such claims tend to receive one, two or three days of consideration by a tribunal, at the most, whereas Equality Act claims are often listed for longer than a week. Giving people unfair dismissal rights from day one will reduce the number of people who have to bring Equality Act or whistleblowing claims to try to fit their circumstances, and that will mean a reduction in the number of tribunal sitting days.
I will not step on the Minister’s toes when it comes to the Department’s modelling for tribunals, but it is important to remember that as a result of the measure, more people will be able to negotiate and negotiations will be more sensible. Let us think about the anatomy of an employment tribunal claim. Day one starts when something happens to an individual. In the case of being sacked or being discriminated against, that thing is quite traumatic, so in the first week or so, employees are not generally thinking about their legal options. That is one week gone already. Then people have to look at getting legal advice, contact their trade union and look at the options available, all of which take time. By the time they are in a position to think, “Perhaps I will negotiate with the employer,” they are already two months down the line.
If an employee rushes through an employment tribunal claim, the practical implications are that the claim is really complex, the employee does not quite understand their legal claims and an awful lot of tribunal time and business time is spent on trying to clarify things. If we give employees longer, we will find that more claims are sensibly put. Employees will have obtained legal advice or sought support from their trade unions, and they will have had time to negotiate with employers about potential out-of-court settlements.
This is important and, most significantly, it is about access to justice: many people who are timed out of bringing a claim did not even realise that they had one in the first place. Not everyone has immediate access to the knowledge that they have rights at work and that employment tribunals exist, so it is important that we try to level the playing field to ensure that employees have time to bring claims in the best possible way. Not everyone is a lawyer. Individual employees, like many small businesses, do not have the benefit of being able to call up their local employment lawyer to get advice on potential claims. Preparing a claim takes time, and the measure means that employees will be able to make more sensible claims.
It is a very positive change, and I am glad that it is being made. The Law Commission recommended several years ago that the time limit should be extended from three to six months, so this is not an arbitrary time that has been plucked out of nowhere; it is based on Law Commission suggestions, as I understand it. I encourage all hon. Members to vote in favour of the measure.
Justin Madders
He is shaking his head—that is good. I certainly do not envisage that to be the case, but we recognise there is a backlog in the employment tribunals. Like many public services, they are under pressure, and there is a plan to recruit more judges in the new year.
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.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive outline of clause 1 but, as I reflect on our debate over today’s two sittings on the amendments to clause 1—the Government amendments that now form part of clause 1 and the Opposition’s substantive amendments, which were not accepted, and our probing amendments, which did not produce the answers we were looking for—I remain concerned that, putting aside some of the noble intentions beneath the Bill, there is still the lack of clarity we have spoken about regarding so many areas of clause 1.
The Minister himself admitted earlier that some things are still to be consulted on and that others are yet to be brought forward through secondary legislation. I am afraid that just does not cut it for businesses up and down the country that are still struggling with the aftermath of covid, the invasion of Ukraine and so many other factors. They need certainty. They need to know, if the rules of the game are changing, exactly what they are changing to—not some ballpark or some in-principle movement towards, but precisely the rules that they are being asked to play by.
Businesses will, of course, comply with any legislation passed by this House and this Parliament, but this provision is an unreasonable ask of them, whether in respect of what would constitute a low-hours contract, fixed-term contracts for qualifying workers or agency workers, or the exact definition of the reference period. It is simply an unacceptable proposition to those who run businesses, particularly, as multiple parties have said today, small businesses, be they microbusinesses or medium-sized enterprises—I fully accept that we can debate the exact number of employees that constitutes a small or medium-sized enterprise.
I recognise many of the good points the Minister made in his speech, and there are many things that we in the Opposition can get behind—at least in principle, if not in the precise lettering of the detail—but the lack of clarity, the Henry VIII powers in some parts and the “still to consult” parts in others make it very difficult for the Opposition to support clause 1 as it currently stands.
As I said earlier, we want to be a constructive Opposition. We might not agree with the Government’s standpoint on many things, but it is important for the United Kingdom that they succeed in their endeavours and that they do not provide an environment in which there will be fewer jobs, not more, with businesses being more reticent to take on new members of staff. That goes particularly to the points around how people who are deserving of a second chance in life, no matter what has happened to them before, may not get that opportunity because it is too big a risk for small businesses that are struggling to get around all the new regulations, rules and laws.
I particularly highlight again the point about small businesses just not having the capacity to deal with new regulation. As has been said, they do not have HR departments or in-house legal services, and they cannot necessarily afford to hire them in if they are to continue producing their products or selling their services to the great British public, or wider than that. I urge the Minister to go back to the Department, focus on where the detail is lacking and put an offer to the House and the wider country. Our business community need not necessarily agree with it, but they should be comfortable that they can understand it and put in place the measures for their employees and businesses. To ensure their growth and success, they desperately require certainty.
Laurence Turner
I will not keep the Committee long. A lot has rightly been said about the need for certainty for business, but we should remember that the other side of the coin is the need for workers to have certainty. I was contacted recently by a constituent who works a zero-hours contract in the hospitality sector. He is unable to get a mortgage because the bank will not grant that facility to him due to the nature of his contract. At the level of the individual, this means economic activity and family planning being put on hold.
In parts of the economy, there are employment situations—we do not, of course, tar all employers with the same brush, but if there were no bad employers there would be no need for trade unions—in which people are turning up to work, sometimes in digital form, to find shifts being mediated through applications, not even through people. It is the 21st-century equivalent of a foreman standing at the factory gate and allocating shifts on an arbitrary basis. We have heard today about the potential, which is too often realised, for favouritism and abuse of that facility.
We have had good debate about a number of details regarding the changes in the Bill. The changes in clause 1 will be welcomed by people who work in the retail sector, including in my constituency, and in other sectors that have high rates of zero-hours contract working, including the care sector. I very much welcome the clause.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 145, in clause 2, page 13, line 25, leave out
“a specified amount of time”
and insert “48 hours”.
This amendment defines reasonable notice of a requestor requirement to work a shift as 48 hours.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 146, in clause 2, page 14, line 17, leave out
“a specified amount of time”
and insert “48 hours”.
This amendment defines reasonable notice for the cancellation of a shift as 48 hours.
Amendment 147, in clause 2, page 14, line 22, leave out
“a specified amount of time”
and insert “48 hours”.
This amendment defines reasonable notice for the cancellation of a shift as 48 hours.
Amendment 148, in clause 2, page 14, line 28, leave out
“a specified amount of time”
and insert “48 hours”.
This amendment defines reasonable notice for the cancellation of a shift as 48 hours.
Greg Smith
The amendments are intended to probe the Government’s thinking, as once again it is not clear to us in the Opposition whether they have done the necessary policy work to justify the approach taken in the Bill. The impact assessment clearly shows the administrative cost that the Bill will have in shift and workforce planning, with estimated costs of some staggering £320 million to business. I would like to ask the Minister what evidence there is for the late cancellation or alteration of shifts being a problem of such magnitude that it requires legislation. The Bill does not set out what would be a reasonable notice period for cancelling a shift, and the Government must be clear what they actually intend to do in that respect.
This is a serious point. The burdens that this provision would place on small business would undoubtedly be considerable. Some small businesses cannot always, in every circumstance, guarantee shifts; that is perfectly reasonable. For example, a small furniture-making business with two employees has issues with the supply chain. It cannot provide work until the materials have actually arrived, but the employer in those circumstances could have no idea how long it will take for those materials to materialise—perhaps they are specialist materials or something that has to come from abroad and is delayed in shipping channels. Attacks by Houthis on shipping have caused supply chain problems, for example. In those circumstances, those businesses find themselves in a very sticky place and it would be unreasonable to try to argue that they should absolutely guarantee those shifts to their workers.
Alex McIntyre
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about uncertainty in certain industries meaning that businesses may not be able to guarantee shifts.
I want to ask two questions. First, cannot certain industries take out insurance policies to account for some of those unforeseen circumstances, particularly when it comes to shipping? Secondly, what about the uncertainty for employees for whom losing a day’s work would mean a deduction of 20% on a five-day working week? If someone told the hon. Gentleman that his salary would be reduced by 20% next week, would he not find that difficult?
Greg Smith
I am grateful for the intervention. On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, yes, of course there are insurance policies that many businesses will take out. But the example I just gave is one I can see affecting many businesses in my own constituency; there is a strong furniture making heritage around Prince’s Risborough in Buckinghamshire. There are very small businesses that do an incredible job and make some fantastic furniture, but they are microbusinesses with only a couple of employees and they operate on tight margins. They would not necessarily be able to bake the additional cost of a very expensive insurance policy into their bottom line without significant pressure on their overall business.
I accept that I am not talking about every or possibly the majority of businesses; my point in the amendments is that some circumstances might need a more sympathetic ear. In such cases, it could be argued reasonably and sympathetically that businesses in such a sticky spot would be unable to meet the requirements that the Bill sets out. Supply chain problems are just one example.
I take on board the second point made by the hon. Member for Gloucester, although, as I said in one of the earlier debates, I was self-employed for 15 years before entering this place in 2019. Some clients varied every month their requirements of the services that I provided back then. It was frustrating: nobody wants to be in that position, but it is sometimes a business reality, particularly if the ultimate client is struggling for whatever reason—their supply chain or the fact that they are just not doing very well so they need to throttle service provision up and down. I know that my example is not the same as that of a direct employee, but sometimes business needs a sympathetic ear.
To come back to my earlier point, nobody wants people not to be in a secure employment environment. Sometimes, however, things happen in businesses. Businesses in the automotive sector have shed quite a lot of jobs in recent weeks—look at Stellantis and Ford. Sometimes these things happen. With greater flexibility, perhaps more jobs overall can be saved in the short, medium and long terms, rather than having in every circumstance rigid rules that do not allow businesses that flexibility. I suggest that most people would want jobs to be saved rather than lost through that level of rigidity.
I will continue with my questions to the Minister about these probing amendments. In the furniture company example that I gave, what notice would an employer have to give? What do the Government expect an employer in such circumstances to do? From the hefty number of amendments that the Government have tabled, it looks as though small businesses are going to have to pay those employees for hours not actually worked; and even this will be through no fault whatever of the actual business in question.
Given that the Regulatory Policy Committee has flagged the risk that employers, often in fluctuating demand sectors such as hospitality and retail, may respond by scheduling fewer shifts to avoid penalties for cancellations and the consequential lost output to the economy, I would be grateful for the Minister’s appraisal of whether the provisions on short notice cancellations will support or inhibit the Government’s aim of actually achieving economic growth.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s amendment. If it is a probing amendment, he has asked a lot of reasonable questions. There are, of course, things that we will be hoping to address today and during the passage of the Bill—and, indeed, the subsequent regulations.
The first thing to say is that we do not believe that it is right at this stage to put the time into the Bill; we want to give ourselves flexibility to respond to how the issue works in practice and to changing circumstances by doing that in secondary legislation. However, the hon. Gentleman has asked a perfectly reasonable question: who are we trying to help? What is our purpose?
Our purpose is to try to help those people who simply do not have that security in their lives at the moment. Research from the Living Wage Foundation suggests that 25% of insecure workers have had their shifts cancelled unexpectedly, with 88% receiving less than full shift compensation. Many workers receive their shift schedules without reasonable notice, and that prevents them from being able to effectively plan their work, social lives and other responsibilities.
Living Wage Foundation data found that in quarter 2 of 2023, 78% of workers received less than two weeks’ advance notice of shifts, with 5% of workers receiving less than one week. That can disadvantage workers’ ability to effectively plan their future income, particularly when that relates to budgeting for regular outgoings when shifts are cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice. The impact on workers can include an increased reliance on debt and an inability to forecast income or find substitute work, childcare expenses and, on some occasions, travel expenses. Such implications represent the sort of one-sided flexibility that we are trying to deal with.
Evidence suggests that the income insecurity premium could be worth as much as £160 million per year, but the issue is really going to be about that benefit targeting businesses in the right way. We believe that good management practice can deal with an awful lot of this without the need to resort to legislation.
Justin Madders
As the hon. Member will know, the total cost to businesses from the Bill, as set out in the impact assessment, is about 0.4% of total employer costs. We absolutely acknowledge that there are many good employers out there who do this already, and we hope that there are many employers who do not who will feel that it is a positive once the legislation comes in. We want to take them on that journey and inform them why this is a positive thing and a benefit for their workforce. Importantly, they will see that the playing field is levelled and hopefully be able to compete more ably with others who might in the past have undercut them. But part of that will be making sure that they have access to good advice, good support and a guiding hand to make sure that the clear policy outcomes we want to see from the Bill are actually delivered. On that note, Mr Stringer, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Greg Smith
I remain very concerned about some of the real-world applications. I accept that it will have a negative impact in a minority of cases. The purpose of our amendment, as I said, was to probe the Government, so I am happy to confirm that we will withdraw it.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 2, page 13, line 42, leave out
“from what time on which day”
and insert
“when the shift is to start and end”.
This amendment requires notice of a shift to include when the shift is to end (as well as how many hours are to be worked and from when).
Justin Madders
I am afraid we are back into some of the more technical minor amendments, on which I will not detain the Committee too long.
Amendment 24 will ensure that employers have to give reasonable notice of not only when a shift starts and how many hours it will be worked, but also when it will end. The Government’s intention is to avoid a scenario whereby a worker is notified of the start time and total duration of a shift, but does not receive reasonable notice of whether those hours will be in a single block, or whether there may be a large break.
The current drafting would allow an employer to specify that a worker is required to work, for example, for three hours from 9 am on Friday, without specifying whether the shift will be from 9 to 12, or from 9 to 10 and then again from 12 to 2. In either scenario, the notice would meet the requirements to be a notice of the shift. The amendment closes this potential loophole. Some of my own children have gone into work and then been told to go and have a two-hour lunch break—unpaid. We clearly want to avoid that through this amendment.
I turn briefly to Government amendments 25 to 27, which will ensure that workers are entitled to reasonable notice where an employer cuts working hours from the middle of a shift as well as from the start or end. The current drafting would arguably allow employers to reduce the number of working hours in the middle of a shift without giving reasonable notice. The amendments close that loophole, ensuring that workers have to be given reasonable notice if an employer decides to change the hours of a shift by reducing the hours in the middle.
Greg Smith
I will be brief in my response to these Government amendments, which make the requirement for the right to reasonable notice of cancellation or changing of shifts more onerous. I spoke to these principles during our debate on the previous set of amendments in my name, but I ask the Minister gently now, why were these provisions not included in the Bill on introduction? Was it an oversight? Will there be a repeat of the line, “It was the intention but we just didn’t do it”, or is it something else? I would be grateful for clarification.
As I argued during the debate on the previous set of amendments—this point is relevant to this set too—why are these amendments so necessary? Does the Minister really think it a proportionate burden to place on businesses, particularly in those cases where there will be fair and reasonable grounds for a business not needing to provide notice of a change in shift to an employee? What assessment have the Government made of the cost to businesses, given that they will now essentially have to pay for work not done, without recourse to force majeure provisions or whatever it might be—where it is genuinely not their fault that they cannot provide the work to their workers for whatever reasons? Force majeure is a well-established principle in all sorts of sectors across the world.
I urge the Minister to consider carefully how he can ensure that out-of-control eventualities are looked after in the Bill; otherwise I fear it will create a scenario where particularly the smallest businesses—those one, two or three-employee businesses—are placed in a very difficult financial position. I cannot believe that the Government believe that is the just and right thing to do, and that they could not come up with some other safeguards to protect those microbusinesses—those small enterprises—that might find themselves in a sticky spot.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I refer Members to my declaration of interests. I am also a member of Unite and the GMB. It was said in an evidence session last week that in hospitality—a sector that we are very focused on improving in the Bill—
“employers bring in too many workers for shifts and say: ‘Sorry, we do not need you any more. Go home.’ They then cancel a shift without any compensation for the workers for their travel time”. ––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 76-77, Q71.]
As many of my hon. Friends have said, while we are considering the burden on business, we must also consider the burden on workers. We are trying to level the playing field and make a more equal way, where workers are considered.
Greg Smith
I do understand the hon. Lady’s point. Nobody wants to see people turned away as they turn up for work, with their employer saying, “Sorry, no work today.” That is not a position that we want anybody else to find themselves in, but I am trying to make another point.
Let us take the hospitality sector as an example, which has had a pretty rough time since covid. It is one of the sectors—be it pubs, restaurants or attractions—that is struggling the most to recover from the pandemic. There are certainly times when I turn up to a pub in my constituency, perhaps on a Tuesday night, and it is completely empty and has no bookings. That is not necessarily the pub’s fault, but it will be a problem if there is an absolute requirement for the pub still to pay its full staff rota because it was full the previous Tuesday night and needed all those staff. I think this is one of those real-world examples where there has to be a little bit of flexibility; businesses have to be able to say, “Sorry, we’ve got no bookings tonight.” Worse than that, there might be the nightmare scenario that the beer delivery has not arrived and there is not actually any beer to sell.
Michael Wheeler
Does the shadow Minister accept that it is not the fault of the worker either? In fact, the employer has more control over the situation, on balance. On his example of planning out work, especially bookings, employers would know that there were no bookings further in advance than on the day—there are comparable examples across other industries—so giving notice of that on the day is completely and utterly unacceptable. The cost, in terms of proportion of income, is disproportionately borne by the worker, not the business, and these measures we are discussing are a proportionate way to rectify the situation.
Greg Smith
Fundamentally, I agree that it is not the worker’s fault either—I am absolutely at one with that. I made it very clear that I do not want to see anyone turn up for work only to be turned away and told, “Sorry, no work today.” That is not a great place for anyone to be. I absolutely understand and accept the hardship that that will place on someone who will perhaps not get that day’s wages, but I think there should be greater flexibility in circumstances where it is not the business’s fault either; those situations may be few and far between, but they will happen in hospitality, and they may happen in some manufacturing sectors where supply chain problems have occurred, as we discussed earlier.
If we force businesses into a place where they have to shell out significant amounts of money for no gain—as we discussed earlier, the workers are the ones who produce the services, goods, products or whatever it might be that enables the business to have the money in order to pay people in the first place—and we push them into a place where their low margin is eroded even further by paying for things that are completely outside their control, then those businesses may well go bust.
We are talking about the hospitality sector—and we are seeing pubs close virtually every week. That is a very sad state of affairs, particularly in rural communities, where the pub is often the beating heart of a village, or certainly the social hub. It is not just a place for a pint; pubs do a lot of social good as well. We are seeing pubs close far too frequently for all sorts of reasons, often because of the low margins and other factors that have come in—I will resist the temptation to go too hard on the Budget. There is a cumulative impact, and this measure could well be the straw that brings the whole house down. I want the Minister and Government Members to reflect on where we could bake in other forms of safeguard and flexibility, so that the Government do not put a number of businesses on to that sticky wicket.
Anneliese Midgley
Can I clarify whether the shadow Minister believes that workers should shoulder all the burden, and that businesses should bear no responsibility?
Greg Smith
No, I do not accept that. It is not helpful to see this as either/or. As I explained, there is a symbiotic relationship between businesses and their workers—their employees. Neither succeeds without the other. It is therefore not the case that I, in any way, shape or form, want to put all the burden on one or the other; what I am arguing for, and what I hope Members in all parts of the Committee can reflect on and appreciate, is some of those real-life, lived-experience and real-world examples, where things just do not go very well and people find themselves—
Greg Smith
I am very happy to do so once I finish this train of thought—we are getting far more debate in Committee than we do in the main Chamber.
We have to find the balance, where we do not just point the finger at the business owner or the worker, but see them as a symbiotic being—because neither side can survive or thrive without the other.
Jon Pearce
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way so often. I want to address a principle: the Working Time Regulations 1998 established that if an employee, or indeed an employer, wishes to take holiday, the statutory notice period will be twice as much as the holiday taken. That is the same principle in the Bill, in that it is perfectly reasonable for a worker who does not have guaranteed hours to be given notice when work is not available. That statutory principle has been in place since the last century, so this is not outwith what every worker should expect. It is perfectly reasonable that if a worker has been told that work is available, they should be given reasonable notice if it is not. The shadow Minister’s Government kept to that principle, and it is perfectly applicable to employees and workers in this situation as well.
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman is right about the principle of notice for holiday—that is quite clearcut. Holiday is pretty much always planned, although there are circumstances in which someone might need to take leave at very short notice—perhaps they have one of those dreaded phone calls that a relative is seriously ill, so they have to leave to be with them, or there might be some other pressing emergency. I think most employers will be flexible and compassionate about such emergency circumstances, ensuring that an employee can be with a relative who has been in an accident or is critically ill, for example.
Generally speaking, though, holiday is planned—just as, generally speaking, the availability of work is planned—but as with emergency situations when someone might need rapid time off, other emergency or out-of-control situations might affect a business. It would then put an intolerable pressure on that business suddenly to have to pay someone an amount of money that might be more than they would even have earned in that day—selling beer or cake in the hospitality sector, or producing a cabinet in furniture making, or whatever it might be.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates where I am coming from. We are not talking about the vast majority of cases or the bulk of the economy here; we are talking about the unexpected emergency scenarios that are out of anyone’s real ability to predict, which happen in the real world. I am therefore very concerned that the rigid provisions being proposed by the Government will put a number of businesses in a difficult place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alex McIntyre
I want to drill down on an important point of principle that we should be considering. I do not want this to become a tale of woe from my previous career in hospitality, but I remember being docked three hours’ pay by my boss because there were no customers for those three hours, and there is a similar point of principle here. I understand that there will be times when a restaurant is empty, but someone turning up to work will expect to get paid for that shift. Then there is the cost to the employee of going to work. People might have to secure childcare—I have recently had to look at the cost of childcare and the astronomical prices that are being charged—or pay to travel into work, and they might have paid in advance and be unable to get a refund. Why does the shadow Minister believe that the burden on the employee is less important than the burden on the business?
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
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.
Laurence Turner
I am grateful to the shadow Minister; I suspect he is setting some kind of record with the number of interventions he is taking. Earlier, he said that there may be alternative measures and protections to mitigate the problem that the Minister is seeking to address, whereby someone has been called to a shift but has arrived, incurring some cost, to be told that there is no work available. What alternative measures does the hon. Member have in mind?
Greg Smith
There are a number of options that could be looked at. The time set out in the regulations could be much more flexible. There could be safeguards for force majeure circumstances, which is common in a lot of contracts. There is no reason why that could not be in legislation. Or if the Government want to go down this path, albeit it is not something that Conservatives would propose, perhaps a more elegant way of going about it would be some sort of legislation on compulsory insurance against such eventualities that ensured that both sides were able to benefit—that the employee still got paid at least something, if not their full expected wage for the day, but the business was not directly out of pocket either. That would have to be tested in the insurance industry to see where premiums would come out, because they may well be unviable, but I gently suggest to the Government that it is a tyre worth kicking.
I conclude with a point I have made many times: this has to be about flexibility in real-world circumstances.
Sarah Gibson
The Minister made an extremely good point about the security that is required. It should not be an arbitrary 48 hours that is given. Specifying the time for each sector, presumably under guidance, would perhaps be the most appropriate thing.
I have talked many times to people in my constituency who work in the care sector and are employed to visit people in their own homes. They are given a start time for a shift and are quite often told that they will work a certain number of hours, but it is not clear until they turn up to the shift how much of a gap there will be between the times at which they are getting paid. That can leave them with shifts that last a considerable time but contain a gap of several hours, during which they might be miles from home and it might not be worthwhile going home for lunch, so they incur costs on their own time.
I welcome the attention to the lack of clarity about shift working specifically for home visits in the care industry. This is something that we need to look at. Perhaps there needs to be guidance on the time for each sector, because each sector has its own issues. That is certainly true when one looks at hospitality.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee too long, because it feels like we have had the clause stand part debate already. I will briefly go through the provisions of clause 2, which creates the right to reasonable notice of shifts. As I set out when we discussed clause 1, we must tackle one-sided flexibility. Guaranteed hours is an important part of that, but we must also ensure that workers have reasonable notice of their shifts, so that they are enable to effectively plan their work and personal lives.
If someone’s shift is moved but their pay is less than the cost of the babysitter, that is obviously a negative. If someone is offered a last-minute shift but it is 60 minutes away by bus and they have no car, they should not be penalised or have a black mark put against them if they are not able to take it up. We can do better than this. We want to establish a more balanced partnership between workers and employers, and we hope to do that with clause 2. It will still allow employers to make changes to shifts, but it will also provide incentives for employers to meet the standard of the best employers, encouraging better planning and engagement with their workers. These provisions to introduce a right to reasonable notice of shifts and to changes in them are a small but important step towards making the lives of many shift workers and their families feel a little more secure.
Clause 2 creates several new sections in the Employment Rights Act 1996. New section 27BI outlines the duty that will be placed on employers to give reasonable notice of shifts. That duty will apply to workers on zero-hours contracts and arrangements, as well as workers on other contracts that will be specified in regulations but are likely to be low-hours contracts. New section 27BJ specifies that employers must also give reasonable notice of any moves or changes of shifts. New section 27BK notes that, as for other sections, agency workers are not covered by this measure—new section 27BV provides a delegated power to make corresponding or similar provision in relation to agency workers. In addition, section 27BK specifies that workers are not entitled to reasonable notice of shifts that they themselves suggested they work. For example, they would not be entitled to reasonable notice of overtime that they themselves had suggested. That right does, however, apply where the employer agrees to a suggested shift and then later changes or cancels the shift. Finally, the section contains a power to make regulations about how the notice should be given and when it is treated as being given.
New section 27BL explains that, where an employer is required to make a payment to a worker because the employer has cancelled, moved or curtailed a shift at short notice, the worker cannot get compensation for lack of reasonable notice for the same cancellation, movement or curtailment. New section 27BM enables workers to complain to employment tribunals that their employer has failed to comply with the duties to give reasonable notice. New section 27BN provides that tribunals must make a declaration where they find for a complainant and may award compensation they consider appropriate to compensate the worker for financial loss suffered as a result of the failure to give reasonable notice. This compensation will be capped in regulations and, in line with common law on recoverable damages, compensation will also take account of the duty on the claimant to mitigate their losses.
Greg Smith
I will not detain the Committee for much longer because, as the Minister said, it felt as though we had the debate on the whole clause during the debates on the amendments. I reiterate my concern about some of the provisions in the clause. Although I accept that the Minister said that, further on in the Bill, there is provision for force majeure measures to be introduced, there is a gaping hole for those emergency, unexpected, out-of-control circumstances, and this clause fails to fill it. However, we will almost certainly return to that on Report, so we will not press the clause to a Division.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Seventh sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Greg Smith
Main Page: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)Department Debates - View all Greg Smith's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Seventh sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsThursday 5th December 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 December 2024 - (5 Dec 2024)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 3, page 18, leave out lines 7 to 19 and insert—
“(b) in relation to the movement of a shift, or the movement and curtailment (at the same time) of a shift, notice given less than a specified amount of time before the earlier of—
(i) when the shift would have started (if the shift had not been moved, or moved and curtailed), and
(ii) when the shift is due to start (having been moved, or moved and curtailed);
(c) in relation to the curtailment of a shift where there is a change to when the shift is to start (but there is no movement of the shift), notice given less than a specified amount of time before the earlier of—
(i) when the shift would have started (if there had not been the change), and
(ii) when the shift is due to start (the change having been made);
(d) in relation to the curtailment of a shift where there is no change to when the shift is to start, notice given—”.
This amendment has the effect of clarifying what “short notice” means for the purposes of proposed Chapter 4 of Part 2A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in cases where a shift is both moved and curtailed and makes associated drafting changes to the definition of “short notice”.
It is a pleasure, Mr Mundell, to see you in the Chair this morning. I start by referring to my entry in the register of interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
Government amendment 30, alongside Government amendments 31 and 32, will ensure that employers are clear about their responsibilities where a shift is both moved and curtailed at the same time. Under the Bill as introduced, it may not have been clear to employers or workers when the short notice period in these cases would run until. Under current drafting, the calculation of the short notice period for a moved and curtailed shift could be done based on the rules for either a moved shift or a curtailed shift. This could produce two different outcomes.
For example, if a shift were due to be worked from 2 o’clock until 6 o’clock, and it is moved and curtailed so that it must be worked from 4 o’clock to 7 o’clock, it is not clear whether the notice ends at 2 o’clock or 4 o’clock. The amendment clarifies that in cases where a shift is both moved and curtailed at the same time, the short notice will be the same as if the shift had been moved only. It will therefore run until the earlier of when the shift would have started before the change or when the shift is now due to start.
In terms of what payment a worker will be entitled to when their shift is both moved and curtailed at the same time, we are committed to consulting on what that amount should be and will, of course, specify that in the regulations. The maximum amount, however, cannot be higher than what the worker would have received from working hours that were changed, as is the case for shifts that are cancelled, just moved, or just curtailed.
We believe that compensation in these circumstances is only fair, given that the movement of a shift at short notice disadvantages a worker. It impacts their ability to plan their lives and can cause financial disadvantage such as excessive childcare costs. Our measures will ensure that workers do not bear all the financial risk of shift allocation and cancellation, and will compel employers to give reasonable notice. Through good leadership and planning, an employer is in a position to reduce the instances of short-notice shift changes, which the worker is unable to influence.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of Government amendment 30, but I gently suggest to him that starting by saying that he wished to be clear, and then going on to say that the Government will be consulting on it, possibly does not give businesses the clarity that they are seeking from this clause of the Bill. I would be grateful, when the Minister sums up the debate on Government amendment 30, if he could actually clarify what he believes, in plain English, to be reasonable notice, and, while not necessarily when future regulations will be laid, the window in which they will be consulted on.
I posed a similar question about an amendment in our sitting on Tuesday. I cannot imagine that the Government will want to simply put out a blank piece of paper consultation—there will be a floor and a ceiling that is consulted on. It would be helpful for all Members, but more importantly real businesses out there in the country, to understand that as soon as possible, so that they can most fully share their thoughts formally when the consultation launches. Can the Minister give the Committee any clue about what employers will need to comply with, or was Allen Simpson, CEO of UKHospitality, right when he said that he understood that
“the Government are intending to leave it to case law and employment tribunal systems to figure out what ‘reasonable notice’ means”?––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 43, Q39.]
We will shortly come on to debate Government amendment 31, which is relevant to this discussion.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Greg Smith
I will just finish this point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not shy of taking interventions.
Government amendment 31 will cap the compensation an employee can receive if the employer does not give reasonable notice of cancellation or curtailment of a shift to the remuneration they would have gained if they had worked those hours.
Laurence Turner
I draw attention to my declaration in the register of members’ interests and my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions.
We will of course see the consultation on the definition of reasonable notice in due course. Does the hon. Member accept that the meaning of reasonableness will be dependent on the circumstances of each case? What is reasonable in the case of, say, an early years setting might be quite different to that for an offshore oil rig.
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly sensible point. We will come on to that issue shortly. The central point that I ask the Government to reflect on, before any consultation—post-legislation or during the passage of legislation—goes live, is that it is reasonable that those who are expected to put in meaningful and thoughtful contributions to that consultation on how the measures will affect them, will be applied in the real world and will need to be complied with, have as much notice as possible, so that they can put their thinking caps on and, if necessary, bring in professional advice where that is practicable or affordable.
In that way, when the Minister ultimately has the opportunity to read through every single consultation response with, I am sure, great attention to detail, before coming to a recommendation and drafting the necessary statutory instrument to bring about the exact regulations, the detail will be there. This should not be a rush job, but something to which the people out there in our country who actually run businesses, risk their capital and fundamentally create jobs and employ people are able to give as much thought as possible, so that the Government can come to a proper conclusion.
While I am glad that remuneration will be capped, I am still worried that the provisions in the Bill are not necessarily as proportionate as they could be for businesses. Sometimes an employer will have to cancel or curtail shifts through no fault of their own. We went through that issue at length on Tuesday, on a different point. I will not repeat the arguments now, other than to remind the Committee of force majeure. Events outside any employer’s control can happen; that is a reality of life.
It seems unfair in those instances that employers should have to bear the costs of not being able to complete the work on time, as well as having to remunerate employees for hours not worked. I stress, as I said on Tuesday, that that will be a minority of cases. It will be the exception, not the norm, but it is vital, when looking at this amendment and clause that there is an acceptance that those rare cases can and unfortunately will happen in the real world.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I refer the Committee to my membership of the GMB and Community unions. We had a lot of back and forth on this point on Tuesday. I want to clarify what the shadow Minister said on Tuesday. In the extreme circumstances where employers are not able to continue with their work, the shadow Minister made the point that it was not fair on the employer to bear the cost. He also said that it was not necessarily fair for the employee to bear the cost, and that the cost should be shared. If the cost is not being borne by the employer, who does the shadow Minister expect to share that cost, other than it being placed solely on the employee?
Greg Smith
I do not want to repeat the whole debate that we had the other day as we might not hit the clause that the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues are trying to get to today. I fully accept his point that the situation is not fair on the employee, but equally it is not fair on the employer, given that those circumstances, events or eventualities are quite literally outside anybody’s control.
I urge the hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleagues to reflect on how to put in place a better and more proportionate system to share the burden. I accept that nobody wants or plans for those eventualities. I refuse to believe that any employer ever wants to have to turn somebody away at the door as they turn up for work. They actually want to make those products, provide those services, ensure people have a good night out or whatever it might be. That is the core of their business. That is how they make money. That is how they grow and create more jobs in the first place. I refuse to believe that any business wants to turn someone away and say, “Sorry, that shift isn’t available,” or, “Only half that shift is available today.”
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB trade union.
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Association of Convenience Stores tells us:
“90% of colleagues in the convenience sector report that they have never had a shift cancelled with less than 48 hours’ notice, reflecting a strong track record of responsible scheduling. Furthermore, 86% of retailers state that they always offer alternative hours to employees if a shift is cancelled or reduced, demonstrating the sector’s commitment to fair treatment and employee support.”
It says that it
“can be confident that this will support existing provision by employers across the sector”,
and it welcomes amendment 30, which it says
“provides clarity in relation to short notice for when the shift is both moved and curtailed.”
It tell us that there is a counter-argument that the proposals may present challenges to convenience retailers and other small businesses, but that it has spoken to businesses and that
“these businesses tell us that they are already doing what the Bill makes provisions for.”
We are mindful of the impact on businesses, but there are a lot of businesses out there that are already doing what is proposed, and we have received representations from them welcoming the measures.
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.
Greg Smith
I can think of businesses in recent times in my own constituency that are particularly affected by shipping delays, some as a result of the covid pandemic, which I accept was an exceptional period in our history, where we saw shipping delays of parts that businesses were waiting for to put their products together. Buckinghamshire has a proud manufacturing base as well as other business sectors. Businesses simply did not have the bits, the parts, to be able to put their products together. I accept that some of those businesses are quite well established brands that will carry insurance and reserves or contingency funds for such eventualities, but some of them do not.
On Tuesday we talked about furniture manufacturers. Again, we are all creatures of our own experience. In my own constituency there are some very big furniture manufacturers such as Ercol and Hypnos and they face some great challenges. But I am also in regular contact with one, two or three-employee cabinet makers and kitchen fitters and other skilled trades businesses who would not be able to cope if they did not have the delivery to fulfil a particular order that has been placed. They are hard-working but very small businesses that might be working on one project at a time. They have to take one order on; if they cannot fulfil that, there is not the resilience to automatically just move on to the next.
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.
Greg Smith
I will finish this point and then give way —the hon. Lady knows that I am up for the debate.
There could be a pretty stark choice: go bust and no jobs, or some short-term undesirable pain that requires flexibility in order to get the business back on track to secure jobs. The last thing I want to see in this economy is businesses being forced to the wall and ending up shedding jobs, and overall employment numbers in this country going down. I want to see the economy growing. I want to see the number of jobs being created growing every single day. That is how we get ourselves to greater prosperity for everybody. I really worry that if flexibilities are taken away, it could go the other way.
Alison Hume
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of Unison and of the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.
The hon. Member talks about shipping companies and furniture companies, and I would like to talk about my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby. As of last year, 4,500 people there—11% of the workforce—were employed in retail, and 8,000—20% of the workforce—in hospitality. Those sectors employ a lot of women, and those women—I was one myself—rely on childcare, which is extremely expensive. Does he accept that when shifts are cut short or curtailed at short notice, those women still have to pay for their childcare and are therefore taking on board an expense? It is not force majeure for them; it is a day-to-day struggle to pay the childcare bills.
Greg Smith
I can assure the hon. Lady that I am intimately aware of the cost of childcare. It is something that challenges families—men and women, mums and dads, carers, grandparents and all sorts of people—on a daily basis. It is a very expensive reality of life. I do not want to get off topic, but the previous Government did a lot to increase the free childcare offer, and I fully acknowledge that the current Government are carrying through with that. We need more measures like that to ensure that people have the childcare arrangements in place to enable them to go to work.
I fully accept the hon. Lady’s argument: there is a cost to going to work. There is a cost of travel, as we all know as Members of Parliament travelling in from and getting around our constituencies. There are the costs of getting to work, of childcare or, perhaps, if someone is caring for a relative or someone else, of ensuring that alternative provision is there while they are at work. I fully accept that point and in no way wish to advocate for people to be left in that place. I do not want that for anybody in this country. But as I said to the hon. Member for Dundee Central, there are sometimes circumstances—very few, exceptional circumstances—where it could be a stark choice for the business and jobs could end up being lost altogether if there is not a little bit of flexibility. We are dancing on the head of a pin here, and it is about exceptional cases, but I do not want to see exceptional cases suddenly reducing the overall employment numbers in this country.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
In response to the hon. Member for Dundee Central, the shadow Minister struggled to come up with a concrete example of a business that might be in the situation he is describing, with very small margins and staff costs not meeting the demand. I can think of two examples from my experience before coming here and from my constituency. One is car washes, where we frequently see very low-paid employees being recruited on demand and very small margins. Another is nail bars, which we see on high streets across the country, where fluctuating demand requires small amounts of work to be done, so people are employed on very short contracts with hours cancelled at very short notice.
The shadow Minister will also have noticed last week that the net migration figures for the last year of the Conservative Government reached almost 1 million. The point I am making is that we need to think about not just the impact on individual workers and businesses, but the bigger, broader impact on society as a whole. The problem we have seen with small businesses such as car washes and nail bars is that there is a high supply of labour, generally from exploited migrant workers. It is not a coincidence that the two industries I have just described are also where we see the highest incidence of modern slavery. That is because workers in those industries have very few rights, so they can be treated as almost expendable by their employers, and have their hours cancelled at very short notice, and they have absolutely no recourse. So, it is not a coincidence that it is the most exploited workers, or the most vulnerable workers, who have ended up taking such jobs.
On high streets across the country we have seen the growth of multiple small car washes and small nail bars. The industries are not struggling, but the employers are deliberately working on incredibly small margins. The point is that the dynamic between employer and employee is unbalanced, which is what the Bill seeks to correct.
The Chair
We just have get the balance correct between a speech and an intervention, if we can.
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes a fundamentally good point about issues such as modern slavery. Actually, it was a former Conservative Prime Minister—I accept that we had a few in the last Government—my noble Friend Baroness May of Maidenhead, who did an enormous amount to tackle modern slavery in this country. Is it a case of job done? No, clearly not. However, we have made enormous strides and I encourage this Government to do all they can to continue the fight against modern slavery, which is a particularly evil crime that needs to be stamped out for good.
The hon. Gentleman asked for concrete examples. I felt that I gave one, with the example of the two-employee furniture maker. However, I will give another example of where force majeure may come in. Let us take the example of a small business. In fact, let us take a bathroom fitter, where there is perhaps one business owner who has, say, two employees who support him or her in fitting those bathrooms. They take on a big job in a hotel to refit all the bathrooms. Let us say that it is a 25-room hotel; I can think of a couple of those in Buckinghamshire. However, that hotel goes bust. It is not the fault of the company whose owner thought they had just taken on a really lucrative contract to refit 25 bathrooms. Clearly, it is the fault of the hotel that, sadly and for whatever reason, has ceased to trade, or perhaps it has been taken over as an asylum hotel. Obviously, that order to refit the bathrooms would have fallen.
What does that business do? It cannot suddenly magic up 25 bathrooms to fit in the space of a month, or a quarterly period, or whatever period it might be. However, it has probably already had to fork out for the parts, bathtubs, showers, toilet cisterns and everything else that goes into a bathroom. I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that that is a concrete example of where it is a lose-lose situation for the business owner and their employees, until they can get themselves back on track.
Nobody wants to see that type of thing happen, but it does happen. It is a reality of trading, not only in this country but worldwide, that sometimes bad things happen. So, there has to be flexibility around such events. That is notwithstanding the good points that the hon. Gentleman made about modern slavery and businesses exploiting those who perhaps are less able than other workers to stand up for themselves in workplaces in this country. However, I accept the broad sweep of the points the hon. Gentleman made in that regard.
I am conscious of how long I have been speaking about this amendment, but I am always up for a good debate. I will conclude by returning to the evidence that—
Greg Smith
I am tempted not to give way to the hon. Gentleman, since he seemed less than keen to take my interventions in the farming debate yesterday, but I will grant him an intervention today.
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I fundamentally agree with his point about bereavement leave and dependant leave. As we heard in the evidence sessions, I have an enormous amount of sympathy for extending certain elements of bereavement leave, including to pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, which we will come on to later in the Bill. Those circumstances are arguably more about humanity than some of the practical realities of market failure, supply chain failure or whatever it might be. I think they should be kept in very distinct columns. One is a human response to tragedy and the facts of life with dependants, or people to whom individuals might have a caring responsibility, as opposed to the need for flexibilities to exist, such as with the example of the lost contract or supply chain problems. I accept that this is a slightly different point to being told, “No bookings today” in a hospitality setting, or whatever it might be. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for High Peak, but I see it as a distinct column as opposed to something that is all in the same category.
Jon Pearce
The principle is, though, that with dependant leave in those emergencies, whether that is childcare or anything else, there is no right to pay; that is the point I am trying to make. The shadow Minister is saying that if there is an emergency for the business they should bear no cost of it. If there is an emergency for the employee, that employee will, under the statutory provisions on dependant leave, bear the cost of it. In both scenarios, the shadow Minister appears to be asking the employee to bear the cost. Is that correct?
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Actually, at no point have I said there should be no cost to the employer; I have said there needs to be flexibility, as opposed to a hard and fast rule. On Tuesday I had an exchange with the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield on the point around, “Okay, what else?” While I put that problem list back in the column for the Government to address, there are other safeguards; there are other things that the Government could look at so that the burden is more shared, as opposed to zero cost to the business. The key word here, which I have probably said 100 times this morning, is “flexibility”, as opposed to hard and fast rules.
I will get back to my conclusion. Allen Simpson from UKHospitality made some sensible points when giving evidence to the Committee last week, so I pose his questions to the Minister. I should be grateful for a response on each, as I imagine employers throughout the country would be. Could a different approach be taken to what constitutes “reasonable notice” for different employers in different sectors? That goes back to the point made by the Opposition earlier. Will shift swapping still be allowed, and if so, how will the regulations account for it? If shift swapping will not be allowed, why not? What will be considered “reasonable notice” within shift-swapping provisions? If an employee wants to change their shift at the last minute, are they allowed to do so, and in what circumstances? What would happen if an employer were to put out a message saying, “There is a shift available right now. Does anyone want it?” Does that constitute an offer of employment? Will there be a time after which employers will not be able to do that, because it does not constitute reasonable notice? Those were very sensible, thoughtful questions from UKHospitality, and as this legislation progresses through Committee it is only right that the Government and the Minister give a clear and full answer to them.
Justin Madders
Well done to the shadow Minister—he must have had his Weetabix this morning. He has clearly put in a great deal of time and we appreciate the way that he has engaged with the debate and some of the issues. He is taking a much broader look at the principles behind the legislation, rather than a quite narrow technical amendment about when shifts are moved or curtailed, but I am happy to address his points as far as I can.
I understand that the shadow Minister accepts the principle that we are trying to create some additional fairness in the workplace. That is welcome to hear, and I can assure him that this will not be a rush job. We do not anticipate these measures being implemented until 2026, and he will not be surprised to hear that the reason is that we intend to engage deeply with business and workers’ representatives on the details. There will be a consultation, following which we will set out in regulations what periods of notice should be presumed unreasonable; we will also set out factors for tribunals to take into account when considering whether notices are reasonable. That will go a long way towards addressing some of the concerns he mentions from Allen Simpson of UKHospitality. I think it is fair to say he generally welcomed the approach, but clearly some of the detail is to be worked on.
I do not think there will be any prohibition on workers swapping shifts, but if the employer, having been notified that worker B has taken the shift instead of worker A, then cancels the shift at short notice, we would intend that the regulations would then be engaged.
Greg Smith
So that we are absolutely clear on the shift-swapping provision—[Interruption.] I correct the Minister on the Weetabix; it was the Tea Room black pudding.
If worker A and worker B consensually decide that they wish to switch, worker B being the one who will take the shift and worker A the one whose shift is now displaced either to another time or not at all, and worker A being quite happy with that, will the employer be penalised?
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the details of the shadow Minister’s dietary exploits today.
We are looking in quite close detail at that situation, because there are a number of knock-on consequences, but we do not envisage that, in a situation where two workers agree of their own volition to swap shifts, the employer should in any way be penalised. We do not think that is in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve here.
I return to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh made about particular workplaces. The Director of Labour Market Enforcement has undertaken quite a lot of work in respect of those issues; considerable evidence is emerging about concerns in those sectors, and I encourage him to undertake some further reading on that.
There will be further consultation on what reasonable means. We all understand that there could be different factors applying, but what we want at the end of this process is for businesses to be clear about their obligations. That could mean a particular time period, but it could be different depending on the industry or the circumstances. It is right for us to take our time to consult and engage on that.
The shadow Minister referred to the force majeure issue; there is a power in the Bill for us to provide for exemptions for short-notice shift cancellation—that is always a tricky phrase to get out—but in some of the examples he gave where a huge contract was lost, a notice cancellation payment was probably the least of the employee’s and the employer’s problems in that situation; there may be bigger questions about whether there is enough work at all. Those are the kinds of things we will be looking at, as the power in the Bill gives us that opportunity.
Amendment 30 agreed to.
Justin Madders
These amendments should be considered alongside amendment 30, because they clarify what happens when a shift is both moved and curtailed at the same time. The Bill provides a power to specify the amount that must be paid by employers when they cancel, curtail or move shifts at short notice. It cannot be used to specify a payment amount in excess of what the worker would have earned from working the original hours.
However, the Bill was not clear whether the maximum payment due when a shift is both moved and curtailed at the same time should be calculated based on the provisions on movements or on curtailments, which would create different effects. For example, if a worker’s shift was due to be worked from 2 o’clock to 6 o’clock, but is moved and curtailed to 4 o’clock to 7 o’clock, the maximum payment could be based either on one or two hours of work, as the shift was moved by two hours but was curtailed by one hour.
Amendment 31 clarifies what happens in such cases. The maximum payment in this scenario would be what they would have earned from two hours’ work, reflecting the maximum they would have earned had they worked their original four-hour shift. That will ensure that workers are compensated appropriately, and it will also provide clarity for employers.
Amendment 32 clarifies for workers and employers how to calculate what amount of contractual payment can be offset against payments under clause 3 in cases where there is a combined short notice movement and curtailment of a shift. Again, the Bill is unclear whether the calculation should be based on the provisions on movements or on curtailments, which would create different effects. For example, if a worker’s shift was due to be worked from 2 o’clock to 6 o’clock, but is moved and curtailed to 4 o’clock to 7 o’clock, then after deducting the two hours in the shift that have stayed the same—4 o’clock to 6 o’clock—the remaining hours to be offset could be based on either one or two hours’ work.
The amendment clarifies that the hours to be offset should be for two hours’ work, as the worker should be entitled to the payment under proposed new section 27BO of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for two hours. That will ensure that it is clear that an employer is not doubly liable for some hours in such scenarios.
Although I appreciate that the amendments may appear complex, they will have the overall effect of simplifying the policy for employers and workers, so that it is very clear what happens when a shift is both curtailed and moved at the same time. They therefore prevent us from ending up with a whole load of litigation to decide what the correct outcome will be.
I reassure the shadow Minister that the changes will not be rushed: they will not be implemented before 2026, which will give us time to consult further and provide some more information on how the measures will work in practice so that employers understand what is expected of them. We will provide clear guidance throughout.
Many employers already guarantee hours, give reasonable notice of shifts, and make payments when they cancel shifts at short notice, so they will not need to alter their behaviour at all. In fact, data from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development suggests that around 33% of employers already pay some form of compensation for shifts cancelled with less than 24 hours’ notice.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of amendments 31 and 32. As he said, these amendments clarify the maximum amount of payment and the hours to which a payment relates in cases where there is a cancellation, movement or curtailment at short notice of a qualifying shift that the worker has agreed to work for the employer. Amendment 31 establishes that the payment should be for the hours that would have been worked.
The amendments make sense given the policy direction of the Bill but, once again, I gently suggest—as I will probably do multiple times during our discussions—that it is unclear why these provisions could not have been included in the Bill on its introduction. They seem like a fundamental part of the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why it took so long to come to the conclusion that this was the way forward.
Justin Madders
Proposed new section 27BT of the 1996 Act makes provision for a payment to be made to the worker where an employment tribunal finds that the worker’s employer failed to make a payment for a qualifying cancelled, moved or curtailed shift, or where an exception was relied upon but notice of that either was not given or was inadequate or untrue.
Amendment 37 will require the employment tribunal to additionally make a declaration in cases where the employer failed to make a payment for a qualifying shift, confirming that the worker’s rights have been violated. The declaration will be accessible not only to the directly affected worker but to others, including those working for the same employer. That will ensure that it is clear to other workers where and how such payments should apply if they have a shift cancelled, moved or curtailed in a similar way.
Amendment 38 will require the employment tribunal to additionally make a declaration where an exception applied and a notice was not given or where the notice was inadequate or untrue, confirming that the worker’s rights have been violated. Again, that will ensure that workers always receive a remedy in such cases, even where the tribunal decides that an award of compensation is not justified in the circumstances. That should ensure that it is clear to other workers where exceptions do and do not apply if they have a shift cancelled, curtailed or moved in similar circumstances.
Mandatory declarations of that nature are a common remedy across employment law. The amendments are in line with other similar provisions that concern complaints to the employment tribunal. Proposed new section 27BT also makes provision for the tribunal to order an employer to pay a worker where an employment tribunal finds that the worker’s employer failed to make a payment for a qualifying cancelled, moved or curtailed shift, or where an exception was relied upon but notice of that was either not given or was inadequate or untrue.
Amendments 39 and 41 will allow an employment tribunal discretion to award an appropriate level of compensation in cases where an exception applied but the employer either failed to give notice or gave an inadequate or untrue notice. That will remove the need for a tribunal to take an all-or-nothing approach by awarding the full, maximum amount or nothing. The amendments will instruct an employment tribunal to consider the seriousness of the matter when determining what payment to award the worker, which might include, for example, considering whether the employer had acted in bad faith.
That is a more appropriate approach than under the previous drafting, and there may be cases where the maximum award is not reasonable. For example, if a worker has a shift curtailed by an hour and their employer relied on an exception but did not give notice of that, it would not be logical for their award to be greater than the amount that would have been owed for the curtailment of a single hour. The award itself is discretionary and it is appropriate that the payment amount should equally be discretionary up to a specified amount, which will allow employment tribunals to make awards that are just and equitable to all parties.
On amendment 40, proposed new section 27BT makes provision for a payment to be made to the worker where an employment tribunal finds that the worker’s employer failed to make a payment for a qualifying cancelled, moved or curtailed shift, or where an exception was relied upon but notice of that was either not given or was inadequate or untrue.
The amendment is minor and technical, correcting drafting so that the provisions do not make reference to a scenario that could never arise. An employer cannot be found both to have unreasonably failed to give a worker notice of an applicable exception in relation to a payment, yet also to have been liable to make that payment and have failed to do so: either no exception applies and payment is due, or an exception applies and a notice should be given as no payment is due. The amendment removes the potential confusion caused by the drafting as introduced. I apologise for that, but as the Committee will appreciate that we have been working to a very swift timetable. We hope that brings some clarity to the situation.
Greg Smith
The word “clarity” is doing quite a lot of heavy lifting there, so I will probe it a bit. Amendments 37 and 38 concern provisions in the Bill about how employees may make a claim to an employment tribunal where they have not been paid or received reasonable notice of shifts, or the employer had purported to give notice in compliance with the rules on right to reasonable notice, but in a way that was inadequate.
The amendments specify that if an employment tribunal finds claims to be well founded, it must make a statement to that effect. Why were these amendments, along with those increasing the time limit from three to six months, not included in the Bill when introduced? Those provisions do not seem like a loophole being closed or a minor technical drafting error; they seem fundamental to what the Government are trying to do here, so that was one of the bigger surprises. Why were they not locked into the Bill from day one?
I understand the point about political priorities and commitments to publish something in 100 days, because sometimes these things take a lot longer than 100 days to get right. Whether one agrees with the principle and practicality of the provisions or not, it is tough on those in the civil service and those who are drafting the Bill to be able to deliver something of this complexity in 100 days, but these seem to be fundamental provisions. I would also be grateful for clarity from the Minister about how much the Government estimate that the provisions in these amendments, as well as in the wider Bill, will increase employment tribunal claims.
On amendments 39 to 41, if an employee brings a claim to an employment tribunal for their employer breaching the duties imposed by the Bill, amendment 39 provides that the court can award compensation up to a cap to be set in regulations. We are back to our old friend: we do not know what those regulations are going to be. I have a set of what I hope will be straightforward questions for the Minister. What is the cap planned to be? I am sure that it will be open to consultation, but again, the Government must have a window in mind. That is a reasonable question that businesses up and down the land will be interested to know the answer to, so that they can start preparing their viewpoints and evidence base to present to the Minister for any future regulations.
In our oral evidence sessions, we heard witnesses ask several questions about how the provisions on the right to reasonable notice of cancelled, curtailed or moved shifts will work in practice, because there is precious little detail in the Bill. Can we now have that detail? Will the Minister provide a timeline by which the Government intend to provide some information not just to this House, but to businesses up and down the country, about how the measure will work?
When will we be able to see the draft regulations? It would be helpful if we could see them during the passage of the Bill, be it prior to Report, which would be the best case, or before it goes to the other place for consideration, so that the House of Lords can fully explore them, which would be better than nothing. Can the Minister explain why the clauses on award of cost are proportionate to the benefit that they may bring to employers?
The Chair
Government amendment 37—sorry, Minister, I should allow you the opportunity to respond.
Justin Madders
I am sure that the shadow Minister and the whole Committee are delighted that I have the opportunity to respond.
The shadow Minister asked some perfectly reasonable questions. On the first issue, it is a well-established principle that employment tribunals have the right to make declarations in a whole range of claims. Again, I can only refer him to my previous answers with regard to why that was not in the original Bill—we were up against a tight timetable. It is also worth bearing in mind that the Bill will not become law until it has passed through this House and received Royal Assent, so when it finally appears before the public, all those issues will be ironed out. I give him the same answer about regulations, because—as we are doing as we go along—the Bill can be amended here, on Report and in the other place.
It may be that the final Bill does not entirely reflect what we have before us, so it would be premature to draw up regulations at this stage. However, part of our ongoing dialogue with businesses, workers’ representatives and trade unions is about what regulations we will look at.
Greg Smith
I understand the Minister’s point, but this is a Government Bill; I accept that it is derived from their manifesto and from their political priority. Notwithstanding the Minister’s perfectly correct point that the Bill can be amended before it receives Royal Assent, does he at least accept the point that as this is a Government Bill, they should at least give a starting point on any consultation or proposal that people could then work around, as a test of reasonability for business owners and the wider public? People around the country, as well as Members of this House, could then let their views be known as they seek to challenge and amend the Bill.
Justin Madders
We are taking this approach because we want to be reasonable and engage with businesses and trade unions on what the shape looks like. That is why the full consultation, which will look at the broad range of issues, is not yet ready. It is not really in the spirit of that for us to nail down everything in the Bill. Most employment rights have their detail in secondary legislation.
There are some clear principles about the levels of compensation that we will set out. Clearly, a worker should not be compensated for more than the number of hours that he or she has lost. If other heads of loss occur, there are already principles about wages, for example, whereby ongoing losses have to be compensated for. That is the kind of thing where the detail ought to be put into secondary legislation and consulted on fully, which is what we intend to do.
Justin Madders
I am sure you always intend to be helpful, Mr Mundell.
I will briefly go through the provisions of clause 3. I appreciate that we have covered a lot of the issues already, but I think it is important to set out what the clause does in the round, because after discussions on quite a few amendments, we may not have followed exactly where we are.
It is obvious that predictability of income is a crucial part of a secure future. We need to address the scourge of insecurity at work. Equally, we understand that businesses want clarity about their obligations. The right to reasonable notice of shifts and of changes to them is important and will be enforceable at employment tribunals. While we regard the right to reasonable notice as appropriate, we also see a need for a rather speedier mechanism to provide some reimbursement to a worker when a shift is cancelled, moved or shortened at short notice. Of the 2.4 million people potentially eligible for these new rights, we estimate that around 600,000 have shifts cancelled at short notice. Clause 3 clearly sets out the obligations on both workers and employers, and I will go through the amendments that it will make to the Employment Rights Act 1996.
New section 27BO of the 1996 Act outlines the new duty that will be placed on employers to make a payment to workers if they cancel, move or curtail shifts at short notice. The duty will apply to workers on zero-hours contracts and arrangements, and workers on contracts to be specified in regulations. When workers have the timing of their usual shifts set out in their contract but are sometimes asked to work extra or longer shifts, the duty will also apply to the additional hours. The new section also provides the power to set what period constitutes short notice; what the payment amount should be; how quickly the payment should be made; when notice is treated as having been given; and the maximum delay of a shift, or bringing forward of a shift, for which payment is not due.
New section 27BP adds several supplementary details on the powers to make regulations provided in new section 27BO and therefore on the functioning of the right to payment. It restricts the period that can be set in regulations as “short notice” to no more than seven days, and it ensures that the payment due to a worker cannot be more than they would have been paid had they worked their original shift. It allows for regulations to vary the amount of the payment according to how short the notice of cancellation is. It also provides that the contracts in scope of the right to payment may be specified in regulations by setting an hours or pay cap.
New section 27BQ provides a delegated power to make exceptions to the right to payment, and states that where an exception applies, the employer must notify the worker of it and explain why it is considered to apply. The section enables regulations to specify how the notice of the applicable exception should be given and when it is deemed to be received.
New section 27BR ensures that a worker is not entitled to receive payment both under their contract and under new section 27BO in respect of the same hours. New section 27BS enables workers to complain to employment tribunals that their employer has failed to comply with the duties. New section 27BT establishes the remedies where a complaint to a tribunal is found to be well-founded.
I commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
Mindful of your comments, Mr Mundell, I will not speak at length to the clause, other than to underline the points that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire have made about certainty. I understand the political priorities of the Government, and I understand the principle of what they are trying to do. However, as my hon. Friend said, businesses need to be able to plan.
I accept that not all legislation can give detail on everything to the nth degree, but I think it is reasonable and proportionate for businesses small, medium and large in this country to expect to be given at least a hint of what is coming down the line. That way, they can begin the process of planning and putting their thoughts together, so that when the consultations come they can give as full and frank an account of their circumstances as they can, and describe what the proposals will mean for them and their employees, so that the Minister can come to a reasonable judgment before laying any regulations.
The Opposition are not opposed to the principle of the clause, but because of the holes in it, we cannot support it.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Amendment 42 is another technical amendment that concerns not the function of the Bill but parliamentary procedure, so if we want another dry, technical debate, we certainly have the opportunity.
Clause 4 makes provision for new section 27BW to be inserted into the Employment Rights Act 1996. New section 27BW(3) would allow regulations made under part 2A of the 1996 Act, relating to the provisions concerning zero hours, that are subject to different or no parliamentary procedure to be included in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. New clause 11 amends section 236 of the 1996 Act and makes the same provision to allow the combining of instruments, but applies to any orders and regulations made under that Act, rather than to only those made using powers in part 2A. This is a technical amendment intended to ensure that implementation can be undertaken as efficiently as possible.
On what instruments might need to be combined, we will be setting out further details required to implement zero-hours provisions through secondary legislation, but existing powers in the 1996 Act, such as the power in section 10 regarding pay statements, may play a part in supporting implementation. It may be that it would be appropriate to exercise that power to prescribe that pay statements must specify where payment has been made under proposed new section 27BO for the short-notice cancellation, movement or curtailment of a shift. Should that be the case, this provision would allow that amendment to be made in the same regulations as others to be made under new powers being inserted by this Bill that are—I am sure that the shadow Minister will be pleased to hear this—subject to the affirmative procedure. That will mean that provisions to be detailed in regulations that would have been subject to the negative procedure, or no procedure, receive greater scrutiny from Parliament before becoming law.
In the light of the amendment made to section 236, amendment 42 removes the provisions that apply only to part 2A of the 1996 Act, as they will be redundant.
Greg Smith
As the Minister says, this is a very technical amendment—and who doesn’t love a dry, technical debate? However, I am not sure that anyone seeking a dry, technical debate over some hours is going to be happy. I gently suggest that the Government should reflect on the procedural nature of these provisions and their intersection with the Employment Rights Act 1996, which is very complex to unpick and fully understand, not necessarily for those who sit in this House, or indeed in the other place, but certainly for businesses out there, which will require a lot of professional services and advice to navigate it.
On the particular, technical nature of the procedure, I heard what the Minister said about the affirmative procedure, but can he explain something to the Committee? This question could result in a very short answer or a very long one—I apologise for asking it if it prompts a longer one, although in some ways that would be better—but can he explain which powers in the new clause will not be subject to the affirmative procedure? Is there a list? And—it would be remiss of me not to throw this in—why could this not have been on the face of the Bill from day one?
Justin Madders
I am afraid that I will not be able to tell the shadow Minister what will not be subject to the affirmative procedure. I think that the intention is actually for the amendment to bring everything that is in scope of the clause under the affirmative procedure, but I will endeavour to confirm that and come back to him, if that is okay.
Amendment 42 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Greg Smith
I will not speak at length on this clause because, as the Minister said, it has a bit more clarity in it than many of the others. He has just outlined the new definitions, but perhaps I can put to him an example case showing how they would meet someone on what I believe he may describe as a zero-hours contract, but which also has some compensation for being a zero-hours contract. I will explain what I mean by that.
This is a live example of someone who explained their working relationship with their contracted employer to me the other day. He is required to be up, dressed and ready to go at 5 am every day—perish the thought—and he will receive a call by 5.30 am about whether there is a number of hours to be worked that day. He receives a payment for doing that. Each week, he receives a payment for being up at 5 am and being ready to go if required, but of course if he is not required he does not receive anything further for the shift or the full day of work.
There are probably not many such contracts in the economy, but that is a real-life one. I happened to be briefed on it by the individual involved the other day. The employee is happy. Not everybody is happy at 5 am, but he gets his payment for doing that. He accepts the quid pro quo that he may or may not get a full day’s work off the back of that. If he does not, he can go back to bed or do whatever he fancies with the rest of the day. How do the definitions in the Bill fit somebody who is quite happy with such an arrangement?
Justin Madders
At the all-party parliamentary beer group’s reception last night, the shadow Minister and I talked about pubs. His question sounds perfect for a pub quiz for retired employment lawyers: it is the sort of thing that might end up getting taken to a group of KCs to understand the precise relationship. My best guess is that it would be classed as a zero-hours arrangement and would therefore be covered by the legislation. However, I do not wish to set a precedent inadvertently, so I will take further advice and come back to the shadow Minister. I hope he has some more interesting teasers like that: I am sure the entire employment law community are furiously scrabbling through their books to find the answer to his conundrum.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Consequential amendments relating to sections 1 to 3
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 43, in schedule 1, page 106, line 8, at end insert—
“In section 27 (meaning of ‘wages’ for purposes of Part 2 of the Act), in subsection (1)—
(a) after the paragraph (ce) inserted by the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 insert—
‘(cf) a payment under section 27BO(1) of this Act (payment for a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift),’;
(b) renumber the paragraph (ce) inserted by the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 as paragraph (cg).”
This amendment provides for a payment under proposed section 27BO(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of a short-notice cancellation, movement or curtailment of a shift to be treated as “wages” for the purposes of the provision about protection of wages in Part 2 of that Act.
The right of a worker to bring a claim for unlawful deduction of wages is an important principle in employment law. It is right that payments for cancelled, moved and curtailed shifts are included in this provision. Although a worker can already claim through the employment tribunal that their employer has not made a payment for a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift, in some cases it may be more appropriate for workers to bring a claim under the unlawful deduction of wages provisions, for example if there are instances of non-payment covering a period of months or years; if they want to claim for financial loss as a result of non-payment, for instance because of bank charges; or if a claim covers non-payment of cancellation payments and other wages.
The amendment will provide workers with an alternative remedy for non-payment, in addition to the new provisions in proposed new sections 27BS and 27BT of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That is in line with other statutory rights to payment, such as remuneration during suspension of work on medical grounds. I hope that that is a clear explanation.
Greg Smith
I do not say so often in this Committee, but that was actually a helpful clarification. I can only come back to a point that I will make countless times in this Committee: why on earth could that not have been clearer at the start, when businesses up and down the land were submitting their written evidence, or indeed when they were providing us with oral evidence last week? I stress that it is helpful to have that clarity now. I take no issue at all with the Minister’s explanation, other than to gently repeat the point about certainty and planning going forward.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s support for the amendment.
Amendment 43 agreed to.
Amendments made: 44, in schedule 1, page 107, line 10, after “27BA(1)” insert “or 27BD(5A) or (5B)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 11 and 14.
Amendment 45, in schedule 1, page 107, line 10, after “27BA(1)” insert “or 27BEA(1) or (2)”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 13.
Justin Madders
Amendment 46 will broaden the detriment provisions in respect of the right to guaranteed hours. It will ensure that a worker has a right not to be subjected to detriment on the grounds that the worker is, or the employer believes that the worker is, entitled to an offer of guaranteed hours. The existing provisions protect workers from detriment only where a worker accepts or rejects an offer of guaranteed hours or proposes to do so; where the worker declines to work a shift, as they believe their employer has failed to comply with their obligation in relation to notice of shifts; or because the worker alleges the existence of such grounds to take a case to an employment tribunal.
Amendment 47 is a consequential amendment that clarifies the definition of “reference period” in amendment 46.
The amendments will extend the protections to ensure that detriment to the worker arising from the right to guaranteed hours can be addressed. The detriment experienced by the worker may include cases in which a worker’s contract is terminated. Whether a worker experiences a detriment on those new grounds will be a matter for the employment tribunal to determine in the usual manner.
Greg Smith
I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation. The Opposition can clearly see that amendment 46 will ensure that a worker’s right not to be subjected to detriment includes a case of detriment on the grounds that the worker is, or the employer believes that the worker is, entitled to a guaranteed-hours offer under proposed new section 27BA of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The question—our old friend—is why that was not in the Bill in the first place.
I would be grateful if the Minister explained what sort of detriment the Government are concerned about and are trying to prevent with the amendments. It is another point of clarity: it is about giving businesses an early understanding of where the Government are trying to go. This is one of the areas in legislation that could be widely open to legal opinion, if I may put it that way: a sort of lawyers’ charter, whereby if a bunch of lawyers are put in a room they could easily come up with many different interpretations of detriment and of the scope of amendment 46.
We see uncertainty in legal opinion all the time on the legislation that passes through this House. Once the Bill, in some form, has become an Act—as undoubtedly it will, given the parliamentary arithmetic—and a case comes to court, it will be helpful for the judiciary to look back at the parliamentary debate and see the full meaning of this provision.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s question. I recall on one or two desperate occasions quoting Hansard in an employment tribunal. I always felt, “If you’re explaining, you’re losing,” as the old phrase goes.
We are not actually creating a new category of detriment. Detriment is something that already applies across a whole range of employment rights, so we are not inventing something that is not already there. At the moment, there is quite a live academic debate about how far the extent of detriment reaches, which we may come to at a later point.
To answer the shadow Minister’s points, the amendment will not create a whole new area of litigation about understanding what detriment means in this circumstance. It will still be the same detriment that would apply in other employment-related claims.
Amendment 46 agreed to.
Amendment made: 47, in schedule 1, page 107, line 29, at end insert—
“(7) In this section ‘reference period’ has the same meaning as in Chapter 2 of Part 2A (see section 27BA(4)).”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 46.
Greg Smith
I have two questions for the Minister—hopefully simple ones—about Government amendments 48 and 49, which relate to the maximum award for a detriment claim.
First, there does not seem to be a set limit for the maximum award. Can the Minister explain that? Can he give an indication whether a maximum award will be set further down the line, either via a consultation process or in regulations?
My second question is possibly less straightforward, but it will be important as we look at the practical application of the Bill once it receives Royal Assent and comes into force. How much does the Minister envisage that tribunals may award under amendment 49?
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s questions. They cannot be answered in the round, as all cases will be very fact-specific. The maximum that a tribunal awards will be down to the circumstances in which workers find themselves. With a zero-hours contract, there will be a whole range of issues relating to the kind of work that they would have expected if the detriment had not taken place. It is a well-established principle that a tribunal will award what is just and equitable in the circumstances. Tribunals are well versed in understanding the factors that they would need to take into account in making such awards. The shadow Minister tempts me to get into details, but as this is a Bill Committee and not an employment tribunal, I cannot give him the kind of detail that he is looking for.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I understand the broad principle that he outlines, but there could be a mechanism, without putting a pounds-and-pence limit on any award, to bake in some formula that would cap an award according to proportion of original pay, contracted hours, length of service or some other factor. For the clarity of the record, is the Minister saying that no such framework is envisaged and that it will be a totally open-ended question for any employment tribunal?
Justin Madders
The amendments relate to detriment claims only, whereas the shadow Minister’s question is a slightly broader one. The point about compensation in other situations would be far more detailed. As this is about people on irregular contracts who may have suffered a detriment that we cannot possibly predict in advance, it is normal to say at this stage that the usual principles of the just and equitable compensation that an employment tribunal would award will apply in those circumstances.
Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Greg Smith
Main Page: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)Department Debates - View all Greg Smith's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsThursday 5th December 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 December 2024 - (5 Dec 2024)
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I understand the Minister’s explanation of the amendment, which appears to be a logical consequence of the other provisions on guaranteed hours, although we have the old chestnut about why it was not in the Bill when it was first introduced. It seems a pretty straightforward measure that reflects where the Government have always said they are coming from, so it is peculiar that it is coming at this stage. I might go so far as to ask the Minister whether Government amendments 50 and 51 are in fact correcting mistakes, as opposed to adding to the original drafting of the Bill.
I have some specific questions about the amendments. How does the Minister envisage that it will be proven that an employer believes that a worker is entitled to an offer of guaranteed hours? Some clarification would be helpful, not just so that the Committee and the House can understand the scope of the amendment, but so that businesses can plan for what might be coming down the line.
May I also ask the Minister for clarity about what amendment 51 will mean for dismissal during the reference period? I am not sure that we have enough clarity on that point to satisfy the Committee. Given how the schedule and the amendments are drafted, there is a possibility of a legal opinion indicating that it is possible for employers to dismiss employees during the reference period. From everything else that the Minister has said, I would be surprised if that were the Government’s intent. When he sums up, it will be useful if he clarifies whether that is indeed his intent. Is that one of the many loopholes that he is seeking to shut down with the Government’s amendments, and does it need shutting down further? Or is it the Government’s intent that that should be possible for employers within the scope of the Bill?
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s questions. I feel that we are embarking on an employment law masterclass, although I am not sure that I consider myself a master.
The first point was about how an individual would demonstrate that an employer had believed that they were entitled to particular rights and therefore had reason for dismissal. It is akin to existing case law and legal precedents from other jurisdictions: a set of facts can be presented to the employment tribunal to determine its judgment. I accept that it is not the easiest thing to prove, but that is how the law is currently structured and there will be no departure from that.
On the second point, clearly we would not want this to have the unintended consequence of not relating to a dismissal during the reference period. Proposed new section 104BA(3) logically demonstrates that if there is a termination during the reference period, the same protections would still apply. I am happy to seek further advice, but my understanding is that the Bill, as drafted, covers that situation. Clearly we would not want a loophole of that nature. I hope that that deals with the shadow’s Minister’s questions.
Amendment 50 agreed to.
Amendments made: 51, in schedule 1, page 108, leave out lines 39 to 41.
This amendment removes a requirement about the timing of a dismissal from proposed section 104BA(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Amendment 52, in schedule 1, page 109, leave out line 1. —(Justin Madders.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 51.
Justin Madders
Amendment 53 will ensure that the provisions in section 225 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 on the calculation date for the purposes of calculating a week’s pay will work in relation to the new right to guaranteed hours. It is a small amendment: it will replace the word “last” with “latest” to reflect the fact that the date of termination will not necessarily correspond with the final day of the reference period. It sits alongside Government amendment 54; combined, the amendments will ensure that there is clarity for employment tribunals on calculating a week’s pay for the purpose of determining compensation for a well-founded complaint brought under proposed new section 27BF. The maximum number of weeks’ pay that may be awarded by a tribunal for a claim brought under proposed new section 27BF is to be defined in regulations.
Greg Smith
This is a minor and technical amendment that brings, on this specific point, the clarity that we have been asking for on so many other clauses and Government amendments. It appears to be correcting defective drafting in the version of the Bill originally presented to the House.
The need for such amendments suggests that the arbitrary target to publish the Bill in 100 days has once again been found wanting. As I have said before, I understand the political imperative for the Government to have done so, but it brings little comfort to employers or employees, who need certainty and clarity on the Bill. At least with Government amendments 53 and 54, that certainty and clarity has now come. I urge the Government to apply the same rigour to their other amendments so that businesses planning for the future can do so—perhaps not with jubilant support for the Bill, but with an understanding of what the Government are legislating for.
Amendment 53 agreed to.
Amendment made: 54, in schedule 1, page 109, line 31, at end insert
“on which the worker was employed by the employer under a worker’s contract”.—(Justin Madders.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 53.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.
Justin Madders
Schedule 1 will make various amendments to the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Among those amendments, which are consequential on clauses 1 to 3, I highlight the insertion of proposed new section 47H of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to make provision for a worker not to be subject to detriment on various grounds relating to the right to guaranteed hours. The employer cannot penalise the worker for accepting an offer of a guaranteed hours contract, for example, or for challenging an offer that is not in compliance with the obligations on the employer regarding guaranteed hours.
Amendments have been made to extend these detriment provisions to situations in which a worker brings a claim or alleges the existence of a claim in relation to a breach of the duties relating to information rights and notice requirements. The detriment provisions are also extended to situations in which a worker suffers a detriment because they qualify for the right to guaranteed hours or the employer believes that they do. Whether a detriment has occurred in such instances will of course be for an employment tribunal to determine. Likewise, the employer cannot penalise the worker for declining to work a shift that the worker reasonably believed was offered with unreasonable notice. This is an important right that helps to address the potential power imbalance between an employer and a worker who is seeking to enforce their statutory rights.
Schedule 1 will also insert proposed new section 104BA of the Employment Rights Act, which makes provision for an employee to be treated as unfairly dismissed if the reason—or principal reason—for the dismissal is that the employee accepted or rejected, or proposed to accept or reject, an offer of guaranteed hours. Likewise, an employee will be treated as unfairly dismissed if the employer was under a duty to offer guaranteed hours but the employer dismissed the employee during the reference period to avoid having to comply with that duty. Amendments have been made to ensure that unfair dismissal protections extend to cases where a worker is dismissed because the employer believes they have a duty to offer guaranteed hours, even if that belief is mistaken.
Greg Smith
My argument is similar to the arguments that we have had in substantive debates on previous groups of amendments to the schedule. With this Bill, we have consistently seen an approach of legislating first and consulting second. I understand why that might be appropriate in some circumstances, but certainly for many of the schedule 1 provisions that the Minister has outlined, businesses will find it inadequate. They will find it too difficult to start making their business plans, their plans for growth, their plans for new contracts or their plans to expand in the next financial year, the year after, or even the year after that. It is not unusual for businesses to engage in medium and long-term planning, but too many aspects of the schedule mean that they cannot. Real businesses in the real world are trying to scope out where their next capital investment, their next expansion or their next acquisition of another business is coming from.
Because of those holes, the Opposition are deeply concerned that the Bill, which was incredibly rushed to meet an arbitrary 100-day political rather than legislative objective, will bring too much uncertainty to the economy and to business. At the end of the day, judging from the evidence that we heard in last week’s four sittings, it is having the net effect that businesses will simply take a deep breath and draw back from employing more people. They will not take the risk of taking on new hires. Given our debates on Tuesday, I am thinking particularly of that all-important risk of giving a second chance in life to a marginal candidate.
Sometimes an employer is not entirely convinced that a candidate is the best fit for their workplace, for any of a number of reasons—they may be a rehabilitated former offender or they may have had a number of struggles in life—but is willing to give them a chance. We heard from witnesses that those employers who were going to give people in those circumstances that chance in life—that chance to better themselves—might not now do so. That would be an absolute tragedy for the individuals involved and a travesty of justice when it comes to employment numbers in this country.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the Bill were to go back to the Department as he suggests, the period in which changes to employment legislation are considered by Parliament would be extended and the uncertainty of which he speaks would be prolonged? Does he further accept that one of the business community’s key requests was for ongoing consultation as the Bill makes its way through its parliamentary stages, and that if we were to take the action he suggests, the Government would be breaking that commitment to business that business has asked for?
Greg Smith
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I believe that it was the Deputy Prime Minister who, in the media over the weekend, could not name a single business that supports the Bill. I will gladly take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman if he can name a single business that supports the Bill. [Interruption.] Not an umbrella body, but an actual business.
Laurence Turner
We heard from the Co-op, in the evidence sessions that we all attended last week, that that support is there. Off the top of my head, I would add Octopus and Centrica, two examples of very significant businesses that have welcomed provisions in the Bill.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There are clearly thousands of businesses in this country; I notice that he did not name a single business from his constituency. I actually know Northfield very well: my late grandmother worked in Walter Smith butchers in Northfield for many years, well into her 80s.
I fully understand the need for any Government to have ongoing dialogue with business, but I gently say to the hon. Gentleman and all Government Members that there is a big political cost when any Government legislate too swiftly without fully thinking things through and without clarity of thought and of objectives. Yes, there are principles—they are clearly Labour principles—running through the Bill, but there is not that clarity of thought as to many measures in schedule 1.
I say gently, perhaps from bitter experience in the four and a half years prior to the general election, that I know what happens when legislation is rushed. From the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to the Illegal Migration Act 2023, there were multiple pieces of legislation, none of which hit the nail on the head. Perhaps they were a little bit too rushed. They failed to meet the objective that we, the previous Government, clearly set out to achieve of ending small boat crossings in the channel.
I raise that clearly very out-of-scope point only as a warning to the Government that if they insist on going too quickly and rushing the Bill through just to meet the headline of having published it in 100 days, it could turn out to be a very painful experience not just for them as a Government, but for the business community in this country. These are the businesses that will be the backbone of our economy and will actually create the jobs that I think the Government also want to see, but the Bill might have the unintended consequence of damping them down.
Justin Madders
My irony meter has reached overload. I think it is fair to say that in the last four years of chaos under the previous Government, uncertainty was brought to a new level. That was not about legislation; it was just about the way that the Government operated, or failed to operate, as the case may be.
Let me try to put the shadow Minister’s mind at ease about the process. We consulted extensively in opposition, we consulted in government before the Bill was published, and we are continuing to consult. The Bill will set out the broad powers that the Government wish to take in respect of employment rights. There will then be more detailed consultation as we get into the secondary legislation, where the detail—the real meat and veg of this law—will be dealt with. There is not going to be a rush for this provision to be enacted, because we understand that it is important to get the details right. Many of these measures will not come into force until 2026, because we want to get this right.
We want to make sure that we take businesses with us and listen to their concerns, to workers’ concerns and to trade unions’ representations. The impact assessment is clear that there is no expected impact on the number of jobs available.
Greg Smith
The Minister talks about further consultation. Can he give a commitment right here, on the record, to consultation on all the measures in schedule 1 and the rest of the Bill that go through to his 2026 deadline? First, can he commit that 2026 really is the deadline? Secondly, can he commit that consultation with trade unions and with business will have equal billing, and that one of the two will not outweigh the other?
Justin Madders
I think there was a suggestion there that we may favour one stakeholder group over another. I assure the shadow Minister that when we tot up the engagements that we have had so far, the number of businesses and business organisations is far in excess of the number of trade unions. Actually, we want to consult with everyone, broadly: we do not think that there should be an arbitrary limit on who we discuss this with.
On the time limits, the “Next Steps” document is very clear about the timetable. If it takes more time, it takes more time. We do not want to rush the Bill through and create unintended consequences of the type that the shadow Minister is rightly concerned about. We want to get it right. That is why we are committed to consulting as we go forward.
Justin Madders
Clause 5 is the first of several clauses that will repeal previous legislation, although it may not be the most controversial of our repeals. The clause will repeal the previous Government’s Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023, which if commenced would have brought in a right for workers to request a more predictable working pattern. Requests could still be turned down by the employer. That approach is clearly different from the right to guaranteed hours that we have set out in the Bill. We do not want to confuse employers and workers with two different models, so the Bill will repeal the 2023 Act entirely. Nevertheless, the work that was done to develop the 2023 Act has been useful in the drafting of our new measures and will continue to be taken into account as we evolve and develop our policies.
We want predictability and security to be the baseline in all jobs, creating an economy that works for all. We think responsibility for offering guaranteed hours should therefore rest with the employer. Without guaranteed hours, workers do not have any form of certainty as to their earnings, making it difficult for them to apply for credit or a mortgage, rent a flat, plan for major events such as weddings or holidays, or even manage day-to-day expenses.
In addition, when people have a better idea of how many hours they will be working, it is easier for them to organise their family and social life, plan time together and organise travel and childcare—all things that are just so important for the wider welfare of our society. These provisions of the Bill will apply to all employers, levelling the playing field so that best-practice employers are rewarded rather than placed at a competitive disadvantage against employers who want to place risk wholly on the worker.
Greg Smith
On the one hand, the Minister says that he wants certainty. On the other hand, he is repealing legislation that is but a year old. I fully appreciate that a new Government will want go through the legislation that the previous Government put on the statute book: it is vital in our democracy that we maintain the principle that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament, and I fully acknowledge and accept that the Government have a mandate to deliver their manifesto. However, I gently put it on the record—I direct this point towards the Minister—that certainty does not come from abolishing year-old legislation that businesses have only just started thinking about, let alone implemented.
Justin Madders
Clause 6 will amend section 27B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to reflect the new definition of “zero hours arrangement” in clause 4, which will apply to the whole of part 2A. As has been discussed in relation to clause 4, the definition has been amended to ensure that it does not inadvertently exclude any zero-hours workers in cases where they have a contract with the employer but the contract does not, in itself, make them a worker. The definition of “zero hours arrangement” captures those who have an arrangement to work for their employer when work is provided but have no obligation to accept work, and the employer has no obligation to provide it. Such an arrangement between the employer and the individual could, however, include other obligations that amount to a contract, albeit that they are not a workers’ contract. The clause will ensure that individuals caught in that situation are also covered by the Bill.
On a technical point—I put this on the record for clarity—the definition of “non-contractual zero hours arrangements” in section 27B of the 1996 Act is amended by clause 6, but a new definition for the whole of part 2A will be inserted by clause 4. The definition of “non-contractual zero hours arrangements” in part 2A is being changed by clause 6, as well as being inserted by clause 4, which may well be commenced after clause 6 for the rest of the provisions. The changes in clause 6 will ensure that the definition in section 27B operates as intended before the commencement of other provisions on zero-hours arrangements. The definition in section 27B will then be repealed on commencement of the other provisions, as is provided for in schedule 1.
I hope that that was clear to everyone. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I feel that we have gone over those details multiple times, particularly on Tuesday, so I will not take up a great deal of time. However, it is important to put on the record the Opposition’s concern about cases such as the one that I outlined in this morning’s sitting. The Minister conceded that it probably was a zero-hours contract, but it did have an element of certainty of pay as that individual was contracted to be up at a certain time of day to find out whether he had work that day, so there was payment for it but not necessarily guaranteed hours. Such cases still need an answer, whether from the Government’s legal counsel or within the Department. I take the Minister at his word: he said this morning that he would look into such cases and test how the Bill will apply. That is as relevant to clause 6 as it is to other clauses that we have discussed.
The worst-case scenario is that the Bill becomes too prescriptive and takes away arrangements that individuals enter into freely and want to enter into; perhaps it suits them to do so. I accept that that is probably not the majority of cases, but there will be people out there in the economy who perhaps do not need to work. Perhaps they do not need the money. There are such people, believe it or not—I am certainly not one of them. There are people who want to take on a zero-hours contract for something to do. I fully accept and place it on the record that that will be a very small number of people, but if they are completely wiped out by some of these prescriptions without flexibility, that will be a problem for the economy, much as it is if employers just take everybody on a zero-hours contract and offer them nothing further. That, equally, would be a tragedy.
I understand where the Government are coming from in clause 6. I understand the principles behind it. Again, however, I urge the Minister to double-kick the tyres and check that there will not be unintended consequences that have a negative impact on employment in this country.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s comments. I have been reflecting on his scenario from this morning. Actually, the first thing I thought about over lunch was how the employer would be checking that the individual was up and dressed at 5 o’clock in the morning to make sure he had complied with the terms of his contract. However, the intention behind the Bill is to make sure that we do not get into lots of debates about whether someone is covered by this legislation or whether everyone who is in some sort of arrangement or contract is covered by it. Of course, if they do not wish to have an offer of guaranteed hours, they are entitled under the legislation not to accept it. I think that this clause will bring clarity and consistency across the board in that respect.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Right to request flexible working
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 136, in clause 7, page 25, line 5, at end insert—
“(1AZA) But where the employer is—
(a) the Security Service;
(b) the Secret Intelligence Service, or
(c) the Government Communication Headquarters,
the test of reasonableness in subsection (2)(b)(ii) does not apply, and the notification under subsection 1(aa) need not explain why the employer considers that it is reasonable to refuse the application on that ground or those grounds.”
This amendment would exclude the security services from the Bill’s provisions on flexible working.
Amendment 136 is essentially a probing amendment—I make that clear from the outset—but one that should go to the nub of exactly where the Government want to go with this measure, not least bearing in mind the Minister’s comments at the end of the last debate about ensuring that everybody falls under the same set of rules. There may be organisations where it is impractical for their employees to be under the same set of rules. The amendment seeks to probe the matter of exempting those working in the security services from clause 7. We define the security services as MI5, GCHQ and the Secret Intelligence Service.
The Regulatory Policy Committee has explained that the Government have not proved that the measures on flexible working are necessary or undertaken any proper assessment of the costs to business. We therefore want to probe the Government’s thinking on how the provisions might apply in practice. There may be certain occupations, such as the security services, where it is harder for the employer to agree requests for flexible working. I am sure that everyone can see the practical realities and the potential consequences for national security and the safety of everyone in our great United Kingdom if the security services were to suddenly have flexible working arrangements.
Has the Minister given any consideration to which sectors may find these provisions either more difficult or completely impractical to comply with? The amendment takes the example of the security services, where irregular hours are worked. I am sure that hon. Members can think of other occupations, such as policing—and perhaps ours, if I may be so bold, Sir Christopher—where irregular hours are more than commonplace.
We would like to understand how the provisions of the Bill will apply to the security services and to understand the Minister’s thinking as to why. That is the critical question in politics—my early mentor in politics, the late, great Eric Forth, was clear that it is the only question that matters in politics—so I put it to the Minister. We want to understand the balance between the right to request flexible working and public protection. Again, I do not believe that any Member of this House wants to undermine public protection and the safety of our nation. The first duty of Government is the defence of the realm and the security of its citizens.
The security services will not be the only profession that might find the requirements difficult to administer. Will the Minister let us know, when he responds to what I repeat is a probing amendment, where the Government stand? What is his assessment of those areas that simply will not be able to comply with the provisions of the Bill? What safeguards will the Government put in place for them? We seek to understand the practicalities of the requirements that the Government are seeking to impose.
Laurence Turner
It is a pleasure to serve under your exemplary chairmanship, Sir Christopher.
Before I get into the clause, may I say that I enjoyed my discussion with the shadow Minister about the Northfield constituency? I am half tempted to cite my great grandparents, who were confectioners and newsagents, to burnish my small business credentials, but some on the Labour Benches can do it better. I appreciate that he said that the amendment is probing and that he is taking a particularly unique case in order to test the limits of the Bill.
Focusing on the words of the amendment rather than on the wider issues, because it is the words that matter, it is important to look at the history of employment rights as they relate to the intelligence services, because this is an area that was tested in the 1980s and 1990s in particular. The consequences of not extending these rights to the intelligence services speak to the argument against making the amendment.
For those of us who come from a trade union background, there is an uncomfortable reminder of the ban on trade union activity at GCHQ in the 1980s, which led to a number of skilled professionals leaving the employment of that service. It is important to remember the 14 trade unionists who were sacked because they did not give up their trade union membership. Many of them were re-employed 13 years later, because they still had their skills, which were in high demand.
The shadow Minister talked about the unique nature of flexible working in the intelligence services. I suspect that employees of those services have flexible working arrangements that are hard for any of us on the Committee to imagine, but when employees of the intelligence services did not have recourse to most of the normal procedures of employment law, it was an acknowledged problem that dissatisfaction among employees of the services in itself became a security risk. Some hon. Members may recall that there were a number of very high-profile cases of dissatisfied members of those services who went on the public record in breach of the Official Secrets Act. In some cases, that was attributed to dissatisfaction with employment situations. I can do no better than quote from the Intelligence and Security Committee’s annual report of 1997-98. At that time, the Committee was chaired by Baron King of Bridgwater, the predecessor of one of the Conservative Members who tabled the amendment. It stated:
“The Committee also believes that everything possible should be done to ensure that employees of the Agencies have the same rights as employees elsewhere.”
Dame Nia Griffith
What really matters is that flexibility is in-built, and I am sure that colleagues in the Home Office will be able to use it.
The other point that the hon. Member for West Suffolk might like me to address is whether giving a reason could expose something that it would be undesirable to expose—in other words, whether any explanation given would incur a breach of security. In many cases—probably the majority—the reason for refusing a flexible working request will not involve matters of national security. It might be a matter of not being able to reorganise the work among existing staff to facilitate a requested working pattern, or there being insufficient work during the period someone has asked to work. Those reasons will be no different from what other employers are considering. In most cases, it will be possible for an employer to give reasons for their refusal without disclosing any sensitive information.
There will certainly be cases where matters of national security come into play, but there are already protections in place. The grounds for refusal given by the employer have to be made public only at the point at which legal proceedings are started. In the unlikely event that an employee makes a claim in the employment tribunal, the tribunal is able to conduct all or part of the proceedings in private, or to order a person not to disclose any document. I therefore invite the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire to withdraw his amendment.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for her responses. I highlight that this is a probing amendment designed to test the Government’s thinking. I appreciate the flexibilities that she has outlined, but as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk set out, the security services are a particularly unique element within public service.
I can see a multitude of reasons why some of those flexibilities will not be good enough to ensure that those predominantly charged with our national security can comply with every measure in the Bill. I urge the Minister to have those conversations with relevant Ministers in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office, who are responsible for our security services, to double-check that they are entirely comfortable with the provisions in the Bill, which I dare say has been through the write-around process. Sometimes minutiae and detail can be lost in that process, and it is vital for our national security that the Bill should be properly road-tested to the nth degree.
Greg Smith
I will finish the line, and then I will. I make that point just to highlight that there are sometimes circumstances in which the flexibilities that the Minister spoke of may not fully apply. I am sure a witticism is coming.
Alex McIntyre
Sadly, I am not very funny. Would M’s HR adviser not say, “That might have a detrimental impact on your performance, Mr Bond”? That flexible working request could therefore be reasonably denied.
Greg Smith
I think that has probably been a plot line already. The hon. Member for Gloucester understands the point that I am making here within certain elements of employment in this country. This was a probing amendment, and we will come back to the principle of this discussion—although maybe not the detail of the Bond example—later in the Bill’s passage. For the time being, I urge the Minister to have those conversations with colleagues in other parts of Government to double-check that they are fully appreciative of the measures in this Bill. 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:
New clause 26—Consultation and assessment on the right to request flexible working—
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of the right to request flexible working provided for in section 7 of this Act.
(2) As part of the assessment, the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation on the proposed right to request flexible working.
(3) The assessment must—
(a) include labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis,
(b) examine the impact of the measures in section 7 on employment, wages and economic output,
(c) consider the likelihood of the costs of flexible working measures being passed on to employees through lower wages, and
(d) examine the likely effect of the right to request flexible working on—
(i) productivity,
(ii) wage growth,
(iii) equality of opportunity,
(iv) job security,
(v) economic activity, and
(vi) employment.
(4) A report setting out the findings of the assessment must be laid before each House of Parliament no sooner than 18 weeks after the consultation has been initiated.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clause 7.
Amendment 132, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force section 7 of this Act until the findings of the report under section [Consultation and reporting on the right to request flexible working] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
This amendment is linked to NC26.
Dame Nia Griffith
I thank my hon. Friend for her valuable contribution; she reminds us that flexible working can often be a real help in getting people into work.
The changes in the Bill will support employers and employees to agree solutions that work for both parties and increase the take-up of flexible working. The Opposition amendments, new clause 26 and amendment 132, proposed by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, include a requirement for an assessment of the impact of the Bill’s provisions on flexible working to be produced before the provisions can be commenced. The Government resist those amendments. They have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments, which was published alongside Second Reading and based on the best available evidence on the potential impact of the Bill’s measures on business, workers and the wider economy.
Our proportionate assessment included labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis considering the impact of these changes on individuals and businesses. It also provided a breakdown of the impacts on employment tribunals, small business and individuals with protected characteristics. We intend to refine that analysis over time, working closely with businesses, trade unions, academics and think-tanks. The analysis published alongside the Bill describes the overall business impact as neutral. Businesses may see benefits in improved productivity, employee loyalty, worker satisfaction, staff retention and the ability to attract a wider range of employees. It is important to remember that businesses can still reject flexible working requests on eight valid business grounds, including the burden of costs.
As is standard practice, the Government will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill reaches Royal Assent, in line with the requirements of the better regulation framework. That will account for where the primary legislation in the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament in such a way as to change the impacts of the policy on business significantly. That impact assessment will be published alongside the enacted legislation. We will then publish further analysis alongside future consultations, ahead of secondary legislation to meet our better regulation requirements. I therefore ask Opposition Members to withdraw their amendments.
Greg Smith
New clause 26 and amendment 132 are about impact assessments of flexible working. Amid her speculation about the Mid Buckinghamshire pantomime, to which I trust she will be buying a ticket, the Minister talked about impact assessments that have already been made. But we know what the Regulatory Policy Committee has said about those impact assessments:
“there is little evidence presented that employers are rejecting requests”
for flexible working “unreasonably”.
We should remember that the previous Conservative Government, although they want to repeal it, introduced the right to request flexible working from the first day of employment through the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Act) 2023, which came into force in April. The RPC has said that the Government have not considered the effectiveness of the previous Bill—it might be difficult to do so given how recently it has come into force—and that it is therefore
“difficult to assess the justification for the additional measures”
in the Bill. The RPC also says that the Government have not considered the effectiveness of non-regulatory options such as raising awareness of the right to request flexible working. So the Government have not made the case for why this is necessary. I do not believe the Minister gave a clear explanation either. I am sure she will have a second chance to do so in summing up.
The RPC rebukes the Government for failing to take into account the costs this measure will impose on business, namely
“the costs to employers of engaging with more ET cases and hearings taking longer because they will now be considering wider and more subjective factors”
and that the Government’s own impact assessment
“assumes that there are no net costs to employers of accepting requests, on the basis that they would do so only if the benefits at least matched the costs. However, this does not necessarily hold as rational, risk averse employers will also factor in the increased cost/risk of rejecting requests under the proposal, seeking to avoid costly employment tribunals and, especially for SMBs”—
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
The hon. Member is talking about costs, but does he not agree that the lack of flexible work locks out far too many women? Some 40% of women who are not currently working say that access to flexible work would mean that they could take paid work. If we are talking about the cost to the economy, does he not agree that guaranteeing flexible working would boost the economy?
Greg Smith
The Opposition are not against flexible working; as I said, we actually legislated for it in the previous Parliament. We can see the benefits of it, as we discussed this morning, for anyone with childcare responsibilities—I count myself and my wife in that; I do not think it is quite a declarable interest—a caring responsibility or a need to have those flexible hours.
We fully recognise and accept the challenges around the nuts and bolts of the details proposed in this legislation, but I gently put it to the hon. Lady that it is our job, as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, to road-test any legislation that the Government bring forward, which is what we are seeking to do. We are not against flexible working, but we are focused on the potential unintended consequences, the potential cost to business and the potential cost to jobs in the overall workforce, as I argued in a debate on an amendment this morning.
If employers do not have confidence—if they think that something will go wrong or that it will lead to countless days and months in employment tribunals—they may not make those hires in the first place, and then everyone and the whole economy will suffer. Opposition Members cannot stand by and not challenge or test that to ensure that the Government have got it right. To return to what I was saying before the intervention, for SMEs, the opportunity cost of their chief executive officer or another senior director spending time on employment tribunals is also considerable.
New clause 26 in my name and the name of my hon. Friends merely gives the Government an opportunity to do their homework and test whether the provision will work. We do not believe that they should casually pile more regulation on to business without knowing whether these specific measures—the detailed measures in the Bill—are actually needed to achieve their objectives.
We are asking the Government to consult on the impact of the measure and to report on it, and for the House of Commons to approve that report before the measure comes into force. Given the RPC’s verdict on the Bill’s impact assessments, business would find it reassuring if the impact assessment could be done and placed before the House so that we could study it and debate it, and so that Members on both sides of the House—Government Back Benchers and Opposition Back Benchers, as well as those in the smaller parties—can fully understand it. We believe that it is important for the Government to have to come back again for the approval of the House before the measure comes into effect.
Laurence Turner
The hon. Gentleman seems to be looking for statistical evidence about employers unreasonably refusing flexible working requests. I must say that it is a shame that the workplace employment relations study was last carried out in 2011. The Government at the time declined to repeat the exercise; had they not, we might have the information in front of us that he is looking for.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are precedents—blacklisting, for example—in which there were widespread but anecdotal reports that the practice was occurring? It was difficult to prove, and on that basis, the regulations on blacklisting were not enacted. Then, lo and behold, it became apparent years later that the practice was not just widespread but had been carried out on an industrial scale. Had the measures been put in place at the time, many lives would have been left unbroken.
Greg Smith
I will take on the chin the hon. Gentleman’s point about the 2011 dataset, which was published under the coalition Government, led by my noble friend Lord Cameron. The current Government is seeking to make this legislation, however, so the onus is on them—right here, right now—to provide the datasets, evidence, proper analysis and impact assessments for the legislation that they are putting before the House of Commons and, later, the House of Lords in this Session of this Parliament. I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts the good will with which that comment is made—it is not a political attack. It is the duty of any Government at any time, as they seek to legislate on any matter, to provide the impact assessments, the real data and the real-world evidence of why it is necessary to put that legislation in place.
As I said earlier, it is simply a case of asking the Government to do their homework properly, and to provide, not just to Parliament but to businesses and employees up and down the land, the basis for which they are seeking to change our statute book.
Alex McIntyre
I will return briefly to a couple of the shadow Minister’s comments. I take some quantum of solace in the fact that he now seems to be accepting the principle of consultation. Over the past couple of weeks, we have often heard that he would prefer there to be certainty for business in some of the provisions, and now there is some certainty.
Greg Smith
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but my argument throughout our debates on the amendments has been that it is normal practice to consult first, legislate second, but in many parts of the Bill the practice is to legislate first, consult second. That, I gently suggest to him, is probably the wrong way round.
Alex McIntyre
The “cake and eat it” argument is the point I was trying to make. I advised on flexible working requests regularly when in private practice, where individuals and, in particular, employers were asking what their rights were in respect of a request.
The hon. Gentleman raised two points, the first of which was about costs. Again, I point to the exemptions. The burden of additional costs is one of the exemptions by which an employer can say that it is not reasonable to accept a flexible working request. The balance between having rights for employees and making sure that they are not too much of a burden on business is important. The burden of additional costs is already explicitly covered in the legislation.
Secondly, in relation to tribunals, one of the issues with the current system is the lack of explanation provided. Employees often believe the worst, even if that is not always the case. They might make their request, with valid reasons, and if their employer tells them a flat no, with no further explanation, they often believe the worst and bring a tribunal claim.
Providing that explanation at the beginning requires the employer to think about the request. Not every employer is an excellent, flexible employer; some employers think that by offering flexible working, they will somehow lose productivity, whereas lots of studies have shown the opposite. Through that provision, employers will think about the request, engage with the process and the exemptions, think about what that means for their business, and provide a reasoned explanation.
That will not take as long as we might think, because there are only eight exemptions and people know their business very well. When they give that written explanation, it can be relatively short. It does not have to be “War and Peace”—I should have mentioned another James Bond novel—because it is just to give some background. We will then have an explanation that can be used in a tribunal. That will really assist tribunals in dealing with these cases, because there will be a written explanation of why the decision has been taken.
There are loads of cases in which people bring claims of discrimination because their flexible working requests have been rejected. Those can take up lots of time, when there has been just a misunderstanding between the employer and the employee. By introducing the requirement to provide an explanation, and for the employer to think through the reasonableness of it, there might hopefully be fewer claims in the employment tribunal.
Greg Smith
I will not take long. I understand the principle that the Minister has outlined and accept his arguments about workplace sickness and the evidence that the Committee has heard, but I want to reflect for a moment on the challenge that he raised about the potential—I emphasise the word “potential”—for abuse of day one sick pay.
The Government need to put in place safeguards, rather than just saying, “It’s up to businesses to manage their own practices.” Of course it is up to businesses to manage their own practices for the vast majority of things, but if a clear and unambiguous case of abusing day one provisions is found, we need protections for businesses as they seek to deal with those staff members. I have no doubt that the vast majority will not seek to abuse them, but there is always that scope, as in any walk of life.
I will ask the Minister for some clarity about new clause 5. On one level, it is perfectly sensible to make sure that there is a united policy approach to this issue across the whole of our United Kingdom, but why has it taken a new clause in the Bill for the Government to remember that Northern Ireland is part of our country? I sense the hon. Member for Dundee Central potentially tingling at the mention of our United Kingdom, but I thought that one thing that could unite the Conservative and Labour parties was that we are both Unionist parties—we both believe in keeping the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland together.
I hope that the answer is that, like many other things in relation to this rushed, 100-day Bill, the reference to Northern Ireland was simply left out. I think the Committee needs an explanation, however, as to why, rather than a reference to Northern Ireland being put straightforwardly in the first version of the Bill, a new clause was needed to show that the Government remember that Northern Ireland is part of our great United Kingdom.
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.
Justin Madders
Clause 9 provides for the removal of the requirement for an employee to earn at or above the lower earnings limit to be eligible for SSP. This requirement means that currently up to 1.3 million people, primarily women, are not entitled to receive SSP from their employer. This group are some of the lowest-paid in society, meaning that they and their families are most at risk of financial hardship if they cannot work. The clause ensures that all eligible employees can access statutory sick pay and the peace of mind it brings when they need to take time off due to illness.
However, we do not want to create a situation where anyone is entitled to receive more through SSP than they would otherwise earn. The clause therefore provides that an employee will be entitled to a certain percentage of their average weekly earnings or the current flat rate of SSP, whichever is lower. The clause therefore includes a power for the Secretary of State to determine that percentage rate by secondary legislation. However, it is our intention that the percentage rate is enshrined in primary legislation. I hope that gives the hon. Member for Dundee Central some comfort. We therefore published a consultation, which closed on 4 December, asking respondents what that percentage rate should be. We will now take time to carefully consider the responses we have received, before tabling an amendment to the Bill.
The changes that we are bringing in through the Bill will mean that up to 1.3 million low-paid employees will now be entitled to statutory sick pay and all eligible employees will be paid from the first day of sickness absence irrespective of their income, which will of course benefit millions of employees.
It is important to highlight that many employers choose to go further and provide more financial support to their employees during a sickness absence, with around 60% of all eligible employees being entitled to contractual sick pay. Those who need additional financial support while off sick are able to claim additional benefits through the welfare system, depending on their individual circumstances.
New clause 6 extends to Northern Ireland the benefits of strengthening statutory sick pay by removing the requirement to earn at least the lower earnings limit and creating a new percentage rate. These measures will ensure that all eligible employees have access to statutory sick pay irrespective of their income level, with the peace of mind that this brings when they need to take time off work due to sickness. The clause includes a power for the Minister for Communities to determine that percentage rate by secondary legislation.
Statutory sick pay is, as we have discussed, a transferred matter in relation to Northern Ireland. However, Northern Ireland has historically maintained parity with Great Britain on social security matters, including statutory sick pay. The Minister for Communities, Gordon Lyons MLA, has agreed to ask Westminster to legislate on the Northern Ireland Assembly’s behalf and to seek a legislative consent motion for the proposed changes in order to maintain parity in relation to statutory sick pay.
Finally, amendment 107 is consequential on new clauses 5 and 6; it limits the extent of the new clauses to Northern Ireland only.
Greg Smith
I shall be brief. On the Northern Ireland issues, I accept the Minister’s earlier explanation.
I have one straightforward question. The Minister says he has consulted and will consider the responses around the percentage rate going forward, and has said he will seek to amend the Bill to lock the percentage rate into the face of the Bill. The question remains when that amendment is likely to come. I appreciate it takes time to go through responses; it is unlikely to be done overnight, and potentially with Christmas coming up that will get in the way of any chance of the matter’s being considered by this Bill Committee. Therefore, is the Minister envisaging such an amendment on Report? Does he anticipate that it may come forward when the legislation is in the House of Lords? At what point will we see the detail? I do welcome the Minister’s commitment to get it into primary legislation, because that is important and is consistent with some of the things that I have been arguing for in relation to other amendments, but in order for Parliament to take a considered decision, it is important that we know when the amendment is likely to come—later in Committee, on Report in the House of Commons, or in the other place.
Justin Madders
That is a reasonable question. It is another Department’s consultation so there are only so many levers I can pull, but I envisage that the amendment will be tabled at Report stage at the latest. I hope that is sufficiently clear.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Ninth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Wales Office
Greg Smith
Main Page: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)Department Debates - View all Greg Smith's debates with the Wales Office
Employment Rights Bill (Ninth sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsTuesday 10th December 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 December 2024 - (10 Dec 2024)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Mundell. As is customary, I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
As Members will be aware, clause 10 introduces new requirements on tipping, namely the requirements for employers to consult workers about the allocation of the tips they have earned, and to review their tipping policy. These new requirements will build on the measures introduced by the previous Government in the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023. The Act came fully into effect on 1 October this year and ensured that an estimated £200 million-worth of tips each year are no longer retained by employers.
The Act is accompanied by a statutory code of practice on the fair and transparent distribution of tips. Although the Act requires employers to allocate tips fairly to workers, the existing statutory code of practice only encourages consultation with workers in deciding that allocation. The Government were clear in their commitment to going further—indeed, I took part in a debate earlier this year in which I said that the legislation did not go far enough. We will therefore make it mandatory for employers to consult workers in developing or updating their tipping policies, including how tips are allocated.
The clause will support worker participation in the allocation and distribution of tips that they have earned, by mandating that employers consult workers during the development or revision of their written tipping policies. It will also mandate that employers review their tipping policy and maintain records of the consultation they have carried out, as well as giving workers the right to request and review records related to the tipping policy consultation. The consultation will be required to take place at the formative stage, before the policy is finalised or updated, and should be carried out, where possible, by engaging with representatives of recognised trade unions or other chosen representatives. If neither are available, the consultation will be required to be with workers likely to be affected.
We will continue to engage with unions and worker representatives in hospitality and other impacted industries to ensure that the measures in the Bill and in the statutory guidance deliver fully on our aims. Following Royal Assent, we will consult widely and properly with stakeholders to determine what changes should be made to the existing statutory code of practice. We are determined to ensure that guidance is as helpful as possible, ensuring that tips are allocated fairly and that worker consultation is carried out properly.
These measures will be enforced via the employment tribunal system. If an employer fails to consult their workers properly or to distribute tips in a fair and transparent manner, workers will be able to bring a claim to an employment tribunal. The tribunal will be able to order an employer to compensate workers up to £5,000 for financial loss. I think that Members can see what we are trying to achieve with the clause, and I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once more, Mr Mundell. The Minister mentioned that the clause builds on private Member’s legislation passed in the last Parliament, and it would be remiss of me not to put on record that the transformation in some employers’ attitudes to their employees and to the retention and fair distribution of tips was in large part down to the former Conservative Member for Watford, Dean Russell, who piloted the original legislation through the House. There were one or two little bumps along the road as he came into ministerial office and then out again in—what was the number?—43 days, but many Conservative colleagues really pushed for the legislation. It is one of those great unfairnesses that, for years, incredibly hard-working people in the hospitality sector and others had an expectation that they would receive the generosity of their customers’ tips at the end of the meal, the round of drinks or whatever but, for various reasons, did not get their fair share. The legislation the Minister referred to righted that historic wrong, and clause 10, which seeks to strengthen that, is very welcome.
Where I gently suggest to the Minister that there needs to be a little more thought and clarity is settings where there is no union to consult. That might be a small business such as a restaurant or pub, where the people who work there are not affiliated with any union or body that could be consulted on their behalf. Will he say something about how those smaller businesses—smaller restaurant or pub settings—will get dialogue going with their employees so that the business has a fair and equitable, and clear and unambiguous policy to ensure that the tips reach those workers?
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I just emphasise what the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire stated in respect of smaller settings. In my constituency there are lots of restaurants and small hotels without the network of support for workers that a trade union would offer. It would be useful if Ministers were alive to the circumstances of those smaller settings. I also wonder whether the Minister is reflecting on what guidance he might issue on the question of what is equitable that could be reflected if people end up going to a tribunal.
The Chair
Before I call the shadow Minister, I should tell the Committee that there may be a fire alarm this morning. We will be advised on what to do if that happens.
Greg Smith
Planned fire alarms are always quite disturbing, but never mind. I will broadly address the subject we are debating, before making specific comments on the new clauses tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I do not have a direct interest to declare, but I have had paternity leave three times in my life. I value its provision and the importance of ensuring that fathers and partners are there to support mothers in the early days of a new child arriving in the world. Paternity leave is incredibly important, at any point when it arrives. For my second child, I had only been an MP for four weeks after the 2019 general election, when I disappeared for two weeks. That was vital to support my wife, who had valiantly gone through a general election with me while she was eight months pregnant. Of course, she was not pounding the streets in the way most of us were at that point, but I just wanted to give that personal reflection on how important paternity leave is.
Greg Smith
I will just finish this thought; the hon. Lady knows that I am not shy about taking interventions. Every business, even if it has only one or two employees, will know what the plan is if one of its employees comes to it and says that their wife, partner or whatever is pregnant and that they will require at some point in the near future two weeks of paternity leave. On the grounds that virtually every business that I know has that plan—has that understanding of what it will do in offering the statutory requirement for paternity leave and the way it will remunerate it or not, as the case may be—I am struggling to understand why it should be only those companies with more than 250 employees that are subject to the requirement.
Sarah Gibson
The reason for leaving it at 250 employees, despite a thought among Opposition Members that it should be extended to 500, is that, currently, small and medium-sized businesses are classified as having up to 249 employees. Larger businesses, which will undoubtedly have the infrastructure, should be able to publish the information. The new clause would prevent an onerous burden on very small businesses from having to publish the information. It does not imply that they would have lesser standards; it is merely that they would not be obliged to publish the information.
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes. I am the last person to want to put a greater burden or unnecessary burden on any form of business. All I gently suggest is that this probably is not that great a burden on a business, on the grounds that it will already know what it is going to do when an employee comes and asks for paternity leave, maternity leave or whatever. That is particularly the case given that much of the rules and regulations is already set in statute and, when this Bill undoubtedly achieves Royal Assent at some point, will be further enshrined in statute. There are many other regulations that businesses have to comply with when publishing on their website—I am thinking of privacy notices and various GDPR regulations and so on—just as all the members of this Committee and Members of this House have to do on our own websites. I do not think anyone would try to define any of us as large businesses or huge employers, and I do not think that there are any hon. or right hon. Members left who do not have a website. Perhaps one or two do not—
Greg Smith
He is a fine television superstar these days.
All of us will have published these statements on our websites, because that is straightforwardly set out in statute—straightforwardly set out in law. I am at a loss to understand why it would be a burden for a business of any size to do that, but I am mindful that we do not want to overburden businesses. I accept the explanation given by the hon. Member for Chippenham.
Turning to new clause 17, I would have loved to have six weeks of paternity leave when my three children were born. When my first child was born, I was still self-employed. It was before my election to this place, so the time I took off in 2016 was entirely unpaid because I just had to forgo client work, but it was important to do that.
I am slightly concerned that, as desirable as six weeks would be, it is too great a burden for businesses automatically to have to shoulder. Some good and generous employers may well find a way of offering it in one way or another, paid or otherwise. However, to go beyond the current entitlement of two weeks, which can be split up, as the Minister mentioned, seems to be too big an ask for some businesses, desirable though it may be for fathers to be able be there with their new child in the most precious early days of life to support the mother and the child. I gently invite Liberal Democrat Members to reflect on whether six weeks is realistic for every business.
Steve Darling
As a state, we need to reflect on what makes up our society. Often, it is family units. Whether that is the quintessential family of two parents and two children or something similar, supporting the family unit is absolutely essential. I suggest that the two new clauses are about supporting families. New clause 17 allows both partners to engage. Both my lads are now grown up. It is not just about the link with the child; it is about supporting the partnership of the couple—whatever form that couple happens to be—in bringing up the child. Extending leave entitlements would strengthen that bond. The impact of broken families on youngsters can be very profound, and we are strengthening families through these proposals. We will not push the new clauses to a vote, but we stand by them and believe in them wholeheartedly.
Greg Smith
Certainly there is no objection from the Opposition to the principle of flexibility in ensuring people can have that choice and ability to dictate when leave is taken, particularly in the case of paternity leave. I can think of many examples, including colleagues from the previous Parliament. I acted as the proxy vote for one of them while they were on paternity leave. They pushed that back slightly—the obscurities of this place—to ensure that their paternity leave did not marry up with recess. However, there will be many other reasons and flexibilities that people require away from the eccentricities of working in this place.
I ask the Minister to reflect on whether, within that framework of flexibility, which in its own right is a good thing, there needs to be any secondary guidance or advice to businesses on what might turn out to be some very rare but foreseeable circumstances where employees or individuals push the boundaries a bit too far with their employers. and on what to do in those extreme cases. That is not to detract in any way, shape or form from the principle of flexibility, but I ask whether there is a requirement for guidance notes or Government advice, however it is formed, to give employers a bit of a safety net if, in one or two cases, those boundaries be pushed a bit too far.
Sarah Gibson
Given the Liberal Democrat new clauses we discussed earlier, it is clear that we welcome any flexibility that encourages paternity leave and allows parents to share the leave in an equal and welcoming way. Therefore, we welcome this clause.
Dame Nia Griffith
Clause 14 establishes a new day one right to bereavement leave. The loss of a loved one is a deeply personal experience, and a sad reality that almost all of us will experience. When that happens, the grief that comes with a loss will impact us all in different ways. Some individuals may need time and space away from other demands, including work, to begin to process their loss. Others may prefer to keep working to maintain a sense of familiarity while adjusting to a new normal. Thankfully, for those who need it, the majority of employers respond compassionately to requests for time away from work, and recognise the key role they can play in supporting their employees during this time. In the absence, however, of a statutory right, not all employees may be afforded the time off they need to grieve. We estimate that this would benefit at least 900,000 workers each year. That is a significant proportion of the working population who will be able to access bereavement leave from day one of employment.
Currently, the only bereavement entitlement in legislation is parental bereavement leave, which provides two weeks of leave for parents who experience the devastating loss of their child, from 24 completed weeks of pregnancy until the child reaches the age of 18. That is set out in sections 80EA to 80EE of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and in the Parental Bereavement Leave Regulations 2020. Subsections (2) and (3) of clause 14 amend those sections of the 1996 Act, so that the duty on the Secretary of State to lay regulations establishing parental bereavement leave is widened to require regulations providing for bereavement leave for other loved ones as well.
The amendments in subsection (3) ensure that the regulations, in the case of the new bereavement entitlement, must set out the following: first, the eligibility of the new entitlement by definition of the employee’s relationship to the deceased; secondly, the length of leave, which must be a minimum of one week; thirdly, when the leave must be taken, which must be before the end of at least 56 days after the person’s death; and finally, how the leave is to be taken, such as in one block or two blocks, or whatever is appropriate.
Should an employee suffer multiple bereavements, the clause sets out that they are entitled to leave in respect of each person who has passed away. The approach to regulations mirrors that taken when establishing parental bereavement leave and allows similar provisions to be included in the new regulations. Due to the sensitive and personal nature of bereavement, we will consult stakeholders on the details to be set out in regulations to ensure that the entitlement is constructed with the needs of employees and employers at the forefront.
Subsections (4) to (11) make amendments to other provisions of the 1996 Act to enable the regulations to provide important protections for employees who take bereavement leave, such as protection against detriment, protection of contractual rights, and protection for treating a dismissal that takes place for a reason relating to bereavement leave as unfair.
Subsections (12) to (13) make consequential amendments to His Majesty’s Treasury legislation to provide for how persons on bereavement leave are to be taken into account when assessing an employee’s “committed time” or the number of employees for the purpose of certain initiatives or schemes, in the same way as other family-related entitlements. Subsection (14) makes consequential amendments to the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 to remove provisions that no longer have any effect following the amendments made by clause 14 of this Bill.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation of clause 14. It is quite clear on a purely human level that bereavement can strike any family and any individual, often with zero notice or ability to plan, and it is therefore a basic tenet of humanity that we would all expect employers to be sensitive, generous and sympathetic to any employee who finds themselves in that position. For the record, it is certainly my experience that the vast majority of businesses and employers show compassion, sensitivity and generosity to ensure that anybody who is bereaved has the time, space and freedom to be able to grieve, plan for things such as funerals and start the very hard process of not just saying goodbye to that loved one, but putting various affairs in order, such as registering the death. People have to go through a high burden of bureaucracy when they find themselves in that position.
The core principle of the proposals is fundamentally a good one, and does not warrant opposition. However, there is an area that I think needs a little more debate and potentially some refinement. The Minister spoke about the need to consult and to get these regulations right, and it is important that we do that. I do not in any way oppose the principle of the proposals, but I gently suggest that perhaps it would have been better to do the consultation first, so that this could have been clearer in the legislation as it goes forward. I repeat, however, that I say that not to distract from the good principle that sits underneath these regulations.
I ask the Minister to reflect further on the point from the evidence session about bereavement leave being available to parents who have lost their child after 24 weeks of pregnancy. There are many people who suffer the loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks. That is one of the most heartbreaking things for mothers, fathers and wider families, and it happens every single day up and down the land. After all the joy, excitement and future planning that go into any mother’s, father’s and family’s life when they find out that they are expecting a child, the often very sudden news that that pregnancy has not made it comes as a huge shock, often with no notice.
There are things that a family, a mother, a father, will go through when they find out that that pregnancy has not been viable and has sadly ended under 24 weeks, including being taken to a small room and being asked the direct question—which, I assure the Committee makes the ears prick up and the reality of what has just happened come into sharp focus—about whether you wish to attend the burial of that failed pregnancy. That brings into sharp focus that you are actually being asked to say goodbye to your child. That can happen at any point in a pregnancy; it happened to my wife at about 14 weeks in 2018, and I remember vividly sitting in that room, having to fill out what seemed like the “Yellow Pages”-worth of forms, and reflecting that what should have been our second child was not going to be our second child. That takes some getting over, and it often involves surgery for the mother afterwards.
Although we have no formal amendment on this at this stage—I reserve the right to perhaps revisit it on Report—it is worth the Government reflecting on a genuine cross-party basis whether the 24-week period can be substantially reduced to give time to families who are saying goodbye. I do not want to get into the debates about when is a child a child, but it is devastating for families who go through that experience, and if the Government can find a way to ensure that families facing those circumstances can have some breathing space, so that we do not just have the “Back to work tomorrow, please” mentality that persists in this country, it would be a welcome and positive step. That might yet bring the whole House together and ensure that people have, as I say, space and time to reflect on what has just happened—to grieve, come back together again and then hopefully plan for the future.
Greg Smith
There is quite a lot in this grouping, and I will try to go through it in a sensible order. I will start with new clause 29 and amendment 135. The Regulatory Policy Committee has said that the Government have not managed to demonstrate sufficiently the need for the clauses in the Bill that require employers to prevent harassment of their employees by third parties, nor that the measures are sensible—those are the RPC’s words, not mine—and it has rated the impact assessment on this as red.
I want to be absolutely crystal clear from the outset, across all the clauses, amendments and new clauses that we are debating, that harassment is wrong; that the sort of sexual harassment that the Minister spoke about is absolutely, categorically unacceptable; and that whatever it takes in the law, and from an enforcement perspective, to stamp harassment out must happen. Such harassment is simply unacceptable in our country and society. The comments that I am about to make are not in any way, shape or form critical of action against harassment, therefore; they are about trying to best understand how the Bill and the amendments that have been tabled would work, and the difference they would realistically make to people’s lives, including by protecting them from harassment or other unacceptable behaviour.
With those ground rules set, if I may put it in that manner, the Opposition are concerned, and have doubts about, the need for and the operability of the provisions in clauses 15 to 18. I repeat that that is not about the principle of stopping harassment, but about the operability of the proposals that we are considering. We must question whether the benefits of these clauses will be outweighed by the burden on employers and, in certain respects, by the chilling impact on free speech.
New clause 29 would require the Secretary of State to
“report on the extent to which the prevalence of third-party harassment makes the case for the measures in sections 15 to 18”.
Within that report, the Secretary of State must include
“an assessment of the impact of sections 15 to 18 on free speech…an assessment of the likely costs to employers…an assessment of which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment through no fault of the employer, and…proposals for mitigations that can be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations.”
Amendment 135 quite reasonably provides that clauses 15 to 18 will not come into effect until—not never, but until—the House of Commons has approved the report required under new clause 29.
We then come to the two new clauses tabled by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, the leader of Plaid Cymru. I share the Minister’s concerns about the new clauses. I do not think they are necessary, I do not think that they particularly add to the spirit of what the Government are trying to achieve in the Bill and I do not think they pass the Opposition’s tests of operability. The official Opposition will therefore not be supporting them.
Amendment 130 would require employers to have regard to protecting freedom of expression when exercising the Bill’s duty not to permit harassment of their employees. I do not believe any business wants its employees to be harassed. No business owner that I know wants their staff, or any human being, to face harassment at all, in whatever setting. However, the amendment is designed to show the impossibility of the position in which the provisions on third-party harassment will put employers. It is a probing amendment, in the sense that we are not trying to create additional burdens for businesses by giving them another duty. It has been tabled so that we can talk about how unrealistic it is to expect employers to be able to enforce all the provisions in the Bill and, inherent to that, so that we can make the challenge that there may be more appropriate and operable pieces of legislation that already sit in statute or that may yet still need to be debated and passed through Parliament to prevent that.
The amendment is about how an employer can balance the right to free expression with the duties explicitly in the Bill. I do not believe that, in the moment, it will always be clear whether someone’s behaviour, say, in a pub falls on the right or wrong side of the line—it is a subjective test. Leaving that aside, there are situations where it will be frankly impossible for employers to abide by the law that the Government are seeking to make. I am interested in the Minister’s reflections on that.
Laurence Turner
The hon. Gentleman says that there will be situations where it is not just difficult, but impossible for an employer to abide by the Bill. Can he give some examples of the situations he has in mind?
Greg Smith
I am building up to my wider point. To skip ahead, there will be circumstances where, even within the reasonableness test—I understand that test—something so unexpected and unforeseeable happens that the employer could not in any way have planned a protection for their employees around that. Despite that, the employer might find themselves challenged in a tribunal or, worse, some form of criminal investigation about why they did not take reasonable steps against a totally unexpected and unplanned-for eventuality. I accept that, in most cases, there are practical steps that could be put in place to prevent harassment of any sort, but there will be times where that reasonableness test could fall over and someone could find themselves in a very tricky spot, unable to account for why they did not prepare for the totally unexpected.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB. The hon. Gentleman is making the point that it would be impossible for an employer to reasonably avoid something so extreme and out of the ordinary, but that would actually fall directly in the test, because the tribunal would look at whether it was reasonable for the employer to have put in arrangements, procedures or preparations to avoid a likely, foreseeable scenario. His concerns are completely misplaced, because no employer could reasonably avoid a situation that was impossible to avoid.
To go back to the fundamentals, as the hon. Gentleman said, we and employers should be taking all appropriate and reasonable steps, because 40% of women in the workplace suffer sexual harassment. These measures are reasonable in and of themselves, so I put it to him that he is worrying about something that is covered by the test.
Greg Smith
In many respects it is my job to be worried, to properly kick the tyres and to understand the operability of what the Government are trying to achieve. I certainly take the hon. Gentleman’s point on sexual harassment, and there is very clear criminal law in place that is probably more appropriate to bring perpetrators of such heinous crimes properly to justice. My concerns about the reasonableness test are less about that which can and should be pursued through criminal legislation; they are more about other forms of very subjectively tested harassment, as well as some points that I hope to make about freedom of speech. Hopefully, the hon. Gentleman will reflect on and understand those concerns when I get to that point.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
I refer the Committee to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of trade unions. It seems that my thoughts align with those of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak on the reasonableness of completely unforeseeable and unexpected things, but I would go a slight step further on what we are looking for from employers.
Even in circumstances in which something is so completely unexpected and unforeseeable that it might be reasonable for preparatory measures not to be in place, the duty would also address how employers respond. It is about having systems in place to react to incidents when they happen, rather than foreseeing every possible eventuality of the completely unexpected and unforeseeable. We can have supportive measures in place to prevent harassment from continuing or from happening again, and to support the individual.
Greg Smith
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I broadly agree, but my challenge to him is that reasonableness can be interpreted in many different ways. There will always been an appeals process or something similar, but I worry that unless the legislation is clearer, some good-willed employers who are entirely honest and decent in how they try to protect their staff could, in some circumstances, be on a very sticky wicket trying to defend themselves against something that they never foresaw or dreamed of. They may have been a little too innocent, but they will find themselves in a difficult spot. That is where safeguards need to be locked into the legislation in respect of what is a very subjective test.
I was about to come on to an example. I will preface it by saying that absolutely nobody should be abused in the workplace and absolutely nobody should face any form of harassment in the workplace. However, let us think for a moment about how some of the Bill’s provisions would operate in an NHS accident and emergency department. In any A&E up and down the land, our wonderful doctors and nurses sometimes put themselves in harm’s way, particularly late at night. Perhaps they have a patient who is clearly inebriated but has injured themselves. I am not excusing it for one second, but it can and does happen. Let us say that an incredibly drunk patient, who may have fallen and broken their hand, verbally abuses—not sexually harasses—the doctor or nurse treating them. The doctor or nurse does not deserve that, and that behaviour should not be happening, but I would wager that it happens most Friday or Saturday nights somewhere. It is unacceptable, but it does happen. What should happen in that circumstance?
Greg Smith
Let me just finish this point. I am trying to deal with a real-life scenario that should not be happening, but does. What does the doctor or nurse do, under the Bill? Do they refuse to treat the patient? Some would argue that perhaps they should, but the reality is that that is not what they are there for. They are there to heal, treat and support that patient who has got into a stupid predicament.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Greg Smith
I will just finish this point. Both hon. Ladies know that I will give way.
Where would the test come? What should the NHS, as the employer, have done to prevent that situation? What is the overall outcome in that scenario? Where does the reasonableness test fall? I repeat that I am not excusing the behaviour; I am putting it forward as a test to the provisions in the Bill, as a situation in which the employer—ultimately the national health service or perhaps the Health Secretary—would find themselves.
Sarah Gibson
I appreciate the shadow Minister’s giving way. I will make an effort not to intervene every time he stands up.
There is a very serious point here that anyone who has ever been in a situation in which they have felt intimidated will understand. An employee in higher education may be intimidated by students who are irritated, angry or frustrated about their results. In my case, they came to my office because they felt that they should not have failed. I have found myself in a small room—the kind of room in which this House would not allow MPs to hold a surgery—with no external access and no security guards on the door to intervene.
Such situations can be hugely difficult. Although the employer is not always in a position to pre-empt the situation, taking reasonable steps surely means providing an option for everybody to have an emergency phone number—that is what was available to me in my university job—or, at A&E, to have security staff intervene when somebody arrives quite clearly inebriated, in the same way that our security staff do at our surgeries. They will immediately foresee the problem and will make sure that the person is accompanied and is not left alone with a member of staff. Those are the sort of reasonable preparations that we would expect; I would be surprised if any employer were not happy to carry them out. I therefore see no reason why that should not be made clear in the legislation.
Greg Smith
I hope that the hon. Lady is right, but part of the test that the amendment sets for the Government is whether it will work. Is it clear? Will it put the protections in place that everybody wants to see? There is a question mark over whether they will work.
The NHS A&E environment is an example with which we are probably all familiar from our postbags. Constituents write to us about situations that they have witnessed or been in themselves, particularly on a busy Friday or Saturday night or in the Christmas season when there are lots of parties and lots of people probably having far too much to drink and sometimes getting themselves into unacceptable situations. There might not be the staff to double up; the patient might be abusive to all of them. It is unacceptable, horrible and wrong, but it is sometimes the reality. Where does that leave the senior doctor or nurse on duty, the chief executive of the trust, and ultimately the Secretary of State or the permanent secretary to the Department of Health and Social Care? Where does the test actually leave them, and what more can be done to make the legislation work?
The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby has been waiting patiently to come in.
Alison Hume
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I refer the Committee to my declaration of interests and my membership of Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.
The NHS has zero-tolerance policies, in common with the police service and any other service that deals with these difficult situations. They are good employers that have things in place. The shadow Minister spoke about employers not thinking about situations and being innocent. I draw his attention to their responsibility to employees who were innocent, but have lost their innocence as a result of unwanted sexual harassment or worse.
Greg Smith
I do not disagree with a word that the hon. Lady says. The NHS, like every employer, is right to take a zero-tolerance attitude to any form of harassment against its employees, customers, patients or whoever else happens to be on its premises at any time.
I accept the hon. Lady’s point about innocence. My A&E example was not so much about sexual harassment or worse criminality; it is all horrendous criminality, in my view, but there are other criminal laws that can and should be used to bring perpetrators to justice in that space. My example was more about abusive behaviour in the form of verbal harassment from a patient who is drunk or high on drugs. It is still horrible, it is still wrong and it still needs action, but what happens? The zero-tolerance policy, all of a sudden, becomes a poster on the wall rather than real, live action there and then, as that drunk patient makes unacceptable remarks of whatever nature to the nurse or doctor. The test is whether the words in the Bill before us—as opposed to other, potentially even more stringent or stronger legislation that is already on the statute book or that may yet need to be passed—will have a better effect.
Alison Hume
I think the Bill will do that, because it will strengthen the employers’ responsibility to take all reasonable steps.
Greg Smith
I hope that the hon. Lady is right. What my colleagues and I seek, through our amendment, is to test that. I do not think that anyone will criticise any Member of this House, on either side, for trying to properly road-test any legislation that comes before us and check whether it will have the effect that the Government seek.
Amendment 131 is topical, given the intervention that the hon. Member for Chippenham made about higher education. It would exclude higher education institutions and hospitality providers from some of the duties in the Bill, not around criminal behaviour—it would not exclude them from legislation that should rightly be used to challenge sexual harassment, for example—but around free speech. Employers may end up being overly cautious with respect to protecting free speech, as they will be worried about claims being brought under this legislation. That would lead to free speech debate and challenge being eroded. In the case of higher education, those are the very institutions at which free speech, challenge and rigorous and robust debate should frankly be taking place, and where wrong and unacceptable ideas can be knocked down robustly and firmly through the medium of intellectual debate.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. On the point about the hospitality and pubs sector, on which I held a debate in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago, there is real concern about this part of legislation, in particular about freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Does my hon. Friend agree that one consequence of the legislation might be that industry take actions beyond those intended? For example, people might self-censor beyond what could be seen as an off-colour or offensive joke, because they are scared that they could be held liable later for not protecting their employees. My hon. Friend gave an example, but another one is a comedy club, which would be conscious of and concerned about who they invite to entertain because of the perception that some of their staff could be offended, and the reasonableness of how that could be interpreted in the context of harassment. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a concerning unintended consequence of the legislation?
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend is right that there needs to be greater clarity about that which is already covered in criminal law—sexual harassment, direct racial abuse or abuse to someone on the basis of their sexuality, which clearly has to be actioned under criminal law and it must be ensured that the perpetrators are brought to justice—compared with satire or cutting jokes. Those are things that do not stray into the criminal, but perhaps some people might be offended by them, for whatever reason.
There are quite a lot of comedians openly talking about whether comedy is in fact becoming a thing of the past in this country. They are finding themselves unable to tell jokes that, while not going into the criminal, do risk offending some people. If that ends up shutting down comedy clubs or open-mic nights in pubs, it would be an unintended consequence that I cannot imagine the Government would want to bring about.
Alex McIntyre
I refer to my membership of the GMB union and the Community trade union. I shall come on to some of the nonsense we are hearing around free speech. I ask a direct question, seeing as we seem to be equating jokes with harassment: does the shadow Minister know the definition of harassment under the Equality Act and would he share that with the Committee so that we may understand what we are talking about here?
Greg Smith
What I am trying to test is the point at which the reasonability point would trigger. Is this the right Bill—the right set of clauses—to deal with the problems the hon. Member has outlined? There is a clear difference between that which should be treated under criminal law—and rightly stamped down on hard and forcibly—and the unintended consequence that will force sectors such as higher education or hospitality to become so risk averse that they shut down some of their activities. Yes, those activities, whether some form of comedy or whatever, could potentially be offensive to some people, but they are not criminal.
Alex McIntyre
I am afraid the shadow Minister does not know the definition under the Equality Act. If he did, he would know that the conduct is required to either violate someone’s dignity or create
“an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”.
That conduct has to be related to someone’s protected characteristic: sex, race, gender or their sexuality. We are talking about very serious circumstances. They fall short of the criminal definition of harassment, but they are within the Equality Act definition.
There is already a test within the current law to avoid some of the free speech arguments the shadow Minister is making. He is seeking to trivialise the experience of many people in those industries who face unacceptable harassment in the workplace.
Greg Smith
I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman. I am not trying to trivialise anything. I have been clear from the outset about how seriously we should take sexual harassment, racial abuse and abuse on the basis of someone’s sexuality, and that I believe the full force of the right laws should be used against any perpetrator of that hideous, evil and unacceptable behaviour. I take issue with his comment that I am trying to trivialise anything. I am trying to ensure that the provisions in the Bill will actually work, and will not have unintended consequences that some might call trivial—which some might be offended by but which do not cross what most people in society would deem some of those lines.
In the definition he just gave, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of undermining someone’s dignity. I am reminded of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders dinner a couple of weeks ago. I cannot remember whether the Minister was there, but the Secretary of State for Business and Trade was. Quite a famous comedian was on stage after the speeches, and their act was essentially to pick on people on various tables to find out which motor manufacturer they worked for and then, I would suggest, be quite brutal with them. He did perhaps undermine their dignity. It was not on the basis of sexuality, race or anything like that, but it was quite a brutal act. Everybody was laughing away, but what if someone in the audience was offended by that and took issue with it? Does that then put the organisers of the dinner—the chief executive of the SMMT—in the spotlight, under the provisions of the Bill? That is the point I think all members of this Committee and, ultimately, all Members of the House, have to be satisfied with before anybody allows this to become statute.
Alex McIntyre
I think the shadow Minister has already answered this question. What protected characteristic were any of those jokes related to? This is the point. It is not to stop people being comedians. If someone sits in the front row of a Ross Noble gig, they are bound to get picked on. If the joke relates to a protected characteristic, that is where it crosses the line into harassment. The example that the shadow Minister has just given is a good example of where this would not be triggered, because none of the jokes related to a protected characteristic.
Greg Smith
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right, but that is not how the Bill is worded. The Bill allows the reasonability test to be applied over the top of the Equality Act definition he has brought to the attention of the Committee. I gently ask him to reflect on that point and just check, because I do not think he would want this unintended consequence to be followed through into legislation. It would undermine the very serious things we spoke about earlier and, dare I say, trivialise them.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I refer Members to my declaration of interests, and remind them that I am a member of the GMB. It is timely that we are discussing this, as today is Human Rights Day. In 1998, the Labour Government brought the Human Rights Act into domestic law. Freedom of speech is indeed a human right, but that does not mean someone has the freedom to incite hatred, discriminate or attack people with a protected characteristic. In this fictional comedy club we are talking about, what are the things that people are mentioning? Can the shadow Minister give us a specific example of a joke that he thinks the Bill would put in jeopardy of undermining or putting at risk the CEO of said organisation?
Greg Smith
I think I have been clear that every law available should be used—potentially, more could be passed—to properly prosecute, challenge, shut down and stop anyone inciting hatred on the basis of race, religion, sexuality or whatever it might be. I cannot find any better set of words to make my revulsion at those crimes clearer, and I show my absolute support for any enforcement agency or Government of any political persuasion that brings forward workable laws to clamp down on those unacceptable criminal behaviours, full stop.
Greg Smith
I will just finish this point, then I will be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend.
The point I am trying to make is that bits of legislation that we are asked to consider sometimes have unintended consequences, and that there is a risk of someone being offended by something that does not pass the reasonability test in this Bill. Outside the well-defined areas that go into the criminal, part of free speech is the right to offend on certain levels.
Greg Smith
I will give way in a second.
Many comedians—Jimmy Carr is an example—talk frequently at the moment about comedy being shut down. It is not criminal; it is not racial hatred or hatred on the basis of religion, sexuality or anything like that. It is beyond those points.
Uma Kumaran
I apologise, Mr Mundell. All the things that the shadow Minister has referred to are already enshrined in various laws in this country, so what is the fictional scenario that he thinks this Bill jeopardises?
Greg Smith
The hon. Lady is right to bring the Committee’s attention to that which is already laid down in statute. I think that perhaps where the misunderstanding is coming in—the Opposition are trying to test this—is whether the new reasonability test will deliver perverse results in a tribunal. Probably nobody sitting in this room would expect that to happen, but it could supersede that which is already set down and create a new precedent.
Nick Timothy
I should probably make reference to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an unpaid trustee at the Index on Censorship, which may be relevant to this debate.
I do not think anybody here is a free speech absolutist. My hon. Friend is trying to test scenarios, but he is in no way talking about issues such as incitement of hatred, which are already criminal matters. We are talking about the codification of things that may be subjective in the light of the law of unintended consequences.
To bring some colour to the conversation, I thought I would make reference to a recent Independent Press Standards Organisation ruling. I cannot imagine that that was ever the kind of ruling that was intended at the time that IPSO was created. Gareth Roberts, who sometimes writes for The Spectator, was writing about a third party who had, in turn, written about issues relating to gender, and referred to them as
“a man who claims to be a woman”.
That person then complained to IPSO, which ruled that it was not wrong as a statement of fact, but still upheld the complaint on account of its being a prejudicial or pejorative reference to that person. I do not think that that is the kind of thing that was ever intended when IPSO was created, but it is the type of example that we may be talking about right now. I would love to know what my hon. Friend thinks about that.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend highlights an issue that would come down to a subjective test, so “reasonableness” could mean something very different in different tribunal settings and to different individuals casting judgment on any such complaint. That goes to the absolute nub of what we are asking the Government to reflect on. Is the test strong enough? Is it workable? Is it operable? Will it actually produce perverse outcomes?
Alex McIntyre
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the example that the hon. Member for West Suffolk just cited, IPSO found that there was no harassment, and therefore there was a finding under clause 12(i) of the editors’ code of practice, rather than clause 3?
Greg Smith
I am not certain that is quite the point that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk was making. However, in the interest of fairness, I will commit to properly looking up that case, which I had not come across until my hon. Friend mentioned it a couple of moments ago.
Laurence Turner
We are back to talking about perverse outcomes and unintended consequences, which are important things to consider. However, is that not what we are looking at in amendment 131? In in my view, it confuses sectors with functions. The hon. Gentleman says that he and his colleagues have selected these particular cases or sectors because they relate to freedom of speech. However, if we take the example of universities and higher education, a higher education institution contracts services of all sorts, many of them not relating to freedom of speech—for example, security and refuse services—but if the amendment were made and if it failed to conduct even basic vetting on a contractor, it would be exempt from these provisions if an incident of sexual harassment occurred. However, if exactly the same circumstances were to be repeated by a community hall or a church that would fall under the scope of the legislation. Is there not a problem in the drafting of the amendment? On that basis alone, it should not be accepted.
Greg Smith
I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making. However, in the examples he gave he has shown exactly why there is a need to ask the Government to doubly rethink the way in which the original Bill is drafted to ensure that some of those areas are covered off so that the reasonability test is clearer and people do not find themselves on that proverbial sticky wicket for innocent reasons. We tabled the amendment—we fully accept it does not cover everything and every eventuality—because it is our job as the Opposition to highlight cases which in turn highlight areas where the Bill may be deficient and where it needs a little surgery to ensure that it achieves what the Government are trying to achieve, rather than creating many loopholes and perverse outcomes. I have probably spoken for long enough on this group of amendments.
Nick Timothy
Will my hon. Friend give way just one more time? I have an excellent example that I would like to share.
Greg Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for that. It may well be such an example. I must admit I resisted the urge to attend The Spectator awards last week. I am told the Health Secretary did make what many considered a very funny speech. However, it is clear that some deem it uncomradely. Who knows? Had this legislation already been enacted the Labour party itself might have found itself on that sticky wicket. On that note, I ask the Minister to reflect on the provisions in this Bill in that regard and check that the Government really do have this right.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Tenth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Wales Office
Greg Smith
Main Page: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)Department Debates - View all Greg Smith's debates with the Wales Office
Employment Rights Bill (Tenth sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsTuesday 10th December 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 December 2024 - (10 Dec 2024)
Steve Darling
My reflection on the Opposition amendments is that on this occasion my colleagues may be in danger of throwing the champagne out with the cork. The reality is that the challenges for people who face harassment in the workplace are very serious. As Government Members have highlighted, the comedy club example is relatively bogus, as the Bill would actually affect protection for employees rather than for punters.
On Friday, I am due to visit Torquay Girls’ grammar school in my constituency. I invite the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire to join me and hear directly from young women there about their experiences in the workplace. Strangely enough, apart from universities, the sectors that Opposition amendment 131 would exclude from clause 16 are almost all in the hospitality industry, in which those young women would be working. When I visited the school some time ago, one student shared with me how they dreaded a certain day of the week because they knew that a certain individual would be in, who would make them feel physically sick because of their approach to them, and the sexual harassment that occurred within the workplace.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
As much as I would love to join the hon. Gentleman in Torbay and it sounds like a delightful day out, I have a pretty full diary. I was not making a point against trying to stop sexual harassment; I was very clear that we need to use every power, every law and every mechanism available to clamp down hard on anybody who engages in the sexual harassment of anybody. My point was about the unintended consequences, including to free speech. By no definition, in my world, does sexual harassment count as free speech; that is something totally different. I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect on my arguments, which were not in any way, shape or form about trying to remove powers to deal with sexual harassment.
Steve Darling
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree to differ on that point. I am sure that the Government’s proposals will support those who are facing sexual harassment from third parties. As colleagues on the Committee have highlighted, the reality is that the legislation is about taking all reasonable steps. It is not saying that when somebody walks in and abuses an employee it is an immediate red line. The reality is that the employer needs to have taken all reasonable steps. I am very comfortable with the proposals. The Liberal Democrats will vote against the amendment.
Greg Smith
I would be very happy to discuss with the Minister and her colleagues in Government the specific points I made about sectors such as higher education and concerns about the no-platforming of perfectly moderate speakers such as Tony Blair. Would she be willing to engage in that dialogue on safeguards in higher education around no-platforming, so that free speech can be protected?
Dame Nia Griffith
Free speech is absolutely a cornerstone of British values, but I remind the hon. Member that harassment is not free speech. They are two different things. The Bill concerns employer liability for workplace harassment, which is a serious issue, not to be underplayed. As with all cases of harassment under the Equality Act 2010, courts and tribunals will continue to be required to balance rights on the facts of a particular case, including the right to freedom of expression. Harassment is a serious matter that involves being subjected to unwanted conduct of various types that, as set out in the Equality Act,
“has the purpose or effect of violating”
the employee’s
“dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”
for the employee. Those who seek to harass people at work will not be tolerated.
The hon. Member raised a number of potential scenarios relating to potentially offensive or upsetting speech. It is important to note that in employment tribunal claims for harassment, if certain conduct has a humiliating or degrading effect on the recipient but that was not its intended purpose, the tribunal must consider whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have had that effect. It is not a purely subjective test based on the view of the recipient. The reasonableness and the facts of the individual situation must be considered. On that note, I ask the Committee to accept the clauses unamended.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Harassment by third parties
Justin Madders
I will not speak for long on clause 19, because it is a fairly straightforward clause and there are more detailed clauses and amendments that may generate further debate. Clause 19 introduces schedule 2, which will repeal section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, thereby removing the two-year qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal.
An estimated 9 million employees have been working for their employer for less than two years and therefore have very limited protection against unfair dismissal. By removing the qualifying period, the Government will make basic protection against unfair dismissal a day one right for all employees, ensuring a baseline of security and predictability. It is about tackling insecurity. Unless there are automatically unfair grounds, an employer can lawfully sack a worker just by giving them their statutory or contractual notice pay and telling them not to come back to work. There is no entitlement to a fair process, nor even a right to a written statement explaining why they have been sacked.
Think about what you can do with two years in your life, Mr Stringer—well, maybe we should not think too much about it. Someone can make an awful lot of commitments, including financial commitments. They can get married, buy a house, start a family and take out loans of all descriptions, but they have no protection at work and nothing to stop them being arbitrarily dismissed in that two-year period. We think that that is wrong: it creates a great deal of insecurity in the workplace, and it has to change.
Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. We will ensure that businesses can hire with confidence. We will ensure that employers can operate contractual probation periods, which are separate from the new statutory probationary periods. During the statutory probationary periods, employers will have a lighter-touch standard to meet when they need to dismiss an employee who is not suitable for the job.
Our changes will ensure that newly hired workers are not arbitrarily dismissed. We believe that that will help to drive up standards in the workplace. It will ensure that there is greater fairness and greater understanding between employees and businesses. It will drive up standards, quality and security—all things that we believe will improve our economy. We do not intend to bring in these measures in until autumn 2026 at the earliest. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I accept the Minister’s point that clause 19 essentially just introduces schedule 2. Several amendments in my name and in the name of my hon. Friends will explore schedule 2 in detail over the coming days and potentially even weeks.
However, as we discuss clause 19, I think it is important gently to challenge what is actually quite a big leap, from two years down to day one. It is incumbent on the Government to come up with a rationale and a reason for such a considerable change. This is not a taper or a gradual decrease from two years to a year or six months; we can have a debate about what the right number is.
It is clear that the Government wish to move down from two years, but what we heard in our public evidence sessions shows the very real risk that introducing these day one rights for all employees will mean that employers are reticent, are more risk-averse and do not hire as readily, freely or easily as we might want in order to create jobs in our economy. I remind the Minister what Jane Gratton of the British Chambers of Commerce said about her members:
“Members say that there would be a reduced hiring appetite were this legislation to come in, and that they would be less likely to recruit new employees due to the risk and difficulty, particularly under the day one rights”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 8, Q2.]
She went on to argue for a nine-month probationary period—a period to which it would potentially be feasible to reduce this timeframe.
Whenever a new law comes in and makes a significant change, be it to business, regulation or whatever sector, I gently ask the Minister to reflect on the time period. Is it really necessary to make such a giant leap in one go? Even if in years to come the Government get what they want in terms of day one rights, would it not be better to face this now, listen to industry, listen to the evidence that this very Committee heard a couple of weeks ago and be more measured, proportionate and risk-averse as to what these measures might end up doing to the overall jobs market in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? If the Government did that, it would help with some of the stark and staggering business confidence numbers in the economy at the moment. Businesses are worried about where the future lies, and real people out there looking for work are worried that jobs might not be as readily available after the Bill comes into effect.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of a trade union. We have seen a change in the labour market over recent decades. Previously, people used to stay in work for much longer; currently, the average tenure is 4.5 years—there has been a slight increase, because it has been bang on four years for the past five or six years. That means that people nowadays spend half their time in a job without any rights, because of the two-year threshold. The proposals in this legislation are updating the labour market to the realities of today’s jobs. People spending half their time without rights leads to a lack of confidence and security. The way to address business confidence and worker security is by bringing these rights in from day one, as this legislation proposes; sticking with the status quo is what leaves people more insecure.
The Chair
Order. I remind hon. Members that they can catch my eye to make significant points in the debate. Interventions should be short and to the point.
Greg Smith
Thank you, Mr. Stringer. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his points. He is right that the labour market has changed significantly in recent decades. In fact, it is constantly evolving and has been since time immemorial, and certainly since the industrial revolution, although I suspect I will be trying the Committee’s patience if we go through all that history—the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield might be keen to do so, but that is perhaps one for the bar some time, rather than the Committee.
Michael Wheeler
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and I will keep my intervention short, Mr Stringer. We are hearing a lot of grandiose threats when it comes to the economy, and I would like to drag us back to the specifics. This measure is not a ban on dismissal; it is not even a protection from dismissal. It is a protection from unfair dismissal, so it is quite narrow. It still allows for dismissal, disciplinary procedures and all of that. Does the shadow Minister have a timeframe in which he thinks it would be acceptable for workers to be unfairly dismissed?
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman is right about the unfair dismissal point. Nobody wants to see anybody unfairly dismissed, but it is impossible to see each measure in the Bill in its own silo or its own column; each is part of the cumulative impact of many measures reverting to day one rights. So, too, is the measure before us, and the Committee has heard direct evidence from representatives of real businesses out there that it could have a damaging effect.
I am not arguing against the principle of what the Government are trying to do here—to protect workers against unfair dismissal. I am trying to test the waters on the operability of the Bill, and on the unintended consequence that it may have in terms of overall numbers in the job market and the rate at which companies out there make new hires, or indeed choose not to. It is a worthwhile exercise for the Committee to really test these things to see how this measure will work out in practice.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Throughout these proceedings, we have talked a lot about evidence bases and the likely impact of particular measures on business. The clause might be short and to the point—I do take the points made by the shadow Minister that we will come on to more detailed discussions, and it is right to debate the general principles here—but it does have precedents. In terms of the dilemma or decision over whether the qualifying period should be two years, one year or, as in the Bill, day one—but with that important provision for a probationary period—the issue has been road-tested.
The period was set at two years for many years. Then it was reduced to one year in the late 1990s, and economic growth continued. When the qualifying period was raised from one year to two years in 2012, the impact analysis that the then Government produced said that one year was easily sufficient in the overwhelming number of cases. On this aspect of the Bill, the businesses I have spoken to in my constituency and in the general Birmingham area have told me that, in almost all roles, employers are not still talking about whether someone is suitable for the job 12 months in; it is usually apparent within weeks. That circumstance is still covered by the initial period of employment provided for in the Bill.
According to the impact assessment, the estimated saving to business across the entire the economy, after the familiarisation cost period, was relatively small—I believe it was around £2 million to £3 million in 2011 prices, so probably somewhere around double that today. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles used the word “grandiose”. We are really not talking about that, but about a relatively small number of cases that could fall under that initial period of employment provision.
Let me return to an argument that has been made previously in the Committee, but that is relevant here. One undesirable effect of that change in the qualifying period was that because a worker who faced detriment and unfair treatment in the workplace had no recourse to an unfair dismissal claim through the employment tribunal system until they reached their two years, they found themselves relying on equalities arguments instead—a day one right in law as it stands. The effect—another perverse outcome—has been to overload that part of the employment tribunal system.
This change is sensible. It will help with the undesirable effects in the court system as it stands. The Chartered Management Institute, which we heard evidence from, surveyed its members and found that 83% of managers agreed that improvements in family-friendly policies and day one rights, including in respect of unfair dismissal, would positively impact workplace productivity.
In some of the related provisions in the Bill, particularly around the initial period of employment, there is promise that we will see a light-touch regime, and we are all looking to see what the details will be. I know that the Government are due to come back on that.
Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Greg Smith
Main Page: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)Department Debates - View all Greg Smith's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsThursday 12th December 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2024 - (12 Dec 2024)
The Chair
Welcome back. Will everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on declarations of interests as set out in the code of conduct.
Schedule 2
Right not to be unfairly dismissed: removal of qualifying period, etc
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 156, in schedule 2, page 112, line 19, after (b) insert “, (c)”.
This amendment makes the reason that the employee was redundant a reason in relation to the dismissal of an employee during the initial period of employment.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 157, in schedule 2, page 112, leave out lines 32 to 34.
This amendment removes the provision that may be made by regulations that the dismissal of an employee is to be treated as fair only if the employer has taken any steps specified in the regulations.
Greg Smith
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. This pair of amendments on unfair dismissal stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends from the official Opposition.
Amendment 156 would make the fact that the employee was made redundant a reason in relation to the dismissal of an employee during the initial period of employment. The Bill stipulates that the modified protections against unfair dismissal in relation to the initial period of employment mean that an employee can be dismissed for the reasons listed in section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which include
“the capability or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do…the conduct of the employee”
or
“that the employee could not continue to work in the position which he held without contravention (either on his part or on that of his employer) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under an enactment.”
The 1996 Act also includes a fourth reason,
“that the employee was redundant”,
which is not replicated in the Bill. This is a probing amendment—we do not intend to press it to a Division—to try to tease out from the Government a little more detail and to establish why that fourth reason is omitted from the Bill.
Amendment 157 is also a probing amendment. We want to understand what steps will be specified in regulations that an employer must follow in order for the dismissal of an employee to be treated as fair. That will come back to the test of subjective reasoning rather than specific guidelines or regulations in the Bill. It is only right that the Committee and businesses out there in the real world can fully understand the scope with which the Government are defining “fair” or “unfair”. Inherent to that is the question, why is it not in the Bill? Why is it not as clear as day in the words printed in this quite substantial tome? I know that the Government want to table more amendments, so perhaps those could be a little more specific. Critical to amendment 157 is the question how burdensome the Government intend this measure to be and how proportionate that burden will be on businesses in relation to the problem that the Minister thinks the Bill in its current form—its current vagueness—will solve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
The shadow Minister has posed some questions that underlie amendment 156, which seeks to include redundancy as one of the reasons for dismissal to which the lighter-touch standards will apply during the statutory probationary period. As he has rightly identified, the Bill sets out that the reasons for dismissal to which the lighter-touch standards may apply are the statutory grounds of capability, conduct, illegality and some other substantial reason.
It is important to note that those four areas relate to the individual employee, which is why redundancy is not included. Redundancy can affect entire workforces, whereas the other areas are included because of the overlap between the potentially fair reasons for dismissal in the legislation, particularly suitability for work, and the sorts of issues that might come up in a probationary period. A redundancy situation would not ordinarily come up within a probationary period, because it would be about the wider business condition rather than the individual employee’s performance or suitability for the job. I hope that explains why redundancy has not been included.
I turn to the shadow Minister’s more general points. We are trying to strike a fair balance between strengthening employee protections against unfair dismissal and maintaining businesses’ ability to hire, assess and dismiss new employees. The Government are committed to ensuring that businesses retain the confidence to do so. We do not wish the new procedures to undermine existing fair dismissal processes for redundancy, which already provide a robust, straightforward and fair process for employees facing redundancy.
We will work closely with ACAS, in consultation with businesses and trade unions, to ensure that there is clear, straightforward and easy-to-follow guidance on how to carry out a redundancy process under the new measures. It will be an easily accessible process. One of our concerns about including redundancy is that if an employer decided to make a significant number of their workforce redundant, it would be an additional administrative job for them to identify which employees they did not need to include within a redundancy process because they were part of a statutory probationary period, and which would be subject to the wider process. That would lead to unintended consequences and possibly risk of discrimination claims.
Justin Madders
The hon. Member may be conflating two slightly different issues. I say to him very clearly that existing laws on redundancy will not be changed as a result of the Bill. We expect employers to follow the same processes, regardless of the length of service of the employee. In that situation, I do not imagine that there would be a particularly lengthy process if it involved only one individual and a small employer. There would not need to be a pool for selection, for example, or selection criteria. We would expect the employer to comply with the law in those circumstances.
Amendment 157 questions whether regulations should be able to set steps that an employer must follow for a dismissal to be considered fair when prescribing lighter-touch standards to apply during the statutory probationary period. We have set out clearly our intention to have a light-touch process, and we know that around 9 million employees will benefit from that. The intention behind setting out those steps in regulations is to ensure that we take account of further consultation, which we will undertake not just with employers but with trade unions and civil society, to ensure that we have the right balance of process and fairness in a statutory probationary period. We will be developing that in due course. As is often the case with the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures, there are already lots of examples of really practical guidance out there, which we intend to replicate. I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
Greg Smith
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 155, in schedule 2, page 112, line 23, after “period” insert
“of no less than six months”.
This amendment makes the initial period of employment at least six months in length.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 5, in schedule 2, page 112, line 23, leave out from “period” to the end of line 24 and insert
“of not less than 3 months and not more than 9 months from the day on which the employee starts work.”.
This amendment will ensure that the initial period of employment is between 3 and 9 months.
Greg Smith
Amendment 155 would make the initial period of employment six months, to align with a standard probationary period. The Government have admitted that they do not have robust data on instances of dismissal for those under two years of employment; in other words, we do not know if there is even a problem with unfair dismissal that the Bill is seeking to solve. Without knowing the problem, how can the Government identify a solution or even know that one is necessary? This is a flimsy basis for enacting a measure that the Government estimate will cost businesses in excess of £40 million a year overall.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
Before we move past the hon. Gentleman’s point about information, which we have talked about a lot, is the core problem not that there is a wider issue with UK labour market statistics? We heard during the evidence sessions from the Resolution Foundation, which said:
“The Office for National Statistics’ labour force survey is in the doldrums”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 119, Q125.]
This is not a party political point. The ONS’s collection methods, which broadly worked until the pandemic, have not worked subsequently. The statistics body is going through a period of transforming the labour force survey, but the criticisms that the hon. Gentleman makes of the information available to this Government would have held true for the Government between 2020 and 2024. This is a much wider issue. We could look at that problem and say, “We didn’t even really know what the UK unemployment rate was for some time,” and if that was an absolute barrier, all employment legislation would be on hold. It is important that those practical challenges are acknowledged.
Greg Smith
I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says, but where we do disagree is on the conclusions that we draw from that. I would strongly argue that to introduce primary legislation without an adequate evidence base is foolish, whereas he seems to be arguing that it is fine to do that.
I fundamentally agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is often a problem with data collection, particularly on complex things such as overall employment numbers, the number of people in multiple jobs or whatever. He certainly hit the nail on the head about the post-pandemic understanding of the labour market. The pandemic brought about almost a fundamental reset in a lot of working patterns; nobody seems to work quite in the same way as they did before the pandemic. I acknowledge his point, but I suggest that this was actually the time to take a bit of a pause and a step back to think through new measures more carefully, rather than to rush ahead with a Bill in order to publish it within 100 days of the Government’s taking office.
I return to my questions to the Minister. What estimate has he made of the additional cost to business, including salary costs during performance management or disputes, retention costs from tribunal risk aversion, and increased settlements offered to avoid legal claims? Are those costs worth it for a problem that, as we have just discussed, nobody can actually prove exists in the UK market right now?
Greg Smith
Where does the Minister think the cost to businesses will be borne? Will it mean lower wages for employees, no Christmas bonuses or perhaps pay rises that are not as great as employees might be expecting? Or will it ultimately get passed on to customers, consumers and purchasers of the services that those businesses provide? Where will the cost actually be borne?
Greg Smith
As I hope I made clear in my opening remarks, amendment 155 is a probing amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 55, in schedule 2, page 112, line 36, at end insert—
“3A In section 15 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (power by order to increase or decrease limit of compensatory award), after subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) The power conferred by subsection (1) includes power to provide that, in the case of the dismissal of an employee that meets the conditions in section 98ZZA(2) and (3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (dismissal during initial period of employment), the limit imposed for the time being by subsection (1) of section 124 of that Act is a different amount from that otherwise imposed by that subsection.
(5B) Subsections (3), (4)(a) and (5) do not apply for the purposes of specifying the amount of the limit in such a case.’”
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to specify the maximum amount of the compensatory award available where an employment tribunal finds that an employee has been unfairly dismissed during the initial period of employment provided for by new section 98ZZA of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Justin Madders
Amendment 55 will expand an existing delegated power to enable the Secretary of State to specify a different maximum compensatory award where an employment tribunal finds that an employee has been unfairly dismissed under the new light-touch standards during the statutory probation period. Amendments 56 and 57 will make consequential changes to the provisions for uprating maximum awards for inflation.
In the event of any successful unfair dismissal claim, an employment tribunal will consider compensation as a remedy. Compensation will usually consist of a basic award and a compensatory award. The tribunal will determine the compensatory award by considering what it thinks is just and equitable, having regard to the financial loss suffered by the claimant that has been caused by the employer’s actions. This will include reference to salary and benefits, including pension, until the claimant finds alternative employment. The maximum compensatory award is currently the lower of 52 weeks’ pay or £115,115.
The Government have listened to concerns that changes to unfair dismissal law could lead to an increase in unfair dismissal claims, even where there is no merit, and to an increased burden on businesses and tribunals in having to deal with those claims. We have heard that uncertainty of outcome makes it hard for businesses to judge how much to invest in either defending or settling a claim. The introduction of a lighter-touch standard for fair dismissal during the statutory probationary period aims to reduce burdens on businesses and to create certainty, but it will not apply to all dismissals during the statutory probation period.
Having listened to those concerns, the Government committed in our “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document to consulting on what a compensation regime for successful unfair dismissal claims during the statutory probation period should be. Although we want employers to pause and make considered decisions about dismissing employees during probation, the Government do not think that employers should face the full potential liabilities of unfair dismissal remedies when dismissing an employee for reasons related to performance or suitability for the role during the statutory probation period.
To have the option of implementing reform once we have consulted, it is necessary to introduce this delegated power. The power is limited to making changes to the compensatory award for unfair dismissal claims during the statutory probation period only, and only where the new lighter-touch standards apply. The Government recognise the importance of employers being able to assess new hires. We are committed to introducing a statutory probationary period in which there will be lighter-touch standards for an employer to meet in order to dismiss an employee fairly if they are not suitable for the job.
The power will not enable the Secretary of State to make changes to the level of compensation for other day one unfair dismissal rights, such as automatically unfair reasons including maternity-related dismissals, or for “ordinary” unfair dismissals such as redundancy. The power will not enable the Secretary of State to make changes to reinstatement or re-engagement as a remedy available to tribunals for unfair dismissal during statutory probationary periods, nor will it allow changes to be made to the additional compensatory award where an employer does not comply with an order of reinstatement or re-engagement by the tribunal. There may be some concerns that the power could be used to undermine enforcement of the day one right to unfair dismissal, but I assure the Committee that this is not the intention.
The Government are making basic protections against unfair dismissal a day one right for employees. They will be able to enforce their rights and take a claim to the tribunal if they have been unfairly dismissed. It is important, however, that employers are able to assess new hires and see whether they are suitable for the job without facing the full potential liabilities of unfair dismissal remedies during this period.
Greg Smith
I have a straightforward question. We are back once more with our old friend of not having full clarity and having consultation after legislation. The Minister gave a figure, but it is not clear exactly what the Secretary of State might consider specifying as the maximum compensation that can be awarded under this measure.
I acknowledge that there is a consultation to come, but the reason that we need greater clarity relates to the point about business confidence in making new hires, putting new job adverts out, seeing who applies and trying to recruit. If there is a risk that the figure will be disproportionately high, it will make businesses more risk-averse about growing their businesses and thereby growing the economy and creating more jobs in our country. My only substantive question is “Where is the ceiling going to be?”
Sarah Gibson
I share some of the shadow Minister’s concerns. Consultation to find out what most concerns businesses is obviously commendable, but if a large amount of the Bill is left to secondary legislation, a lot of it will not come back before the whole House for scrutiny. Can we be assured that decisions that are not taken before the Bill is passed can at least be considered by a Committee when they are finally made?
Justin Madders
I take on board the comments that the Opposition spokespersons have made, but if we put something in the Bill now, we would be pre-empting the consultation. It is very important to get this right, acknowledging the balance that needs to be struck and the points that have been made. It is worth bearing in mind that this measure will not be implemented until autumn 2026 at the earliest, which is still a considerable time off. The reason we want to take the time between now and then to engage and consult with businesses is to ensure that we get that figure to a spot that gives justice to individuals and certainty to businesses about the potential liability they may face.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I understand the point about autumn 2026, but would he acknowledge that the vast majority of businesses are probably already working on their 2026 business plans? They are not just planning for tomorrow, next week and January; they are making medium and long-term plans. Those decisions about creating a new role, filling a vacancy or whatever it might be will already be baked into business planning for 2026, 2027 and maybe through to 2030, so it is not good enough to say, “It’s not coming in until 2026, so don’t worry.” Businesses are already in that planning space.
Justin Madders
I take the shadow Minister’s point, but that presupposes that businesses bake into their business plans compensation for unfairly dismissing their staff, and I do not think any business would want to proceed on that basis. This is about a potential liability that might come in at a future point.
Of course, we all want employers to retain their staff and have a productive working relationship, but if they do not, we want them to comply with the law and dismiss employees fairly. There will be a small number of cases where that does not happen, but I would not expect a business to be able to anticipate what might happen in two or three years’ time with an individual employee and whether a process was followed or not. That is probably not on a business’s desk at this point.
Amendment 55 agreed to.
Amendments made: 56, in schedule 2, page 114, line 20, at beginning insert—
“(1) The Employment Relations Act 1999 is amended as follows.”
See the explanatory statement for amendment 57.
Amendment 57, in schedule 2, page 114, line 23, at end insert—
“(3) In section 34 (indexation of amounts, etc)—
(a) in subsection (1)(c), for “124(1)” substitute “124”;
(b) omit subsection (4);
(c) in subsection (4A), for “124(1)” substitute “124”;
(d) in subsection (4B)—
(i) for “124(1)” substitute “124”;
(ii) after “1996” insert “in relation to cases of any description”;
(iii) for the words from “such a sum” to “that date” substitute “, with effect from a day within 12 months before that date, a sum specified in that section in relation to cases of that description”.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment and amendment 56 are consequential on amendment 55.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Greg Smith
The Minister tempts me, but I will set out our rationale for new clause 28 and amendment 134. I acknowledge that he has published a series of impact assessments, but the Regulatory Policy Committee has not exactly given the Bill a glowing bill of health, and there are a significant number of red ratings in its assessment. I gently push back and suggest to the Minister that the impact assessments need to be looked at again across the piece, so that we can be absolutely certain that the Bill will do what the Government want it to do.
As the Minister rightly said, new clause 28 would require the Government to report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions on unfair dismissal on employers and the economy. That goes beyond the impact assessments that the Government have already conducted, in the sense that the assessment we are calling for must
“include labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis… examine the impact of the measures in section 19 and Schedule 2 …on employment, wages and economic output…consider the likelihood the dismissal measures leading to lower employment, and greater use of temporary contracts, and…examine the likely effect of section 19 and Schedule 2…on productivity…wage growth…equality of opportunity…job security…economic activity, and”—
last but not least—“employment.”
All that work should have been done before the Government proposed this legislation, so the Opposition think it is only right to try to ensure that the Government present the House with the necessary information before the changes to unfair dismissal come into effect. That is the bedrock of a democracy, and it is only right that all Members of this House and, indeed, the other place can see that information before they permit the Bill to complete its passage and gain Royal Assent.
We heard from several witnesses that the provisions will tip the balance of risk for employers, who will choose to not hire people, rather than take a chance on whether a new hire will work out. We also heard that people on the edge of the labour market represent a riskier proposition for employers and are most likely to be disadvantaged by the changes. I do not believe that any Member of this House—of whatever political party or none—wants to see people on the edge of our labour market denied a second or third chance. They deserve the ability to get on in life if, for whatever reason, they have not been able to get on the job ladder and into gainful employment.
All the evidence indicates that the Bill’s provisions on unfair dismissal will have a chilling effect on business growth. How will the Bill support the Government’s first mission of economic growth, when all the evidence—written and oral—and the reports in the press and from other bodies point to the contrary? Even the Government’s own impact assessment cannot provide reassurance that the measures in the Bill will lead to growth. The new clause would introduce safeguards and provide the clarity and detail that all Members no doubt want on whether clause 19 is even necessary for the intent of schedule 2.
The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)
Clause 20 amends an existing power in section 49D of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which allows the Secretary of State to make regulations
“about redundancy during, or after, a protected period of pregnancy.”
Regulations made under that power took effect in April, bolstering the protections against redundancy for pregnant women. However, redundancy is just one of five reasons for which an employee can be fairly dismissed. The changes delivered by clause 20 are required so that regulations can be made in regard to dismissal more broadly beyond redundancy, both during and after pregnancy.
The existing provisions for redundancy allow regulations to set out three things. The first is how the protected period of pregnancy is to be calculated. The regulations can provide that the protected period begins after a pregnancy has ended, which means that protection can be extended to a woman who has miscarried but has not yet told her employer that she is pregnant. The second is that employers must offer alternative employment to pregnant women at risk of redundancy. The last is the consequences of a failure to comply with any protections, including stipulating that this will result in the dismissal being treated as unfair. Those provisions for redundancy will all be extended, and therefore made available for dismissals for reasons other than redundancy, through this clause. This approach is necessary to then deliver enhanced dismissal protections in the regulations for pregnant women.
A 2016 Equality and Human Rights Commission survey found that 1% of mothers were dismissed following their pregnancy each year. Analysis by the Department for Business and Trade estimates that that equates to around 4,100 mothers—that is how many women could benefit from the new dismissal protections annually. Using secondary legislation to set out the policy detail is a standard approach in this area of employment law and supports working with stakeholders to further shape the policy before confirming the final approach in the regulations.
Clause 21 amends existing powers that allow the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning dismissal during several kinds of family-related statutory leave. The amended powers will continue to allow for regulation of dismissal during the period when an employee is away from work on maternity leave, adoption leave, shared parental leave, neonatal care leave or bereaved partners paternity leave. The amended powers will also apply to a period after the employee has returned from one of those types of leave.
Additionally, clause 21(5)(b) clarifies that parents looking to take bereaved partners paternity leave who have adopted from overseas or had their children via a surrogacy arrangement can be included in regulations creating protections against redundancy, as well as the new protections against dismissal for other reasons. It also makes it clear that the cohort of parents taking bereaved partners paternity leave can be included in the regulations allowing access to keeping-in-touch days, which allow an employee on statutory leave to be able to do some work for their employer without that leave coming to an end.
Our primary focus with the enhanced dismissal protections is supporting pregnant women and new mothers during and after maternity leave. However, as is the case with clause 20, we want to consult and work closely with stakeholders on whether new parents more generally should be covered by the enhanced dismissal protections. The final policy design will then be reflected in the regulations, as is typical in this area of employment law.
Before I commend the clause to the Committee, I put on record my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including my membership of USDAW and the National Education Union.
Greg Smith
I think this is one of the least contentious parts of the Bill, and we do not seek to oppose in any way the important protections for pregnant women and new mothers. I note that what the Government are really doing with these clauses is building on the regulations that, as the Minister rightly said, came into force in April off the back of legislation brought forward by the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis) and my noble Friend Baroness Bertin in the other place.
Again, we have the challenge of consultation after legislation. It is important that the Government move quickly to ensure that the protections for pregnant women and new mothers are not left to drag out as part of that consultation. Although consultation is important, the objective that the Government are trying to meet is quite clear. The desire to build on existing legislation should make it less controversial, and it should make getting it right quickly less of an open-ended question. That will enable pregnant women and people who are trying to conceive and start a family—or to have a second, third or fourth child, or whatever it may be—to plan with the confidence that those protections will be in place. I am not in any way speaking in opposition to this measure; I am just urging the Government not to let the consultation drag on.
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—
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.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
As ever, it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. As usual, I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and particularly to my membership of the USDAW and GMB trade unions.
I am sure it will not surprise the hon. Member for Dundee Central to hear that I share some of his concerns about the practice of fire and rehire, and I welcome the significant steps taken in the Bill to outlaw the practice. However, I disagree with his amendment 160. What might be seen by some as a loophole is actually an important safeguard against the perverse potential for the law to mandate redundancy when there might have been other options on the table. I am sure that none of us would want to be party to including that in the Bill.
As I said, I share some of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and I hope the Minister will look closely at proposed new section 104I(4) of the 1996 Act, because the words
“likely in the immediate future”
are doing some precariously heavy lifting. However, if the amendment were accepted, the focus on a business being a going concern, which is the most important part of that subsection, would be removed completely. When we are passing legislation that protects jobs and promotes good employment, we absolutely cannot allow the unintended consequence of mandating redundancy when there are other options.
I look forward to the Minister’s comments. I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Dundee Central, but this is a sledgehammer of an amendment to crack a nut of a possible loophole, with significant potential consequences.
Employment Rights Bill (Twelfth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Greg Smith
Main Page: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)Department Debates - View all Greg Smith's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsThursday 12th December 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2024 - (12 Dec 2024)
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 127, in clause 22, page 33, line 12, leave out from “that” to end of line 21 and insert—
“the reason for the variation was to provide for improved employment practices and to update and reform outdated working practices, in order to allow for the more effective running of a business or organisation.”
This amendment would provide an exemption to unfair dismissal for failure to agree to a variation of contract.
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair for the afternoon sitting, Ms Vaz. The amendment, in my name and those of my hon. Friends, is a probing one—I want to be clear about that from the outset—that would provide an exception to unfair dismissal for failure to agree a variation of contract.
The premise underpinning the Bill’s provisions on fire and rehire is that the only reason for an employer to want to re-engage employees on varied terms is to exploit them by giving them worse terms and conditions. I am in no way, shape or form suggesting that that does not occasionally happen, but I come at this debate from the other direction, presuming that most employers are good employers who care about their workforce and want to see a happy staff getting on, being productive and doing the things they do to make the business a success, be that making things, giving advice or providing a service.
The Bill basically says that a business needs to be going bust for the process of varying a contract to be justified. Again, I am not certain that that is the right starting point. What if there were a legitimate reason for wanting to vary certain terms and conditions? We touched on this in our debate on SNP amendments 160 and 161 before the break, and I gave some examples thinking about the pace of change in a business. Let us say a manufacturing business moves from a very manual process for putting a product together—be it a car, a piece of furniture or some smaller product—to invest in robotics or something.
I can think of a farm in my constituency that was a traditional dairy farm but, thanks to a not insubstantial grant from the previous Government, has built a robotic dairy. That means that the people who work on that farm are doing a fundamentally different job. They no longer have to get up at 4 am to manually hook the cows up to the milking machines; believe it or not, the cows now form an orderly queue for the milking robots. I am not joking, Ms Vaz. I invite anyone to come and see it with their own eyes. There is a vending machine where people can buy the milk direct. The point at which staff intervention is needed is if an alarm indicates that a machine has clogged or broken, the pasteurisation room has hit the wrong temperature, or whatever. It is a fundamentally different job. Sometimes, that happens in a workplace where the employer wants to keep the staff—they do not want to let anyone go and they do not want the robots to replace them—but it involves different terms, different conditions and a different physical thing to do on a daily basis. I offer that as a practical example of how businesses change.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I refer the Committee to my membership of the GMB and Community unions. I have two short questions for the shadow Minister. First, if the changes are so positive for employees, can they not simply accept a change to their terms and conditions? Secondly, let us take the scenario that he describes, where there is a change in processes, and put that in a business-to-business context. Say a business moves from wooden cogs and to metal cogs, and it has a contract with the wooden cog supplier. Is he aware of any circumstances in which that business would be able simply to break that contract without any notice or legal recompense to the other business?
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He is right that the businesses in the situation he describes would have to go through a legal process, probably involving very expensive contract lawyers, to alter such a contract. I do not think it is helpful to directly compare those supply chain contracts with employment contracts, because on one level we are dealing with human beings and on the other we are dealing with the flow of parts, services or whatever.
The hon. Gentleman is also right that a change in terms and conditions can sometimes be very positive for the employee. Perhaps it involves fewer hours for more money—that sometimes happens—or longer holidays. Of course, if something better is being offered, employees should have the flexibility to accept that, having exercised due diligence and looked it over properly—dotted the i’s, crossed the t’s and all that. What I am trying to get at is where the business model, and the day-to-day operation of the job, has fundamentally changed, through robotics or whatever.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I want to continue on the shadow Minister’s theme of milk. It used to be common in factories where there were particulates in the air to include a clause in someone’s contract that said they were entitled to a glass of milk during the day, because it was believed at the time that a glass of milk would remove those particulates from someone’s airway. It was completely misguided, but those contracts still exist, and I have been in situations where I have looked over similar, very outdated terms and conditions. If it is raining on a site, someone might be entitled to a 2p payment, for example. Such contract conditions are very easy to remove; it can be done by agreement.
Does the shadow Minister accept that if a contract is worded appropriately, such variations can be made by an employer—the key factor is whether there has been genuine consultation—and that the circumstances that clause 22 will remedy are really quite separate? It is for those extreme examples that Grant Shapps, the Conservative Business Secretary at the time, spoke out against.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, although he was possibly milking it with the length of that intervention—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] It is nearly Christmas.
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s points about some of those very outdated provisions. I really hope that my children do not find a job out there that involves free milk, because they might jump at it a little too quickly. This probing amendment seeks simply to understand a little further where the flexibilities lie, and to get underneath some of the detail around when a variation of contract might be a good thing on both sides, or when things have just changed and there needs to be a variation in order for the jobs to be saved. I would hope that Members on both sides of the Committee would come at this from the perspective of the real world and wanting to save jobs, create more jobs, grow the economy and grow employment.
There may be legitimate reasons for wanting to vary terms and conditions, such as to provide for improved employment practices, or to update and reform outdated working practices—as the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield referenced—in order to allow for the more effective running of a business or organisation. The amendment seeks to understand the Government’s position should such a situation arise, and to understand why they are legislating to prevent businesses from acting in such a way.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
On a point of clarity, is it the purpose of the amendment or an unintended consequence of the drafting that it would completely delete the subsection, rather than adding to it? If the purpose is to completely delete the subsection it is amending, are Opposition Members trying to remove the protections for those going concerns?
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly legitimate question. I repeat that this is a probing amendment: we are not going to press it to a vote or try to put it in the Bill. The purpose behind it is to get the evidence base, the justification and some clarity of thought from the Government about why the clause is necessary and proportionate. Sometimes we have to suggest getting rid of something to get a good example or a good justification for going there, doing it and putting it in primary legislation.
The Opposition certainly do not want to see exploitative fire and rehire in any workplace. From talking to businesses, and from the evidence we have heard, we know that there needs to be solid grounding and an evidence base to show that the wording in the Bill is justifiable and does not justify shutting down many businesses that are growing, adapting and changing—hopefully, for the better, so they are more successful. They should be able to keep and grow their staff, rather than go down the redundancy route or other scenarios whereby jobs are lost.
Matthew Percival from the CBI said:
“In the fire and rehire proposals, there is a risk that we might be making it easier to make people redundant than to change contracts”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 7, Q1.]
That is the absolute nub of the matter. It would be nothing short of a total disaster if the unintended consequence of the exact wording of the clause or the Bill perversely incentivises companies to make people redundant, so people lose their jobs and have to go home and have that difficult conversation with their loved ones and say that they need to find a new job, with the devastation that that brings to real people’s lives. I cannot imagine that the Government want that to happen. With this probing amendment, we are seeking to kick the tyres. We want an explanation, or at least to encourage the Minister and the wider Business and Trade team to find a better way that does not have that unintended consequence.
A recurring theme of our debates in recent days, and from the Bill Committee witnesses—other than trade union representatives—is that the measures in the Bill on dismissal and re-engagement will be too restrictive for employers. I gently ask the Minister to reflect on that and think about whether the measures will actually work and will not have unintended consequences, so that people’s jobs are protected and saved. We do not want people to be unintentionally forced down the route of job losses.
Michael Wheeler
I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, but I want to talk to its specifics. It appears to me that there are plenty of consensual mechanisms for achieving most of what the shadow Minister is suggesting about the variation of contracts to reflect working practices. If anything, they are inherently better than anything that is imposed. Quite often, when working practices, organisations and business practices are modernised, communication between those doing the work and the managers and owners leads to a much better outcome.
I suggest that we need to remember that we are talking about fire and rehire, which is inherently quite extreme. The amendment seems to refer to the particulars of normal working practices, looking at updating mechanisms to account for modern technology and suchlike, that are much better handled by the existing consensual mechanisms. While I appreciate that it is a probing amendment, it seems entirely unnecessary and does not necessarily speak to the heart of what the clause is about: ending the extreme practice of fire and rehire.
Justin Madders
Yes, they do get worse—it is Thursday afternoon.
The shadow Minister did raise some important points, though. He gave the example of a dairy and its changing practices. Of course, a change in job function does not necessarily mean that terms and conditions have to change or indeed become worse. History is full of examples where technology has come in and made jobs different. As we look forward to the advent of automation and AI in our economy, I hope that people find new jobs and new roles and that those jobs are more fulfilling as a result of technological development.
I will say a few words about the comments from the hon. Member for Bridgwater. We are talking about overall impacts in this Bill of 0.4% of employers’ total costs—a very small price to pay for a comprehensive set of reforms that really are needed for workers. It is about rooting out bad practices and making sure that those bad employers, who we all rightly condemn, are not able to exploit existing loopholes. It is about stopping the race to the bottom. It is about creating a level playing field. One reason why P&O said that it took the action that it did was that its competitors were undercutting it. We do not want to see that race to the bottom continue. We want to see good employers rewarded for respecting and rewarding their employees well by being able to compete on a level playing field.
The general thrust of the shadow Minister’s remarks was interesting. There is nothing to stop an employee agreeing to changes to terms and conditions. Indeed, proposed new section 104I(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 makes it clear that these provisions will not apply if the employee agrees to the changes. Changes and discussions happen every day of the week in industry—that is called negotiation, and that is what good industrial relations looks like. That is the sort of thing that we want to encourage.
We are trying to stop a situation that we have seen far too often, where an employer might just say, “Well, here are your new terms and conditions. If you don’t like it, there’s the door.” That, I am afraid, has become far too prevalent in our country. We have heard plenty of evidence about how many employers have been doing that. It is about recognising that there is a loophole in the law. This may be a probing amendment, but it would certainly make this clause ineffective, and arguably, it would make the situation worse than the status quo, because it would effectively legitimise some of those actions by employers. They could point to this legislation and say, “Well, the law says that we are able to do it.”
The way the amendment worded is quite broad. There is a reference to “outdated” terms and conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield gave a good example of where reasonable dialogue between the trade union and the employer would see that change. The shadow Minister’s old colleague, Jacob Rees-Mogg, might have a different view about what “outdated” means. He might think anything after 1874 could be considered modern—[Interruption.] He probably does, yes. There would be very broad latitude for an employer to say that something was outdated. That is why I am concerned that the amendment would make things worse than they are now.
The Bill as drafted makes it very clear what the obligations of a responsible employer are. They are the sort of things that responsible employers do already. We recognise that there will be unfortunate situations in which an employer has no alternative but to change terms and conditions, but the Bill makes sure that, if there is a positive for the employees—there often is from a change in terms of conditions; that is what negotiations often involve—there is a way for that to continue. We are not going to stop that. If employees consent to changes, they will be able to be made under this Bill. I urge the shadow Minister not to press the amendment to a vote.
Greg Smith
I understand the argument that the Minister has set out, and I appreciate that this particular probing amendment was at the extremer end of the spectrum in trying to probe that response from him. I accept that there are many mechanisms whereby employees can consensually work with their employer to change contracts, and that is clear. I am still a little nervous—the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, as the Bill progresses and no doubt becomes legislation—about the nightmare scenario of businesses simply saying, “Rather than trying to engage in this process, as we were warned by the CBI, we will just make everyone redundant instead.”
There needs to be a clear, previously set out mechanism from the Government so that, if that disaster-zone eventuality comes to pass—I hope I am wrong; I do not want to see people being made redundant—there is a quick snapback or sort of provision to allow secondary legislation to throttle those measures down, or to fix them in some other way that still stops the exploitative practices without tying businesses’ hands behind their backs, because the net result will be job losses. I would be incredibly disappointed and sad if these issues, which both the Opposition and businesses have warned about throughout the passage of the Bill so far, became a job killer. The Government need to be ready, if they have got it wrong, to have a process that will give businesses the confidence again to properly engage in negotiations, such as those good industrial relations that the Minister spoke of, and not just make people redundant. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
We are back on fire and rehire again; I should probably count up how many times I have spoken in debates on this issue in the last few years. It has taken a lot of parliamentary time, and rightly so. We all remember the obloquy directed towards P&O when it took those actions, several years ago, and I am afraid that fire and rehire has become far more prevalent in our economy than anyone would want to see.
Investigations by the Trades Union Congress found that around 38,000 employers were using fire and rehire as a tactic. Research from the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development found that, between August 2021 and 2023, the proportion of firms that had used fire and rehire had almost doubled. The impact assessment estimates that there are around 178,000 workers facing the threat of fire and rehire at this very moment, so the problem is not going away—indeed, because of the way that P&O has been allowed to get away with it, employers see it as a golden opportunity to take a sword to hard-fought terms and conditions.
Other Members have spoken about the household names that have attempted to do that, and USDAW’s written evidence included some notable household names. Once upon a time, fire and rehire was a seldom-used part of the employment law and industrial relations landscape but, as part of the wider pattern of insecurity at work, it has become a much more common tool. I am afraid, as we have seen, it is far too often an act of first—rather than last—resort, and the Government are committed to ending that practice.
The solution to dealing with many of the concerns raised by the shadow Minister and others is to point to what good and bad industrial relations look like, and to say, “This is what bad employer practice looks like.” Good employers and industrial relations will take workers with them. Again I refer to USDAW’s written evidence, which noted occasions where negotiations had begun with fire and rehire on the table almost from the start. That is not a healthy place to have sometimes very difficult discussions about changes to terms and conditions. The impact assessment notes that the power asymmetry can provide incentives for the more powerful party, in this case the employer, to act in a strategic manner to suppress wages and conditions. Such tactics are why we have seen such a slump in wage growth over recent years.
Greg Smith
Most of my concerns have been outlined in the amendments to the clause, but I want to ensure that it is placed on the record that the Opposition want to see employers engage in good faith and believe that most employers do. I accept the Minister’s point about the scandal of P&O Ferries—I was on the Transport Committee at the time, so possibly looked into it in more detail than most colleagues from the previous Parliament.
Where we perhaps still have a difference is that taking that unacceptable, scandalous situation at P&O and legislating for everybody on the back of it is not necessarily the best starting place. As I said in the previous debate, working on the presumption that all businesses are trying to exploit their workforces is not healthy or, I would suggest, reflective of the real world. Although there have to be measures to shut down things like what happened at P&O so that it does not happen again, there must equally be flexibility and understanding so that, when employers have engaged in good faith and really are trying to save the business—to save the jobs in the first place—we do not find ourselves in that nightmare scenario of people saying, “It’s too difficult—we’ll just have to make everyone redundant.”
I fully accept that this clause will pass in a few moments, but perhaps the Minister could consider, before we come to Report, some additional safeguards on that so that we do not end up with job losses and employers slamming their heads down on the desk, unable to find another way to save the jobs and the workforce. That would keep giving people the living they need to get on and prosper as part of our country, part of the business they are engaged in and part of our vibrant UK economy.
Laurence Turner
I will not speak for long, because most of the points have been made in the debate, but I want to come back to the point made by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bridgwater. There is perhaps a legitimate difference in principle between the two sides: when there are extreme examples, should there or should there not be legislation in response? It is important to respond to that, because we have seen extreme examples of abuse across different parts of the labour market. To go back to the example of blacklisting, I suggest that that was a failure of successive Parliaments to tackle a practice that had been thought to be relatively rare, but proved to have been carried out on an industrial scale. It was right for Parliament to enact the blacklisting regulations.
I go back, too, to the Grunwick dispute, the ancestor of the statutory recognition regime. At the time, it was thought that the abusive patterns of employment behaviour on full display in that particular employer would be unlikely to recur. The Government of the day commissioned a public inquiry under Lord Scarman in the belief that, if the inquiry concluded that there should be trade union recognition, it was inconceivable that any employer would not abide by that—but that is exactly what happened.
Where we see those extreme abuses, other employers—by no means the majority, or even a substantial minority, but enough to have a seriously deleterious effect on the lives of many workers—will follow. Since P&O, we have seen other examples; hon. Members have referred to particular employers and sectors, and I could add parts of the retail, utilities and even the public sector, where such tactics have become more common. The previous Government made strong statements—I could quote some—about the practice, but I suggest that the action that was subsequently taken, the code of practice, was not sufficiently strong. In the case of P&O, where the employer made it clear at the time that it intended to ignore the existing legislation, it did not prove sufficient remedy.
We do need stronger action. The measures in the Bill will only ever affect a tiny minority of employers. It is important to stress that, but it is necessary to put this action into the Bill. P&O will always loom large in discussions of this topic, but the practice is by no means confined to that particular employer, and it is right to take the action that was not taken in the previous Parliament.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 58, in clause 23, page 34, line 27, at end insert—
“(3A) In section 197 (power to vary provisions), in subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “188(2)” substitute “188(1A)”;
(b) in the words after paragraph (b), for “188(2)” substitute “188(1A)”.”
This amendment would correct incorrect cross-references in section 197 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
This is a purely technical amendment to fix an incorrect cross-reference in section 197(1)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 197(1)(a) provides that the Secretary of State may make secondary legislation to amend the minimum time period for collective consultations in section 188(2) of the same Act. However, as I am sure the shadow Minister had already noticed, that reference is incorrect: “section 188(2)” should read “section 188(1A)”. A consequential amendment was missed when section 188 was amended by the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1995. That instrument renumbered section 188(2) as section 188(1A). Of course, it should have also made a consequential amendment to section 197(1)(a), but did not.
The amendment will not change the law, which can already be interpreted to refer to the correct cross-reference by way of the Interpretation Act 1978. The 1978 Act provides that where an instrument repeals and re-enacts a provision then, unless the contrary intention appears, any reference in any other enactment to the repealed provision is to be read as a reference to the re-enacted provision. The amendment will improve the clarity and accessibility of the law, which I am sure we will all be relieved to hear.
Greg Smith
I can be very brief on this amendment, Ms Vaz; in fact, I will channel the questioning style of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). This is what happens when a Bill gets rushed to meet an arbitrary political deadline, is it not?
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister will be pleased to hear that we have picked the error up at this stage, so that when the Bill is enacted it will of course be absolutely correct.
Amendment 58 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Greg Smith
I have a couple of brief questions. I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification that the clause does not provide for a consultation of the whole workforce. That was a legitimate concern for many as they looked at the drafting of the Bill. The clarification will be welcome.
My bigger question is about the practicalities where an organisation has in excess of 20 employees. For example, a small chain of five or six pubs could easily have that volume of employees across bar and kitchen staff—chefs—cleaners and perhaps security, but in that sort of setting it is very rare for staff to be unionised, or even organised among themselves. In that scenario, where a smaller business employs that number of people across multiple sites, how does the Minister expect the requirement for the involvement of a trade union or employee organisation that does not exist to be engaged with? What is the mechanism for that? I appreciate that many Government Members would quite like everybody to be in a trade union—
Greg Smith
Indeed, we know from their declarations of interest that they all are. I hope the Minister takes the question with the good intent with which it is asked. Not everybody is in a trade union and not everybody organises in that way, so how would the mechanics of the measure work in those circumstances?
That leads to the wider question, “Why 20?” Why not 19, 18 or 15? Why not 25? It seems like an arbitrary number. I accept that a number needs to be put down. In some ways, in specifying a number, this clause is more detailed than most in the Bill, and it gives certainty, but I would like to understand why it is 20. It seems like a number picked from thin air. It could negatively impact an organisation if it led the employer to decide, “Well, we’ll just get rid of 19 of them, and we won’t have to comply.” That seems at odds with the other provisions in the Bill, where the Government seem to want to move all rights back to day one, yet they do not seem to want to apply that to organisations where, for whatever reason, 20 people are, sadly, being consulted on being made redundant. I would like clarity on that point.
Michael Wheeler
I will keep my contribution relatively short, but I did not want to let the clause pass without warmly welcoming its inclusion in the Bill. In a previous life, I worked to represent shop and retail workers. While P&O and the scandal of fire and rehire entered the collective consciousness, the Woolworths redundancy situation was burned into the consciousness of the workers I represented at that time. That is exactly the loophole that this measure is trying to close. Thousands of workers affected by the Woolworths redundancy missed out on the compensation they deserved as part of the lack of consultation because they worked in individual establishments that were small and fell below the threshold. The interpretation of the law at that point meant they were isolated, divided and not included as part of what was clearly, to everyone—
Greg Smith
Perhaps I can test the hon. Gentleman a little bit on that. I remember many happy hours as a child in Woolworths in the town where I grew up. They were fantastic stores, and they are greatly missed. Given where he is coming from, is he content with the number being set at 20? While Woolworths was a substantial business, I can think of smaller businesses with separate sites, retail outlets, pubs, restaurants or whatever that might employ 19 or 15 people.
Michael Wheeler
The hon. Gentleman invites to me to say whether I am content. I draw his attention to the fact that the clause removes the single establishment loophole while leaving in place the thresholds that are already part of the law around consultation and the time period. I have not examined and, despite the invitation, I will not speculate on where those thresholds should be, but I warmly welcome the removal of the single establishment loophole, so that where the numbers in a redundancy cross those thresholds—legitimately and apparently to everyone looking at it—there are not legalistic mechanisms for those workers to be left out.
Having warmly welcomed the removal of the loophole, let me reassure the shadow Minister. In a previous, previous life I was in a different job—we have all had many jobs—where trade unions were not recognised. I speak for myself alone when I say that I would love for every worker in this country to have the benefit of trade union representation. I confirm for the shadow Minister that I would love to see that, because I think it has genuine benefits.
Michael Wheeler
I am sure it is not. I worked in a retail establishment that did not benefit from trade union representation and that went through consultation, not on redundancy but on a variation of contracts, so it is relevant to what we were talking about before. It was actually a relatively smooth and easy process for employee representatives to be appointed and elected from among our number, despite the lack of an existing structure, and to engage with the company in those consultation exercises. While I would love there to be a trade union fighting the corner for every worker, when it is absent it is not a burdensome process to have employee engagement in these processes.
Justin Madders
I recognise that the shadow Minister welcomed the clarification I provided. No doubt there will be debate to come, as is often the case with legal issues, but the Government are fairly clear and confident that the clause will not have the unintended consequences we heard raised in evidence.
The shadow Minister asked, “Why 20?” He will pleased to know that that was a product of EU regulation. It is in existing law as part of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which has been amended many times, so I could not say exactly when it came into force, but—
Greg Smith
The Minister can of course look back in history at when these measures were put in, but the Bill seeks to change all sorts of things across all sorts of sectors. We are free from the European Union! He could change it if he wished.
Justin Madders
I will remember that next time the shadow Minister tells me that we are trying to do too much in this Bill. With the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, the Bill Committee for which I had the great pleasure of serving on, his Government could have done something about this before they left office.
The figure of 20 is long established, and we have no current plans to change it, but we are keen to ensure that the scenario my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles described cannot continue. As he said, Woolworths made 27,000 people redundant, and about 3,000 of those were completely exempt from collective redundancy consultations because of this issue. There has been a number of high-profile retail redundancies where people have missed out on collective redundancy obligations because of this law, which we are pleased to be able to change.
On the question of smaller employers where there may not be trade union representation readily available, the regulations already provide for employee representatives to be engaged and elected in those circumstances, so there is no change to the law in that respect. There is already provision to deal with that situation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Collective redundancy notifications: ships’ crew
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
The clause will address the loophole that allowed P&O Ferries to avoid prosecution when it dismissed 786 seafarers without notice in March 2022. It will require operators of frequent services to British ports to notify the UK Government when making 20 or more redundancies even if those affected work aboard ships registered in another state. The clause means that if an operator of frequent services to a British port chooses to copy P&O Ferries and make collective redundancies without providing notice to the Government, it could face prosecution under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and ultimately be liable for an unlimited fine.
The clause will apply to services calling between Great Britain and another place in the UK. It will also apply to any services entering Great Britain from a place outside the UK on at least 120 occasions in a 12-month period before the redundancy notification, or to new services that have been operating for less than 12 months and have called 10 times or more per month while they have been operating. We estimate the number of operators in scope of the measure to be around 2,000. The cost to businesses will be minimal; it is estimated to be around £20 per notification. We hope that the prospect of an unlimited fine will deter operators from making mass redundancies without the appropriate notification.
While this measure may not prevent redundancies from being made, it will mean that the Government and any employee representatives must be notified before any dismissals take effect. It will prevent the sort of disruption seen following the P&O Ferries dismissals and will mean that the Government will be able to provide valuable support to seafarers facing redundancy. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I understand where the Minister is coming from, particularly on the expansion of the requirement to notify the flag state. I spoke earlier about my time on the Transport Committee watching the P&O scandal unfold; we held some pretty tough evidence sessions as part of that. I understand that the clause is very specifically to protect seafarers from that sort of engagement. I very much hope that it works to protect those seafarers, and we will not oppose it.
Justin Madders
Amendment 59 will expand and restructure the provisions in clause 25, which amends the Procurement Act 2023, to reinstate and strengthen the two-tier code for relevant outsourced contracts for public services so that the powers and duties in clause 25 extend to Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Amendments 60 to 64 make changes that are consequential on those made by amendment 59, including by updating various definitions in the Procurement Act 2023 and by providing that regulations made by Scottish and Welsh Ministers must be made using the affirmative procedure of the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd.
We are making the amendments at the request of the Scottish and Welsh Governments. They are necessary because to get the benefits of a consistent approach to fair and equitable employment terms and conditions on relevant outsourced contracts, it is essential that a reinstated two-tier code applies throughout the UK.
We continue to engage with our counterparts in Northern Ireland about whether the powers should also extend to Ministers there. The regulations and code of practice created in our provisions will apply to reserved Northern Irish authorities. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I am reminded of the old chestnut about rushing out a Bill in 100 days and forgetting about the devolved settlements as part of the process. Given that devolution was largely the product of the previous Labour Government, I am slightly surprised that the current one would forget about Holyrood and Cardiff Bay. However, it is good that we now have clarity. We will of course want to test how things are actually going to work. Indeed, the question of Northern Ireland—which is just as important a part of our country as England, Scotland and Wales—really should be resolved sooner rather than later, so that there can be clarity that the Government are seeking to legislate for the whole of our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and not doing it in a piecemeal fashion.
Justin Madders
I gently correct the shadow Minister: we did not forget to engage with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. We were making sure that we had agreement before we tabled amendments, which is why they have appeared as they have today.
Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Greg Smith
Main Page: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)Department Debates - View all Greg Smith's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsTuesday 17th December 2024
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 December 2024 - (17 Dec 2024)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
Good morning, Mr Mundell; it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. As is customary, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions.
The clause will empower Ministers to reinstate and strengthen the two-tier code on workforce matters where contracts for public services have been outsourced to the private sector. It will ensure fair and equitable employment conditions for public sector workers who have been transferred into the private sector, and private sector workers who work alongside them on public service contracts, while maintaining a high quality of service for the public. It therefore directly supports the Government’s manifesto commitment to make work pay and will tackle the issue of unfair two-tiered workforces where staff working alongside one another to deliver the same contract do not have comparable terms and conditions of employment.
The powers are constrained so that the provisions of the regulations and the code, when developed, will apply only to new contracts entered into once the Bill comes into force, but can and will apply to re-procurements of services already outsourced where the re-procurement leads to a further transfer of workers. Ministers will have the power to make regulations specifying provisions to be included in relevant outsourcing contracts. The provisions may, for example, set out model contract terms that, where incorporated into contracts, will impose obligations on suppliers. Authorities will be required to take all reasonable steps to include those provisions in all relevant outsourced contracts.
The regulations made under the clause will, first, have the purpose of ensuring that transferring workers are treated no less favourably as workers of the supplier than when they worked for the public sector contracting authority and, secondly, have the objective of ensuring that workers of the supplier who are not transferred from the public sector but recruited by the supplier to work on the contract are treated no less favourably than those transferring workers. Alongside that, Ministers of the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments will be subject to a duty to publish a code of practice addressing similar matters to which contracting authorities will need to have regard.
To ensure that the code is effectively enforced, there will be several forms of redress. Contracting authorities will be required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that suppliers meet their contractual obligations, as set out in the regulations. In addition, the procurement review unit, which will be established under our new Procurement Act 2023, due to commence in 2025, will be able to investigate whether a contracting authority has had regard to the code and taken appropriate steps in relation to provisions specified in the regulations.
These powers are being extended through amendments to the clause, which we discussed last week, to the devolved Governments of Scotland and Wales so that the benefits of a consistent approach to fair and equitable employment terms and conditions on relevant outsourced contracts can be spread throughout the UK. Fair and equitable working conditions are the right of all employees working alongside one other on the same outsourced contracts, and these measures will help to tackle that issue head on.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once more, Mr Mundell.
Clause 25 has got me thinking about many moons ago, in 2006, when I was part of the team that won Hammersmith and Fulham council for the Conservatives for the first time since 1968. One of our first acts was quite literally to take the red flag down from the roof of the town hall. Part of the symbolism of that, which is why I mention it, was that the council, in 2006, was one of the last to outsource anything at all. Competitive tendering simply had not happened in that London borough. Everything was still a direct service run by the local authority, and we set about contracting out waste, grounds maintenance and many other services. Why? Because we wanted to deliver better value for taxpayers—indeed, we cut council tax by 20% over the eight years that we ran the council—and to improve service standards.
One of the things I learned in that process, and the reason my point is relevant to the clause, is that the first iteration of any contracting out—that first contract, be it for refuse collection, street cleansing, grounds maintenance or whatever—does not tend to result in economies and improvements. It is often in the second or third contract iteration where the cost savings and improvements in service standards start to be seen. That is partly because of the TUPE provisions that rightly exist to ensure that those staff who are being transferred from whatever part of the public sector we might be talking about—in this case, local government—transfer with the same rights, terms and conditions, and pay that they had at the point that they ceased to be direct employees of the council, or whatever other public service, and became employees of whoever won the contract.
The rub comes in the real-world application. In such cases, the staff members who transferred are on favourable terms and conditions, and probably better pay, than some of the staff that the contractor brings into the team. If it is immediately locked in that everybody new has to be on the same terms and conditions and pay scales, we will never achieve value for money for taxpayers, and we will never enable the contractor, be that a refuse collection company or whatever, to find efficiencies and savings at the same time as increasing service standards in the way that we all want to see. It might as well never be done in the first place. That makes me question whether that is in fact the ideological position that the Government want to take. I can see the Minister grinning; perhaps I have hit upon something.
I gently remind the Committee of the time when every refuse service and local government service was provided directly, in house, before competitive tendering and the revolution of the 1980s and the Thatcher Government. We can all remember what delivery of those services looked like in the 1970s: the rubbish piled up on the streets with no one collecting it.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I just reflect that when I was a unitary authority leader, we were effectively a hostage client of the private sector, since the previous Conservative authority had set up a joint venture with it. That was far from the land of milk and honey. Well, it was the land of milk and honey for the private sector, whereas local taxpayers had to suffer under a system that was set up to benefit the private sector. The reality is that often it is more appropriate for local authorities to run these services so that they are run in the interests of local communities rather than the profits of the private sector.
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman is clearly not of the orange book wing of the Liberal Democrats.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend indicates that perhaps there are not any left. I fundamentally disagree with the point made by the hon. Member for Torbay. It is not about profits for the private sector, although the profit motive is an important element in driving up service standards and ensuring that if a company wants to keep a contract, it has to deliver on it.
Some councils have failed on this front by failing to set the specification of a contract correctly and failing, as the client, to enforce against the contract. That is where we see failure on so many fronts; it has little to do with terms and conditions or the points covered by the clause. Often, an ill-equipped council, be it the members or the officers—I have seen this from both sides—fails to properly specify in the first place, when it goes to market, and then fails to deliver proper contract management. That is where we see gremlins creep into the system and unintended consequences come about.
I gently point out to the hon. Member for Torbay that when I was in local government, we saw many benefits from competitive tendering over multiple iterations of the contract. I can ensure him that in the cabinet portfolios that I held in that local authority, where I was directly overseeing the waste, street cleansing and grounds maintenance contracts, I was pretty tough on those contractors in ensuring that they did drive up standards. But sometimes it is not the right step. The Labour council we took over from had outsourced housing, which we as a Conservative council brought back in house. We ended the arm’s length management organisation to bring it back within direct council control to deliver a better service for the tenants of those properties. So if it is not done properly in the first place, that model does not always work.
The measures in clause 25 are once more a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They do not recognise the practical realities of how competitive tendering has worked, excepting the flaws that I raised about how well contracts are specified and enforced against. If we want to ensure that we are delivering the best possible value for money for taxpayers—the people who pay for public services—at the same time as increasing the standard of services delivered, which I expect is a universal aim that all of us hold, there have to be flexibilities to ensure that efficiencies can be found, and that the fat is taken out of all systems, processes and ways of doing business. If we lock contractors into absolutely having to match every term and condition, with every pay scale being exactly the same, we are never going to deliver that.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I really welcome the clause. Despite the fact that their uniforms, pensions and contracts said “NHS”, staff at a community hospital in my constituency only realised that they had been effectively TUPE-ed over to a private business when they failed to receive the £1,000 bonus that all their colleagues in the main hospitals got. One may say, “How naive of them; they should have read their contracts better,” but most of them had been NHS workers for 25 years, so they were completely unaware that this had happened to them and that they were no longer entitled. I must thank the then contractor, a charity, for lobbying hard to make sure that eventually they got some kind of bonus, but to be suddenly without those conditions was quite frightening for them. So I welcome these measures.
I take some issue with what the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire said. For many years, I served as part of Wiltshire council, which is a Conservative-led council. It was locked into a service contract for maintenance that was poor and used to lower wages, producing a system where we had very little maintenance. Our town councils are now having to pick up the bill for repairing grounds and play areas because the company, although it had the contract and was paid by the local authority, was not carrying out the works. Therefore, I welcome this measure and I am pleased to support it.
Greg Smith
How does the hon. Gentleman feel that the NHS in Wales is doing—better or worse than in England?
Laurence Turner
I would say better, having had some experience. The hon. Gentleman might want to return to that point.
On the substance of the clause, there were some concerns about the original incarnation of the two-tier code. It was purely voluntary and did not contain meaningful provisions for redress where an employer who had signed up to uphold the standards of the code did not follow through. I hope that that deficiency will be remedied when the associated regulations appear.
It is legitimate to have differences on points of principle. After the current Lord Maude abolished the two-tier code, the Secretary of State—now Baron Pickles—said that the Government of the time had
“Abolished the…two-tier code that…hindered the voluntary and independent sector from delivering better value for money.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 166WS.]
The shadow Minister has made much the same point. This was explicitly about driving down wages for the large number of people who are contracted out to deliver public services. I very much welcome the fact that this Government have a policy objective of making work pay. For a large number of people in the labour market who have been overlooked by politicians for too long, the clause represents an important step forward for remedying that deficiency.
Justin Madders
We have had a broad debate—very broad from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, who took us on a canter through the history. He was right that it was the coalition Government who abolished the two-tier code, which is why it is welcome that the Liberal Democrats have realised the error of their ways; I welcome their support on this. Their spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chippenham, made the important point that the inherent unfairness of people doing exactly the same job for the same employer finding out that they are on different terms and conditions and are earning less is a big morale sapper. It is also a big issue in terms of workforce retention—one problem that we often see with outsourced contracts.
I will turn to the shadow Minister’s misty-eyed days at Hammersmith and Fulham, and I will raise him Ellesmere Port and Neston borough council, which was a great believer in direct provision of services; we certainly felt that was the best way to deliver value for the taxpayer and good-quality services. In his contribution, the shadow Minister alighted on the illusion of outsourcing—the fact that consultants can demonstrate that savings can be made, but when you drill into the detail, those savings are always off the back of the workforce. They are not some magical way of doing things differently. It is about cutting terms and conditions and it is about a race to the bottom, which we are determined to end.
Greg Smith
I do understand the ideological difference between the two sides on this point, but I take issue with the Minister that this is about a race to the bottom and cutting terms and conditions; it really is not. From my experience, it was not a matter of consultants, but of properly probing contracts, setting the right specification to deliver for the residents in the place that the council served, and requiring the flexibility to ensure that some people would be doing very different jobs in a different way from before in order to deliver that. It was not about wanting to cut anyone’s pay or terms and conditions; it was about service delivery and value.
Justin Madders
I take the shadow Minister’s point. I am not familiar with the machinations of Hammersmith and Fulham council in the 2010s, and it may well be that savings were made by doing things differently. But there is absolutely no reason why that cannot be done directly from a public body: if it is well led, if it is able to have constructive dialogue with its work force, savings can be made.
The difficulty with the shadow Minister’s analysis is that, while he may have been able to find savings for the taxpayer through those kinds of measures, too often the savings are made by cutting terms and conditions for new workers. That is why, as he said in his original contribution, the second or third outsourcing is usually where the savings happen, because it is when those new workers come in on lower terms and conditions that the savings begin to emerge. That is why the whole outsourcing trick is a con, because it is how those savings tend to be made.
When we add in the contract monitoring costs and the profit motivations for the outsourced company to make a living from these things, we can quickly see why it becomes a bad deal for the taxpayer. I certainly make no apologies for putting forward this proposal, because we think it is the right thing to do, to respect and value those who work in public service and ensure that they are paid the same as their colleagues for doing the same work. I therefore commend—
Sarah Gibson
I beg to move amendment 112, in clause 26, page 38, line 35, at end insert―
“(c) supporting employees with menstrual problems and menstrual disorders.”
This amendment would add menstrual problems and menstrual disorders to “matters related to gender equality”, in relation to any regulations made under the Bill to require employers to produce equality action plans.
I am very pleased to move this amendment. First, as the Bill stands, there are provisions for businesses to report on the impact of menopause on women in the workplace as part of the equalities impact assessments. I think the hon. Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) is right to table this amendment and to remind us all that menstrual problems can hinder women at any point in their working life, not just as they enter menopause. She is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women’s health and an officer on the APPG on endometriosis; I feel confident that she has tabled this amendment with the best intentions. It seems an omission that this issue was not included in the original Bill.
Several constituents have contacted me about endometriosis, and specifically its impact on them at work. Endometriosis costs the UK economy £8 billion a year in treatment, loss of work and healthcare costs, and it takes an average of eight years to get a diagnosis. One in six workers with endometriosis leaves the workforce due to their condition—an issue that the Government and employers cannot afford to ignore. Those people could go back to work and stay in work if there was additional flexibility for them.
As one of my constituents told me—she does not wish to be named for these reasons—many employees with endometriosis find that their employers do not believe them about their symptoms, that their flexible working requests are refused and that they are subject to discriminatory automated absence procedures that penalise short but intermittent time off work. The amendment seeks to address that injustice. I want to be very clear that I support it, and I hope that the rest of the Committee will see its importance.
Greg Smith
I hear very clearly what the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough have said. I do not take issue with anything that has just been said. The endometriosis point is a clear one, and well made. Where I challenge the hon. Member for Chippenham, and indeed the Minister, is that that women’s health issue is not exclusive; there are many health concerns that only women face, and indeed some that only men face. Given that the clause explicitly refers to gender equality, would it not be better, from a pure legislative drafting perspective, to say that gender equality will be the catch-all that encompasses all that?
Is there not a danger that by listing one or two medical concerns, we will lock out other health problems faced exclusively by women, or exclusively by men? Naming one or two things in legislation often creates a problem in the interpretation of the rule. Courts may look back at this debate, or at any other debate on the Bill, and understand that this gender equality provision is intended to be a general catch-all for anything that any man or woman may face. If we name one or two things in legislation, however, it could become dangerous for when a man or a woman presents with something that is not named.
Sarah Gibson
I cannot help agreeing that naming a few conditions in the Bill might well be a concern, and when I first looked at the amendment on its own without looking at where it would fit into the Bill, it did seem slightly incongruous to suddenly mention one aspect. But if we look at where it would be inserted into the Bill, following a direct reference to menopause, it seems far more appropriate to make the point that menopause is not the only ongoing issue that women face. Many women are quite relieved to go into menopause, because it has been so onerous for them to have periods that keep them off work or in bed for several days a month. If we are going to mention menopause, mentioning menstruation makes perfect sense. The amendment makes sense only in the context of the Bill.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification. There is a danger that we will end up dancing on the head of a pin, but I am always concerned about naming individual things in a catch-all provision. If amendment 112 were to be accepted, it might create an interpretive problem for the courts at a later date. Indeed, it might create a problem for employers in navigating whether they have to abide by legislation that mentions one condition but not another.
I would be grateful if the Minister, in his response to the amendment, gave the Government’s interpretation—[Interruption.] With two Ministers on this Bill, it is confusing to work out which one will be responding. I would be grateful if, in her response, the Minister gave clarity on the Government’s interpretation and the legal advice that they have received.
Steve Darling
I beg to move amendment 162, in clause 26, page 38, line 35, at end insert—
“(c) supporting employees who provide or arrange care for a dependant with a long-term care need, as defined by the Carer’s Leave Act 2023.”
This amendment adds caring to the list of “matters related to gender equality”, on which regulations will require employers to produce an equality action plan.
This amendment relates to research showing that by the age of 46, 50% of women have taken on caring responsibilities, whereas the equivalent age for men is 57. Clearly, the impact of caring happens much sooner for women, and that is why it is appropriate to take carers into account under the equality action plan.
There are approximately 10.5 million carers in the United Kingdom, 2.6 million of whom work. That shows that a significant number of carers do not work. In an earlier debate I made the point about the pool of workers for whom there are opportunities in our workforce yet who are not able to access longer-term employment. I strongly contend that the amendment is a way to enhance the pool of opportunity by driving the culture change that I was delighted to hear the Minister say a lot of the Bill is all about.
Carers will often stay in lower-paid jobs or refuse promotion because of caring commitments. It is extremely important to include caring as part of the consideration and clearly flag that to people who consider the action plans, because it is not an obvious matter for an employer to take into consideration, but it affects such a large number of people in the United Kingdom that it would be an error in judgment not to include it in the Bill.
Greg Smith
I rise to address the technicalities of how the amendment would work in legislation and with the Bill’s gender equality provisions. I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about the disparity between the average age by which a woman might take on caring responsibilities compared with the average for a man, but those are averages and there will be outliers and exceptions across all age ranges and all genders.
I say clearly that the Opposition welcome the contribution of all carers and salute them as the heroes they are, but I am concerned that the amendment would shoehorn a very worthy and important matter into a provision on gender equality. I do not see how it fully fits; it would have been more sensible to have created provisions for the support and recognition of those with caring responsibilities in a new clause or in another part of the Bill. I worry that, like amendment 112, amendment 162 could confuse the Bill’s interpretation as it goes down the line and, potentially, is challenged in court at some point.
I accept the core argument about support for those with caring responsibilities, but it is dangerous to shoehorn provisions into clauses where that is not the primary intent. It is important that the gender equality points remain focused on gender equality issues, on which I think the Government have good intent. If the Bill gets changed too much by us bringing in things that—although clearly in scope, given that they have been selected—are on the edge of scope, that could cause an interpretative challenge later. Provisions on support for those with caring responsibilities would be far better in a new clause or a different part of the Bill, where they might fit more neatly and enable us to avoid judicial challenge.
Dame Nia Griffith
The clause is the first step towards introducing equality action plans, and it provides the power to do so in subsequent regulations. Women are a crucial part of securing economic growth and improving productivity, but the national gender pay gap remains at 13.1% and eight in 10 menopausal women say that their workplace has no basic support in place. This lack of support adds up to a significant loss of talent and skills. Menopause affects 51% of the population, with one external estimate showing that the UK is losing about 14 million work days every year because of menopause symptoms.
Large employers have been obliged to publish gender pay gap data since 2017, with action plans being encouraged, but voluntary. Analysis in 2019 found that only around half of employers that reported data went on to voluntarily produce a plan saying how they would act to improve the figures. That demonstrates that only making it mandatory will push employers to act. The best employers already recognise that providing women with the conditions to thrive is good for their employees and good for business. In taking this step towards introducing mandatory action plans, we are making sure that all large employers in scope of this clause follow their lead.
We are using a delegated power, mirroring the approach taken for gender pay gap reporting. Just as with that requirement, we want to give employers as much detail as possible in legislation—more than would commonly be in a Bill. The use of regulations allows us to do that while maintaining flexibility. When drafting this power, we reflected on what we have learned from gender pay gap reporting and from the hundreds of employers we have engaged with as a result. Most organisations think about equality in the round. They have one diversity and inclusion strategy, recognising what is borne out by the evidence: the most effective employer actions have benefits for more than one group or identity. That is why this clause proposes that employers produce one plan that covers both the gender pay gap and the menopause, reflecting the way they already work, reducing the burden of duplication and ensuring that they can get on with putting the plan into action. I commend clause 26 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
We covered many of the issues relating to this clause when we discussed amendments 112 and 162. I am grateful to the Minister for citing the 2017 changes, which were brought about by the previous Conservative Government. It is morally right to completely close the gender pay gap. That will undoubtedly take some time, but every step taken to close it completely is a welcome one. It is important to make sure that employers are taking proper and serious account of the issue and action on ensuring gender equality in the workplace.
Dame Nia Griffith
This clause is the first step towards requiring employers that already report gender pay gap data also to provide information about where they receive outsourced support from.
A 2019 YouGov survey found that seven out of 10 employer respondents had used third parties to provide key services. We know that the success of a business is down to everyone who contributes, including those who do some of the most demanding jobs but whose pay may be overlooked because they are employed by outsourced service organisations.
By getting large employers to disclose who they have outsourcing relationships with, we are building on what we have learned from gender pay gap reporting. Public accountability is an effective motivator for organisations. Instead of trying to get organisations to share employee data, which risks data relating to outsourced workers getting lost in the wider data, our approach will put those outsourcing relationships front and centre. That will act as a prompt for employers, and so achieve our original aim: getting employers to work throughout their networks and be invested in the pay decisions of those from whom they receive outsourced services.
We are taking a delegated power, mirroring the approach taken for gender pay gap reporting. That will enable us to provide as much detail as possible to employers in legislation, including the definitions and parameters of what will need to be reported. We recognise that outsourcing is not clearly defined and that we will need to work with employers to ensure that the measure works. The use of regulations will allow us to engage on an ongoing basis with experts in the area, provide as much clarity as possible in legislation and still maintain flexibility.
This measure is a step towards valuing and supporting some of the lowest-paid workers; it is a step towards businesses working together, rather than engaging in a race to the bottom; and it is a step in the right direction. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
The clause builds on the gender pay gap reporting introduced by the last Government. Of course, in 2017 we were on the second of four female Conservative leaders, while the Labour party is still yet to show its commitment to gender equality in its leadership. Perhaps the Minister might be the first female leader of the Labour party—who knows? I gently and slightly naughtily make that point; it is the Conservative party that has shown a clear commitment to gender equality, particularly with the changes to gender pay gap reporting.
Expanding reporting to outsourced service providers does not seem a controversial move, but I urge the Minister to ensure that the provisions that the Government introduce do not create loopholes or miss anyone out; I can imagine various scenarios in which someone might argue that something is not outsourced, even though it is contracted. I urge her to double check that the specific language used does not create something that anyone can exploit or legally challenge. That is to ensure that the provisions build in spirit on the previous Government’s 2017 changes and do not create loopholes.
Laurence Turner
I will pick up the point just made about the changes made in 2017. Some of the opposition at that time came from the august institution of the Institute of Economic Affairs, which said that, if the regulations were introduced,
“they may encourage outsourcing of lower-paid jobs which happen to be taken by women (to avoid inclusion in a firm’s own return).”
That point has also been made by other organisations. King’s College London published a study on this matter three years ago, which said that
“focusing on the pay gap headline number can risk organisations seeking to window-dress their figures by outsourcing lower-paid jobs, which in turn worsens overall gender segregation within the labour market.”
Therefore, this extension of gender pay gap reporting to outsourced workers really does close that loophole and remove that perverse incentive—one example of many that we have heard about in this Committee.
We also heard from the Women’s Budget Group; Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, giving evidence, said:
“We welcome the move to include outsourced workers in gender pay gap reporting…We are very conscious that you will quite often see that the lowest paid workers, particularly in the public sector, are now outsourced.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 163, Q176.]
The measures as proposed would effectively link the outsourced employer’s reporting to the reporting of the primary contracting authority. I hope that, when the regulations are drafted, they will shed some light on the extent of outsourcing across the economy; these workers are often invisible in official statistics, which is a wider problem for our understanding of the labour market. However, this move within the Bill is welcome.
I will just come back on one point; the shadow Minister referred to elected leaders of the Labour party. He is quite right to point out that the Labour party has not elected a woman leader—I very much hope that that will happen—but, for completeness, under the Labour party rulebook there is no role of “acting” or “interim” leader. It is therefore important to say, for the record, that in the eyes of the rulebook the noble Baronesses Beckett and Harman were as much leaders of the Labour party as any men who have fulfilled that role, and they served with distinction.
Justin Madders
Clause 28 introduces schedule 3, which inserts proposed new part 8A into the Education Act 2002. Paragraph 1 of schedule 3 contains proposed new sections 148A to 148R of the 2002 Act and will be discussed separately.
The reinstatement of the school support staff negotiating body will give school support staff the recognition they deserve for the crucial role they play in children’s education and development. Establishing the SSSNB through the Bill will help ensure that schools can recruit and retain the staff needed to deliver high-quality, inclusive education and support the Government’s work to drive high and rising standards in schools, so every child has the best life chances.
The body will bring together representatives of school support staff employers, representatives of support staff, an independent chairperson and a representative of the Secretary of State. The SSSNB will consider the remuneration, terms and conditions of employment, training and career progression opportunities for school support staff. Its remit will lead to the creation of a national terms and conditions handbook, fair pay rates and clearer training and career progression routes for school support staff in England.
Most school support staff are currently employed on National Joint Council for local government services pay and conditions. The NJC is a negotiating body made up of representatives from trade unions and local government employers. Existing NJC arrangements are not statutory or school specific. Moving to a school-specific body where pay rates and pay awards for support staff are negotiated by school support staff employer and employee representatives and ratified by the Secretary of State will both help to ensure fair pay rates for school support staff and allow central Government to have a strategic view of pay across the school workforce.
It is essential for the SSSNB to have a statutory remit so that all prospective and current support staff in state schools nationally benefit from a transparent, guaranteed core pay and conditions offer. The Bill re-establishes the SSSNB as an unincorporated body on a similar footing to the previous body from 2009 that was abolished by the coalition Government in 2010.
As education is a devolved matter, the extent of these measures is therefore England and Wales and the measures will apply to England only. This is consistent and in line with the remit of the School Teachers Review Body being England only.
The 2009 SSSNB included only those support staff employed by local authorities and governing bodies to work in maintained schools within its scope. Roughly half of schools are now academies, compared with around 200 in 2009 when the body was previously established. Support staff employed by academy trusts are now included within the SSSNB’s remit. It is crucial that the body has a remit for all state-funded schools in England in order to achieve greater national consistency, irrespective of which type of school support staff work in. That is a point that we may come on to debate in due course.
Greg Smith
The Opposition have tabled a number of amendments that probe what is introduced by clause 28 and schedule 3, which we will come on to in subsequent debates today. I will reserve the bulk of my remarks for those debates, although, as clause 28 introduces schedule 3, I will preview those debates now by noting our strong opposition to these provisions. There was a very good, solid and rational reason that the former Secretary of State for Education during the coalition years—now editor of His Majesty’s Spectator magazine—abolished SSSNBs, which was to give that flexibility and freedom to the quite right and good, educational standards-raising revolution in education that came through the creation of the academies by the last Labour Government and in particular the creation of free schools by the last Conservative Government, including in the coalition years. Clause 28 and schedule 3, which we will come on to shortly, seek to undo a lot of that. For the reasons I will outline when speaking on those amendments, I think this part of the Bill requires a rethink.
Dr Tidball
I draw your attention to my declaration of interests, Mr Mundell. I am a member of the Community union, Unison and GMB.
I found it difficult to hear, in anything the shadow Minister just said, any rationale for getting rid of this body all those years ago. I missed three years of school as a child because of the surgeries I needed. Incredible classroom teaching assistants helped me to build my confidence and learn to mix with other children again when I returned—making education and learning an escape, a way to express myself, to overcome people’s assumptions about my disability and to feel free.
I stood in my constituency because I wanted to use my skills and experiences to give back to the communities that gave me so much. To know that, because of this Bill and the clause before us now, teaching assistants and other school support staff like the ones who made school a less daunting place for me will once again have a collective bargaining system for pay and conditions—which will ensure that those staff are finally valued and recognised for their vital work—is a very great privilege indeed.
The reinstatement of the school support staff negotiating body in England, previously scrapped by the coalition Government for reasons that still remain unclear, will be key to providing professional recognition for a group of staff who have been overlooked for far too long. As Unison, of which I am proudly a member, has highlighted, the proposals in this clause
“demonstrate that the Employment Rights Bill isn’t just tackling worker’s rights—it holds the key to tackling long standing public policy failures that have been ignored because they affect workers and service users whose voices are too often neglected by decision makers. Tackling this neglect and allowing trade unions to engage in constructive social partnership and better represent their members is long overdue”.
This clause therefore empowers that group of working people, who have been so long overlooked by the Government, to have a better life at work. It will help trade unions to raise standards and pay across the labour market.
Laurence Turner
That was quite a generous amount of time for an intervention. The hon. Member may wish to go back to the record, because the point I made was that the experiment over pay and terms and conditions has failed. The challenge to the Opposition was: do they recognise that there is a serious problem with school support staff remuneration and contracts? If they do, what are their proposals to fix it? I would be willing to take a second intervention on that point.
Greg Smith
Much as the hon. Member for Chippenham said, this is about political choices. If this new Labour Government, six months in, wish to make a political choice to fund schools to pay support staff more, why do they not make that political choice and make that money available? We all want people to earn more, to get more in their pay packet and to be richer.
Laurence Turner
I think we have it there: the Opposition do not see this as a political priority. They chose not to take steps or to put forward meaningful proposals to raise the employment standards of school support staff. My challenge was: do they have any proposals for this group of workers, particularly in light of the Low Pay Commission decision? We have not heard an answer.
Greg Smith
I am glad the festive spirit is alive and well, but I remind the hon. Gentleman—there is no sugar coating it for Opposition Members—that the Labour party had a thumping victory in July. There is no general election on the horizon, and there is little chance of any change of Government before 2029, so it is on the Labour party to make political choices for the next four and a half years. Will the hon. Gentleman do that, or is he just going to deflect back to the Opposition?
Laurence Turner
I doubt I am going to do it personally; as with all these things, it is a collective endeavour. The hon. Member asked whether the Government are going to do this, but they are doing this—it is in the Bill. I ask again: what is the Opposition’s alternative? We are yet to hear it.
It is worth reflecting on the nature of these review bodies—not that this is a pay review body; it is a negotiation body—and the way in which we establish new agreements, because these things do not happen quickly. I think that the establishment of “Agenda for Change” in the NHS took seven years from initiation to completion. That exercise took a long time, but I do not think anyone would seriously argue for going back to the plethora of terms and conditions, and the mismatch between different grades of workers, that existed before, which created serious equal pay liabilities. That is the situation that we inherit in respect of school support staff.
These things do take time. If the shadow Minister goes back to the record of the original school support staff negotiating body—from 2009 to 2010—the progress made in that relatively short time was not on establishing the new pay system, but on drawing up model role profiles and moving towards a national handbook for terms and conditions. Those measures would be hugely welcome today. In fact, the Conservative Government acknowledged that some the school support staff negotiating body had done some important work during that time. They were on record as saying that there was a clear case for carrying forward some of it, but that never happened, and we have been left with an absence in that area of policy for almost 15 years. The changes to pay will be hugely welcome when they come. It will be a negotiation, so the outcomes will be a matter for the parties represented on the negotiating body, including the Department for Education.
We must go back to the problem: schools are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain skilled school support staff. A number of private sector employers, including supermarkets, are increasingly offering term-time only contracts, with the intention of attracting people out of schools and into alternative roles. Freedom of information requests show that, where data is held, teaching assistant vacancy rates run at around 10%. That is having a real impact on the ability of schools to deliver inclusive education, which is a shame.
Employment Rights Bill (Fourteenth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Greg Smith
Main Page: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)Department Debates - View all Greg Smith's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsTuesday 17th December 2024
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 December 2024 - (17 Dec 2024)
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 168, in schedule 3, page 115, leave out from the beginning of line 15 to the end of line 31 and insert—
“(1) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(b) of section 148C, matters within the SSSNB’s remit are limited to the establishment of a framework to which employers of school support staff must have regard when discharging their functions.
(2) A framework under subsection (1) must include information on—
(a) the remuneration of school support staff;
(b) the terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;
(c) the training of school support staff;
(d) career progression for school support staff; and
(e) related matters.
(3) When taking any action related to the matters in subsection (2), an employer may disregard the framework only in exceptional circumstances.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the definition of ‘exceptional circumstances’ shall be set out in regulations.
(5) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(a) of section 148C, the matters within the SSSNB’s remit are matters relating to the following—
(a) the remuneration of school support staff;
(b) terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;
(c) the training of school support staff;
(d) career progression for school support staff.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, for the purposes of subsection 5—
(a) a payment or entitlement of a prescribed kind is, or is not, to be treated as remuneration;
(b) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;
(c) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to the training of school support staff;
(d) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to 30 career progression for school support staff.”
This amendment would change the matters within the SSSNB’s remit in relation to academy staff, limiting it to the creation of a framework to which academy employers must have regard in all but exceptional circumstances.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, at the Committee’s last sitting before Christmas—let us make it a memorable one. [Laughter.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
They are all memorable.
Greg Smith
Some are definitely more memorable than others.
Amendment 168, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches, would change the matters that are within the remit of the school support staff negotiating body in relation to academy staff, limiting it to the creation of a framework to which academy employers must have regard in all but “exceptional circumstances”. I am sure that Government Members will agree to a moderate amendment in the spirit of what they seek to do.
As I said in the debate on clause 28, which introduces schedule 3, in 2010 the then Conservative Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, rightly abolished the school support staff negotiating body. The Conservative Government had a clear and principled reason for that: employers should have the flexibility to set pay and conditions locally, rather than having a top-down, centralised framework imposed on them. Instead of giving employers the flexibility to do what works best for them, this Government are establishing a national terms and conditions handbook on training, career progression routes and fair pay rates for school support staff.
These things can sometimes get taken out of context, so I want to be clear: we are not advocating for a race to the bottom on pay and conditions for school support staff, but we believe that the current arrangements are working well and have allowed for innovation that is beneficial for pupils—real children up and down the land receiving their education. Our worries about the re-establishment of the school support staff negotiating body are principally that we believe that school employers must retain a degree of freedom and flexibility to recruit, develop, remunerate and deploy their staff for the benefit of the children in their community—their setting—to achieve their particular aims from a school improvement and inclusion perspective.
Children with special educational needs and disabilities rely on schools’ ability to deploy staff to meet their individual needs, and stifling innovation in staffing to meet those needs would be the greatest barrier to reforming the SEND system. In particular, ensuring that mainstream provision can meet the needs of SEND children requires, in its very essence, an innovative use of support staff resource.
As I have said in previous debates, I salute all support staff, whether they support children with SEND or other- wise. They are great assets to every school who do an enormous amount of good work for every child they work with on a daily basis—I am thinking of the example given earlier by the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield, and the way in which they interact with and support my own children in their schools in Buckinghamshire. They are hugely important, but this is about ensuring local decision making, local flexibility and the local ability to shape what is right for children’s education, development and future life prospects.
For those reasons, we believe that the statist approach created by the Bill is fundamentally misguided, and that children, particularly those with additional needs, could be worse off because of it. All school employers operate in a competitive market to attract and retain staff. I accept that in the education world it is currently particularly difficult to recruit teachers and support staff—there is no doubt that that has been a challenge for a considerable number of years—but, particularly in relation to support staff, schools compete with other local establishments, including in the private sector, and employers in local markets. Incentives to attract and retain staff are needed.
Our concerns with the re-establishment of the school support staff negotiating body do not end there. Academy trusts sign a funding agreement with the Secretary of State that gives them certain freedoms, among which is the ability to set pay and conditions for staff. What the Government are trying to do with the Bill is therefore to unpick a clear, established and positive freedom that academy trusts have. To take that away from them would be a retrograde step. The Bill explicitly overrides that contract. As for school support staff, it states:
“Where the person is employed by the proprietor of an Academy, any provision of the Academy arrangements relating to the Academy has no effect to the extent that it makes provision that is prohibited by, or is otherwise inconsistent with, the agreement.”
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition worry that this is just the start of the Government’s longer-term mission to unwind academy freedoms, and that it shows that they fail to understand how to support educational excellence.
The data on key stage 4 performance recently released by the Department for Education shows that academies and free schools tend to perform better than other types of school. We therefore believe that it would be counterproductive to unwind one of the key tenets that has led them to where they are today. There is always room for improvement, but when things are travelling in the right direction it is foolish to put barriers up. Our amendment would change the SSSNB’s remit so as to create a framework that academies must have regard to but are not compelled to follow. That seems a reasonable compromise, and I ask the Government to consider it carefully.
In this context—we are all creatures of our own experience—I think particularly of examples from my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire and the county of Buckinghamshire more widely. I think I brought up this example in relation to other sectors in earlier Committee sittings. Because the county of Buckinghamshire borders London boroughs, rigid pay scales make recruitment an even greater challenge, because of the London weighting issue. Many teaching assistants, school support staff and, frankly, staff in any sector—we will come to adult social care later in the Bill, and care workers are equally affected—who live in Buckinghamshire and perhaps want to work there feel compelled to go and get the extra money that the London weighting would bring by applying for a job in, say, the London boroughs of Hillingdon or Harrow. Nobody can blame them for doing that, but it creates a recruitment challenge for Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Essex, Kent, Surrey and other London-bordering counties.
The amendment seeks to correct for what the Government are trying to do with schedule 3, and so to maintain the freedom that allows academies in Buckinghamshire and those other counties to dynamically adapt their pay and offering for school support staff and counter those challenges. It would mean that schools in Buckinghamshire that want to employ people who want to work in Buckinghamshire can get them on board, rather than there being a false incentive that forces people to take jobs in one of the London boroughs and secure the London weighting that goes with them. That is one practical example of why I believe that academies, and free schools for that matter, should have that core freedom and flexibility to get it right for their children.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz.
I think I am correct in saying that Buckinghamshire is one area that has opted out of the National Joint Council, so I recognise that the shadow Minister brings a particular perspective to the debate, but the final line of the amendment states that
“a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to 30 career progression”.
I assume that is just a typographical error, but it would be good to have that point clarified.
More widely, I do not think the amendment is necessary. In some ways, it is quite loosely worded. It seeks to put in the Bill a reference to a framework, but a framework is not defined and that would not be clarified through later regulations. Therefore, I am not sure that the wording before us would necessarily resolve the Opposition’s aim, and the meaning of “framework” is probably not something that we would want to have out in the courts.
On the wider issues, the shadow Minister said that the proposals in the Bill would overwrite the funding agreements, but part of those agreements is a requirement for academy employers to have regard to the academies handbook, which is altered as part of the normal course of public policy, so such variations are not especially new. As I say, I do not think that what is in front of us would achieve the Opposition’s aim. The reinstatement of the school support staff negotiating body was a manifesto commitment. It would be problematic to say that a manifesto commitment could not be implemented because funding agreements were already in place. It is quite proper for the Government of the day to pursue their public policy objectives in this manner.
I would like to correct the record. In the morning sitting I said that freedom of information requests had established that, where data was held, the vacancy rate for teaching assistants was 10%. The actual figure is 18%. I just wanted to put that higher number on the record.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Vaz. I share the passion of the hon. Member for West Suffolk for education—as I stated earlier, both my parents became headteachers before retirement—so I appreciate that he is very concerned about the state of education in our country. However, I am very concerned that this amendment is in danger of creating a slightly two-tiered system between maintained schools and academies, whereby maintained schools would have a certain level of protection for their staff that would not be there in academies.
If this change is so important for the academies, my question to the hon. Members for Mid Buckinghamshire and for West Suffolk would be that, if this is good for academies, surely it is good for maintained schools? In that case, why are we not arguing that this whole Bill should be changed, and that this whole clause should be taken out and the change therefore applied to all schools?
I am also concerned about the separation of requirements for one school and not for the other.
Greg Smith
Does the point the hon. Lady is trying to argue go to the very reason for having different types of school in the system? Academies were set up by the last Labour Government for a reason, which was to have additional freedoms such as those the amendment defends. Free schools were set up by the coalition Government, of which the Liberal Democrats were part, to have a different set of freedoms—in that sense, parental and governing body freedoms that are over and above everyone else. If we were to make all schools the same, surely that is an argument for one style of school alone.
Sarah Gibson
I appreciate the clarification. The point of free schools and academies was to have a diversity of education. A diversity of employment rights, which is what we are discussing, is a different element. If we end up with a situation where I, as a member of support staff, am looking at two jobs in my region, and one is with a maintained school and one is with an academy, and there is protection for one, I can only see that as detrimental to our academies. I am unable to support a provision that separates those two types of school.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way once more. She is presuming that the academy would be offering a lower rate, but in fact, it might be the case that, in order to attract staff, the academy offers something much higher.
Sarah Gibson
I appreciate the point, and the shadow Minister is quite right: I was assuming that without support there might be such a situation. However, that does not detract from the fact that in most situations, having a body that someone can go to that is independent from their employer has to be a supporting situation. Nobody would go to that body for support if they were being paid above the average in their area.
Greg Smith
I listened very carefully to what the Minister and the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield said about amendment 168. I was open to dialogue on it to see if we can make it stronger and improved. Its proposed new subsection (2) sets out all the information we would expect to see in such a framework. There are five parts including the remuneration of school support staff; the terms and conditions of employment of school support staff; the training of school support staff; career progression for school support staff; and—the lovely catch-all phrase that drafters love to put in—all related matters. I would say that it is pretty clear what we have laid out.
To get to the nub of the argument, this is not about some sort of race to the bottom. It is not about, as the Minister asserted, arguing for low pay. That is not what we are doing at all. This is a point of principle about support for the academy system, which was brought in by a former Labour Government, and support for free schools, which was brought in by a coalition of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The three main parties in this House on that basis are broadly aligned, unless anyone has radically changed their mind—perhaps they have, and 2015 probably did focus some minds.
This is a point of principle of diversity in the education system, and central to the diversification of offer is that those establishments, in this case academies, have the freedoms to decide things themselves, locally. In this case, it is on pay and terms and conditions but, wary of the fact that I do not want to go out of scope, it can be on other things as well. To take that away would be the retrograde step that I spoke about. It would undermine academies, and it would undermine the very point of having choice and the diversity of offer in the education system for parents.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister is talking about choice, but the Bill does not remove any academies from the current system. Will he confirm that?
Greg Smith
No, of course it does not remove academies from the system, but it does take away a freedom and power that all those wonderful academies, many in my own constituency and I am sure some in the Minister’s, currently enjoy to be able to set their educational offer, including the power of who they recruit and on what basis they recruit them. I come back to the point I made when I intervened on the hon. Member for Chippenham; if we are going to just make everything the same again, there needs to be an honesty about actually advocating that from the Government, from the Liberal Democrats or from whoever it might be. I value and welcome the choice that we have in our education system, and this is one of those freedoms that makes that choice possible.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sarah Gibson
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of diversity of education. One of the things that academies and free schools have done very well is cater for children with learning difficulties, whether they are dyslexic or autistic, or doing all the other things that probably many of us in this room have benefited from. However, basic rights as an employee of an institution and the right to protection and a body to go to if somebody feels that they are being unfairly treated have little to do with diversity of education. I cannot help feeling that we are conflating the two issues of employment rights and educational standards, which do not necessarily go hand in hand. Paying staff well does not stop an institution having a diverse and fantastic form of education.
Greg Smith
I think the hon. Lady has potentially misinterpreted my remarks. I am not directly conflating the pay of staff with the educational outcome: I am saying that there are academies that may well be able to structure their own affairs in the way they recruit, pay and set terms and conditions so that that is actually more favourable. That is one of those fundamental freedoms that make academies—and free schools, for that matter—different and able to offer the diversity that we both seem to celebrate, particularly in supporting those children who need additional support to whatever degree in that setting. Someone else was waving at me a minute ago.
Michael Wheeler
I am more than happy to wave in a friendly manner in this festive sitting. As usual, I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests of my membership of the GMB and USDAW. We have heard the phrase “academy freedoms”, with a lot of emphasis put on freedoms. We have also heard the Minister confirm that diversity is not being lost in terms of educational choice. We have heard that teaching assistants, according to the Low Pay Commission, have unfortunately been defined as low-paid workers. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the only “freedom” —I use inverted commas there, for the sake of the record—being lost is the ability of academies and free schools to pay poorly?
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I caution him against this presumption that those academies want to pay poorly, somehow mistreat their staff or set pay rates so low that most of us would think that it was an absurdity. I am not sure that they do; I am not sure that anybody wants to pay their staff as low as they can get away with. Those academies often advertise and appeal for staff, be they teaching assistants, teachers, ancillary staff or whoever, in a manner that actually makes them more attractive than the other offerings. That is part of the freedom to set up the school in the way that they wish and to ultimately deliver the best possible outcome for the children they are teaching and preparing for their future lives.
I come back to the point that if we start stripping away the freedoms and rights of those establishments to have local control, in this case around employment, I do not see any other natural conclusion than trying to bring our entire educational establishment back into being one single style of education. There may be some on the left—I say “the left” broadly; I am not just looking at the Labour party—who would welcome going back to simply having the secondary modern or whatever it might be. To be fair to her, the hon. Member for Chippenham agreed with me on the point of diversity and choice in education. It is a huge strength and a benefit to all children in this country that we have that level of different offering and choice in our educational establishment, and it has made our country fundamentally better. For total fairness, I repeat the fact that it was the last Labour Government who introduced academies.
Nick Timothy
I reassure my hon. Friend that the danger he is talking about is not just hypothetical. Special advisers in the Department for Education have briefed the newspapers, calling free schools a “Tory vanity project”. I find that absolutely appalling, as somebody who believes—
Nick Timothy
Yes, and free schools have the academy freedoms that we are talking about undermining with this and other legislation. I just wanted to draw that example to my hon. Friend’s attention.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is always reassuring. He raised an important point. Given that, as he highlighted, free schools enjoy the same freedoms —they are specifically referred to in amendment 168—as academies, I am worried that the Government’s attitude to free schools indicates that they are rowing back on support for them.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister keeps referring to freedoms, but does he accept that the only freedom that would be given to academies by virtue of this amendment would be the freedom to pay their staff—I am not saying that they would—lower than the national terms and conditions?
Greg Smith
I come back to this point of principle: either we have autonomous bodies that can make their own decisions or we do not. If the Government’s answer is that we do not, I certainly understand why they do not want this amendment, but I do not understand why they persist with their support for that which they created in the first place—the academisation of so many schools—and resist making the more straightforward argument for a one-size-fits-all education policy. I hope they do not adopt such a policy, because of the progress that the Labour party made through academisation in the first place. However, that is the natural conclusion of what the Minister is saying.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I refer to my membership of the Community and GMB unions. In the break, the shadow Minister challenged me, saying that I had been very quiet this morning—I was feeling festive, but perhaps I am feeling less festive now. Let us take the analogy about choice that he is trying to set out and put it in a slightly different context. Private limited companies are often seen as the drivers of growth, and we have heard lots about that from the Opposition. Those companies have lots of freedoms to make decisions and to invest where they want, but they are all subject to the national minimum wage. Is the shadow Minister suggesting that a national set of terms and conditions will remove academies’ freedom to make entrepreneurial decisions? I am interested to hear whether the Conservative party’s position is now that the national minimum wage should also be abolished.
Greg Smith
No. I did challenge the hon. Gentleman on his quietness in the morning sitting, and he has not disappointed this afternoon, but of course that is not the position of the official Opposition. The last Labour Government brought in the national minimum wage, but the last Conservative Government brought in the national living wage. We are absolutely committed to that, but it is a rule that applies equally and evenly across every sector in the economy. In schedule 3 and amendment 168, we are talking about a specific carve-out of an existing position for one specific sector.
Justin Madders
Amendments 66 and 67, and 69 to 71, make minor drafting corrections to the clauses to remove the word “education” when referring to local authorities. This is necessary because of an error in terminology used in the Bill on introduction.
I will also speak to amendment 68. We know that academy trusts use a range of innovative practices to support staff in a range of roles. The sector and the workforce have evolved since the previous negotiating body for school support staff existed in 2009. That is why we intend to consult on the definition of support staff in scope and appropriate protections for staff in transitioning to the new arrangements. The consultation may bring to our attention staff in academy trusts who are not captured by the existing definition of support staff, working wholly at one or more academies, but who we think should be. Having the ability to broaden the scope, as well as to exclude staff types in secondary legislation, would give us more flexibility to respond to the consultation.
Greg Smith
As the Minister said, amendment 68 extends the definition of school support staff in the Bill to include people who do not work in an academy, but who are employed by the proprietor of an academy to carry out particular kinds of work, to be specified in regulations—it is our old friend, waiting for future regulations to be laid before the House—for the purposes of one or more academies. The other amendments in this grouping are minor drafting corrections, and we accept that. I merely want to put on record once more that had this Bill not been so rushed to meet the arbitrary political 100-day deadline, we might not be in this place, and we might have had greater clarity from the get-go. We accept, however, that these are fundamentally minor amendments that really should have been included at introduction.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister’s comments are noted, and I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Amendment 65 agreed to.
Amendments made: 66, in schedule 3, page 116, line 8, leave out “education”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 65.
Amendment 67, in schedule 3, page 116, line 10, leave out “education”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 65.
Amendment 68, in schedule 3, page 116, line 13, leave out from “employment” to end of line 14 and insert “which—
(i) provides for the person to work wholly at one or more Academies, or
(ii) provides for the person to carry out work of a prescribed description for the purposes of one or more Academies.”
This amendment extends the definition of “school support staff” in new Part 8A of the Education Act 2002 to include people who do not work at an Academy but are employed by the proprietor of an Academy to carry out particular kinds of work (to be specified in regulations) for the purposes of one or more Academies.
Amendment 69, in schedule 3, page 123, line 31, leave out “education”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 65.
Amendment 70, in schedule 3, page 123, line 33, leave out “education”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 65.
Amendment 71, in schedule 3, page 124, line 13, leave out “education”.—(Justin Madders.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 65.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 123, in schedule 3, page 124, line 39, at end insert—
“(2A) Before making or revising arrangements under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an impact assessment of the costs on the education sector of any proposed arrangements.”
This amendment makes a requirement from the Secretary of State to undertake an impact assessment of the costs on the education sector before making or changing arrangements related to the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 124, in schedule 3, page 126, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) The report must include an assessment of the increased costs to the education sector of any pay and conditions agreements made in that reporting year.”
This amendment requires the annual reports of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body to include the cost of pay and conditions agreements.
Greg Smith
Amendment 123 requires the Secretary of State to undertake an impact assessment of the costs to the education sector before making or changing arrangements related to the school support staff negotiating body. I have already spoken, probably at greater length than anybody particularly wished me to, about our reservations over the re-establishment of the body—in particular the way that it will override the traditional academy freedoms that seem to trigger Government Members so much.
I am interested in what assessment the Secretary of State has undertaken about the current arrangements for pay and conditions for support staff, and in whether the Minister can provide concrete evidence about the shortcomings and how those would be rectified by re-establishing the school support staff negotiating body. In other words, is the policy driven by evidence or by ideology? The amendment asks for the Secretary of State to come clean about the costs of the proposed arrangements, not just to the schools budget but to pupils in schools.
We had some back-and-forth earlier about how, if they are to work, the changes made by the Bill need to marry up with the real-life pay settlements and budgets made available by the Treasury. Otherwise, the net result will be that schools will have to obey the rules as set out in the Bill without getting any additional money to pay for doing so. Who will suffer if the school is asked to do that? It will be the children and pupils, because of the number of textbooks, laptops, iPads or interactive screens and boards—all the things that are used in education—that the school can buy.
Laurence Turner
I am trying to understand what the shadow Minister means by cost to the education sector. Does he mean the running cost of the body itself or the cost of an agreement? If he means the latter, how could that possibly be accounted for when, as we have heard, any new pay scale is likely to be some years away and would be subject to negotiation?
Greg Smith
The answer is, of course, both. There will be a cost to the body and a cost to the individual education establishments—the academies, free schools and so on—that still fundamentally rely on a funding settlement. One pot of money can only go so far. I accept that the body itself will be separately funded, but the pay awards that individual schools would have to make will not. If schools are being asked to swallow the cost, they will have to find it within their budgets.
I am sure that I am not alone in having visited schools—other hon. and right hon. Members will have done so in their own constituencies—where headteachers say that they have to have this debate when setting their budget every year. Over the decades, Governments of all political persuasions have given them things to deliver and rules to follow but only one pot of money, so something has to give. If they are to follow the rules, the ones who suffer are children, through the equipment and books that the school is able to purchase.
The amendment is a reasonable one. It requires one of those impact assessments, so that we can all be absolutely clear. When we vote, in whichever way, on this Bill as it passes through Committee, Report and Third Reading, as well as ping-pong with the other place, we can be really clear about what these provisions mean on the ground for real schools and real children going through their education. As I think we all accept, that is so important to their future lives.
Amendment 124 requires the annual reports of the school support staff negotiating body to include the cost of pay and conditions agreements. We believe it is important that there is transparency over the additional costs and burdens that this new body will impose on school employers. What might those costs be? Will the Department for Education appropriately compensate school employers for them? I will not repeat the arguments that I made on amendment 123, but the point is fundamentally the same. The amendments are designed to probe the Government properly on what the measure will mean in the real world.
Laurence Turner
I want to come back on some of the points that the shadow Minister raised. I appreciate his clarification about exactly what information the Opposition are trying to tease out with amendment 124. I hope he does not mind me saying that the cost of any future settlement agreement is speculative in nature. We heard from the Minister earlier that part of the remit that Ministers will give the body will be about affordability and the funding available at the time. It will probably be several years in the future when that new pay scale comes into force, albeit that there is some good work that the SSSNB could be getting on with in the interim that would have very low costs for the sector.
We have some information about how much the body itself would cost. An answer to a written parliamentary question in 2011 put the estimated cost saving of abolishing the SSSNB at £1.4 million over the spending review period. That was about £350,000 a year. In today’s prices, we are looking at close to half a million. That is a very small fraction of a percentage of the Department’s budget, and it is probably an overestimate given that civil service wages have not kept pace with inflation over that time. The former education spokesperson for the Labour party, Andy Burnham, who was involved in the setting up of the original SSSNB, described it as a “low-cost panel”. That is exactly what we are talking about here. I hope that that provides some reassurance that amendment 124 is not necessary.
The SSSNB produced annual reports, which were published by the Government in the normal way. The Department for Education tracks the costs of school support staff pay increases. That information is made available, including to sector representatives, through the schools and academies funding group. I hear what the shadow Minister says, but I do not think these amendments are necessary because the information is unknowable or already available, or it will be made available in the normal course of business.
Greg Smith
I cannot remember a single time in the last Parliament when the then Opposition would have made the case that there was no need for an impact assessment. I put that to the Minister very gently as a point of principle that is specific to amendments 123 and 124. However, I understand the argument that he is making.
The Opposition still think that the Bill’s approach is flawed as to diversity across our educational establishments. We will not press our amendments to a Division now, but we reserve the right to revisit the matter when we come up for air on Report, once the Minister has had time to reflect on the implications of his policy. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Justin Madders
As the Committee has discussed, clause 28 introduces schedule 3, which provides for the establishment, remit and functioning of the school support staff negotiating body. Paragraph 1 of schedule 3 will insert into the Education Act 2002 a new part 8A, which contains proposed new sections 148A to 148R.
New section 148A will reinstate the SSSNB as an unincorporated body. Reinstating the SSSNB will give school support staff the voice and recognition that they deserve as a crucial part of the school workforce. It will help to address the recruitment and retention challenges facing schools and will drive standards in schools to ensure that we give every child the best possible chance in life.
New section 148B sets out the remit of the SSSNB for remuneration, terms and conditions of employment, training and career progression of school support staff, and the powers of the Secretary of State to define what is or is not to be treated as falling within those categories within the regulations. This ensures clarity over the remit of the SSSNB and what can and cannot be referred to it by the Secretary of State. The remit will lead to a national terms and conditions handbook, fair pay rates and clearer training and career progression routes for school support staff in England.
New section 148C defines school support staff in relation to who they are employed by and their role. Support staff are defined as all staff, other than qualified teachers, who are employed by local authorities, governing bodies and academy trusts to work wholly at schools in England. The 2009 SSSNB included only those support staff employed by local authorities and governing bodies to work in maintained schools within its scope. Support staff employed by academy trusts are now included in the SSSNB’s remit, despite the shadow Minister’s attempts to persuade us otherwise.
It is crucial that the body have a remit for all state-funded schools in England to achieve greater national consistency, irrespective of the type of school in which support staff work. Roughly half of the 24,453 schools in England are now academies, compared with approximately 200 in 2009 when the body was previously established. New section 148B gives the Secretary of State a power to prescribe in regulations those who will not fall within the SSSNB’s remit.
Amendment 68 will allow the Secretary of State to include, through secondary legislation, those who do not work wholly at academies within the SSSNB’s remit, by reference to the type of work that they do. The Department currently holds limited information about the roles in which support staff are employed in academies or the terms and conditions under which they work. It intends to consult on which roles should and should not be within scope of these provisions. These powers will provide the necessary flexibility to respond to that consultation and amend the remit of the SSSNB as necessary.
New section 148D sets out the power of the Secretary of State to refer matters to the SSSNB that are within its remit, namely those matters relating to remuneration, terms and conditions of employment and training and career progression of school support staff. Referrals by the Secretary of State to the negotiating body will mean that those representing employers and employees can agree and advise on suitable outcomes for school support staff within the parameters set out by the Secretary of State in relation to wider Government priorities and context.
New sections 148E and 148F set out the powers of the Secretary of State when referring matters relating to remuneration, terms and conditions of employment and training and career progression to the SSSNB. The Secretary of State may specify factors that the SSSNB must consider and a timescale for their consideration. The new sections set out the steps that the SSSNB must take, depending on whether it has or has not reached agreement on matters relating to terms and conditions. Where the Secretary of State refers a matter relating to the training and career progression of school support staff to the SSSNB, the SSSNB is required to provide a report on the matter to the Secretary of State, rather than reaching agreement.
New section 148G will give the SSSNB the power to consider matters within its remit that have not been referred to it, with the Secretary of State’s agreement. This will give the SSSNB the ability to raise alternative matters that it wishes to negotiate or advise on. Agreement from the Secretary of State is required from the outset to ensure that no work is undertaken on a matter that could be considered to be outside the SSSNB’s remit. It will also ensure that the body has sufficient capacity to consider referred matters within the required timescale, alongside any additional matters that the SSSNB wishes to consider.
New section 148H sets out the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to agreements submitted by the SSSNB. The Secretary of State may ratify an agreement in secondary legislation in full or in part—if in part, the part not ratified falls away—or refer the agreement back to the SSSNB to reconsider it under new section 148I. This power is necessary to ensure that any agreements are practicable—for example, that they are affordable—before being incorporated into contracts. The ability for the Secretary of State to ratify agreements in part is a pragmatic approach to allow matters with agreement to progress and to avoid delays if there is an element of an agreement that the Secretary of State is not content to agree.
New section 148I sets out what happens where the Secretary of State refers a matter back to the body for reconsideration. The Secretary of State may specify factors to which the body must have regard in reconsidering the agreement and by when it must revert.
New section 148J will apply where the SSSNB has submitted an agreement to the Secretary of State after reconsideration. The Secretary of State has powers to ratify the agreement in full or in part in regulations; to refer the agreement back to the SSSNB for reconsideration; to make regulations requiring prescribed people to have regard to the agreement in exercising prescribed functions; or to make regulations that make alternative provision in relation to the same matter. The new section gives the Secretary of State a range of powers to determine the best course of action based on the agreements from the SSSNB to ensure that the desired outcomes for school support staff are met and are practicable.
New section 148K sets out the process if an agreement cannot be reached by the SSSNB on a matter relating to school support staff remuneration and terms and conditions referred to it by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may specify a later date by which agreement must be reached or may make regulations in relation to the matter referred to the SSSNB if there is an urgent need to do so, but the Secretary of State must consult the SSSNB before making those regulations. This will ensure that the Secretary of State is able to regulate as necessary in the event that agreement cannot be reached, for instance on a pay award for school support staff.
New section 148L sets out the Secretary of State’s powers if the SSSNB fails to submit a report on a matter relating to the training and career progression of school support staff by the deadline set by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can specify a later date for the SSSNB to report or issue guidance on the matter. This ensures that the Secretary of State can still issue guidance on training and career progression to support recruitment and retention in the absence of a report from the body.
New section 148M sets out the effect of regulations made by the Secretary of State that ratify agreements reached by the SSSNB in full or in part. The terms of the agreement are imposed in a person’s contract of employment so that a member of school support staff must be paid and treated in accordance with those conditions. Any inconsistent terms in contracts of employment or academy funding agreements have no effect. That allows the Secretary of State to make changes to the pay and terms and conditions of school support staff as agreed by the SSSNB, in order to ensure fairer pay rates and greater national consistency, boost recruitment and retention in those roles, and drive improved standards in schools.
New section 148N sets out the effect of regulations made by the Secretary of State where she decides not to ratify agreements reached by the SSSNB or where the SSSNB fails to reach agreement on a matter. Where the Secretary of State decides to make regulations imposing terms and conditions into school support staff contracts, for example because there is an urgent need to make changes to terms and conditions and the SSSNB has failed to reach agreement on them, school support staff must be paid and treated in accordance with those terms and conditions. It is important that the Secretary of State has the ability to legislate to provide fair terms and conditions for school support staff in the event that the SSSNB fails to reach an agreement.
New section 148O will allow regulations made under part 8A to have retrospective effect, subject to their not subjecting anyone to a detriment in respect of a period that falls before the date on which the regulations are made. This will allow the Secretary of State to backdate pay awards agreed after the start of an annual pay period to ensure that school support staff may benefit from them for the entirety of the period.
New section 148P sets out how and when the Secretary of State and the SSSNB can issue guidance on matters within the SSSNB’s remit. The SSSNB, with the Secretary of State’s approval, can issue guidance on pay and terms and conditions, as can the Secretary of State. Only the Secretary of State can issue guidance on training and career progression. Local authorities, governing bodies and academy trusts are required to have regard to guidance issued. This will allow the Secretary of State and the SSSNB to support employers in the implementation of new terms and conditions and the promotion of training and career progression opportunities for school support staff.
New section 148Q will provide a carve-out for the SSSNB framework from the collective bargaining provisions in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The new section is necessary to ensure that agreements reached by the SSSNB can be imposed in contracts only through ratification by the Secretary of State.
Paragraph 2 of schedule 3 will insert a new schedule 12A into the Education Act 2002. New schedule 12A includes provision for the SSSNB to be constituted in accordance with arrangements made by the Secretary of State. School support staff and employer representative organisations on the SSSNB will be set out in secondary legislation; the Secretary of State will be required to consult the TUC before prescribing which organisations represent school support staff.
The membership of the SSSNB will include support staff, employee and employer representatives, an independent chair and a representative of the Secretary of State. It may also include members who do not represent school support staff or their employers. However, only school support staff and employer representatives will have voting rights. The new schedule also provides for administrative support to be provided to the SSSNB, including for the Secretary of State to pay expenses for the chair and for administrative costs incurred by the SSSNB. The SSSNB is required to provide a report for each 12-month period.
I commend schedule 3, as amended, to the Committee.
Greg Smith
After that lengthy oration from the Minister, I can only conclude that when it takes that long to explain something, a bureaucracy is coming that probably nobody wants. As we rehearsed during our debates on amendments to the schedule, it challenges in many respects the freedoms that some of our education establishments enjoy.
As the Bill leaves Committee at some point in January and heads back to the main Chamber for Report, I urge the Minister to reach out to educational establishments—and perhaps to the Department for Education, but real-world schools are probably better—and reflect on the impact that this new bureaucracy will have on them. Is it as streamlined as it can humanly be? The Minister was on his feet for seven or eight minutes trying to explain that bureaucracy. In fairness, he did a commendable job of it, but that does not necessarily make it right. Whether we are in opposition or in government proposing things, we too rarely ask ourselves in the House: have we collectively got this right?
The Opposition believe that this new body—which we in government, along with the Liberal Democrats, removed—should not be brought back in. There is a better way of achieving some of the noble aims that the Government have in this regard and avoiding some of the potential catastrophes that we spoke about earlier. We therefore cannot support the schedule remaining in the Bill.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 121, in clause 29, page 41, line 34, at end insert—
“(5A) No regulations may be made under this section before the Secretary of State has published and laid before Parliament an impact assessment of the costs on the social care sector of any proposed Adult Social Care Negotiating Body.”.
This amendment makes a requirement from the Secretary of State to undertake an impact assessment of the costs on the social care sector of any newly proposed Negotiating Body.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 122, in clause 29, page 41, line 34, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations under this section must, for any Negotiating Body established under subsection (1), include a requirement for annual reports to be published and laid before Parliament.
(5B) Annual reports, required under subsection (5A) must include an assessment of the increased costs to the social care sector of any pay and conditions agreements made in that reporting year.”.
This amendment would require any Negotiating Body established under these regulations to publish annual reports setting out the cost of pay and conditions agreements.
Greg Smith
Amendment 121 would require the Secretary of State to undertake an impact assessment of the costs on the social care sector of any newly proposed negotiating body. Amendments 121 and 122 mirror those tabled in relation to the school support staff negotiating body that we have just spent the best part of an hour and a half debating. That is because our concern is essentially identical: that this is ideologically driven policy, not evidence-based policy.
Can the Minister provide the Committee with the evidence that the adult social care negotiating body is necessary? Has the Department of Health and Social Care made any assessment of the additional costs that may be incurred by the sector? Given that social care is provided across multiple platforms—to use a generic term—from the NHS to local government to many private sector providers, this measure will cross a number of sectors responsible for providing social care, and it is important that there is a cross-governmental impact assessment alongside it that provides a clear understanding of the costs involved to all parties, particularly local government, which is facing extraordinary pressures at the moment.
We have seen what has happened with councils such as Birmingham, which reached the point of bankruptcy, and with other councils that are under considerable financial pressure. When I speak to my council in Buckinghamshire, I hear that much of that pressure is driven by social care. It is a good problem to have; medical advances and technologies are ensuring that people have longer lives, but there is then the requirement for adult social care for far longer than was previously the case. The burden of that is falling disproportionately on local government budgets at the moment, and the Deputy Prime Minister and her Department need a clear understanding of the impact on the local government cost base.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister will not be surprised to learn that we do not support his amendments. Amendment 121 seeks to require an assessment of the impact of the new negotiating body on the adult social care sector. The Government have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments for the Bill, including one on the fair pay agreement for adult social care. That was published on Second Reading and was based on the best available evidence regarding the potential impact on businesses, workers and the wider economy.
The adult social care fair pay agreement will be subject to sector-wide collective bargaining and negotiation. At this stage, our impact assessment provides an illustrative analysis of its potential impact, including the magnitude of the cost to businesses, as well as the benefits for up to 1.6 million social care workers. We intend to refine that analysis over time, working closely with businesses, trade unions, academics and, of course, the Department of Health and Social Care.
As is standard practice, we will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill reaches Royal Assent, in line with the better regulation framework requirements. That will account for where the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament in such a way as to significantly change its impacts on business. That impact assessment will be published alongside the enacted legislation. In addition, the Government will produce an impact assessment to accompany regulations connected to the establishment of the negotiating body.
The Minister asked why the body is needed—what is the evidence base? He will be aware of the evidence given to the Committee, both orally and in writing, about its importance. The hon. Member for Chippenham spoke of the need for a level playing field, which is certainly a big part of what we are looking at here, because many of us will know from our experiences in our constituencies—never mind the evidence before the Committee—that, fundamentally, the adult social care sector is in desperate need of help. We have known that for a very long time, and if Members care to look at the Low Pay Commission’s recent reports, they will see that it has dedicated a considerable amount of space in them to the challenges in the sector. Trade unions, of course, have also been calling for action in this area for many years.
It is also well known that there are huge recruitment and retention challenges in the adult social care workforce. It is a very large sector, employing about 1.6 million workers, which is about 5% of all people in adult employment, and it plays an important role. The people in those roles are predominantly women and, as was noted during the evidence sessions—and backed up by the analysis in the impact assessment—there are about 130,000 vacancies at the moment. It was also noted that filled posts have reduced by 4% recently, and that the shortfall since 2022 has been plugged primarily by overseas workers, which we know is a topic of great interest.
The turnover rate in the sector is incredibly high: it has been higher than 25% since 2016 and was consistently over 30% between 2017-18 and 2022-23. There were some improvements last year, but that was largely driven by international recruitment, and the turnover rate is generally much higher than the UK average. The impact assessment notes that, while some movement is healthy, the higher rates witnessed can be disruptive and impact not only productivity, but the quality of service, with recipients of care not getting continuity. I think we can all recognise the situation in which a person in receipt of care has a different person turning up every day and how disruptive that can be. It is important to note that recipients of care, and not just the workers, will benefit from the Bill.
We know that low pay is rife, as has been identified by the Low Pay Commission. In December 2023, the average wage was £11, and nearly 70% of workers were paid within £1 of the minimum wage. In the last two reports by the Low Pay Commission, space has been dedicated to underpayment in the sector. In its latest report, the Low Pay Commission said:
“In the social care sector, non-compliance appears persistent”.
The shadow Minister asked a wider point about travel costs. He will no doubt welcome the announcement in the Budget that we are freezing fuel duty, but the cost of travel is a much broader issue than the point he raised. Clause 30 will allow broader questions of terms and conditions to be considered. Clause 39 is also important, because it deals with record keeping. We know from research by Unison that about one quarter of domiciliary care workers are repaid only for travel time, and only 18% of them have the travel time listed on their payslips. Given that these people often earn close to the minimum wage, this is an absolute scandal that needs to be addressed. The shadow Minister made an important point about travel, but we hope that the fundamentals of ensuring that people are paid for that travel time will be addressed by the negotiating body.
Let me turn to amendment 122. The Government are committed to engaging with the adult social care sector on the design of a fair pay agreement, including how the negotiating body will be set up, how it should operate and how negotiations will run. The powers under clause 29 allow for the Secretary of State to create the adult social care negotiating body by regulations and to provide for the smooth and efficient running of that body. The regulations will confirm the type of body being created. The power also allows for reporting requirements to be imposed on the negotiating body, such as producing reports. Engagement with the sector will ultimately influence the type of body that the negotiating body actually becomes. All public bodies have specific reporting requirements to meet transparency standards.
I can confirm that the Department of Health and Social Care has committed to publishing an impact assessment on establishing fair pay agreements in the adult social care sector to accompany the secondary legislation required to establish the negotiating body. It is intended that the assessment will include an analysis of the potential costs and benefits that will arise from a fair pay agreement. On that basis, I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks, and not least for acknowledging the importance of the points about just travel time and about compensation for using one’s own vehicle and having to purchase the petrol, diesel, electricity, hydrogen or whatever to get around—in a brave new world, who knows what it might be? I invite him to ensure that that can be locked into, whatever the negotiating body has the power to do. I say that not least for rural communities such as mine, where it is not unusual for someone to have to travel for half an hour between many of the villages, and from one person they are caring for to another. That adds up very quickly in terms of not just time, but the cost of the fuel to get them there and the wear and tear on the vehicle’s brakes, tyres and so on.
We will not press these amendments to a Division. However, as the Minister reflects on this issue, I urge him to again ensure that the way in which this new body will inevitably be set up accounts for the multiple different platforms of provision across local government, the private sector and the not-for-profit sector, which the hon. Member for Chippenham talked about. This is a much more complex arena than that of schools, which is much more heavily defined—we spoke about that earlier. I urge the Minister to reflect on that as he potentially brings forward Government amendments or minor surgery to the Bill ahead of Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Greg Smith
As we prepare to begin the 12 days of Christmas, we have the 16 clauses of the adult social care negotiating body. I am not sure which has the better ring to it, but I think only one ends with a partridge in a pear tree.
I have a few questions for the Minister after his impressive run-through of the 16 clauses. I might not have agreed with every word he said, but we have to acknowledge a powerful performance, and he went through such technical detail with such speed. In clause 29, yet again we have the powers to set up a body but only after engaging the sector. There is nothing wrong with engaging the sector, and we encourage regular engagement with any and every sector, but this is yet another example in the Bill of legislate first, consult second. That is always a concern whenever it comes up, and not least on clause 41, where the Minister repeatedly referred to certain retrospective powers.
Greg Smith
I took careful notes, and we can check Hansard later, but I am pretty certain that the Minister himself used the word sufficient in his remarks.
Justin Madders
We may have to write to the hon. Member on that. Having furiously double-checked clause 32 during the other hon. Members’ speeches, I cannot find the word sufficient.
My final point relates to the powerful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby about her personal circumstances and how important it is that we get this right. It is people such as her son who have benefited from good support in social care, and at the end of the day, they are the people who will benefit from stability and security in the workforce and better retention rates. This is about the workforce, but it is also about the people who receive the care, and it is about time that we gave them more priority. That is why these clauses are so important, and I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 30 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Greg Smith
Further to that point of order, Ms Vaz. I seek your guidance on how we might put it on the record that we wish a very merry Christmas to everyone involved in this Bill Committee. I might not agree with every word of the Bill, but I appreciate all the work that the civil servants put into supporting the Minister and the Government—and, likewise, for the Opposition, the hard work of all the Clerks, as well as Hansard, the Doorkeepers and security. I wish Members of all parties a very merry Christmas.
The Chair
Thank you, and thank you to all hon. and right hon. Members, the officials and the Clerks, who have been very supportive.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Fifteenth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Greg Smith
Main Page: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)Department Debates - View all Greg Smith's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsTuesday 7th January 2025
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 January 2025 - (7 Jan 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
Good morning, Mr Mundell. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. Happy new year to you and to all members of the Committee. I start by making my customary reference to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This, I hope, is a fairly straightforward and uncontroversial clause; it does exactly what it says on the tin. Currently, there is no general requirement for employers to let their staff know of their right to join a trade union. The clause introduces a legal duty for employers to inform all new employees of their right to join a union and to remind all staff of that right at prescribed intervals. Employers must provide this information alongside the written statement of particulars that they are already required to produce under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Specific details, including the frequency and manner of notification, will be set out in secondary legislation following consultation.
A lack of awareness of the right to join a trade union may be contributing to declining union membership and reduced worker engagement in collective bargaining. The clause will help empower workers to become active in protecting their rights. This is a step forward in strengthening worker representation and the collective voice in the workplace, ultimately supporting more effective collective bargaining. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and I too wish you and all members of the Committee a very happy, prosperous and healthy new year. If only the optimism of that statement were matched by business confidence around the country as we start this new year.
I understand why the Government want to take this measure, and it is pretty clear that it will happen as part of the Bill. As the Minister prepares for the consultation that he spoke about, I ask him to reflect on how quickly we can give businesses certainty on the frequency with which they will have to remind their employees of their right to join a trade union. Of course everyone has a right to join a trade union—there is no issue with that—but this is yet another thing that HR departments of bigger businesses, and individual owners of smaller businesses, who have to do everything from the HR function down to replacing the loo roll in the toilets, will have to remember to do on a regular basis, and presumably they will face consequences if they do not. It might not seem onerous as we talk about it at half-past 9 on a Tuesday morning in Westminster, but once we start ratcheting up all these different things for businesses—particularly those very small businesses—to do, it will become a burden.
The other thing that I gently ask the Minister to consider as part of his consultation is this. Would it not be a fairer, more balanced and better way of doing things to have in the proposed statement, as well as a reminder to employees of their right to join a trade union, a reminder that they do not have to do so—that there is equally a right not to join a trade union if they do not wish to? It would be much more fair and balanced if the consultation focused on ensuring that both sides are equally reflected—yes, a reminder that there is a right to join a trade union, but equally, a reminder that there is no compulsion and no absolute, set-in-stone requirement to do so. If we could have that, the clause would be much more balanced.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I wish all colleagues a happy and prosperous new year.
I welcome these proposals. Only this weekend, I was speaking with a constituent in Torbay who told me that the unit he worked in had transferred out of the NHS and been taken over by the private sector. He was gravely concerned about sharp practices that he saw being undertaken by the new employer. My best advice to him was, “Have you engaged with the trade union on site? How can the trade union help you? If I can do anything to assist the trade union, I stand ready to help.”
Trade unions are a force for good in the workplace, and many of the proposals that we will discuss today will put us mid-range in the OECD on trade union rights. Far from the extremism that the Conservatives are painting us into a corner with, these measures will actually put us back on an even keel as a nation in our relations with trade unions, rather than something like third or fourth bottom among OECD countries in the rights that we give unions.
Justin Madders
The clause makes provision for trade unions and employers to negotiate access agreements, under which employers will be required to permit trade union officials to enter workplaces for various purposes, such as recruitment, organising, and meeting and providing support to existing members. This is particularly significant for unrecognised unions. Access to a workplace can provide an opportunity to recruit and organise with the aim of gaining formal recognition.
The Bill currently provides that any listed trade unions can apply for access to a workplace. Under the current definition, it is possible that employers could use staff associations and non-independent bodies to frustrate independent trade unions’ access to the workplace. Therefore, proposed amendments 72, 73 and 75 to 79 require trade unions to have a certificate of independence issued by the Certification Officer to qualify for access.
The amendments will ensure that clause 46 is used as intended. The clause will ensure that independent unions can initiate and agree access agreements with an employer, while not affecting the existing ability of non-independent bodies to negotiate voluntary access agreements. Amendment 73 inserts the defined term “qualifying trade union” and defines it as a union that has a certificate of independence issued by the Certification Officer. That will apply to proposed new chapter 5ZA of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 only, and amendments 72 and 75 to 79 update other provisions that refer to “listed” trade unions accordingly.
Greg Smith
As the Minister clearly outlined, the requirement for a trade union to have a certificate of independence to have the rights provided for in clause 46 is a tidying up of the Bill. The Opposition are not entirely on board with the spirit of the Bill in this regard, but we welcome its being tidied up and the clarity that the amendments bring to what the Government are trying to do to prevent even more of a free-for-all in terms of access to workplaces.
I have said many times that it is a shame and regrettable that so many of these tidying-up amendments have had to be tabled. Welcome though they are in bringing certainty to businesses about the Bill’s core provisions, if we had not had that arbitrary 100-day deadline, we probably would not be spending our time going through these sorts of amendments, and could instead be debating much more of the substance of the Bill. As I say, the Opposition are not convinced about some of the core provisions of the Bill, but these particular amendments do at least tidy it up to some extent.
Steve Darling
I welcome the amendments. Driving our economy to achieve the productivity that we need must be a mission for all of us in this House. The culture in our businesses is really important, and I think the amendments will drive a positive working relationship between workers and bosses, so that we can see productivity enhanced across the United Kingdom.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 74, in clause 46, page 51, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) ‘Workplace’ does not include any part of a workplace used as a dwelling.”.
This amendment would ensure that the right of access does not include access to dwellings.
This important amendment adds some clarity about the right of access to a workplace, providing an exemption so that the right of physical access does not apply to private dwellings such as the private homes of workers who are working either fully from their home or in a hybrid manner between their workplace and their home. Most exemptions will be provided for and set out in detail in secondary legislation, but we think it is important to set out this principle in the Bill.
We will provide in secondary legislation and guidance more detail on how complex physical access cases, such as care homes, where premises are a mix of residential and a workplace, will be negotiated. To protect the privacy of people living in the premises, that could, for example, set out the terms that it is reasonable for the trade union to comply with when exercising access, for example limiting access to parts of the premises that are used by workers only, and specifying that unions should take a specific route to the particular room where access activities are due to take place. That sort of detail will be set out in secondary legislation following consultation.
Greg Smith
As the Minister says, the amendment ensures that the right of unions to access workplaces does not extend to dwellings. Of course the Opposition welcome that the Government have acknowledged that trade unions should not be able to access private dwellings. The fact that the Bill was introduced in such a manner that would have permitted trade unions to do so begs a number of worrying questions about the speed with which the Bill was drafted. The fact that we are debating whether a trade union should have access to someone’s private dwelling is deeply regrettable. I would have hoped that the Government, from first principles, would acknowledge that it was never an acceptable outcome for anyone to have their own home invaded by a trade union or otherwise.
The way people set up their homeworking arrangements within their own dwelling is very much a matter for them. Balancing what they do in their own home with their family life and perhaps their children’s needs or the needs of someone they are caring for, and the way they structure that should, of course, remain entirely private. This is just another example of the damage that can inadvertently be done when legislation that is not ready is introduced to this House. It makes us question what other mistakes, if I may call them that, are lurking in the Bill that are still yet to be spotted by the Bill Committee.
Greg Smith
Ah, the first intervention of the new year! How could I say no to the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield?
Laurence Turner
What a dubious honour, but happy new year to everyone in the Committee. Will the shadow Minister acknowledge that there is a body of legislation on trade union right of access in comparable jurisdictions, particularly Australia, which goes back many decades and does not contain such provision? There have been mischief-making campaigns and wild warnings of trade unionists suddenly appearing at the foot of somebody’s bed to carry out a health and safety inspection. All that is being done here is that a step is being taken that has not been taken anywhere else in the world, to my knowledge, to make it clear that this set of circumstances, which exists only in theory, not in practice, will never actually arise.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I understand his fundamental point, but before the Government tabled the amendment a feasible interpretation of the rules would have allowed access to a private dwelling. We can all stand or sit here in Committee Room 10 of the House of Commons and think how preposterous that would be and how that it never actually happen, but there are plenty of examples in history where the preposterous has come to be—where someone’s interpretation of legislation or rules or regulations or whatever it may be has brought about perverse outcomes.
We would have been in a much more satisfactory position had the Government, from first principles and at the very start, laid out in the Bill that someone’s private dwelling is just that: private. Although there has been an explosion in working from home and a fundamental shift, particularly in the post-pandemic world, of people actively choosing to work from home, either all the time where they can, or in a hybrid arrangement where they work from home for a couple of days a week and in the office, factory, warehouse or wherever it might be for the other days, it should be an enshrined principle in this country—the free society the Minister spoke of—that a private dwelling should from absolute, unquestionable first principle remain private, and not be an area to which a trade union or otherwise can freely demand access. It is important that private dwellings remain accessible only by warrant, which has to be granted by a magistrate, for clear purposes, such as where criminality or some such activity is suspected.
The Opposition welcome the core text of the amendment, but we want it firmly on the record that such an amendment should never have been required in the first place.
Justin Madders
I feel that we are going to have a few of these conversations again this year. Heaven forbid the previous Government ever amended anything in Committee! We knew the Bill was issued at a challenging pace and that it was large, so there were always going to be elements that needed clarification at this stage. It is right to do that now before it becomes law and well in advance of any practical application. Like amendment 72, this amendment is an example of us responding to concerns raised when the Bill was published. It is probably fair to say that no one actually envisaged trade unions marching into people’s homes, so it was not something we thought it necessary to spell out in the Bill, but that concern has been raised in feedback, and we are able to provide clarification and reassurance. I therefore commend the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment 74 agreed to.
Amendments made: 75, in clause 46, page 51, line 18, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Amendment 76, in clause 46, page 52, line 13, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Amendment 77, in clause 46, page 52, line 26, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Amendment 78, in clause 46, page 53, line 36, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Amendment 79, in clause 46, page 53, line 40, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.—(Justin Madders.)
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Justin Madders
Proposed new section 70ZF(4)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 allows the Secretary of State to prescribe circumstances in which it would be reasonable for the Central Arbitration Committee to determine that a trade union is not to have access to a workplace. Amendment 80 is a minor technical amendment to clarify that, if circumstances are specified under proposed new section 70ZF(4)(a) of the Act, the effect of specifying those circumstances is that it is reasonable to make a determination that officials of a union are not to have access, but it does not require the CAC to make such a determination.
Amendment 81 allows the Secretary of State to prescribe in secondary legislation the matters to which the CAC must have regard when determining whether access is to be granted to a trade union. As an example, that would usefully allow the Secretary of State to prescribe that the CAC must, when making determinations about access, have regard to the presence of a trade union with existing access to the workplace to which another union is seeking access. In that scenario, the amendment provides reassurances that an access request will not be rejected by default if there is an existing arrangement with another trade union. The Government have consulted on the exact details of what the CAC is required to consider when making determinations about access, and secondary legislation will follow Royal Assent to the Bill. With that in mind, I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Greg Smith
As the Minister said, Government amendment 80 clarifies that if circumstances are specified under new section 70ZF(4)(a), the effect of specifying those circumstances is that it is to be regarded as reasonable of the CAC to make a determination that officials of a union are not to have access, but does not require the CAC to make such a determination. Government amendment 81 would allow the Secretary of State to prescribe matters to which the CAC must have regard when considering an application for a determination about access. Therefore, these amendments set out that if the Secretary of State has specified circumstances in which it would be reasonable to decline union access to a workplace, the CAC must accept those circumstances.
That is all well and good, but the access principles, as they are set out, are incredibly broad and make it very difficult for an employer to refuse access. For example, subsection (2)(a) of new section 70ZF specifies that
“officials of a listed trade union should be able to access a workplace for any of the access purposes in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the employer’s business”.
That accepts that access can and should be allowed to cause interference, but what would count as unreasonable interference? Can the Minister give any concrete examples? How will businesses know what they are or are not expected to put up with in terms of inconvenience and disruption to their operations? This all seems to be still particularly woolly and ill-defined. It will cause a lot of headaches and a lot of businesses to scratch their heads to work out what they have to put up with, bear the burden of, or lose profit to in order to enable some of the access that the Bill determines will take place.
The circumstances in which it would be reasonable for officials of a union not to have access will be specified in future regulations, but this is an area where it is incumbent on the Government to be very clear—indeed, crystal clear—about where the Minister or the Department feels these regulations should sit, or the operating window in which they should sit, moving away from woolly language and into real practical detail to allow businesses to begin to prepare. Can the Minister give any examples of matters that might be specified by the Secretary of State to set some constraints on the access principles envisaged by the amendments? I know he will say that he wishes to consult, which is all very well and good, but as I said a moment ago, this is an area where I do not think businesses will simply accept the offer of future consultation; they will instead want an operating window with practical examples and very clear language about what the amendments envisage will happen in the future. It is just not good enough for us to be left in this position of trying to second-guess and wonder what things will be like when the consultation finally happens.
Steve Darling
I will be concise and echo the shadow Minister’s call for clarity.
Greg Smith
I understand the importance of not predetermining a consultation, but will the Minister not accept that, by definition, the Government have to consult on something? There must be a broad range of circumstances around access being permitted or not that the Government intend to consult on. I believe it is reasonable to ask the Minister to provide some practical examples of the range of options on which the Government intend to consult, so that businesses out there, as they watch this blank cheque of a Bill being signed prior to the secondary legislation coming about at an indeterminable future date, will know what that range is.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 46, page 57, line 37, at end insert—
“(c) dismiss the appeal.”
This amendment would clarify that the Employment Appeal Tribunal may dismiss an appeal under new section 70ZK(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The amendment is straightforward, providing clarity that an Employment Appeal Tribunal can dismiss an appeal under the new section 70ZK(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It is a fairly straightforward and self-explanatory amendment.
Greg Smith
As the Minister said, the amendment clarifies that the Employment Appeal Tribunal may dismiss an appeal under new section 70ZK(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Of course the Opposition agree that this amendment should be accepted and put into the Bill, but it beggars belief that the amendment was necessary in the first place. Of course the Employment Appeal Tribunal should be allowed to dismiss an appeal if it finds that to be necessary, but how on earth was a Bill put before this House of Commons—this Parliament—that only envisaged that the tribunal might quash the order or make an order requiring the person to pay a reduced amount to the CAC? How was this Bill introduced in a form in which the dismissal of an appeal was not even an option?
It is extraordinary that a Bill could have been allowed through the write-around process—the various processes that Government have—without this anomaly being spotted and rectified before the Bill was presented and had its Second Reading debate. I gently ask the Minister to reflect on that and go back through the Bill’s provisions to double-check for any other glaring omissions, which I am sure he never wished to see in the first place and is now correcting by the amendment in his name. Could he ensure that the Bill contains no more of these, frankly, howling errors that could cause so much damage?
Steve Darling
Bill Committees are here to check for snags in the final construction of legislation. I am pleased that this snag has been picked up and will be sorted out by this amendment.
Justin Madders
Clause 46 formally provides trade unions with the right of access to workplaces where an access agreement is reached between a trade union and an employer following negotiation. This will make it easier for union representatives to recruit and organise and potentially secure a collective bargaining agreement with an employer. It will not impact existing voluntary access agreements between a union and an employer. For unrecognised unions, access to a workplace is an opportunity to recruit and organise with the aim of gaining formal recognition.
In this framework a union can provide an employer with a request for access, to which the employer can either agree or object within a set timeframe. If both parties agree on the access terms, the Central Arbitration Committee is notified to record the agreement and proceed. In the instance that a union and employer cannot agree on access terms, the CAC can impose an agreement. The decision will be guided by prescribed terms which will be set out in secondary legislation. The CAC will have some discretion when making a determination on whether access should occur, and the decision will be subject to principles set out in the Bill that consider both union and employer interests.
The clause also establishes an enforcement mechanism whereby complaints of breaches of an access agreement can be raised with the CAC. The CAC can then vary the agreement, make a declaration that the complaint is well-founded or not, and issue an order requiring specified steps to be taken to ensure that the agreement is complied with. We recently consulted on some specifics of the enforcement mechanism, which various unions and employers contributed to and which we are now carefully considering. Regulations relating to a union’s right of access, such as notice periods for employers and the terms of reasonable access, will be prescribed in secondary legislation after consultation.
Amendments 72, 73 and 75 to 79 require trade unions applying for access to be certified as independent instead of being only listed as a trade union. This will help independent unions initiate and agree access agreements with an employer. Non-independent bodies’ existing ability to negotiate voluntary access agreements will remain unaffected. Amendment 81 will amend this clause to allow for the Secretary of State to set specific matters that the CAC must consider and have regard to. Amendment 74 will ensure that private dwellings are exempt, as we have discussed. Through the provision of a formal right of access, the Government are delivering on our commitment to modernise outdated and ad hoc access arrangements and align them with the 21st century. I commend clause 46 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
We have covered the bulk of the commentary that the Opposition want to make in the debate that we have had on the amendments. All I will say on clause 46 is that there is still so much left for secondary legislation, and I do not think businesses can have any certainty as to what is truly coming down the line until there have been the consultations we have spoken about and the secondary legislation has been laid, debated and, let’s face it, probably passed given the parliamentary arithmetic we have at the moment. While clause 46 as amended is better than what was first presented to the House, there are still many open-ended questions that businesses and trade unions alike will want to know the answers to. I urge the Minister to ensure that his Department moves at pace to get those consultations out there, so that he and the Department can hear from real businesses, trade unions and workers when it comes to the provisions that they are proposing. Then the questions of uncertainty can be ironed out as quickly as possible and nobody is left in the position of not knowing where this is going.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister is of course right—we do need to get this right and engage with businesses and trade unions about the detail. That is what we intend to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Conditions for trade union recognition
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
The clause makes amendments to the statutory trade unions recognition process, which is administered by the Central Arbitration Committee. Hon. Members will possibly not all be aware of the current statutory recognition process, so I will just take a moment to detail that. Where an employer refuses to recognise a trade union voluntarily, that union can apply to the CAC to obtain statutory union recognition. On application, unions have to show the CAC that, first, they have 10% membership of the proposed bargaining unit and secondly, that they are likely to have a majority in the subsequent trade union ballot. Where the majority of workers in the bargaining unit are members of the unions, the CAC can decide to automatically recognise the union without holding a recognition ballot. However, the CAC must still hold a ballot if it receives credible evidence from a significant number of union members that they do not want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf, or membership evidence is produced that leads the CAC to doubt whether a significant number of union members want recognition, or if the CAC believes that holding a ballot would help further industrial relations. For the union to win, it must then obtain a majority in a recognition ballot and also in that ballot, at least 40% of the workforce in the proposed bargaining unit must support union recognition.
We are committed to strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition. We believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. Our view is that the existing legal framework needs to be simplified so that workers have a more meaningful right to organise through their trade unions. To achieve that, the clause therefore removes the current requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the proposed bargaining unit supporting union recognition. In future, unions will only need a simple majority in a recognition ballot to win.
The current requirement for a union to demonstrate, at the application stage, that it is likely that there will be a majority for the recognition process is a significant hurdle in modern workplaces, which are increasingly fragmented. That is why the clause deletes the requirement for a union to demonstrate on application to the CAC that they are likely to win a future recognition ballot. Now unions will only need to show that they have 10% membership of the proposed bargaining unit for their application form recognition to be accepted by the CAC. We are also considering whether the current 10% membership requirement upon application should be lowered in future. The clause therefore provides a power to enable the Secretary of State to make affirmative regulations, which we will of course consult on, to amend the 10% membership requirement in future within parameters of 2% to 10% as set out in subsection (10) of the clause.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed explanation. I will focus my remarks predominantly around the proposed new range of 2% to 10%. I would think, to most reasonable people, 10% is already a relatively low number: 10% is, generally speaking and in most walks of life, not a difficult proportion for anybody to reach if they truly believe that right is on their side, and they have wider support, with wider mandates to get on and negotiate within those bargaining units, to deliver a better outcome. I would argue that any union that cannot be kept to 10% really is not clearing the first hurdle and is certainly not passing “Go” or collecting the metaphorical £200. I question why it is in any way, shape or form necessary to lower that.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Greg Smith
One moment and I will, of course, give way to the hon. Gentleman.
If unions cannot reach 10%, what is the rationale for saying, “Oh well, we’ll just lower it to 2%”? Surely, if the union cannot get to 10%, they are on a pretty sticky wicket and in a situation that one might describe as a wing and a prayer in the first place, so lowering it to 2% is exposing them further.
Michael Wheeler
I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my membership of the GMB and USDAW.
The shadow Minister is painting a very rosy picture of reasonableness and neutrality, of businesses that sit by and allow these things to happen, and of unions that can wander around and have a nice chat and recruit people. Does he accept that the reality in the world of work is actually one of hostility, of difficulty, and the types of measures that this Bill is trying to address so as to restore the situation to an even keel?
The reality out there is hostility to recognition and trade union membership. Therefore, 10% has proven to be a high and often insurmountable barrier, and not actually reflective of the will of workers, rather than when a proper choice, in reasonable and neutral conditions, is put to them. The threshold should actually be lower, to allow the process to take place and for it not to become a tool for erecting barriers to trade union recognition.
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and I appreciate his contribution, through that intervention, to this debate. Where I would gently push back is that there are many provisions in the Bill around allowing union access for recruitment, for example, or other things we have spoken about this morning, such as the regular reminders of the right to join—or not—a trade union. Therefore, my central argument is that to most reasonable people, 10% is still a very low bar—it is not a high proportion of anything. So, if the other provisions in the Bill still cannot allow the trade unions to have reached that very modest 10% threshold, something really isn’t working.
Whether you are a passionate trade unionist or not, it must be accepted, from the perspective of how the clause sits as part of the package of provisions in the Bill, that something much more fundamental and problematic is happening for unions to be unable to reach that 10% threshold. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that there is universal hostility. I accept that in some workplaces there is hostility; that is unquestionable and clearly something that does happen. However, I can equally think of many examples where the relationship between management and trade union may be—to put it politely—difficult, where it is still one of good will and a wish to engage, negotiate and try to come to an arrangement that works for everyone, rather than the absolute hostility that the hon. Gentleman described.
Michael Wheeler
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way again, because I would not want my words to be misrepresented. In no way was I suggesting that there is universal hostility; I was just talking about the reality on the ground and the way that recognition procedures are often used. Let us bear in mind that voluntary recognition agreements are a thing, so these procedures tend to be used where there is hostility. There is not universal hostility in the workplace. In fact, I worked in a union that had the largest private sector partnership agreement with a large private sector employer, and it was harmonious and beneficial for all involved, so I would not want my words to be taken out of context or misrepresented.
Greg Smith
I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman in any way, shape or form, but I return to my central argument. Although I entirely accept what he says—that there are examples of hostility—and I understand why the Government wish to take measures to overrule them, it is impossible to view clause 47 in isolation. It must be looked at as part of the package of measures in the Bill. If, having become law, they still fail at some future point to counteract the problems that he talks about, there is something much more fundamentally problematic occurring, which the clause alone would not solve. I therefore ask the Minister to reflect on how he envisages the other provisions impacting the need for the clause to be implemented in the first place, particularly if an already low threshold of 10% has the potential, under the Secretary of State’s direction, to become even more absurdly low by the test of reasonability and go down to 2%.
If Members were to go to the average high street to do one of those dreaded media-style vox pops and ask, “Is 2% a reasonable threshold to allow in any of these circumstances?” I think the general answer would be that 2% is absurdly low, and that 10% is already low enough. The test of public opinion is important. I dare say that many more consultations are to come, and it is important that they tease out what is reasonable and what is not.
Steve Darling
To me, the clause is all about resetting the culture within our employment world, and I welcome the proposals within it. It is about driving the partnership approach that we should have in the workplace. The more we can achieve that, the better for our economy.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 126, in clause 48, page 61, line 20, at end insert—
“4A In subsection (1) of section 82 (Rules as to political fund), after paragraph (d) insert—
‘(e) that trade union members who have not opted out of the political fund must signal, in writing, their agreement to continue contributing to the fund at the end of a period of 12 months after last opting into the fund, and
(f) that trade union members must be given an annual notice about their right to opt out of the political fund’
(1B) A notice under subsection (1)(f) must include a form that enables the member to opt out of the fund.”
This amendment would require trade unions to notify their members every year of their right to opt out of the political fund, and to obtain an annual opt-in to the political fund from their members.
Greg Smith
I rise to speak to amendment 126 standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends on the Committee. The amendment would require trade unions to notify their members every year of their right to opt out of the political fund and to obtain an annual opt-in to the political fund from their members.
It is as clear as day that Conservatives believe that it is important for people to have control over the money that they earn, which is why, as part of the Trade Union Act 2016, the Conservative Government made it unlawful to require a member of a trade union to contribute to the political fund if the member had not given that union notice of their willingness to opt in to the fund. The Bill aims to reverse that simple proposition, so that a member of a trade union is a contributor to the political fund of the union unless they have given an opt-out notice to the trade union. It seems that the sentiment underlying this change is that trade unions have more right to their members’ wages than their members do. Otherwise, why would this Labour Government seek to reverse that position?
Our amendment comes in two parts, of which the second part concerns the opt-out process contained in the Bill. It is not clear in the Bill whether there is any requirement for trade unions to remind their members of their right to opt out of the political fund. We think it only reasonable that they should have to do so annually, and that they should provide the necessary paperwork with the opt-out notice, so that those who wish to opt out can do so as easily as possible.
Polling published only this week shows that it has taken just six months—far less than the annual requirement that we are proposing—for a quarter of people who voted Labour last July to regret doing so. That might reflect the number of union members who previously opted in to a political fund but, within a period of months or perhaps a whole calendar year, having seen where their money has been spent and the causes that it has supported, regret having donated to that political fund through their union membership and no longer wish to do so.
I am sure that in the hustle and bustle of our busy daily lives, we have all had the experience of forgetting to cancel that direct debit or unsubscribe from a list or a newspaper—whatever it might be. We need to make that process as easy as possible. Just as companies that are about to increase a subscription on something or change the terms and conditions of a mobile phone contract, for example, are required to inform the customer of those changes in a timely manner, unions should be required to give their members not only a detailed reminder that they have the right to opt out of the political fund, but a clear instructional path through which it is as easy as possible to do so.
I do not see how the Government can object to our simple proposition that union members should be reminded annually of their right to opt out. Should the Minister or any Government Members disagree, I invite them to inform the House whether there will be any requirement on trade unions to remind their members, even in the most vague terms, that they can opt out. If so, how often will they have to remind their members of that right? If there is no requirement for trade unions to remind their members of that, or the Government are not interested in accepting the Opposition’s amendment, it seems to me that the legislation creates a subscription trap—to put it in any other terms would not do it justice.
We Conservatives feel strongly about this issue. In the last Parliament, we passed the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which contained two significant and notable proposals on subscription contracts that are directly transferable to the principles of the amendment. First, it contained proposals on reminder notices, which mean that businesses need to provide notices to consumers to remind them that their subscription contract will renew and that their payment will be due unless they cancel. Secondly, it set a precedent to allow consumers to exit a subscription contract in a straightforward, cost-effective and timely way, with proposals that mean that businesses need to ensure that the process for terminating is not unduly onerous and that consumers can signal their intent to end the contract through a single—that is the important part here—communication.
During the passage of that Act, which set the precedent for much of amendment 126, the Labour party, then in opposition, supported those aims—in fact, the Bill did not go far enough for Labour. On Report, the then shadow Minister tabled new clause 29, on which the Labour party divided the House in order to support. It now seems to be arguing the other way on those very principles that apply to consumers, and to all our constituents, when it comes to trade unions and contributions to the political fund.
Greg Smith
I give way to the hon. Member for High Peak, although he now wishes for it to be in Greater Manchester.
Jon Pearce
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB. I am interested in the shadow Minister’s proposition, because the number of members of the Conservative party relative to other parties has been in the press over the last few weeks. Does the Conservative party do what he proposes and remind its members of the opportunity to leave on an annual basis, or do its members just do that of their own volition?
Greg Smith
As I alluded to, the hon. Gentleman seems to want his constituency to leave Derbyshire and join Greater Manchester, so he is opening up a can of worms there.
I am happy to tell the Committee that I pay my membership fees to the Conservative party by direct debit and I get that annual email reminding me that my renewal is coming up. I cannot see any circumstance in which I would ever wish to leave the oldest and most successful—most of the time—political party in the country, but it is very clear in those emails how to do so, just as I am sure it is for the Labour party and for some of the smaller parties that exist as well. That is an important principle. It is only to be regretted if we want to stray into the politics of that, which are relevant to the principles outlined in amendment 126 about opting out of political funds.
Of course it will happen time and again that, when an individual signs up to anything at all—be it a trade union political fund, political party, club, society, lobby group or whatever—they change their mind and wish to leave it. The best example that I can give is when the Labour party changed quite significantly on the election of a particularly left-wing leader after the 2015 general election, and many members of the Labour party, including Labour MPs, chose to leave it. Of course, they should have had that right and that freedom to do so, and I do not see why that right and that freedom should not be as equally applicable, as amendment 126 suggests, to the political fund of trade unions.
Labour’s proposed new clause 29 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 has direct read across to amendment 126, which we are debating today, and it had a two-pronged approach. It required traders to ask consumers whether they wished to opt in to subscriptions renewing automatically, either
“after a period of six months and every six months thereafter, or…if the period between the consumer being charged for the first and second time is longer than six months, each time payment is due.”
The second limb of that new clause would have required:
“If the consumer does not opt-in to such an arrangement, the trader must provide a date by which the consumer must notify the trader of the consumer’s intention to renew the contract, which must be no earlier than 28 days before the renewal date.”
If the consumer did not provide that notification, the subscription contract would not renew.
There seems to have been a considerable shift in the Labour party’s policy position on subscription traps. It seems to believe that consumers should be given every possible opportunity to cancel subscription contracts with businesses, but that it should be as hard as possible to cancel a subscription to a trade union political fund. That is not a coherent position, and that is not something that I think any Labour Member would wish to defend.
It is to keep the Labour party honest that we have tabled the first part of our amendment 126, which would require that, where trade union members have not opted out of the political fund, they must put in writing their continued agreement to pay the fund annually. Given that the Labour party wanted to enforce a more stringent mechanism on businesses taking people’s money through subscriptions, which would have been opted in to originally, I cannot see why the Labour Government would not accept that union members should continue to have to indicate in writing that they wish to continue to be subscribers to the trade union political fund.
This amendment is a simple, straightforward proposition that is entirely consistent with the lines that Labour Members took when they were in opposition in the last Parliament, which they now seem to wish to row back on. When the Minister responds, or when any Labour Member wishes to stand up, it is incumbent on them to say why they believe those subscriptions traps should continue and should be nakedly allowed for trade union political funds.
Michael Wheeler
I might surprise Conservative Members by saying that I welcome the amendment. Before those on the Labour Benches start to panic, I welcome it because it is a reminder that the only place in the country where Conservative Members support increasing red tape is for trade unions.
It is always nice to follow and to be of one mind with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, so I will try not to repeat too much of what he said—although I agree with it all. The shadow Minister challenged Labour Members who have spoken, but it is fundamental to point out that the analogy he drew is false. A trade union is a member-based democratic organisation designed to protect those who are part of it. It is not a subscription or an entertainment package on TV. It comes with more rights, more democratic involvement and more control over where money and resources go. A fundamentally false analogy was drawn.
We heard earlier about businesses. I gently push back on what the hon. Member for Bridgwater said; I do not think I heard the Minister say it would be an annual notice. It was up for consultation, but even one notice was described by Conservative Members as onerous. Yet here we have an amendment pushing not just for reminders but for annual reconfirmation, from people who have already given their consent to pay into a political fund, that they are happy for that to happen, as a compulsory measure. That is deemed reasonable by Conservative Members, but it is not. The amendment is a continuation of a decades-long attack on the trade union movement by the Conservative party.
Michael Wheeler
I was one sentence from the end, but I will always happily give way.
Greg Smith
Perhaps I can put to the hon. Gentleman a hypothetical scenario. If his trade union, the political fund of which he had willingly opted in to because in some cases it might support the Labour party, decided, like a quarter of Labour voters, that it regretted that political choice and now wished to go even further to the left and support the Liberal Democrats, would the hon. Gentleman wish to opt out of that political fund and have clear instruction on how to do so should that be the case?
Michael Wheeler
For once in this place I will give a direct answer. Yes, I would. As a paid-up member of a trade union I would know exactly how to do that. I do not need the measures in the amendment to do so. Conservative Members talk about trade union members in the hypothetical, trying to understand what they would like. Other than those of us in this place who are trade union members, I wonder how many they have ever met. As someone who worked for one in the background, I think I know the mind of a trade union member.
Justin Madders
We have had a good debate on the amendment. It is fair to say there is a deep divide in our positions. I will address the amendment and the clause stand part debate.
Amendment 126 would make two changes to clause 48. First, it seeks to retain the requirement on trade unions to provide their members with an annual notice of their right to opt out of contributions to the political fund. Secondly, it seeks to require trade union members to opt in to contributions to the political fund annually. As we have heard, that would place substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic requirements both on trade unions and on their members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles said, this is one of those rare occasions when the Conservative party seems to be in favour of more red tape, which is clearly something that we want to see reduced.
I will start with the change that would retain the requirement for trade unions to send an annual notice to members reminding them that they can opt out of contributing to a political fund. The amendment targets the wrong section. It would amend section 86 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which relates to ensuring that employers do not deduct contributions through check-off from the member where the union member has opted out of the political fund or where the opt-out notice has been given but is not yet in force.
However, I will respond in terms of the spirit of the amendment tabled by the shadow Minister. The Government have been clear in our intention to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, which was a clear manifesto commitment. We have a mandate to deliver on that. The amendment seeks to frustrate that clear intention by retaining the substantive effect of section 84A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as amended by the Trade Union Act 2016.
We should be clear that members are, of course, free to opt out of contributing to a political fund whenever they wish. Clause 48, which I will come to, sets out how that is possible. Currently, alongside the requirement to ballot members on the maintenance of a political fund every 10 years, trade unions must also remind their members of their right to opt out of a political fund. The Government are proposing to remove the ballot requirements. We have consulted on whether to retain a requirement for trade union members to be reminded on a 10-year basis that they can opt out of the political fund.
Greg Smith
I understand the point the Minister is making. On the one hand, he wants everyone to be reminded annually of their right to join a trade union, but he wants them to be reminded of their ability to opt out of the political fund only every 10 years. Surely he can see the inconsistency in that approach. Even though I am sure that he wants the political funds to be as bulging as possible, certainly for those unions that donate to the Labour party, surely he must see that there is an inconsistency between reminding people of their right to join a trade union annually but reminding them of their right to withdraw their support for the political fund on a less frequent basis.
Justin Madders
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. I have not actually said that we will require members to be informed of their right to join a trade union annually—we are simply consulting about the frequency of a reminder. That is the point the hon. Member for Bridgwater raised earlier. We are consulting on that point, and we are consulting on the 10-year reminder about being able to opt out of the political fund. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the shadow Minister thinks we should not inform people annually of their right to join a trade union, presumably he would also agree that they should not be reminded annually of their right to opt out. The arguments work both ways.
Greg Smith
In the spirit of following that debate through to its natural conclusion, no matter where we stand on the politics, surely the happy medium would be to marry up whatever the consultation ends up concluding for the reminder of the right to join a trade union in the first place with the reminder of the right to opt out of the political fund. Surely that would be the fair and equitable way through this—to simply say that the answer is to marry up the reminder of the right to join a trade union with the reminder to opt out of the political fund, with whatever frequency the consultation says.
Justin Madders
Those are of course two entirely separate requirements. At the moment, trade union members can choose to opt out of contributing to the political fund at any time. Clause 48 sets out clearly how they can do that by post, email or other electronic means. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles so eloquently said, most trade union members will be aware of their rights in this area should they wish to exercise them. The comparisons between trade union membership and political funds and Netflix subscriptions and insurance contracts are bogus, because they are not the same thing at all. Membership of a trade union and a political fund is membership of a democratically organised society and independent trade union. The members have control of the organisation because it is democratically organised, so it is not the same thing at all.
Greg Smith
The Opposition stand by our amendment 126. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that I made in my substantive speech. However, I listened very carefully to the Minister’s response and to the other contributions to this debate and I am still utterly lost as to how Labour Members can argue that all these rights should exist when it comes to consumers, but call them red tape, bureaucracy and getting in the way when it comes to trade unions, saying that they are somehow trying to undermine the Labour party.
It will come as no surprise to Labour Members that, generally speaking, Conservatives do want to beat Labour candidates in elections. However, in no way, shape or form would I take away or argue against their ability to go to trade unions and ask for donations or just to willingly receive donations from trade unions, if that is what those trade unions wish to spend their money on. Of course, the rub, the difficulty, is this: where do the trade unions get their money from in the first place? It is from their members; just as those on this side of the Committee willingly pay to be members of the Conservative party and those on the other side willingly pay, I am presuming, to be members of the Labour party—presumption is a dangerous thing.
As we have heard, the opt-outs exist. There are the reminders that come with the annual direct debit, monthly direct debit or however people pay. The position is clear, so why should not the same principle apply to the trade union political fund? It is beyond comprehension that something can be argued for in respect of one sector of society but not the other.
If the Labour party wishes to be funded by the trade unions, that is fine, democratic and clear. But there must be consent from those who put in the money in the first place, on a recurring basis; it must be clear that that is still where they wish their money to go. Those members may change their mind on their political allegiance. They may decide that they no longer wish to support Labour. They may decide that they wish to support another political party, whichever that may be. I think it is a matter of fairness that they are given not just the right to opt out, which I accept exists, but the regular reminder of how to opt out that every other section of society and every other subscription model, be it political, consumer or otherwise, has.
Laurence Turner
I welcome, for the purpose of the record, what was a brave and interesting admission from the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire: in his words, this amendment is motivated by a desire to beat Labour party candidates.
Laurence Turner
If the hon. Member wants to correct the record, I will of course welcome that. He is talking about Labour-affiliated trade unions, but of course many trade unions are not affiliated or do not have a relationship with a political party. Many of them are studiously non-party political in their approach. Has he considered the impact on those unions of the approach that he proposes, and what consultation has he had with unions such as the National Association of Head Teachers?
Greg Smith
I do not think I need to correct the record, in that I made a statement of the obvious, which is that Conservatives wish to beat Labour in elections, but equally I went on to say that, with the right consent, it is perfectly fair, democratic and legitimate for the Labour party to receive funding from those trade unions that wish it to do so. I went even further by saying that that is perfectly fine; so long as it is done transparently and stated on the record—as Labour Members have assiduously done every time they have stood up to speak during this Bill Committee and, indeed, in other debates—there is nothing wrong with it.
This is about the process for members, whether they are contributing to political funds where the unions do donate to Labour, or to any other cause, be it party political or a campaign on this side or the other— the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield himself recognised and spoke earlier about the very good campaign in relation to attacks on emergency workers. That is a perfectly good, legitimate and worthwhile use of that money, to which I would anticipate—although presumption is a dangerous thing—that most, if not all, contributors to the political fund that supported the campaign would happily continue to contribute. However, there are circumstances and times when trade union members contributing to political funds may not see that money being spent as they would like it to be. It is the ease of being able to opt out, not just having the right to opt out, that the amendment gets to the heart of.
Before the Committee divides on amendment 126, I urge Committee members to reflect on whether they really want to say to the outside world that, while consumers have the right to be reminded on a monthly or annual basis of how to opt out of their mobile phone contract, magazine subscription or whatever else, such a reminder of how to opt out of political funds—not the right to opt out but how—should be denied to trade union members.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister talks about this being a rule that applies to every other section of society. Is he saying that the principle should apply to every membership organisation, be it the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution or any of the many other membership organisations that exist in the country? There will be millions of members of those organisations, so should the principle apply equally to them all? Is he aware that it applies at the moment?
Greg Smith
For the most part, I would say that it does exist. I am thinking of membership organisations outside the world of politics that I have subscriptions to: at the annual point of renewal—most of the ones I have are annual—I do get either an email or a letter saying, “Your direct debit for the next year is going to be £2 higher a month. It will automatically renew unless you do x, y and z.” The x, y and z to opt out, stop or unsubscribe is always very clear.
Justin Madders
I am not sure that we need to know about the shadow Minister’s memberships. I have two points: there is not legislation requiring this, and when trade unions raise subscriptions they will send a similarly worded letter out. The analogy the shadow Minister has drawn already takes place.
Greg Smith
Well, there is. The Conservative party held our membership at £25 for far too long, which was why the increase was so big a couple of years ago. I appreciate that most Labour Committee members, beyond those on the Front Bench, were not in the last Parliament, but the general point of principle here is that when it came to other legislation in that Parliament, the then Opposition argued vehemently for similar provisions to apply in other parts of business and consumer society that they now wish to deny to trade union members. That is a point that the Government are going to find difficult to defend when going forward with the consideration of the Bill.
To me, it is a simple proposition: the Opposition think it is fair and clear that everybody should get an annual reminder of not just their right to opt out but how to do so in a simple and straightforward way. People change their minds and decide that they no longer wish to support particular causes, parties or campaigns. It is surely right that they get a clear and simple reminder on a frequent basis—annually, or, if we are generous, every two years.
Justin Madders
The clause is relatively simple in that it seeks to repeal section 15 of the Trade Union Act 2016 by amending the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to remove section 116B. Section 15 of the 2016 Act required trade unions to pay public sector employers where they administered payroll deductions for trade union subscriptions—known as check-off. Section 15 further mandated that the service be made available only where workers had the option to pay their union subscriptions by other means.
The check-off regulations were apparently introduced as a cost-saving measure, with estimated annual savings of £1.6 million, totalling £12 million over the next 10 years. However, as last year’s check-off impact assessment acknowledged, the Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2024 brought a cumulative cost of £17 million to public sector employers and trade unions over that period, which is far higher than the estimated cost savings.
In the spirit of wanting to save businesses and the public sector from burdens, we think that this is an entirely sensible move. I urge members of the Committee to support the clause.
Greg Smith
Of course we wish to save taxpayers money, particularly when it comes to the public sector, but likewise we do not see why businesses should bear the cost of trade union subscription collections. That should be a cost entirely for the trade unions to bear, just as we would never tolerate—on the Opposition Benches for sure—the public purse or the taxpayer’s pound having to subsidise any other body that should be funding itself.
I understand where the Minister is coming from. As he looks across other parts of the Bill, I urge him to have a similar approach to saving businesses and taxpayers money across the piece.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Sixteenth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Greg Smith
Main Page: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)Department Debates - View all Greg Smith's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsTuesday 7th January 2025
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 January 2025 - (7 Jan 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I wish you a happy new year. As always, I will start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I shall attempt to navigate this mega-grouping of clauses, amendments and new clauses. Clause 50 will amend section 168 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to provide that an employer that permits an employee to take time off for carrying out trade union duties, including as a learning representative, must, where requested by the employee, provide the employee with accommodation and other facilities for carrying out their duties or undergoing training related to their trade union duties, as is reasonable in all the circumstances. “Facilities” could include office and meeting space and access to the internet or intranet. In providing the employee with facilities, the employer should have regard to a relevant code of practice issued by ACAS.
The clause will also strengthen the existing right to reasonable paid facility time for union representatives, including union learning representatives, by establishing a presumption that the employee’s view on what is considered reasonable time off is reasonable in all the circumstances, having regard to any relevant provisions of a code of practice issued by ACAS. The clause will require that the employer show that it was not a reasonable amount of time off at an employment tribunal, in the event of legal proceedings.
Despite the fact that most union representatives receive paid time off, it is often insufficient to allow them to carry out all their trade union duties, and many union representatives use significant amounts of their own time to do so. This Government want to ensure that union workplace representatives can take sufficient paid facility time and have sufficient access to facilities to enable them to fulfil their union representative duties. That will lead to improved worker representation and industrial relations by giving trade unions and workplace representatives the freedom to organise, represent and negotiate on behalf of their workers and to increase co-operation between employers and unionised workers, leading to beneficial outcomes for the economy.
The Government will not support the shadow Minister’s amendments 114 and 115, which would place an unnecessary restriction on trade union equality representatives’ ability to take time off during working hours to carry out their role as equality representatives. Equality representatives have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer. Placing a performance condition on the right to paid time off for equality representatives is at odds with existing rights and protections for other trade union representatives, such as union learning representatives.
In addition, the Bill is clear that the amount of time off that an employee is permitted to take, the purposes and occasions for which it is taken and any conditions subject to which it may be so taken are those that are reasonable in all the circumstances, having regard to any relevant provision of a code of practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State. The existing code of practice on time off for trade union representatives will be updated in due course to cover equality representatives. The Government would therefore strongly argue that the additional condition is not required for equality representatives.
Clause 51 will insert new section 168B into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The proposed new section requires that an employer must permit an employee who is a member of an independent trade union recognised by the employer and an equality representative of the trade union to take paid time off during the employee’s working hours for the following purposes: carrying out activities for the purpose of promoting the value of equality in the workplace; arranging learning or training on matters relating to equality in the workplace; providing information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace; consulting with the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace; obtaining and analysing information on the state of equality in the workplace; and preparing for any of the things mentioned previously.
The above applies only if the trade union has given the employer notice in writing that the employee is an equality representative of the union and has undergone sufficient training to enable them to carry out the activities listed above, or if the trade union has in the past six months given the employer notice in writing that the employee will be undergoing such training—this can be done only once in relation to any one employee—or within six months of the trade union giving the employer notice in writing that the employee will be undergoing such training, the employee has done so and the trade union has given the employer notice of that. “Sufficient training” is that which is sufficient for fulfilling the purposes of an equality representative, having regard to any relevant code of practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State.
Clause 51 will also require an employer to permit an employee to take paid time off during working hours to undergo training relevant to their role as an equality representative and, where requested, provide the employee with accommodation and other facilities to enable them to fulfil their role, having regard to a relevant code of practice issued by ACAS. Should an employer fail to permit the employee to take time off or provide the employee with facilities as required, the employee may present a complaint to an employment tribunal, at which it will be for the employer to show that the amount of time off that the employee proposed was not reasonable.
Trade unions have long fought for equality. Equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer. Clause 51 therefore recognises in statute the role of trade union equality representative, which is defined in proposed new section 168B(12) as a person appointed or elected in accordance with the trade union rules and defined by reference to, and in a manner consistent with, the Equality Act 2010.
I turn to the shadow Minister’s amendments 113 and new clause 18. I should start by stating that sections 168 to 170 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 are long-standing provisions that require employers to provide facility time for union representatives and union learning representatives of a recognised trade union.
Our legislation also requires employers to make payments to union representatives for time off for carrying out their union duties. Despite the fact that most union representatives receive paid time off, it is often insufficient to allow them to carry out all of their trade union duties, and many union representatives use significant amounts of their own time to do so. We want to ensure that union workplace representatives can take sufficient paid facility time and have sufficient access to facilities to enable them to fulfil their union representative duties. That is why we are strengthening the rights of trade union representatives in the Bill. As part of that, we are also providing—in clause 51, which will insert new section 168B into the 1992 Act—new rights for time off for union equality representatives. Equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer.
The shadow Minister’s new clause 18 would require Ministers to commission a cost assessment of facility time for trade union representatives and for union learning representatives and the prospective costs of time off for equality representatives across all sectors of the economy. It would also require Ministers to lay a report before both Houses of Parliament once the assessment has been made. Amendment 113 would further require that the provisions of clause 51 could not come into force until after completion of the assessment referred to in new clause 18.
New clause 18 is not necessary. We do not need such a time-consuming assessment across all sectors of the UK economy. Also, union representatives under our legislation are already entitled to reasonable paid facility time to enable them to carry out their duties. As I have said already, we know that many union representatives do not have sufficient time; the Bill is intended to rectify that. I also note that no such assessment of facility time, sector by sector, for the entire UK economy was ever carried out by the previous Government.
Clause 52 will repeal sections 13 and 14 of the Trade Union Act 2016 by removing sections 172A and 172B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Regulations made under section 172A, inserted by section 13, require relevant public sector employers to publish information relating to facility time for relevant union officials. Section 172B, inserted by section 14, provided a power—although I do not think that it was ever implemented—to impose a cap on public sector facility time. Repealing these sections will help to ensure that trade union representatives have sufficient time to represent workers, negotiate with employers and conduct training.
The removal of the reporting requirements represents a significant step in resetting the relationship between public sector employers and trade unions by recognising the importance of union representatives and the time needed for them to fulfil their duties effectively. The removal of the regulations will reduce the annual administrative burden on many public sector employers, freeing up more time to focus on delivery for the public.
This Government believe that it is for each employer to work in partnership with their own recognised trade unions to determine the facility time needed to ensure that their trade union representatives can properly represent their members and the workforces within which they operate. It is unnecessary to require annual reporting or to introduce an arbitrary cap on facility time. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire not to press amendments 113 to 115 and new clause 18. I commend clauses 50 to 52 to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I, too, wish you a very happy new year.
I will start with amendments 114 and 115, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends on the Committee. The amendments would prevent facility time from being provided for equality representatives unless—this is the important bit—the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory performance targets.
In workplaces in which a trade union is recognised, trade union workplace representatives have a right to paid time off for the purpose of carrying out their trade union duties or to take part in union training. That right currently applies to workplace representatives, health and safety representatives, union learning representatives, and information and consultation representatives. The Bill will extend that right to equality representatives, who will now be allowed paid time off to carry out
“activities for the purpose of promoting the value of equality in the workplace”;
to arrange
“learning or training on matters relating to equality in the workplace”;
to provide
“information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace”;
to consult
“the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace”;
and to obtain and analyse
“information relating to equality in the workplace.”
I make no criticism or comment about the value of those activities, but what I would say is that they are straightforwardly set out in the law already, and employers already have a duty to consider them. Creating a duty to allow more facility time for this purpose seems to be at cross-purposes with what employers are already, rightly, under an obligation to consider.
The amendments are an attempt to ensure that the taxpayer gets something out of this latest concession from the Labour Government to the trade unions. We would like to make sure that equalities representatives working for public sector employers are entitled to facility time only if that employer is meeting any statutory targets that it has. We suggest that if the employer is not meeting those targets, that is more important to taxpayers than facility time.
New clause 18 and amendment 113 also stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends on the Committee. As the Minister says, new clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to undertake a sectoral cost assessment of trade union facility time. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the cost, and prospective cost, by sector of that facility time. Amendment 113 would provide that clause 51, which will introduce facility time for trade union equalities representatives, could not come into force until after the completion of the review referred to in new clause 18.
That is an eminently sensible step. I cannot see how anyone could object to a cost analysis and assessment being done before provisions come into effect. People need to know what they are dealing with and how much it will cost them, whether that is in the public sector or the private sector, a Government Department or a Government quango, a council, an NHS trust or a private business. It is not reasonable for these things to be asked for without a true assessment and understanding of the cost.
The Opposition are concerned about the increased impetus that the Bill places behind facility time and about extending it to equalities representatives. We would therefore like to make sure that the Government have done their homework and understood the cost to business of these changes before they implement them.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of GMB and Unite.
The shadow Minister has set out a number of new restrictions that he is seeking to impose, but in 2014 he brought a motion to Hammersmith and Fulham council that said:
“Council staff will not be paid for any time they spend on trade union activity.”
Is that still what he believes?
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that up. He has clearly been doing his homework and researching the wonderful transcripts from my time on that local authority. I have some very happy memories of it—I remember cutting council tax by 20%, which I am very proud of—but he is really going to stretch my grey matter if he wants me to remember that particular motion. However, I am certainly of the view that it is not for taxpayers to fund trade union activities; it is for trade unions to meet their own costs. It is for trade unions, just like any other body, not to require taxpayer subsidy or the state to step in and help them meet their costs. I certainly remember campaigning on the expansion of facility time back then, with many across the Conservative party. From memory, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Pickles took a particular interest in the issue.
My direct answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no: taxpayers should not be funding trade union facility time. That is for the trade unions themselves to fund out of their membership fees and other income streams, where they have them, so that they can go about doing their work. I repeat that it is really not for taxpayers to fund that. There needs to be wider reform to protect taxpayers from indirectly—or directly, in this case—funding third-party organisations such as trade unions.
We have to consider the extra burden to employers in the round. Along with other elements of the Bill, such as the provisions on unfair dismissal, and the growth-stunting hike to employers’ national insurance contributions in the Budget, this is another straw that may yet break the camel’s back for a number of businesses. The Government are carelessly piling cost and red tape on employers with this Bill and other measures, and are just expecting those burdens to be absorbed. We would like to be reassured that it is possible to find a better way that does not burden the taxpayer or private businesses with the provisions that we find in this Bill. We have tabled these amendments to rectify that and to put those protections in place.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Happy new year, Sir Christopher. I have a small amount of sympathy with the shadow Minister—I understand the cost to business, so I welcome that element of the amendments—but I have great fears. One need only have listened to the radio this morning to have heard about the issues for McDonald’s workers that have not been sorted out. I accept that that is the private sector, and the amendments are about the public sector, but it demonstrates that if equalities issues are not taken seriously in the workplace, it can cause major harm to employees and to the culture of improvement that we need to see.
Greg Smith
Nobody is suggesting that equalities issues should not be taken seriously. The point that I was making about our amendments is that the law is already very clear about equalities, and employers should be held to that law. There is no need to place this additional burden on the public sector or the private sector. Equalities are incredibly important—nobody in the Opposition is denying that—but we must find the right vehicle to ensure that equalities duties are enforced. This Bill is not it.
Steve Darling
I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman is taking a Panglossian approach that all in the world is perfect. It is far from perfect, which is why I welcome large tracts of the Bill, as long as we are supporting employers on the journey.
Justin Madders
The clause will enable us to strengthen the protections against blacklisting. The Consulting Association scandal, in which thousands of union workers were blacklisted, underscored the need for strong anti-blacklisting laws. Blacklisting persists, yet the rules have not been updated for over a decade. That is why we are taking steps to modernise them.
The clause amends section 3 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. It will enable regulations to be made that extend prohibitions to lists that are not prepared for the purpose of discrimination, but are subsequently used for that purpose. Secondary legislation and guidance can then make clear that blacklisting prohibitions extend to lists created by predictive technology.
The clause also extends the scope of the powers, so that prohibitions no longer have to be limited to employers or employment agencies. First, the reference to employers or employment agencies is removed from section 3(1)(b) of the 1999 Act. Secondly, an amendment to section 3 adds a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to third party use of blacklists. It is important that the Government continue to make it clear that blacklisting is unacceptable, and updating the law supports that.
Greg Smith
This is one of the less contentious clauses in the Bill. The Minister is right to say that something that has not been updated for a decade probably should be looked at again, especially in the light of some of the technology that we see emerging. We will not oppose clause 53 standing part of the Bill.
Steve Darling
I strongly welcome this modernisation of approach.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Industrial action ballots: turnout and support thresholds
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Greg Smith
This is another bumper grouping for us to debate. As the Minister said, new clause 32 would require the Secretary of State to consider whether sufficient measures are in place to prevent workplace intimidation before making any order to allow balloting to take place by any means other than a postal ballot. The Bill liberalises the law on balloting and industrial action, and I am normally very much in favour of deregulation and liberalisation, but on this occasion, there are considerable concerns, which is why the Opposition tabled this new clause.
The Bill lowers turnout and support thresholds and allows electronic balloting on industrial action. It is important that there are protections in place for workers in that. We want to make sure that, before allowing electronic balloting for industrial action, the Secretary of State is reassured that unions have sufficient measures in place to prevent workplace intimidation.
If balloting can take place electronically, it can take place in workplaces, where it is much easier for pressure to be put to bear on union members in terms of casting their ballot—that hand on the shoulder, that peering over to see what someone is doing, or the potential requirement from those up to no good to demand proof of the way that someone has cast their ballot, be that on their mobile phone, iPad, tablet, laptop or computer, or whatever it might be. These are practices that I am sure every Member of this House would condemn and say are totally unacceptable and inappropriate, but that I can see happening without robust measures in place to prevent them.
We want the Secretary of State to be able to reassure the House that sufficient protections are in place to ensure that ballots are free fr.om intimidation and coercion before they are allowed to take place electronically. I listened carefully to the Minister’s appeal to the Opposition not to move our new clauses, but I am yet to hear a compelling and reasoned argument why the Government cannot support new clause 32. Surely, we all wish to ensure that intimidation and coercion have no place in any part of our society, least of all in the workplace. I do not understand why the Government are so reticent to take what I would argue is a very moderate and reasonable step to strengthen the Bill and tackle intimidation and coercion.
New clause 33 would prevent voting in trade union ballots and elections from being done in the workplace. Many of the arguments I made on new clause 32 very much apply here; in a similar spirit, we have tabled new clause 33 to create a little more balance and protection in the Bill. It is important that all those exercising their right to vote on industrial action can do so free from pressure from colleagues or trade union members, and that is why the new clause would stipulate that voting in trade union ballots and elections should not happen in the workplace. We also do not believe that workers should spend time when they are being paid to do their jobs voting on trade union matters. Such voting should be done in members’ personal time outside the workplace, and employers should be protected from having to pay for it.
Before I move on to new clause 43, I want to emphasise that while that last point is important, it is a matter of principle that in this country, we believe in the secret ballot. If there was any suggestion that any of our elections, whether elections to this House, council elections or police and crime commissioner elections, could take place on someone’s phone in front of other people without the protections we all enjoy at the ballot box, there would be outcry—there would rightly be outrage. When it comes to something as significant as voting for or against industrial action in a trade union ballot, it is absolutely the same principle: the integrity of the secret ballot should be upheld, in the same way that we would expect in any other walk of life.
Indeed, we have protections in the 1922 Committee in this House. We have the occasional leadership election, and mobile phones are not permitted into the room in which we vote, to stamp out the very possibility of people looking over others’ shoulders and the secret ballot being compromised. I am not sure what the parliamentary Labour party does. The secret ballot is an important principle enshrined in our democracy that should apply equally to trade union ballots. This moderate, measured request to ensure that those ballots do not take place in the workplace is an important step to protect the secrecy of the ballot.
Laurence Turner
The shadow Minister talks about the 1922 Committee, which I think my predecessor as representative of Birmingham Northfield knows more about than me. A few years back, the Conservative party membership effectively elected the Prime Minister through an electronic ballot. That is a comment on the process and not the merits of the outcome. Why do the shadow Minister’s arguments against electronic balloting in industrial matters not apply to that situation too?
Greg Smith
I think we were still on paper ballot papers, for the large part, the last time there was a change of leader of the Conservative party while we were in government. The election of the current Leader of the Opposition did happen by electronic ballot, but that is not the point of new clause 33. It does not seek to prevent electronic balloting; it seeks to prevent it from taking place in the workplace—the very place where trade union organisers, or other colleagues or employees, could put pressure on those who have a vote. They might bully their way into seeing how someone has voted, or put pressure, either nakedly or slightly less visibly, on someone to vote in what they might consider to be the right way or otherwise. If ballots could only take place outside the workplace, while not a perfect solution, it would take away the pressure that might be brought to bear in the workplace on the way individuals vote. That could—I emphasise “could”—lead someone to vote in a way that they do not want to, for fear of the way that their vote might be perceived by others in the workplace.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
Does the shadow Minister accept that the strikes he talks about happened under an incredibly restrictive regulatory and legislative regime? The measures in the Bill seek to foster a better industrial relations environment, which will lead to fewer strikes, not more. Under the previous Government, we saw an incredibly restrictive environment, which ratcheted up the tension and resulted in more strikes.
Greg Smith
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I gently ask him how a no-strings-attached bumper pay rise for the train drivers worked out in practice when it came to strikes over the Christmas period. We have heard repeatedly from Labour party politicians that they will prevent or stop strikes. The most visible example of that in our newspapers and on our television screens was the Mayor of London, who made some pretty bold promises about stopping strike action. Londoners and those coming into London for work, pleasure or hospital appointments have suffered multiple times during his tenure. I am not sure I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that the Bill will somehow magically reduce the number of strikes, when the reality on the ground has been very different.
Given the prolonged and repeated strike action made easier by the Bill, it could almost certainly lead to large costs across the economy. We think it is only right that a level of transparency similar to that applied to Government Departments should be applied to trade union decisions. Trade unions should exercise some responsibility and consider the consequences of their decisions to undertake strike action. We would therefore like trade unions to assess the likely impact that their going on strike will have on real people and their lives, journeys, hospital appointments, theatre tickets, enjoyment, pleasure or whatever it might be that the strike action will prevent them from doing—and, of course, on our children’s education, which is so important.
New clause 43 would require trade unions to carry out impact assessments and family tests, to publish the reports of those, and to inform members of the trade union about their contents, before a ballot for industrial action can take place. It is hardly a controversial position that people should know what they are voting for before they are asked to cast a ballot on it, and that they should understand the consequences of the strike action not just for them, but for the wider economy and people’s health, education, and so much more across our great country. We think it is only right that trade union members should be fully informed of the consequences before they cast their votes. Such information would provide some public transparency about the cost and inconvenience that trade unions are willingly inflicting on the British public.
Steve Darling
I have some sympathy with the desire to understand the cost, but to me, the vast majority of the Government proposals before us today are about modernising the system appropriately. I am concerned that this afternoon we have seen the official Opposition one minute say that all in the garden is rosy and there is no need for equality, and the next flip over and catastrophise about the Government’s proposals. We need to get a firm hand on the tiller and see that the vast majority of these proposals simply entail modernisation. I welcome them.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister asked why we cannot support new clauses 32 and 33. The simple answer is that there are already legislative protections in section 54(12) of the Employment Relations Act 2004, which sets out the conditions that must be adhered to in order to ensure that balloting is done in a secure and safe manner. He made some interesting points about people peering over others’ shoulders when votes are taking place. Clearly, his colleagues in the parliamentary Conservative party cannot be trusted to behave themselves when electronic voting takes place. That is something he will no doubt address with his colleagues in private.
If the shadow Minister is concerned about the impact of electronic balloting in all spheres—I am sure there are sometimes reasons in his own party to question the outcome of the electronic ballot—we can look at that, but there is already clear provision in law about how any trade union ballot is to be conducted. The working group will be considering that. If the Conservative party thought there were concerns about the use of electronic ballots for industrial disputes, they might not have commissioned the Knight review back in 2017 to consider the matter. That they did so suggests that they considered that it is right and appropriate that we modernise trade union practices to allow for electronic balloting for industrial action.
Moving on to the assessments the shadow Minister is requesting, the Government are pretty clear that, through new clause 43, the Opposition seek to add another administrative hurdle for a trade union that wants to take industrial action. There is no doubt that any such tests or assessments that were undertaken would lead to a multitude of satellite litigation, delay resolution of disputes, and divert both parties’ focus from resolving the disputes to arguing about impact assessments. I am not quite sure what the family test is. I think there is a family and friends test that some organisations use. It is a little vague. It is also unclear who would be the arbiter of whether these tests and assessments were being done sufficiently accurately. It is also fair to say that trade union members know, when they take industrial action, that there will be consequences. They are well aware. They do the job every day, they know the impact, and that is why they always take these matters very seriously.
The central point that the Bill will lead to more industrial action is counterintuitive, given that we are, in the main, reversing provisions of the 2016 Act. As we know, there has been more industrial action in recent years than there has been for decades. Perhaps there is not a cause and effect relationship between that and the 2016 Act, but I would suggest that the evidence points to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 55 and 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57
Industrial action: provision of information to employer
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 167, in clause 57, page 69, line 16, leave out “seventh” and insert “twenty-first”.
This amendment would increase, from seven to 21 days, the notice period that trade unions are required to adhere to when notifying employers that they plan to take industrial action.
The amendment would increase from seven to 21 days the notice period that trade unions are required to adhere to when notifying employers that they plan to take industrial action. As we noted in the debate on the previous group, the Bill liberalises trade union law and repeals legislation passed by the last Conservative Government that brought some balance to the relationship between employers, the British public and trade unions. We think it is fair to require trade unions to provide 21 rather than seven days’ notice to employers that they plan to take industrial action, particularly given that the Bill repeals the minimum service levels legislation passed by the last Conservative Government to ensure sufficient levels of critical public services during strike action.
Given that the British public no longer have that protection, we think it is only fair that employers should have more time to prepare to mitigate some of the damage that occurs during strike action, particularly in vital public services such as ambulance and rail services. When strike action takes place, while of course employers have to prepare to mitigate its effect and put in place other steps to ensure that people still get their healthcare, education or critical services such as transport, the general public also need to make considerable preparations. Preparing properly and putting in place other ways of doing things often cannot be done at the last minute.
I would rather the minimum service levels legislation remained in place and, indeed, was strengthened, but when there is strike action on the railway, for example, it takes place at the drop of a hat—I consider seven days’ notice as at the drop of a hat. I think of the number of children in my constituency who get on at Wendover and Stoke Mandeville stations to travel to Dr Challoner’s grammar school in Amersham, and the number of my constituents who rely on the railway to get to hospital appointments, often in London. Some 7% of Buckinghamshire cancer referrals are to Mount Vernon, which is within London, and most of my constituents who go there for chemotherapy try to travel by train. To put in place a different route to that key chemotherapy appointment, or for parents to mitigate against or make different arrangements for their child to get to school, takes more than a handful of days.
I appeal to the Government to listen to us on what I argue is a moderate and reasonable amendment. Increasing the time limit would give people a fighting chance to put in place different ways of getting to their hospital appointment and getting their kids to school.
Greg Smith
I will come up with another example when the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield is finished.
Laurence Turner
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way; he has been characteristically generous in the number of interventions that he has taken. Can he name a single country that applies a limit of 21 days or more? Was it his intent to propose a limit higher than that which the International Labour Organisation Committee on Freedom of Association has found is consistent with freedom of association?
Greg Smith
My straightforward and simple reply is that I want to get this right in the United Kingdom’s interest. No, I cannot name another country that has 21 days’ notice, but that does not mean we should not do it ourselves. It would give all our constituents a fighting chance to find a way through the challenges that they face when there are train strikes, doctors’ strikes and industrial action in our schools. It would help them to find alternative provision to ensure that their children are looked after, so that they themselves can still go to work and meet their commitments. It would ensure that life can still go on around strikes, particularly in critical services such as healthcare and education, which I am sure no Member of the House wants their constituents to be denied; I certainly do not. I could easily propose a period longer than 21 days, but I have not done so in the interests of trying to reach a compromise and appealing to the Minister’s better instincts. I want to get on the table something that we can work with and that gives all our constituents a fighting chance.
Justin Madders
As the shadow Minister eloquently set out, amendment 167 seeks to increase from seven to 21 days the notice that a trade union must give an employer of industrial action after it has secured a ballot mandate and before any such action is taken. As we know, the Trade Union Act 2016 brought in a requirement for unions to provide 14 days’ notice to employers. As we are committing to repealing the 2016 Act through this Bill, it stands to reason that if the clauses are agreed to, the seven-day notice period that was required prior to the 2016 Act will apply in its place.
We want to reset the relationship with both employers and unions to resolve disputes through meaningful negotiations. Far from supporting the economy, the effect of the legislation in recent years has been an increase in strikes. In 2023, close to 2.7 million working days were lost to strikes, up from 2.5 million in 2022. Both those figures were the highest since the 1980s.
However, we recognise the importance of striking a balance between allowing for effective strike action and ensuring that employers can reasonably prepare. That is especially important in public services such as the NHS, as the shadow Minister has mentioned, where managers need adequate time to plan for periods of industrial action, and that includes adequate time to agree patient safety mitigations with unions. That is why we have given employers, workers, and trade unions the opportunity, through a consultation, to comment on what notice of industrial action should be provided to employers. That consultation closed on 2 December 2024 and our response will be published in due course.
It seems to me that the shadow Minister’s proposal of a 21-day period is effectively a finger-in-the-air job rather than something considered. If he had tabled an amendment to keep it at 14 days, that would at least have been consistent with his party’s previous position. His statement that it is important to change this in the light of the repeal of the minimum service levels legislation is slightly erroneous given that, to our knowledge, no one has ever actually used the provisions of that Act. When we consider the consultation responses, we will look at whether there is a case for changing the length of the notice period from seven days. I therefore suggest that the amendment is unnecessary, and I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw it.
Greg Smith
I accept the Minister’s point about where precisely the number of days should sit. I slightly take issue with him when he says that the 21-day proposal was a finger-in-the-air job. Most people would describe that three-week window as a reasonable notice period to enable people in many walks of life to make plans, such as alternative provision for childcare.
If the Minister is offering up 14 days, we might well take him up on that, but I suspect he is teasing us rather than making a firm offer. Therefore, we stick with our belief that all our constituents deserve fair and reasonable time to plan and make provision in their daily lives to mitigate against strike action and industrial action, which have such a devastating impact on our economy and on people’s healthcare and their children’s education. We wish to see amendment 167 in the Bill, and we will press it to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee long, because we have kind of had the debate already. Clause 57 seeks to repeal section 8 of the Trade Union Act 2016 by amending section 234A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. This will revert the notice period that trade unions need to provide, after securing a successful mandate, from 14 days to seven days.
As I have said, the Government are committed to modernising employment laws, striking a balance between enabling effective industrial action and ensuring that employers can reasonably prepare for such action. We have sought views on what notice period is suitable for modern working patterns and practices through a formal consultation, which closed last month, and we will be reporting on its outcome in due course. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
The bulk of the argument to be had on the clause was made in the debate on amendment 167. The Opposition still believe that the time period stated in this clause is insufficient to enable real people to plan. I therefore urge the Government to go back and consider this, and to see what more reasonable compromise they might be willing to offer our Great British public on Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Union supervision of picketing
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
The clause seeks to reverse the effect of section 10 of the Trade Union Act 2016, thereby removing the requirement under section 220A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for trade unions to appoint a picket supervisor and to meet other bureaucratic and administrative burdens in relation to the supervisor, such as taking reasonable steps to provide their name to the police. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, administrative requirements and bureaucratic hurdles do not prevent strikes; they only make it more difficult for trade unions to engage in good faith negotiations with employers. These changes will bring trade union law into the 21st century and fix the foundations for industrial relations that have not delivered for workers, employers or unions in decades, costing the economy £3.3 billion in lost productivity in the last two years alone.
The Government recognise that regulations governing picketing lines are important, however. That is why the Bill repeals only those measures introduced by the Trade Union Act 2016 in relation to the role of the picket supervisor. Other legislation and an amended code of practice on picketing will remain in place. We are returning the law on picketing to what it was prior to 2016, when I believe that it was working well and was clearly understood by all parties. I therefore commend clause 58 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I will not take much of the Committee’s time on this. The Opposition do not understand why the Government wish to remove perfectly sensible measures from the statute book, other than that the trade unions have clearly demanded that the change be made. It does not seem proportionate or reasonable to us, and we think that those picket supervisors should instead remain on the statute book, as they are the status quo.
Justin Madders
Our view was that the legislation was not required when it was introduced in 2016. There was no evidence at the time that there were issues with picketing, and there was already a code of practice in place to deal with abuse and intimidation on picket lines. Therefore, we believe that reverting to the pre-2016 position, when in most people’s opinion everything was working as it should, is an entirely reasonable move.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59
Protection against detriment for taking industrial action
Amendment made: 83, in clause 59, page 71, line 4, leave out “three” and insert “six”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 236A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 from three months to six months.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 166, in clause 59, page 72, line 21, at end insert—
“236E Actions short of a strike: exemption
(1) The right of a worker not to be subjected to detriment under section 236A does not apply in cases where the worker is involved in one or more of the following activities—
(a) intimidation at picket lines;
(b) protests organised by trade unions in furtherance of a dispute—
(i) at the premises of a company;
(ii) at the private residences of senior managers; or
(iii) at the premises of other organisations that are connected with the dispute;
(c) harassment or bullying of non-striking workers, or those who are covering for striking workers;
(d) victimisation or harassment of senior managers; or
(e) action aimed at damaging property or disrupting business contingency planning.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that the circumstances under subsection (1), in which the right of a worker not to be subjected to detriment do not apply, are set out in a code of practice.”
This amendment would disapply the right not to suffer detriment as a result of industrial action in certain circumstances.
Amendment 166, which was tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk, for Bridgwater and for Mid Leicestershire, would disapply the right not to suffer detriment as a result of industrial action in certain circumstances. This amendment is designed to target what has become known as leverage, which is action taken by a trade union other than traditional industrial action to put pressure on an employer to settle a dispute or meet various demands. When describing leverage in the context of the Grangemouth dispute, Unite said:
“Leverage targets all areas of weakness of an employer, group of employers or sector—both direct and indirect. Leverage is an extension of the understanding that ‘weight of argument’ does not change the position of an employer. Leverage analyses what will change the position of the employer. Leverage is the translation of an organising mind-set into the planning and implementation of a campaign strategy, underpinned by the escalation of pressure to create uncertainty.”
Those are not my words, but the words of a spokesperson for Unite the union. Unite was also of the view that in a leverage campaign
“the employer is routinely treated as a target to be defeated not a friend to be convinced.”
I am not sure that is the good faith relationship between trade union and employer that Labour Members have tried to paint as the normal back and forth between the two. I would certainly condemn as unacceptable any relationship between a trade union and an employer in which
“the employer is routinely treated as a target to be defeated not a friend to be convinced”.
That is not good faith.
Laurence Turner
Even if I accepted the hon. Gentleman’s perspective, which I do not, does he accept that there are some issues with the amendment as drafted? For example, subsection (1)(b)(i) is about protests organised by trade unions in furtherance of a dispute at the premises of a company. I have been part of protests at the premises of a company that were not on land owned by the company but were immediately adjacent, on the public highway. If that were tested in court, that could conceivably fall under the definition of “at”.
Similarly, the amendment seeks to carve out an exemption to the protection of protests at the private residences of senior managers. Conceivably, protests could be organised outside the home of a middle manager or someone lower down the organisational structure. I am sure that is not what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve.
Greg Smith
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s constructive approach. If he accepts the principle of what we are saying, we will work with the Government to polish it, and to ensure the amendment gives the maximum protection and protects junior managers as well as senior managers, and land adjacent to a premise that may not be owned or leased by the company. I will happily work with him and the Minister in a constructive tone to ensure the protections against leverage are as strong as possible. I will happily withdraw the amendment if the Minister commits the Government to working with us and coming up with a stronger amendment on Report that will stamp out the practices I have outlined. I dare say that we will see in a few moments whether he does so.
Justin Madders
I think it would be helpful if I set out why we are seeking to address the issue of detriment within the Bill. The reason is that new section 236A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is required because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in April 2024 that section 146 of the 1992 Act is incompatible with article 11 of the European convention on human rights, because it fails to provide any protection against detriments intended to deter or penalise trade union members from taking part in lawful strike action organised by their union. Hopefully, Members will accept as a starting proposition that we cannot continue to be in breach of our international obligations under the ECHR.
The intention is to rectify that situation by inserting new section 236A into part V of the 1992 Act. This will provide that a worker has the right not to be subject as an individual to detriment of a prescribed description by an act, or any deliberate failure to act, by their employer, if the act or failure to act takes place for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from taking protected industrial action, or penalising the worker for doing so. The prescribed detriments will be set out in secondary legislation following consultation, which will take place after the Bill gains Royal Assent.
The shadow Minister made some interesting points in his speech. However, his amendment seeks to prejudge the consultation on this issue. He made some valid points and I am sure that we will discuss this issue again in future, because there is a need for us to clarify what is considered a detriment, for the reasons that I have outlined.
Some of the examples that the shadow Minister gave are of things that are already catered for in the law. The protection from prescribed detriment only applies where the sole or main purpose of an act or a failure to act is to subject the worker to detriment, to prevent them from or penalise them for taking protective industrial action. For example, if a worker is subjected to detriment solely because, for example, they have damaged property, the protection would not apply. That is the existing position.
Of course the criminal law would still apply to pickets, just as it applies to everyone else, so no person involved in activities associated with pickets or organising pickets has any exemption from the provisions of the criminal law as it applies, for example, to prevent obstruction and preserve public order, or to regulate assemblies or demonstrations. There is already a relevant code of practice in place for that. Consequently, although I understand the points that the shadow Minister is making, I say to him that this issue will be dealt with in detail in a forthcoming consultation. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is correct. That is indeed the purpose of the—well, we will get to the clause stand part debate shortly, when we will hopefully deal with that issue. However, this measure is about dealing with a particular ECHR judgment. Therefore, as I say, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the Minister makes about prejudging any consultation, notwithstanding the points he makes about international obligations, but this is one of those areas where we have a particular identified problem in leverage that is not being challenged. I should be grateful if the Minister would provide further detail, not in Committee this afternoon but perhaps in writing, on where he thinks that protections exist around this.
From our perspective, it looks very much like this practice is happening and there are no protections against it. If there are protections against it, they are not being enforced. If they are not being enforced, there needs to be a mechanism to enable and allow that enforcement to take place. In good faith, I will withdraw the amendment for now and reserve the right to bring it back on Report, but notwithstanding some of the legitimate points made by the Minister, it is incumbent on us to properly stamp down on this practice and see it as very separate and distinct from the more traditional form of industrial action—strike action. The public understand that in a way that means that there would be even less sympathy when it comes to leverage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Greg Smith
We debated clause 59 at length in the debate on amendment 166, so I will not dwell on it further, but I am grateful for the Minister’s commitment to write to me on the provisions around leverage.
I will focus my remarks on clause 60 and the removal of provision for a 12-week protected period, with the result that the period would be extended indefinitely. I worry about the potential to create a bit of a lawyers’ charter, where someone will for evermore be challenged, if they are dismissed, on whether it was because they once took part in some form of industrial action. There needs to be some protection and commitment around that, to ensure that employers who have a legitimate reason for dismissing an employee that is not related to their participation in industrial action, are still able to dismiss the employee without fear of industrial action and of constantly being dragged back by lawyers, or potentially trade union representatives, seeking to exploit the removal of the 12-week period.
I accept that this is a niche and hypothetical point, but so much of the law and regulation that we pass in this place can be open to pretty wide interpretation. I think it is important, during line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, that commitments are made by the Minister that the courts can look back on in years to come to see the true meaning of what the Government are trying to bring about with clause 60. Without those commitments, which in my opinion can be given verbally as part of the debate, some might find themselves in a very sticky spot.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Christopher. I know that the shadow Minister likes us to draw attention to our union membership, so I again draw attention to my membership of Unison.
I welcome clause 59 because it addresses the critical issue of protecting workers taking part in industrial action, ensuring that they are safeguarded not just against dismissal but against other forms of detriment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield has previously mentioned, the case of Fiona Mercer, a care worker suspended after participating in legal industrial action, highlights why the reforms are needed. Like so many care workers, Fiona dedicated her career to supporting some of the most vulnerable in our society—in Fiona’s case, adults with learning difficulties. Yet she faced suspension for standing up for fair pay and better conditions. Her case is a pertinent reminder of the vulnerabilities faced by workers in critical sectors such as social care when their legal rights are not adequately protected.
Therefore, I welcome the clause’s introduction of protections against detriment, ensuring that employers cannot punish workers like Fiona for exercising their right to strike. This provision is essential to safeguard the ability of care workers and others to advocate for fair treatment without fear of suspension, demotion or other retaliatory measures. The removal of the arbitrary 12-week protected period for unfair dismissal means that workers like Fiona can continue to fight for justice without compromising on protections.
Justin Madders
The clause seeks to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which provides powers for the Government to make regulations to set minimum service levels during strike action in some essential services. The previous Government introduced regulations to implement minimum service levels in rail, border security, fire and rescue, and ambulance services. No work notice, however, has ever been issued by an employer to require individuals to work to meet the minimum service level during strike action. This demonstrates the futility and misguided approach of the Act and I urge Members to support its repeal. Minimum service levels unduly restrict the right to strike and undermine good industrial relations. As a result, our plan—it is a clear manifesto commitment—pledged to repeal the Act to give trade unions the freedom to organise, represent and negotiate on behalf of their workers.
The clause amends the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Subsection (1) repeals provisions of the 1992 Act as inserted by section 1 of the Strikes Act, with sections 234B to 234G falling away. A number of further amendments are made by the clause to the 1992 Act to reverse other changes made by the Strikes Act. As a result, all associated powers, regulations, provisions and defined terms related to minimum service levels will also fall away. We want to reset the relationship with both employers and trade unions to resolve disputes through meaningful negotiations, and repealing the Strikes Act will help us to achieve that.
I will now turn to new clause 27 and amendment 133, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Buckingham- shire. The Government will not support his proposals, which unnecessarily ask for an assessment of the ability of essential public services to provide minimum service levels during industrial action, and to lay a report containing the findings before the House. The Government have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments, including an assessment covering the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. This was published alongside the Bill at Second Reading and is based on the best available evidence about the potential impact on business, workers and the wider economy. The assessment is hamstrung by the fact that the Act has never been implemented, so we are in some difficulty in seeing whether there was an impact from it.
The analysis we undertook, however, included labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis, including sectoral analysis on industries providing essential services, potential influence on collective bargaining and dispute resolution processes, while also addressing the balance between employer needs and union representation. We want to reset the relationship with both employers and trade unions to resolve disputes through meaningful negotiations, and believe that the Act was a hindrance to doing so. I therefore ask the shadow Minister not to move his new clause or amendment.
Greg Smith
I will focus my remarks predominantly on new clause 27 and amendment 133, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. New clause 27 would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of clause 61, which, as the Minister outlined, repeals legislation passed by the last Conservative Government that implemented minimum service levels in vital public services during periods of strike action. Amendment 133 would specify that regulations could not be laid to repeal minimum service levels legislation until the reports required by new clause 27 had been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.
We think that is fundamentally right because, with no justification or explanation, the Government will repeal legislation designed to ensure that, during a strike, levels of service are maintained to ensure public safety. We consulted on minimum levels of service for the ambulance service, fire and rescue services and passenger rail services during the last Parliament. It is an important principle that members of the public, who pay through their taxes for lifesaving public services such as ambulance and fire services, should be able to rely on those services at all times, including when members of those services choose to take strike action. Equally, members of the public depend on rail services and in many cases will have already paid for them through season tickets. They have a right to an acceptable level of service, even when members of unions decide to take strike action.
Therefore, before the Government can commence the repeal of the minimum service levels legislation, we think it is only right that the Secretary of State should demonstrate and reassure the House that, in the sectors that the Conservatives specified as suitable for requiring minimum service levels during strike action—to recap, because I think it is important that we get this back on the record, those are health services, fire and rescue services, education services, transport services, services involved in the decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel, and border security—minimum levels of acceptable service can be provided to the public. I make that point not on a whim, but as a matter of public safety and public convenience, and I would be grateful for reassurance from the Minister on it.
If I may humanise it for a moment, this is not about simply saying that people should not be allowed to strike, or taking away rights or anything, although I am sure it will be painted as that; it is about expanding an established custom and precedent in this country about certain sectors, such as the police, being unable to strike. My father was a police officer for 31 years before he retired. We have always accepted as a country that the police should not be able to strike, because they are there for the fundamental purpose of public safety. We know that when we need them, they will be there and available. The same core public service, which we all pay for through our taxes, is provided by the other professions I outlined, not least fire and rescue services, border security and the niche but important services involved in the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, and there absolutely must be minimum service levels there too. Any one of us could need an ambulance at any point at no notice. Whether or not that minimum service level is in place is quite literally the difference between life and death. This is a serious issue.
The Labour party has always been opposed to minimum service levels. It opposed the legislation in the previous Parliament, and through this clause it is taking the quickest action possible to repeal it. I urge Labour Members to consider the practical, life-and-death consequences of not ensuring minimum service levels for fire, ambulance and border security services. If they have issues with some of the detail of the minimum service levels legislation, they should by all means strengthen it, but it would be simply negligent to allow the minimum service levels to drop and to leave any of our constituents—even just one—in a position of potentially life-and-death danger by repealing the legislation.
Justin Madders
Clause 62 seeks to reverse the effect of section 7 of the Trade Union Act 2016. It will remove the additional reporting requirements imposed on trade unions for their annual returns to the Certification Officer regarding details of industrial action taken during the reporting period. Specifically, trade unions will no longer be required to include information on any industrial action taken during the reporting period, the nature of the trade dispute relating to the industrial action, the type of industrial action taken or when it was taken, or confirmation that the relevant thresholds covering industrial action ballots have been met. Additionally, trade unions will no longer be required to include information regarding the results of industrial action ballots—for example, the number of votes cast and the number of those who voted yes or no.
Subsection (1) removes section 32ZA from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which sets out the additional reporting requirements on trade unions. Trade unions will still be required to submit an annual return to the Certification Officer. However, the amount of information they will be required to include will be reduced. By removing these additional administrative burdens on trade unions, we are freeing up their time to engage in bargaining and negotiation with employers and allowing them to devote more time to representing their members’ interests.
Clause 63 seeks to repeal amendments made to the 1992 Act by section 12 of the Trade Union Act 2016 and thereby remove the requirement for trade unions to include political fund expenditure in their annual return to the Certification Officer. Currently, this information must be provided where a union spends more than £2,000 per annum from its political fund. Subsection (2) removes section 32ZB from the 1992 Act, which sets out the information to be included in a union’s annual return on political expenditure.
Other subsections of clause 63 make other amendments to the 1992 Act that are consequential on the removal of section 32ZB, including as to its enforcement and its application to employers’ associations. Section 12 of the 2016 Act itself is repealed by subsection (7). Trade unions will still have to report to the Certification Officer on their income and expenditure. That includes reporting on the income and expenditure of the political fund. Moreover, all political parties will still be subject to the reporting requirements in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which requires certain donations and loans to be recorded and reported to the Electoral Commission.
Clause 64 seeks to repeal the remainder of the effect of section 18 of the 2016 Act. It removes the power of the Certification Officer to publicise a trade union’s failure to include the required industrial action data in its annual return. Clauses 62 and 63 remove the requirement for trade unions to include details of industrial action and political expenditure in their annual returns, so there is clearly no need for the Certification Officer to retain powers to enforce such a requirement.
Enforcement relating to details of political expenditure is addressed in clause 63, and enforcement relating to details of industrial action in clause 64. Therefore, clause 64(2) removes section 32ZC of the 1992 Act, thereby removing the powers of the Certification Officer to enforce the additional annual return requirements relating to industrial action. The Certification Officer will retain the powers to enforce the remaining annual return requirements in relation to a union’s financial affairs and governance.
Clause 65 seeks to reverse the effect of section 17(1) and (2) of the 2016 Act, which inserted schedule A3 to the 1992 Act. It will repeal the enhanced investigatory powers of the Certification Officer, including the power to launch investigations by inspectors, the ability to compel trade unions to produce documents, and the related powers of enforcement. Schedule A3 to the 1992 Act sets out the details of the Certification Officer’s investigatory powers as introduced by the 2016 Act.
Clause 65(5) removes section 256C of the 1992 Act and subsection (6) removes schedule A3 from the 1992 Act. Subsections (2), (3) and (4) make more minor amendments that relate to the removal of schedule A3. Consequentially, subsection (7) removes section 17(1) and (2) of the 2016 Act, and schedule 1 to that Act, and makes further minor amendments to schedule 4 to that Act and to section 43 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014.
The enhanced powers created by the 2016 Act were unnecessary. There was no evidence of regulatory failure, and unions have consistently complied with their statutory obligations in relation to their finances, governance and reporting requirements. Since their introduction, the Certification Officer has never used those additional powers. Removing onerous regulatory burdens from trade unions is part of the Government’s commitment to bringing in a new era of partnership that sees employers, unions and Government work together in co-operation and through negotiation.
Clause 66 seeks to remove the powers of the Certification Officer to investigate trade unions proactively without first having received a complaint from a member of that trade union. Those powers were added to various provisions of the 1992 Act by schedule 2 to the 2016 Act. The enhanced investigatory powers created by the 2016 Act were unnecessary. There was no evidence of regulatory failure, and unions have consistently complied with their statutory obligations in relation to their finances, governance and reporting requirements. In fact, since their introduction, the Certification Officer has never used those additional investigatory powers either.
Subsections (2) to (9) of clause 66 remove the ability for the Certification Officer to proactively investigate a range of issues, reverting to the position pre-2016, when the Certification Officer could only consider and act upon a complaint from a member. Trade unions are voluntary associations, run by and for their members. We are returning the Certification Officer’s role to one of adjudicating when it receives members’ complaints in relation to a union.
Clause 67 seeks to reverse the effect of section 19 of the 2016 Act to remove the ability of the Certification Officer to impose financial penalties on trade unions. The previous Government presented no evidence as to why the Certification Officer needed those additional powers. Since they have come into force, no financial penalties have been imposed on any trade union.
Schedule A4 to the 1992 Act sets out the detail of the power to impose financial penalties. Clause 67(2) removes section 256D of the 1992 Act, which gave effect to the schedule, and subsection (3) removes the schedule. As a result, the clause removes subsections (1) to (3) of section 19 of the 2016 Act and schedule 3 to that Act. The Certification Officer will retain the power to issue enforcement orders, and if those orders are not complied with, the union may be found in contempt of court.
Clause 68 will repeal sections 257A and 258(1A) of the 1992 Act, as inserted by section 20 of the 2016 Act. That will remove the levy charged by the Certification Officer on employers’ associations and trade unions. Furthermore, the Certification Officer will no longer be required to report on the levy as part of its annual report to Parliament. The levy is an impediment to the rights of voluntary associations, and it attracted criticism from international bodies, including the International Labour Organisation.
Clause 68(2) removes section 257A of the 1992 Act, which sets out the requirements for a levy to be paid to the Certification Officer by trade unions and employers’ associations. Subsection (3) removes the requirement in section 258(1A) of the 1992 Act for the Certification Officer to report on the levy. The Government believe that we should interfere as little as possible in the activities of social partners, which are voluntary associations.
Clause 69 seeks to reverse the changes made by section 21 of the 2016 Act to the 1992 Act so that the right of appeal against decisions of the Certification Officer to the Employment Appeal Tribunal is on questions of law only, rather than on questions of law and fact. That brings the appeals process back in line with the position before the 2016 Act and with many other enforcement bodies of employment law. For example, appeals against the decisions of employment tribunals are considered only on points of law, not points of fact. I hope hon. Members were keeping up with that; I shall be asking questions later.
New clause 44 would place a new duty on the Certification Officer, the regulator of trade unions and employers’ associations, by requiring it to advance the objectives of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth over the medium to long term when carrying out its statutory functions.
It is helpful at this stage to set out the role of the Certification Officer. It has been the regulator of trade unions and employers’ associations since 1975 and not only carries out regulatory functions, but has administrative and supervisory functions and a significant quasi-judicial function, where it adjudicates on complaints raised by trade union members and other parties. As part of our repeal of the provisions of the Trade Union Act, we will be repealing the Certification Officer’s enhanced investigatory and enforcement powers and the levy imposed on trade unions and employers’ associations. As such, we will be returning the role much to what it was before the Trade Union Act was implemented.
The Certification Officer’s primary role is to ensure that both unions and employers’ associations adhere to the statutory requirements in relation to their finances and governance that Parliament has decided they are required to observe. Its statutory functions are to maintain lists of trade unions and employers’ associations; determine complaints from union members against their unions relating to alleged breaches of statutory duties and some other types of union rules; determine union independence; ensure that annual returns are made; supervise mergers, political fund ballots and members’ superannuation schemes; and investigate alleged financial irregularities and breaches in relation to trade union membership. The Certification Officer therefore has no locus in relation to industrial action and no role in making assessments of how unions and employers’ associations impact the economy. It has no economists or statisticians on its payroll.
In view of the Certification Officer’s functions and role, the new clause is not appropriate. It is not clear how the Certification Officer, in making decisions on whether a union or employer association has breached its statutory obligations, will act to advance the objectives of international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term. Hopefully the shadow Minister will set out how that would work in practice, because it is not obvious to me how the Certification Officer could take those factors into account when determining the statutory obligations that unions and employers’ associations have to observe under Acts of Parliament. For that reason, I ask him not to press his new clause, and I commend clauses 62 to 69 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I congratulate the Minister on his marathon run through clauses 62 to 69. I will focus my comments particularly on new clause 44, which, as the Minister has outlined, would require the Certification Officer to advance the objectives of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for taking slightly less time than I did on this grouping. For the record, I am fully supportive of the Prime Minister’s action plans, milestones, missions and all other types.
Justin Madders
I am afraid that would be out of scope of the Bill Committee. I hear what the shadow Minister says. His essential argument is that we should be able to judge the actions of trade unions in terms of the damage or disruption they cause to the UK economy. Of course, we want to see growth and we want to see industrial action minimised. We believe that by having a more harmonious set of industrial relations, we will see that.
Unfortunately, the shadow Minister’s new clause really mischaracterises the Certification Officer’s role. He is not, as the hon. Gentleman said, there to preside over strikes; he is there to preside over the governance, finances, reporting requirements and statutory obligations of trade unions and employers’ associations—I noted that the hon. Gentleman did not mention employers’ associations. The Certification Officer is not there to preside over industrial disputes and strikes. There are courts to intervene if a party feels aggrieved about the way industrial action has been observed, whether lawfully or not. I can see the intention of the new clause: the shadow Minister wants the Government to succeed in their growth mission. We all do, but I do not think the Certification Officer is the right or appropriate vehicle for that to take place.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 62 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 63 to 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70
Regulations subject to affirmative resolution procedure
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
The clause amends section 293 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, with which I am sure all Members are now very familiar, to require that regulations made under the following new sections of the 1992 Act are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This therefore will apply to the following regulations: section 70ZC, on access agreements, response period and negotiation period; section 70ZE, on access agreements and the period to make an application to Central Arbitration Committee; section 70ZF, on access agreements and determinations by the Central Arbitration Committee; section 70ZI, on the enforcement of access agreements and the maximum penalty; and section 236A, on detriment for taking industrial action. Any other regulations made under section 293 will continue to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. I therefore commend clause 70 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I will not detain the Committee with a commentary on this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71
Devolved Welsh authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 30—Repeal of Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017—
“The Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 (anaw 4) is repealed.”
This new clause repeals the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017.
The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)
We now turn to clause 71 and will resist Opposition new clause 30. Clause 71 is the final of the package of clauses to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016. It makes a consequential amendment to the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 following the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016. Section 1 of the 2017 Act disapplied some of the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) 1992 Act, as introduced by the Trade Union Act 2016, from applying to devolved Welsh authorities. As the Trade Union Act 2016 and the relevant provisions of the 1992 Act are being repealed, section 1 of the 2017 Act is now redundant. There are also consequential amendments to the 1992 Act to remove the relevant references to devolved Welsh authorities.
New clause 30 seeks to repeal the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 in its entirety. Section 1 of this Act disapplies certain provisions of the Trade Union Act 2016 to devolved Welsh authorities. Repealing the Trade Union Act 2016 means that these provisions are no longer necessary. It is for that reason that we are repealing section 1 of the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 through clause 71 of this Bill. Section 2 of the 2017 Act is not impacted by the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016. It prevents a devolved Welsh authority from using agency workers to replace striking workers. This Government support a prohibition on using agency workers to cover industrial action and therefore we are content to leave this in the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017. New clause 30 is therefore unnecessary and I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw it. I commend clause 71 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I will focus my remarks on new clause 30, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk, for Bridgwater and for Mid Leicestershire. It is good to see the Minister in her place on her first outing in the Committee of the day, and as she said, new clause 30 would repeal the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017. Prior to the 2017 Act, there was legal ambiguity in post-devolution case law of the degree to which trade union legislation was a reserved or devolved competence. Following the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016 in the UK Parliament, the Labour-led Welsh Government then passed Welsh legislation—the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017—to disapply a number of trade union measures in Wales in relation to devolved public services. The Wales Act 2017 was subsequently passed with cross-party and cross-institution agreement, and re-established that industrial relations were a reserved competence.
The Conservative-led UK Government at the time pledged to unwind the Welsh Government’s Act and reapply the full 2016 Act to Great Britain following the passage of the Wales Act 2017. However, re-asserting such common trade union law across Great Britain would require primary legislation in the United Kingdom Parliament. Given that the Wales Act 2017 established industrial relationships as a reserved competence, we would like to understand when the Government intend to resolve the changes implemented by the Welsh Government’s Act, which disapplied some of our 2016 Act. I do not think it is an unreasonable ask of the Government that we seek to resolve through the new clause.
Dame Nia Griffith
The point is very clear, isn’t it? In the legislation we are providing now, we are making the first part of the Trade Union (Wales) Act unnecessary, and therefore it is perfectly appropriate to put through a clause in this Bill to keep things in line with what we are doing across the UK. It is perfectly in order to have a clause that seeks to bring that particular legislation in line with the situation in which we now find ourselves.
On the second part of that legislation, as I have just said, that is already something on which we agree with the Welsh Government. We therefore see no particular reason why there should be a repeal of that legislation in the Bill, and we do not propose to do so. I suggest that the shadow Minister’s new clause is not necessary in the current Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 71 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Seventeenth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Greg Smith
Main Page: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)Department Debates - View all Greg Smith's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsThursday 9th January 2025
(2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 January 2025 - (9 Jan 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 72, page 79, line 15, at end insert—
“(4A) Accordingly, in the case of the exercise by an enforcement officer of an enforcement function of the Secretary of State, any reference in an enactment to the Secretary of State in connection with that function is to be read as, or as including, a reference to that officer or any other enforcement officer.”
This amendment ensures that, where an enforcement officer is exercising an enforcement function of the Secretary of State by virtue of clause 72(4), references in legislation to the Secretary of State in connection with that function will include references to enforcement officers, so that the legislation will apply in relation to the enforcement officer as it would apply to the Secretary of State if the Secretary of State were exercising the function.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Mundell. I start by making the customary reference to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Clause 72 is the first in relation to the fair work agency, and it is one of the building blocks of the agency. I will explain the main elements of the clause, as that will help us to understand the amendment. The clause confers an overarching function on the Secretary of State to enforce certain legislation set out in part 1 of schedule 4, which the clause introduces. The clause provides flexibility for the Secretary of State in how to deliver that overarching enforcement function. It enables them to appoint enforcement officers to carry out the function on their behalf, and it provides that enforcement officers will be able to exercise any of the enforcement functions of the Secretary of State and will have the enforcement powers conferred on them as set out in the terms of their appointment by the Secretary of State.
As I said, the Secretary of State has the function of enforcing the legislation set out in part 1 of schedule 4. The legislation contains references to the Secretary of State having functions and powers in connection with the enforcement of the rights set out in that legislation. It is important that those references can be read as references to the enforcement officers the Secretary of State appoints to act on their behalf; otherwise, enforcement officers may not be able to properly exercise the enforcement functions of the Secretary of State. That would make their appointment, and potentially their enforcement activity, less effective.
Government amendment 84 inserts a new subsection after clause 72(4) to ensure that references to the Secretary of State are read as references to enforcement officers where necessary. The practical effect is that the legislation will apply to enforcement officers as it would to the Secretary of State. This is a technical change, but I hope that Members will see that it is necessary.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once more, Mr Mundell.
Government amendment 84 looks to us like a drafting correction. We will not rehearse the arguments we have had so many times in the Committee about drafting corrections, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the powers in the Bill, which are directly related to the amendment, for enforcement officers to enter and search business premises are any wider in scope than current enforcement powers and, if so, how and why.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for not rehearsing the arguments, as we may end up having them every five minutes, given the number of technical amendments we will deal with today. He raises an important question about the enforcement powers and powers of entry. There are a number of clauses that deal with that. My initial understanding is that, generally speaking, we are not seeking to widen the remit of current enforcement powers. I will endeavour to write to him if there are any changes or exceptions to that. It may be something that becomes apparent when we debate the clauses in question.
Amendment 84 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
What we are doing is transferring existing powers and responsibilities from the existing agency. There are no new police-style powers being created for these officers; it is simply a transfer over to the fair work agency.
Clause 72 is key to delivering the much-needed upgrade to the enforcement of workers’ rights so that it is more effective and fair for workers and businesses. It brings together enforcement functions currently split between several different enforcement agencies and gives the fair work agency the flexibility to respond to a rapidly changing labour market. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
A lot of the detail is in the clauses that follow this one; as the Minister said, this is very much a building-block clause. Although I totally understand and appreciate the rationale for taking enforcement powers that are currently fragmented across multiple different agencies and consolidating them into one, the devil is always in the detail.
Although it might seem sensible to consolidate the powers that are currently so spread out into one agency, this is very much a centralisation of power. The crux of clause 72 is about directly providing the Secretary of State with the overall function of enforcing labour market legislation. Whenever I see such provisions in any legislation, I cannot help but be reminded of the late, great President Reagan’s famous quote about the nine most terrifying words in the English language:
“I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater suggested in his intervention on the Minister, the serious detail is about the practical workings of the fair work agency as it is set up. What will be the total number of enforcement officers, employees and ancillary staff required—admittedly, some will be brought across from other agencies—to form it? What will be the cost to the taxpayer of putting that together? How many people are we actually talking about? I think that, as opposed to the powers that they will hold, was the crux of my hon. Friend’s intervention.
As I said, we accept the rationale for bringing these powers together under one agency, but whenever such powers are granted to a Secretary of State, no matter what the field, there is always uncertainty and scope for never-ending expansion of the new agency, and of the size of the state, to do what is, in many cases, important enforcement work—I do not doubt that. Given the presumption that the Bill will become an Act of Parliament and that the agency will be set up in the way envisaged in clause 72, it would be good to have clarity about the plan for just how big the agency will be and whether the Secretary of State will put any cap on that from the get-go. How far does the Minister envisage the agency going?
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I broadly welcome the bringing together of powers under the fair work agency. I note that the Secretary of State is due to publish an annual report, but I am sure that businesses in Torbay would be interested to know where in the Bill the critical friend is to hold the Secretary of State to account and ensure that they are being light of foot and driving the agenda we all want to see in this area, so I would welcome the Minister’s sharing that.
Justin Madders
It is pleasing to hear generally broad support for this measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield pointed out, and as the hon. Member for West Suffolk will know better than most, this was previously a Conservative party manifesto commitment, and we are pleased to be able to move it forward.
Some detailed operational questions were asked. At this stage, how the agency will work in practice is still being fleshed out. The current understanding in the impact assessment is that this is about the consolidation of existing resources and having a single point of leadership. Members will recall that, in her evidence to the Committee, Margaret Beels, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, talked about how her role would be much easier if she were able to combine the powers of different agencies.
The shadow Minister asked whether we will require extra staff. That will be part of discussions with the Treasury. As he will know, there is a spending review on the horizon and Departments have been asked to look at savings. Clearly, we hope that the combining of resources will lead to some efficiencies, but there is certainly a view from a number of stakeholders that enforcement is not at the level it ought to be—
Greg Smith
I fully acknowledge and appreciate the Minister’s point about negotiation with the Treasury, but even if we take it as read that it is right to bring powers into a single enforcement agency, there is always a cost to creating anything new, even if it is a consolidation. Surely, the Department for Business and Trade has a cost for that. There is legislation live, in front of us right now, that seeks to create the agency, so surely he must know the broad cost of setting it up and consolidating those powers.
Justin Madders
Yes, the impact assessment sets out the one-off set-up costs. I am sure the shadow Minister can spend the lunch break looking at the detail. In terms of the current enforcement framework, as I say, there is a view that more needs to be done. Of course, we will be adding holiday pay and social security to that, and there is a power to add further areas. We know that generally, when resources are combined, we can deliver more—the sum is greater than the parts.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, asked about the critical friend. This Government are always ready to have critical friends—more on the “friend” side than the “critical” side. We will come shortly to a clause about an advisory board, which will have a broad range of stakeholders able to take that role.
Greg Smith
Does the Minister not agree that for any power held by any Secretary of State in any Department, the critical friend is a very simple concept? It is called Parliament—it is all of us.
Justin Madders
Indeed it is, and the usual parliamentary scrutiny will apply, but I was talking specifically about the role of the fair work agency. There will be that role, and no doubt as more detail emerges there will be more parliamentary opportunities to talk about the role and functions of the agency.
My hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles and for Birmingham Northfield talked about the broad support for the agency’s establishment, as indeed did the hon. Member for West Suffolk. I have a list of all the supportive witnesses at the oral evidence sessions, and it is a broad and impressive cast. It includes the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the British Retail Consortium, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, the Food and Drink Federation, the Co-op, Margaret Beels, and of course all the trade unions. There is support across the board for this single enforcement body.
Greg Smith
Amendment 169 clarifies the specific obligations relating to the payment of statutory sick pay that are enforceable under part 5. Similarly, amendment 170 will ensure that those additional obligations relating to statutory sick pay that are imposed on employers by the Social Security Administration Act 1992 are enforceable under part 5. This goes back to our old friend, drafting errors being corrected that should really have been sorted out before the Bill was presented to Parliament in the first place.
Justin Madders
We will probably have this conversation a number of times. It is probably a little harsh to say that this was an error, but it would be fair to say that, given the complexity of social security legislation, not every provision was identified when the Bill was first introduced.
Amendment 169 agreed to.
Amendment made: 170, in schedule 4, page 127, line 30, at end insert—
“Social Security Administration Act 1992
3B Regulations under section 5 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (regulations about claims for and payments of benefit), so far as relating to statutory sick pay.
3C Section 14(3) of that Act (duty of employers to provide certain information to employees in relation to statutory sick pay).
3D Regulations under section 130 of that Act (duties of employers), so far as relating to statutory sick pay.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment ensures that additional obligations relating to statutory sick pay that are imposed on employers by the Social Security Administration Act 1992 are enforceable under Part 5 of the Bill.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 118, in schedule 4, page 128, leave out lines 11 to 16.
This amendment is consequential on NC20 and removes those regulations from the list of legislation subject to enforcement under Part 5 of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 119, in schedule 5, page 130, leave out lines 16 and 17.
This amendment is consequential on NC20 and removes an enforcement authority within the meaning of regulation 28 of those Regulations from the list of persons to whom information may be disclosed under Clause 98 of the Bill.
New clause 20—Revocation of the Working Time Regulations 1998—
“(1) The Working Time Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/1833) are revoked.
(2) The following regulations are also revoked—
(a) the Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003 (S.I 2003/3049);
(b) the Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea-fishermen) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1713);
(c) the Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1660);
(d) the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/58).
(3) In consequence of the revocations made by subsection (1) and (2)—
(a) omit the reference to regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations in Schedule A2 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (tribunal jurisdictions to which section 207A applies)
(b) omit section 45A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protection from suffering detriment in employment: working time cases);
(c) omit section 101A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (unfair dismissal: working time cases);
(d) omit section 104(4)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (assertion of working time rights);
(e) omit section 18(1)(j) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (which refers to regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations among proceedings to which conciliation is relevant);
(f) omit section 21(1)(h) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (jurisdiction of the Employment Appeals Tribunal in relation to the Working Time Regulations);
(g) omit the reference to regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations in Schedule 5 to the Employment Act 2002 (tribunal jurisdictions to which section 38 applies);
(h) omit the reference to regulation 28 of the Working Time Regulations in Schedule 1 to the Immigration Act 2006 (person to whom director etc may disclose information);
(i) omit paragraph 141(h) of Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (specific reserved matters), but this omission does not confer any jurisdiction on the Senedd or Welsh Government.
(4) The power of the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments under section 113(1) must be exercised to make such further consequential amendments as are necessary in consequence of subsections (1) and (2).”
This new clause revokes the Working Time Regulations 1998 together with other Regulations which give effect to the Working Time Directive in UK law, and makes consequential provision.
Amendment 117, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) But if the provisions of section [Revocation of the Working Time Regulations 1998] have not been fully brought into force before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, that section (so far as not already in force) comes into force at the end of that period.”
This amendment is consequential on NC20 and provides that the revocation must have effect within a year of the passing of this Act.
Greg Smith
I rise to speak to amendments 117, 118 and 119 and new clause 20, which stand in my name and in the name of my hon. Friends on the Committee. I make it clear that they are probing amendments; it will become clear over the next couple of minutes why we seek to probe the Government on the issue.
The amendments would repeal the working time directive within one year of the Bill’s coming into force. Our reason for tabling them is not that we intend to abolish entitlement to holidays, lunch breaks and so on—far from it, and nobody is suggesting that. However, the working time directive has had a troubled history. One example is the difficulties that occurred between the Commission and member states when the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that employers—all of them public health and emergency services—did not calculate time spent on call as working time, when they should have done. The CJEU consistently declared that practice incompatible with the directive, arguing that inactive time spent at the disposal of the employer must be counted in its entirety as working time. Then, in 2019, the Court ruled:
“Member States must require employers to set up an objective, reliable and accessible system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured.”
The result of that judgment was never formally brought into British law, but as a result of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, it became part of retained EU law.
Last year, the Conservative Government legislated to clarify that businesses do not have to keep a record of the daily working hours of their workers if they are able to demonstrate compliance without doing so; to amend the WTR so that irregular hours and part-year workers’ annual leave entitlement is pro-rated to the hours that they work; to introduce an accrual method for calculating holiday entitlement for certain workers; to revoke the covid regulations—it seems odd that we are still saying that—and to introduce rolled-up holiday pay for irregular hours and part-year workers. Consultation requirements under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 to allow smaller businesses to consult directly with employees would be another measure. That is just the start of how it might be possible to simplify the working time directive. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how well the working time regulations are working, and on whether any further changes might be made for the benefit of businesses to enable growth in this country.
Justin Madders
The working time regulations have had a relatively long history in our legal framework. They provide vital rights: a maximum working week of 48 hours, rest breaks of 20 minutes every six hours, rest periods of 11 hours each day and at least 24 hours each week, and 28 days of annual leave each year. The regulations implement the EU working time directive; the then Government deliberately designed them to provide maximum flexibility for both employers and workers. For example, workers can choose to opt out in writing from the 48-hour week maximum. We believe that the regulations have benefited millions of workers and their families over the years. They afford workers a better balance between work and other responsibilities, as well as improvements in health and wellbeing.
A 2014 review by the previous Government of the impact of the working time regulations on the UK labour market found that since 1998 there had been a decline in long-hours working in the UK and a general trend towards shorter working hours, which is probably not a surprise. The findings also suggested that the impact of the regulations was mainly through increased employment of workers doing shorter working weeks, rather than through a reduction in total hours worked. Annual leave entitlements have increased since the introduction of the working time regulations; many workers now enjoy a more generous leave entitlement than is prescribed by law.
Limitations on working hours and entitlement to a minimum number of days’ holiday can contribute to improvements in health and safety. Most employers accept that a minimum holiday entitlement contributes to physical and psychological wellbeing. Reductions in stress and fatigue caused by excess hours can provide many benefits, including less pressure on health services and better performance at work, with fewer accidents. By establishing minimum standards, the working time regulations also support a level playing field that discourages competition that relies on poor working conditions and a race to the bottom.
New clause 20 would revoke the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018, which provide for adequate rest for seafarers and support the management of onboard fatigue and the wellbeing of seafarers. Revoking the regulations would negatively affect the ability of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to enforce safe and healthy working conditions for seafarers.
The new clause would also revoke the Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea-fishermen) Regulations 2004, which require the UK to implement the International Labour Organisation’s work in fishing convention, which underpins the safe operation of vessels. Fishing is one of the most dangerous sectors in the UK, with 50 injuries per 100,000 workers compared with a UK average of 0.4. We believe that the 2004 regulations are critical to ensuring that workers take the appropriate hours of rest to prevent fatigue-related incidents.
The new clause would also revoke the Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is in the process of conducting a post-implementation review of those regulations. The initial responses to the consultation have indicated a generally positive view from stakeholders.
The new clause would also revoke the Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008, which provide enhanced rights and worker protections for those engaged in cross-border rail services, such as train crew for Eurostar services through the channel tunnel. The revocation of the regulations would erode those enhanced protections.
The Government believe that the minimum standards in the Working Time Regulations 1998 and other sector-specific working time regulations have supported millions of workers and their families by enabling them to better balance work and other responsibilities. The Government have no plans to revoke the working time regulations or any of the other sector-specific regulations.
I understand what the shadow Minister says about whether we consider the regulations to be beneficial to businesses, but he will know that there was ample time under his Government to undertake those reviews. Indeed, one was undertaken just over a decade ago, as I said. We have no plans to erode workers’ rights in this area; indeed, one of the fair work agency’s main functions will be to enforce rights to holiday pay, which evidence to the Committee suggests are not being enforced properly.
The shadow Minister says that he has no intention of revoking the working time regulations and that his amendment is probing, but I can only speak to what is before the Committee. If he had tabled an amendment seeking a review of the operation of the working time regulations, that might have been more appropriate in the circumstances. This feels to me like a dog-whistle amendment, so I am pleased to hear that he will not be pressing it.
Greg Smith
I am always pleased to delight the Minister in these debates. It was a probing amendment, and I can confirm that we will not be pressing amendments 117 to 119 or new clause 20 to a Division. However, I will briefly comment on the Minister’s response. I entirely respect him for it, but it was a full-throated defence of the status quo.
Something that goes deep within my view of politics, of government and of public administration is there is always room for improvement in pretty much everything. I say that as much about measures passed by previous Conservative Governments as about those passed by current or past Labour Governments. I refuse to accept that something is as good as it possibly can be and is working as well as it possibly can in the interests of businesses and workers alike. There is some disappointment from the official Opposition that the Government do not seem to want to look again.
Justin Madders
Does the shadow Minister not accept that his party undertook this exercise, which is why regulations were introduced last year to amend the working time regulations?
Greg Smith
I fully and totally accept that, but it is our job as the official Opposition, here and now in January 2025, to press the current Government on further measures that could be taken to work in the interests of everybody in our country—workers and businesses alike. Perhaps I accept the Minister’s point; perhaps we could have tabled an amendment to call for a review. Who knows? Perhaps on Report we might. But the fundamental position that I come back to is one that does not just accept the status quo, but is always challenging, always reviewing and always seeking to make things better in the interests of everyone.
When the Minister goes back to the Department and prepares for the remaining stages of the Bill in the main Chamber and in the other place, may I gently urge him to consider in the round, with the Opposition’s support, whether there are tyres to be kicked and measures to be improved in the operation of the working time directive? May I also urge him to ensure—now that we are a sovereign country once more, having left the European Union—that this Parliament can make improvements should it so wish? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 85, in schedule 4, page 128, line 13, at end insert—
“( ) regulations 13 to 15E (entitlement to annual leave, etc);”
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to enforce the entitlements to annual leave conferred by the Working Time Regulations 1998.
Government amendment 85 will add to schedule 4 the additional holiday pay and entitlement regulations: regulations 13, 13A, 14, 15, 15A, 15B, 15C, 15D and 15E of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It will enable the fair work agency to take enforcement action in relation to incorrect payment or non-payment of a worker’s holiday pay and incorrect payment or non-payment in lieu of annual leave entitlement, ensuring that a wider range of complaints can be dealt with more effectively. I commend it to the Committee.
Greg Smith
This is another example of a tidying-up exercise that we really should not have to be discussing in Committee. It should have been sorted before the Bill was introduced.
Amendment 85 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 23—Review of the effectiveness of enforcement of labour market legislation—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish an independent review providing for—
(a) an assessment of the effectiveness of enforcement of, and compliance with, relevant labour market legislation requirements as specified in Part 1 of Schedule 4 of this Act;
(b) an assessment of the performance and effectiveness of following bodies in enforcing labour market legislation—
(i) Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority;
(ii) Employment Agencies Standards Inspectorate;
(iii) His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; and
(iv) Health and Safety Executive; and
(c) recommendations on strengthening labour market legislation enforcement.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of the review in subsection (1) not more than 18 months after the day on which this Act is passed and before a new single labour market enforcement body is established.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a review of enforcement of labour market legislation and to report findings to Parliament before a new labour market enforcement body is established.
Justin Madders
Okay. I have nothing further to say, except that the shadow Minister’s new clause 23 is a duplication of existing requirements that would add nothing to the process.
Greg Smith
I hear what the Minister says about slowing things down, but it would be remiss of me not to comment that if the Government had perhaps taken their time a bit on the drafting of the Bill, we would not be spending so much time in this Committee considering the absolute deluge of Government amendments that tidy things up that should have been right in the first place. Sometimes it is best not to rush things. Sometimes it is better not to dive in head first and just go for the first thing available, but to be cautious, to review and to fully understand all the implications that new legislation such as this will have in the real world.
That is what new clause 23, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, seeks to double-check. It seeks to ensure that the Government are getting this right—not in our interests or those of anyone in the House of Commons, but in the interests of businesses and workers in the real world, trying to get on with their daily lives, get their jobs done and get their businesses growing and providing the growth and prosperity that we all want to see in the country.
As I have said previously, we do not have a problem in principle with the establishment of a new body to oversee the enforcement of labour market legislation. I have made that clear, and hon. Friends who have spoken have made it crystal clear. But we also made a challenge in the previous debate, and that is what new clause 23 is all about. It is about ensuring that we fully understand the scope, cost and effectiveness of this new body.
Any new body, be it a Government body or in the private sector—although the creation of new bodies in the public sector tends to be slower and often cost more than the private sector would manage—will take time and resources, and we would like to be reassured that this is a good use of time and resources. I repeat that our instinct is that it probably is. Our instinct is that it does seem to make sense, but we can never rely on instinct or on that which might look good on paper as the absolute cast-iron test. It is about the real evidence.
Laurence Turner
We heard from the hon. Gentleman earlier in the main Chamber about sustainable aviation fuel; I wonder whether he might share with us the shadow ministerial equivalent that he seems to have discovered, because we are covering a huge amount of ground. I just say this to him. We did have the Taylor review, which looked at these matters, including the functioning of the individual enforcement agencies, so I am just wondering: does he think that something has changed, in terms of their effectiveness, since then? We have already had an assessment of the nature that he is calling for.
Greg Smith
Yes, Mr Mundell. I am genuinely struggling to find the connection between my questions in transport orals this morning on sustainable aviation fuel and this Bill. I will gladly offer to have a coffee with the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield to discuss my passionate view on synthetic fuel in the future, but it really is not relevant to this Bill.
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s latter point, about previous reviews, but new clause 23 is specifically looking at the creation of this new body and is about ensuring that that is the right thing to do and that the cost of it will actually bring the benefit that the Minister and other Government Members have explained that they believe it will. It is incumbent on all of us, whether we sit on the Government or Opposition Benches or for the smaller parties, that we challenge everything put in front of us. Any culture in any organisation that does not challenge what is put in front of it is often weaker for it. That is what new clause 23 is seeking to do.
Inherent in that, notwithstanding the Taylor review, is the aim to ask and double-check whether the rationale takes into account how effectively labour market legislation is currently being enforced and understand what research this Government—not former Governments, but this one—have undertaken on what will be done more effectively or efficiently with the creation of this new body. We would like the Government to assess how effectively the labour market legislation that will be enforced by the new body is currently working in that fragmented sense that the Minister spoke about earlier, and how effective the enforcement of it is, before setting up any new quango.
Generally speaking, new quangos fill me with dread and fear, but this one may be worth while. However, we need the evidence. Will the Minister expand on how matters will change for businesses through the new labour market enforcement authority? What will feel different for them and what changes might they need to make as they prepare for it? New clause 23 tries to get to the heart of that.
Steve Darling
I know from my surgeries and casework in Torbay that discrimination is sadly alive and well. I ask the Minister to reflect on some of the evidence from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which talked about the provision leading to fragmentation and the possibility of some of its standard work falling between two stools. What reassurances can the Minister give that the good work will proceed appropriately either through the fair work agency, or in a partnership approach with the Equality and Human Rights Commission?
Justin Madders
Clause 73 specifies which functions are considered enforcement functions of the Secretary of State for the purposes of part 5 of the Bill. It defines enforcement functions widely and then carves out certain functions that are not enforcement functions.
Clause 73(1) specifies that the enforcement functions of the Secretary of State include the following: any functions granted under part 5 of the Bill; functions in the relevant labour market legislation that they are responsible for enforcing; and any other functions that they perform to support enforcing labour market legislation.
Clause 73(2) goes on to set out exceptions. It lists specific functions that are not enforcement functions for the purposes of part 5 of the Bill. These are generally functions that relate to the arrangements for state enforcement of labour market legislation, and the overall governance of the fair work agency. These overarching governance functions include: appointing officers under clause 72; delegating functions under clause 74; setting up the advisory board under clause 75; publishing the annual reports and enforcement strategies under clauses 76 and 77; providing for transfer schemes to move staff into the Department under part 1 of schedule 7; and powers to make subordinate legislation.
The effect of clause 73 becomes clear when it is read in conjunction with clause 72. First, the enforcement functions that are listed in clause 73(1) can be performed by enforcement officers appointed under clause 72. Under clause 72(4), the powers of an enforcement officer include the power to exercise any enforcement function. Those powers can be limited further by the terms of the appointment of those officers.
Clause 74 gives the Secretary of State flexibility about how they carry out the functions of labour market enforcement. It provides the option to delegate functions to another public authority. Clause 74(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to make arrangements with the public authority so that it can exercise the delegable function. It also enables the Secretary of State to make arrangements to appoint a public authority’s staff as enforcement officers. The Secretary of State can delegate the enforcement functions listed in clause 73(1), all of which have been highlighted already. Those functions relate to arrangements for state enforcement of labour market legislation or the overall governance of the fair work agency. The Secretary State can also delegate powers relating to the licensing of gangmasters under sections 7 or 11 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. The arrangements the Secretary of State makes with public authorities can also include an agreement to make payments in respect of the performance of any function by either the public authority or their staff.
Clause 74(5) means that delegating an enforcement function does not strip the Secretary of State of responsibility or control in enforcing labour market legislation. The Secretary of State can still carry out functions even when they have arranged for another public authority to do that on their behalf.
The Bill is about bringing enforcement and employment legislation into one place in order to make enforcement more effective and efficient by ensuring the better use of resources. It is about creating the right powers to carry out investigations and take enforcement action where necessary. However, it does not set out a specific approach to implementing that more joined-up enforcement, because operational flexibility will be the key to the success of the fair work agency. The clause helps to provide that flexibility by enabling the Secretary of State to delegate certain functions to other public authorities or to make arrangements for staff of other bodies to be appointed as enforcement officers. Both clauses are integral to the effective functioning of the fair work agency in the future.
Greg Smith
On the face of it, the clauses are not problematic: they are quite clear, and it is important that those things that are considered as enforcement functions are clearly defined. That is all well and good—until we get to clause 74(5), which states:
“Arrangements under this section do not prevent the Secretary of State from performing a function to which the arrangements relate.”
Therefore, a body with certain powers—admittedly in the Secretary of State’s name—is created; essentially, a quango is put in place, and people are given the clear job of carrying out the enforcement functions in the Bill. However, if the Secretary of State is not prevented from performing one of those functions, what is the mechanism by which they can overrule the quango they themselves set up to perform them? Of course, the ultimate buck must stop with the Secretary of State, but it is a pretty established convention that where a quango is set up and has powers delegated to it—I think of Natural England within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and many other quangos—it is very rare for a Secretary of State to intervene, overrule and perhaps come to a different conclusion from that quango.
We will not oppose the clauses, but I would be grateful if the Minister could reflect on the circumstances in which he believes clause 74(5) would come into effect, to make clear the procedures a Secretary of State would need to follow to bring that subsection into effect.
Steve Darling
I broadly welcome the proposals in the clauses, and I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of the issues outlined by the shadow Minister.
Justin Madders
I know you have been eagerly awaiting this clause, Mr Mundell. It concerns an important part of the fair work agency, and something that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson touched on earlier. The agency has a big job on its hands to restore trust among workers that they will get the rights that they are entitled to and that Parliament has laid down. It also important that the agency is trusted by businesses, and that they know they will be treated fairly and that if they follow the law, they will not be undercut by those who seek to avoid it. That is an important job for the fair work agency and it is important that we get it right. It must reflect the concerns of businesses and workers.
The Low Pay Commission has served the country well since the last Labour Government created it to advise on the national minimum wage. That is because it is a social partnership, comprising equal voices of workers, businesses and independent experts, and can reflect the perspectives of all those bodies when making recommendations. We want the FWA to replicate that success.
The clause requires the Secretary of State to create an advisory board for the fair work agency. Subsection (2) specifies that the board must consist of at least nine members appointed by the Secretary of State. Subsection (3) provides that board members must hold and vacate their position in accordance with the terms and conditions of their appointment. Subsection (4) provides for the advisory board to have a social partnership model, requiring equal representation of businesses, trade unions and independent experts.
We know this is a complex area that is constantly changing, but we believe that the model and approach that has proved so successful with the Low Pay Commission should be replicated here. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I hear what the Minister says in his explanation of the clause. Often, advisory boards are perfectly good and useful bodies, but I return to my earlier point that where a power rests with a Secretary of State, the accountable body to which any Secretary of State must submit themselves is the House of Commons, where they are a Member, or the House of Lords, in the rare case that they sit in the other place. Parliament is the advisory body—the critical friend—that the Secretary of State should submit themselves to.
However, accepting that an advisory board is going to be established, I want to ask the Minister about its make-up. While the Bill seems to be quite clear, there are some gaps, and some unanswered questions that the public, businesses, employees and the trade union movement will no doubt wish to have answered.
Probably the clearest definition in clause 75(4) is that in paragraph (a):
“persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of trade unions”.
I think we can all understand that that means representatives of the trade union movement.
Greg Smith
There is my first question, prompted by my hon. Friend: does that include right hon. and hon. Members of Parliament who themselves are members of trade unions? Could that be the case?
We are less clear on paragraphs (b) and (c). Paragraph (b) states:
“persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of employers”.
That is a far less easily defined body of people. On the one hand, I can hear some potentially arguing that that is the representative bodies that gave evidence to the Committee, such as the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors. That would be a legitimate answer, until somebody came forward and made a compelling case that, as an individual employer, they should be considered to sit on the board.
Greg Smith
I will be delighted to in one second, when I have finished my train of thought.
Can someone be classed as independent if they are an academic or a university professor, perhaps with considerable knowledge of and expertise in employment law and matters relating to the Bill—someone we should all respect—but also a member of a trade union? Does their membership of a trade union count towards whether they are independent? Would that be at odds with paragraph (a)?
Michael Wheeler
I apologise for interrupting the egging of the pudding—we were definitely in the “over” area of the egging. Does the shadow Minister accept that despite what we have heard, and despite the picture that he is trying to create, this model works? It is not novel; we have the Low Pay Commission. It is an established fact. Despite the many layers and convolutions that we see being built in front of us, we are actually considering something quite straightforward here.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for what appears to be his support for the British egg industry. I encourage him to eat as many British eggs as possible and to support our farmers.
Greg Smith
I always bow to your advice, Mr Mundell. I will try to save the Minister the embarrassment of having that recorded in Hansard.
Let me try to return to my point. While I accept that advisory boards of Government Departments often follow this formula, we have a particular definitional problem with this one. The problem is whether, in the example I gave before the intervention of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles, the independence of a seemingly independent expert—most reasonable people would say a university academic, professor, doctor or whoever would normally fall into that category—would be influenced if they were a member of a trade union, and whether in that case their membership of the board would be compliant with the provision for an “equal number” of independent experts and those representing the trade union movement on the board.
This is an important problem for the Minister to acknowledge. He must be very clear to the Committee whether the word “independent” in paragraph (c) would disallow anyone who is a member of a trade union from being a member of the board under paragraph (c), for fear of contradicting paragraph (a).
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I refer the Committee to my membership of the GMB and Community unions. The shadow Minister is keen for us all to stress our trade union membership, and we do so at the start of every sitting. He makes the point about trade union membership potentially impacting independent experts, but he will be aware that many university professors are funded by private limited companies to support their research, just as some Opposition Members are supported by private limited companies and employers for campaign purposes, none of which is declared in this Committee. Would he not say that might impact those professors’ independence too? Would that not need to be declared to ensure that the numbers are balanced?
Greg Smith
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I believe in freedom; I have no problem with any hon. or right hon. Government Member being a member of a trade union. The point here is clarity and transparency. We have a Bill in black and white in front of us that refers to equal numbers but fails to define whether a member of a trade union could sit as an independent expert or would have to be categorised under subsection (4)(a) as representing the interests of trade unions. This is a matter of information on which the Committee and the general public deserve to have clarity before we allow this clause to become part of primary legislation in our country. As in all walks of life, there will be points of debate on that. I want to hear from the Minister’s own mouth whether he deems it to contradict the “equal number” provision. We could dance on the head of a pin all day, but when we are seeking to pass legislation, clarity is very important, and I look to the Minister to give it.
Steve Darling
I am concerned about the heavy weather that colleagues on the Opposition Benches are making of this. For me, this measure is about driving a positive culture in employment, and the board’s balance is entirely appropriate. I welcome the clause.
Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Greg Smith
Main Page: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)Department Debates - View all Greg Smith's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsTuesday 14th January 2025
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 January 2025 - (14 Jan 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move amendment 183, in schedule 6, page 135, line 6, leave out “‘Secretary of State’.” and insert
“‘Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority or the Secretary of State’.”
This amendment would ensure that section 12(2) of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which makes it an offence for a person to be in possession or control of a “relevant document” that is false or has been improperly obtained with the intention of inducing someone to believe that the person has a licence under that Act, continues to apply in respect of documents issued by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in connection with a licence before its abolition.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Mundell. As is customary, I refer to my declaration of interests and to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The amendment is essential to upholding legal continuity and to preventing any ambiguity or loopholes in enforcement. It will ensure that provisions under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 remain enforceable. Without the amendment, there is a risk that any improper conduct in relation to documents issued before the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority could fall outside the scope of enforcement.
Fraudulent licences have been used to exploit vulnerable workers and to mislead employers, particularly in industries such as agriculture and food processing. The amendment will strengthen deterrence against document fraud and ensure that enforcement agencies retain the tools that they need to protect workers effectively.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once more, Mr Mundell.
As the Minister has outlined, Government amendment 183 will ensure that section 12(2) of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which makes it an offence for a person to be in possession or control of a relevant document that is false or has been improperly obtained with the intention of inducing someone to believe that the person has a licence under the Act, continues to apply in respect of documents issued by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in connection with a licence before its abolition.
Clause 109 will abolish the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, a non-departmental public body that investigates reports of worker exploitation and illegal activity such as human trafficking, forced labour and illegal labour provision, as well as making offences under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Employment Agencies Act 1973. Significantly, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority also issues licences to employment agencies, labour providers or gangmasters who provide workers in the sectors of agriculture, horticulture, shellfish gathering and any associated processing or packaging. That is important work; we do not in any way, shape or form deviate from that.
The Government amendment will rightly ensure that providing false licences remains an offence, including where that was identified before the Bill receives Royal Assent and becomes an Act at some point this year, but I would like to be reassured about the work of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in connection with the provisions of the Bill. For example, what will happen to the staff at the authority once it has been abolished? The Bill provides for the transfer of staff, property rights and liabilities to the Secretary of State. Does the Secretary of State envisage redundancies or envisage that the same staff will continue to do the same work under a different ultimate authority? Will the reorganisation lead to any disruption? I think we all accept that any change will bring with it some level of disruption, but how can the disruption be minimised?
Likewise, the amendment appears to ensure continuity with existing legislation once the Bill has passed. I will be grateful if the Minister can confirm that that is the case. If any new powers are being taken, please could they be explained?
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I welcome the clarity offered by the Government in the amendment.
Justin Madders
Schedule 6 outlines consequential amendments to other legislation and will ensure consistency with the provisions introduced by the Bill. It will also ensure that our legislative framework is cohesive and functional.
The amendments will make essential technical adjustments to section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to reflect the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers with enforcement officers, as defined in part 5 of the Bill. They will update references, revise definitions and ensure consistency between this Bill and existing legislation. The amendments will avoid confusion and ensure that our statutory framework functions effectively. I commend these minor technical amendments to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining these further minor amendments to section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, being made as a result of the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers with enforcement officers under part 5 of the Bill. The amendments are another consequence of centralising the different enforcement agencies that operate under the auspices of the fair work agency.
I would be grateful to have the Minister’s reassurance that all current enforcement work will still be able to be carried out to the same standard during the period of reorganisation. In the previous debate, he indicated that he did not expect disruption; I gently put it to him that that is probably on the optimistic end of the scale. No matter the good intention behind any reorganisation, or the will, endless planning and everything that goes into it from a lot of good people putting in a lot of hard work, the reality is that any reorganisation can cause disruption, either in its own right or through unexpected events.
I will give a parallel closer to home. In my constituency, Buckinghamshire unitary council was created to go live just as the pandemic was starting. Four district councils and a county council were put together at the point at which we were all sent home, so everyone was working from home and having to rise to a local authority’s duties to put in place resilience measures to support people through the pandemic.
Justin Madders
It seems we have a little double act developing on the Opposition Front Bench. It reminds me a little bit of Waldorf and Statler, without the puns. Both the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire and the hon. Member for Bridgwater sought similar and important assurances that the work of the agencies would be able to be carried out effectively during this period of transition. I note what the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire mentioned about the Mid Buckinghamshire reorganisation.
Justin Madders
All of Buckinghamshire, yes—with the hon. Member right in the middle where he truly belongs. I do recall that the previous Government decided to set up the UK Health Security Agency in the middle of the pandemic, which was a challenging time to do that. It has been shown that the people doing the job day to day can continue to do it while the institutional reform carries on, making it more likely that they will be effective in carrying out their work through the sharing of resources, evidence and expertise, as well as, hopefully, a more unified approach to enforcement. Clearly, we want those doing the day-to-day work to be able to carry on doing that and a number of these amendments enable them to do that. We hope that, as the agency forms and more joint working is developed, they will become more effective.
Amendment 104 agreed to.
Amendments made: 105, in schedule 6, page 140, line 26, at end insert—
‘(4A) In subsection (10), for “Any other” substitute “A”.’
See the explanatory statement for amendment 104.
Amendment 106, in schedule 6, page 140, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
‘(5) For subsection (11) substitute—
“(11) In this section—
“enforcement officer” has the meaning given by section 72(3)
of the Employment Rights Act 2025;
“labour market offence” has the same meaning as in Part 5 of that Act (see section 112(1) of that Act).”’—(Justin Madders.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 104.
Justin Madders
Schedule 6 makes consequential amendments to existing legislation to ensure consistency with the new provisions introduced by the Bill. The amendments make essential technical adjustments to the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, updating references and ensuring consistency between the Bill and existing legislation.
Government amendment 184 omits section 19A(10A) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, which makes provision for the disclosure of settlement terms to an enforcement officer appointed under section 37M of the same Act. Section 37M is repealed by the Bill, as it has been superseded by the new provisions of the Bill on the appointment of fair work agency officers. Clauses 98 and 99(1) of the Bill provide gateways for the disclosure of information to fair work agency officers. Government amendment 184 repeals section 19A(10A), as the provision is no longer required in the light of the new provisions introduced by the Bill. Government amendment 188 is consequential to Government amendment 184. The amendment prevents confusion and ensures our statutory framework continues to function effectively.
Greg Smith
For the next part of the double act —I will casually ignore the Minister’s comparison—I will speak to Government amendments 184 and 188. Amendment 184 is a minor amendment relating to part 5 of the Bill and amendment 188 is consequential on amendment 184. As the Minister said, amendment 184 removes section 19A(10A) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Section 19A concerns the
“recovery of sums payable under settlements”
and subsection (10A) provides that the court may make provision as to the time within which an application to the county court for a declaration under subsection (4) is to be made. Subsection (4) states:
“A settlement sum is not recoverable under subsection (3) if—
(a) the person by whom it is payable applies for a declaration that the sum would not be recoverable from him under the general law of contract, and
(b) that declaration is made.”
Notwithstanding the Minister’s explanation, it is still not entirely clear to the Committee, or indeed to the whole House, why it is necessary to delete subsection (10A) from the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. I am sure there is a very convoluted reason for it out there somewhere, but it seems to us that the will of the Government in putting this legislation before Parliament does not need that deletion in order to function. I would be grateful if the Minister gave a fuller explanation of the need for that deletion in his summing-up.
Sir Ashley Fox
Amendment 184 proposes the removal of subsection (10A) from section 19A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, which deals with the recovery of sums payment under settlements, specifically addressing situations in which a party seeks a declaration from the court regarding the recoverability of a settlement sum.
Under subsection (10A), the court has the discretion to make provisions regarding the timeframe within which an application must be made to the county court for a declaration under subsection (4). Subsection (4) essentially provides that a settlement sum will not be recoverable if the person liable to pay the sum seeks a declaration from the court that, under general contract law, the sum is not recoverable from them. The removal of subsection (10A) raises important questions about the implications of the timing and procedure of such applications.
Given that the removal of subsection (10A) may have significant consequences for how significant settlement sums are handled and claims are processed in the future, will the Minister explain why this provision is being deleted? Understanding the reasoning behind the change is important for assessing its potential impact on workers and employers. Will the removal of this provision simplify the process for parties seeking a declaration regarding the recoverability of settlement sums or will it introduce new challenges or delays in the legal process? Furthermore, how will this change affect the ability of individuals to seek a fair resolution in cases where disputes over settlement sums arise? Clarification from the Minister on these points would be appreciated as it would help ensure that stakeholders fully understand the intended effects.
Greg Smith
I am grateful for the Minister’s brief explanation of Government amendments 185 to 187, which enable the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling the director general of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to deal with complaints and misconduct relating to enforcement officers who exercise police powers. Amendments 186 and 187 allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to deal with complaints. Misconduct relating to enforcement officers created by the Bill who exercise the powers in amendment 185 is consequential to amendments 186 and 187. Amendment 186 states that the Secretary of State
“may make regulations conferring functions on the Director General in relation to enforcement officers acting in the exercise of functions conferred on them by virtue of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.”
Can the Minister provide examples of the sorts of functions it is envisaged the Secretary of State will confer by regulations and how those powers will be used? Probably more significant to this debate and to give us the full picture, will the Independent Office for Police Conduct be granted greater powers to investigate misconduct claims? Will it have additional sanctions compared to that which it is already able to impose? If so, what are they and what will be the resourcing implications for the Independent Office for Police Conduct to take on oversight of the reorganisation?
We can all accept that many elements of the public sector are incredibly stretched. Whenever any reorganisation comes about or there is a need to oversee new bodies, there will be a resource implication. No matter how well intentioned the provisions of the Bill and the three amendments are, there will be a resource implication, even if it is a minor one. It is important that the Government acknowledge that and make a clear, unambiguous commitment to the resourcing of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to take on oversight of the reorganisation and future enforcement officers and their functions.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 190, in schedule 6, page 144, line 10, at end insert—
“Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022
92B In Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (extraction of information from electronic devices: authorised persons in relation to all purposes within section 37), after the entry relating to section 15 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 insert—
‘A person who is an enforcement officer for the purposes of Part 5 of the Employment Rights Act 2025.’”
This amendment would authorise enforcement officers under Part 5 of the Bill to exercise the powers conferred by section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to extract information stored on electronic devices for the purposes of, among other things, criminal investigations.
Government amendment 190 is another technical amendment to ensure continuity and effectiveness of the enforcement power under section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The Bill provides the building blocks for us to set up the fair work agency, which involves transferring enforcement functions that are currently split between multiple bodies, including the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. The GLAA office currently exercises its power across the UK under section 37 of the 2022 Act. Without this amendment, enforcement officers in England, Wales and Scotland would not have access to critical investigatory powers under that Act. Only officers enforcing the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 in Northern Ireland would retain those powers, creating an unjustifiable enforcement gap.
Investigations increasingly rely on access to electronic data, such as payroll records and communication logs. Excluding fair work agency officers from these powers would severely hinder their ability to obtain critical information, leaving them ill-equipped to tackle non-compliance and labour exploitation effectively.
The amendment ensures that enforcement powers remain consistent across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, aligning with the policy aim of the fair work agency to deliver robust and uniform enforcement. Fair work agency officers would exercise the section 37 power in relation to labour market offences. That expands the scope of the power, as currently the power is exercised by GLAA officers only in connection with enforcement of the 2004 Act.
This amendment would mean that the power is used by fair work agency officers to enforce the broader range of legislation under their remit, which means that the power could be exercised in relation to any labour market offence, instead of just offences under the 2004 Act. That will prevent any disparity in enforcement capabilities that could undermine efforts to protect vulnerable workers and uphold compliance.
This amendment corrects a minor technical oversight during the drafting process, ensuring that the legislation accurately reflects operational needs. It aligns with the overarching policy intention to ensure that there is no reduction in enforcement capability as enforcement bodies transfer into the fair work agency, and it directly addresses concerns and strengthens the Bill’s overall effectiveness. In conclusion, this amendment is essential to prevent enforcement gaps, ensure parity across jurisdictions, and equip enforcement officers with the tools that they need to combat exploitation in the modern economy.
Greg Smith
As the Minister outlined in his opening remarks, Government amendment 190 would authorise enforcement officers, under part 5 of the Bill, to exercise the powers conferred by section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to extract information stored on electronic devices for the purposes of, among other things, criminal investigations.
As I understand it, the power conferred by section 37 of the 2022 Act may be exercised only for the purposes of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting crime; helping to locate a missing person; or protecting a child or at-risk adult from neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm. How often does the Minister envisage that that power would be needed when enforcing employment law?
It is a very important power in the cases that I have outlined—not least for the critical work of protecting children and at-risk adults from neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm—but, I repeat, how often does the Minister envisage that it will be needed in employment law? What safeguards will be in place to prevent an inappropriate or intrusive use of the power? It seems an odd fit in this Bill.
Those matters are all rightly—I have double underlined that word—covered in other parts of legislation and enforced daily by the police and other agencies. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition salute everyone involved in the prevention of harm and the prosecution of its perpetrators, but I repeat that the power seems an odd fit with this Bill.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Government amendment 190 seeks to amend the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 by extending the powers conferred by section 37 of that Act to enforcement officers for the purposes of part 5 of this Bill. Section 37 of the 2022 Act allows the authorities to extract information shared on electronic devices for the purposes, among other things, of criminal investigations. I have some familiarity with these issues from my time working with the police, security and intelligence agencies and other public bodies with investigatory responsibilities when I worked in the Home Office between 2010 and 2015. Then, we were confronted with the danger that changing technology meant that the ability of these important public agencies to access the communications data necessary for their work was diminishing. That was because the nature of the way we communicate was changing from conventional phone calls and written material to internet-based communication. That obviously included methods such as messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal but also messaging within other apps like Facebook or even within online gaming systems.
Greg Smith
Through this morning’s debate on the 10 Government amendments to schedule 6, most of the points about the schedule have been well aired. As we consider whether it should fully stand part of the Bill, however, I genuinely believe that a number of questions posed—in particular by my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk and for Bridgwater—on the practicalities of the transfer of some of the powers have not been adequately addressed during the debate by the Minister.
We do not challenge or seek to undermine in any way, shape or form the intention of the schedule. I appreciate the Minister’s willingness to write to me on a couple of the points I made, and I accept the good faith in which that offer was made, but any transition involves some disruption. That is simply a fact of life, and I think that the Government would do well, given the good intent of what the schedule seeks to do, to reassure not just the Committee, but the whole House and the country at large, that that disruption will in fact be minimised and practical steps taken to make that the case.
Fundamentally, however, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition understand and accept the necessity of the schedule. We just think that some unanswered questions remain.
Steve Darling
I echo the shadow Minister, who sits to my right—in more ways than one. Definitely, further clarity from the Minister would be welcome.
Justin Madders
The schedule sets out transitional and savings provisions. It ensures a smooth changeover from the existing enforcement framework to the new provisions introduced by the Bill. That is of course important because it makes our legislative framework cohesive and functional.
Government amendment 191 is a necessary technical provision to ensure that the transition of enforcement responsibilities under part 5 of the Bill is well ordered. By clarifying that actions taken not just “by” but “in relation” to enforcement officers will continue to have effect as if done in relation to the Secretary of State, we are safeguarding a continuity in enforcement processes and ensuring no disruption to ongoing cases or decisions, which I am sure Members will be relieved to hear.
Government amendment 192 makes a consequential change to align with Government amendment 191, and Government amendments 197 and 200 make minor drafting changes in schedule 7. They do not affect the substance of the Bill, but they improve its clarity and accuracy. I hope that hon. Members will support what I imagine are uncontroversial amendments and support achieving the aim of ensuring continuity and cohesiveness as we move forward. On that note, I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Greg Smith
Government amendments 191 and 192 ensure that things done “in relation to” existing enforcement officers—for example, before part 5 of the Bill comes into force—continue to have effect as if done “in relation to” the Secretary of State. I fully accept that Government amendments 197 and 200 make minor drafting changes, which look as though they ensure legal continuity—that would be the case, based on the Minister’s opening remarks—and therefore seem sensible, given the policy direction.
I can conclude my comments on the amendments only by asking the usual question, which I have asked many times in Committee and fear I will ask a few more times during the debate over the remainder of today, Thursday and next Tuesday: should the amendments have been included in the Bill on its introduction? This is yet another example of why it is foolish to rush anything, particularly getting a Bill out in 100 days and its consideration in Committee.
Sir Ashley Fox
Government amendments 191 and 192 are designed to ensure legal continuity for actions and decisions made regarding existing enforcement officers prior to the implementation of part 5 of the Bill. They stipulate that any actions or procedures carried out “in relation to” enforcement officers before the new provisions come into force, such as appointments, disciplinary actions or administrative functions, will continue to have the same legal effect as if they had been made “in relation to” the Secretary of State. That is important, because it prevents any disruption or confusion in the legal standing of prior actions, ensuring that they are not rendered ineffective by the changes introduced by the Bill. Essentially, the amendments provide a mechanism to ensure that the transition to the new legal framework does not invalidate or interfere with prior administrative or operational activities.
The rationale behind the amendments is straightforward: it is legal continuity. As enforcement officers are brought under a new regulatory framework, it is crucial that past actions related to their roles, such as those conducted before the Bill takes effect, are preserved and do not need to be revisited or re-executed under the new provisions. That ensures that there is no disruption in the functioning of enforcement operations and that any ongoing matters involving enforcement officers continue seamlessly under the authority of the Secretary of State. The amendments clarify that past decisions and procedures will be treated as if they were made under the authority of the new system, which will help to avoid any potential legal challenges or confusion.
Amendments 197 and 200 involve relatively minor drafting changes. Although the specifics of those changes may not substantially alter the substance of the Bill, they are important for clarity, consistency and precision in the text. These types of amendments typically address technical issues, such as language inconsistencies, ambiguities or minor adjustments to improve the readability and legal accuracy of the provisions. Although they do not represent major shifts in policy, such amendments are crucial in ensuring that the Bill’s provisions are clear, unambiguous and legally sound. Even small drafting changes play an important role in improving the overall functionality and effectiveness of the legislation.
Amendments 197 and 200 help to fine-tune the Bill’s language, ensuring that there are no interpretive uncertainties that could arise during its application. By addressing potential issues in the drafting, the amendments help to streamline the implementation process and reduce the risk of legal challenges or confusion in future interpretations of the law.
Taken together, the amendments—particularly amendments 191 and 192—help to ensure that there is no legal disruption when the provisions in part 5 of the Bill come into effect. That is an essential part of the legislative process, as it guarantees that previous actions remain valid and that transition to a new regulatory framework is smooth. In addition, the minor drafting changes provided by amendments 197 and 200 contribute to legal clarity, ensuring that the Bill’s language is precise and consistent, which will help to avoid any future complications in the application of the law.
Although these changes are reasonable and sensible, in the light of the Bill’s policy objectives, it is worth noting that they should ideally have been included at the time of the Bill’s introduction. The legal continuity ensured by amendments 191 and 192, as well as the technical refinements in amendments 197 and 200, could have been addressed earlier in the drafting process, to ensure that the Bill was as comprehensive and clear as possible from the outset. None the less, these changes at this stage still serve to enhance the legal robustness and practical application of the Bill, which will ultimately contribute to more effective enforcement and smoother implementation.
Greg Smith
Government amendment 193 ensures that the transitional provision in paragraph 6 of schedule 7 would apply in relation to officers acting for the purposes of part 2A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, which relates to the enforcement of employment tribunal awards. The function of such officers is being transferred to the Secretary of State by the Bill. Amendments 194 and 195 are similar to some of the amendments in the previous group—I fully accept that these are minor drafting changes.
Overall, the changes introduced by this group look as though they ensure legal continuity so that the fair work agency can act as the enforcement authority. That seems sensible, given the policy direction behind the Employment Rights Bill that has been outlined by the Minister and the wider Government. However, I ask again for updates on ensuring the effectiveness of the enforcement of employment law during the period of transition, and about the processes that will be put in place to minimise disruption for businesses, which we have spoken about at length earlier, and to ensure effective enforcement. Again, it is hard to envisage why this set of amendments were not considered at first publication of the Bill; they seem entirely sensible, but it is a mystery why they were lacking the first time round.
Justin Madders
Amendment 196 will ensure that there is a smooth transition in the frameworks. Amendment 198 is a transitional provision ensuring that anything done by a labour abuse prevention officer before the abolition of the GLAA continues to have effect as if done under the fair work agency. Amendment 199 is another transitional provision for warrants that have been granted under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, but not yet executed. It allows those warrants to have the same effect as before. It is a continuation of the amendments we have debated this morning, ensuring that enforcement officers have continuity when delivering their functions.
Greg Smith
Amendment 196 makes it clear that the general provision in paragraph 6 of schedule 7 is subject to any more specific provision in that schedule. Amendment 198 makes transitional provision to ensure that things done by or in relation to labour abuse prevention officers before the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority continue to have effect as if done by or in relation to enforcement officers granted the equivalent powers under section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Amendment 199 makes transitional provision in relation to warrants under section 17 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act, which is being re-enacted for England, Wales and Scotland, with some changes, through clause 83. In particular, proposed new paragraph 7C of schedule 7 of the Bill provides that, where a warrant issued under section 17 of the 2004 Act has not yet been executed, the warrant is treated as if issued under clause 83, but any changes introduced by the Bill that would not have applied if the warrant had been executed under section 17 —in particular the additional requirements in part 3 of new schedule 1—are disapplied.
On the face of it, these are sensible amendments to make sure that nothing falls through the cracks as enforcement functions transfer to the fair work agency. A number of Government amendments of this nature have been considered by the Committee. This set of amendments therefore leaves me slightly nervous, not about the intention, but about whether anything else has been missed. I would appreciate the Minister’s reassurance on that point.
Sir Ashley Fox
Amendment 196 seeks to clarify the applicability of general and specific provisions and the relationship between the general provision outlined in paragraph 6 of schedule 7 and any more specific provision within that schedule. The amendment ensures that, in the event of a conflict or overlap between general and specific provisions, the more detailed or specific provisions will take precedence. This is an important measure for maintaining legal clarity and consistency in the application of the Bill. By prioritising specific provisions where applicable, the amendment prevents any unintended gaps or inconsistencies in the legal framework, ensuring that enforcement activities and related actions are governed by the most precise and relevant rules.
Amendment 198 introduces a transitional provision designed to ensure that actions taken by or in relation to labour abuse prevention officers prior to the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority will continue to be recognised as valid. Specifically, it ensures that any activities, decisions or functions performed by those officers before the GLAA’s dissolution will have the same legal effect as if they had been carried out by or in relation to enforcement officers who have been granted equivalent powers under section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This is critical because it provides a seamless transition as enforcement responsibilities are transferred, making certain that actions taken by the GLAA’s officers before the abolition of the agency are not rendered void or ineffective.
The amendment is vital for legal continuity. It guarantees that there will be no disruption in enforcement activities during the transition period. Officers who previously worked under the authority of the GLAA, particularly those involved in tackling labour abuse, will carry out their roles without interruption, as their actions will be treated as if undertaken by enforcement officers with the equivalent legal powers. The measure strengthens the overall framework for worker protection and labour abuse prevention, ensuring that the enforcement of relevant laws continues smoothly as the responsibility shifts to new authorities.
Amendment 199 focuses on the transitional provision for warrants issued under section 17 of the 2004 Act, which is being re-enacted in a revised form as clause 83 of the Bill. The amendment introduces new paragraph 7C, which addresses the scenario where a warrant issued under section 17 has not yet been executed at the time of the change. In such cases, the warrant will be treated as if it were issued under the new provisions in clause 83, but with a critical distinction. Any changes introduced by the Bill that would not have applied under section 17, such as the additional requirements in part three of new schedule 1, will be disapplied.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any ongoing enforcement actions involving warrants issued under the old regime are not hindered or invalidated by the transition to the new framework. By allowing the warrants to be treated as though they were issued under the new clause, the amendment facilitates a smoother enforcement process and reduces the risk of legal challenges or procedural delays. This is an important safeguard for the enforcement of labour laws and ensures that the power to execute warrants continues without disruption, regardless of the legislative changes.
Justin Madders
Existing enforcement bodies will have obtained information prior to the creation of the fair work agency. This information may be needed by the Secretary of State once part 5 of the Bill comes into force. Schedule 7 therefore provides for transitional and saving provisions to enable that. Amendments 201 and 202 provide that information obtained by officers acting under existing legislation prior to the coming into force of part 5 of the Bill, and which is held by the Secretary of State, can be used or disclosed in accordance with clause 98.
Greg Smith
Amendments 201 and 202 provide that information that was obtained before the coming into force of part 5 of the Bill by officers acting under existing legislation and is held by the Secretary of State can be used or disclosed by the Secretary of State in accordance with clause 98. These are sensible amendments on the face of it, to make sure nothing falls through the cracks as the enforcement functions transfer to the fair work agency—very similar to the previous set of amendments that we have just considered. It is part of a continuing theme of amendments of this nature that we as a Committee are being asked to consider.
I heard the Minister’s response to the previous debate about this being an iterative process and about the need to listen and best understand concerns or practical points raised by those being asked to prepare for and ultimately do this work. It remains a legitimate point of nervousness that there will be more such cracks that need repairing as part of this Bill. Accepting the Minister’s good faith in his explanation on the previous set of amendments, I put on record that we remain a little nervous that more cracks will need that legislative repair as the Bill goes forward.
We urge the Government to get on at pace with the conversations necessary to ensure that they have best understood where any further edits may be required—preferably before Report stage in the House of Commons, but if it does have to bleed into the time when the Bill goes to the other place, so be it. However, I think it would a far more satisfactory position if we were able to consider at our end of the building any further amendments that may be required before we ask their lordships to consider the Bill.
Sir Ashley Fox
Government amendments 201 and 202 are designed to address a key aspect of the transition process under the Bill. Specifically, they are designed such that any information that was obtained prior to the coming into force of part 5 of the Bill by officers operating under existing legislation and is currently held by the Secretary of State, can still be used or disclosed in accordance with the provisions outlined in clause 98 of the Bill.
That is crucial because, as enforcement functions transfer to the fair work agency, there needs to be continuity in how information is handled. By allowing the Secretary of State to continue using and disclosing this information under the new framework, the amendments ensure that no critical data or intelligence gathered under the previous system is lost or becomes unusable during the transition.
This provision is particularly important for maintaining continuity in enforcement activities. The information collected by officers acting under earlier laws may be vital for ongoing investigations or enforcement actions. For instance, data about businesses that are non-compliant with labour laws, or evidence of potential worker exploitation, could be crucial for future legal proceedings or further investigations.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 203, in schedule 7, page 148, line 20, at end insert—
“9A The repeal of section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (inspection) by paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 does not prevent the use in evidence against a person, in criminal proceedings taking place on or after the day on which that repeal comes into force, of a statement made before that day by the person in compliance with a requirement under that section (subject to subsection (2B) of that section).”
Section 9(3) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 provides that a statement made by a person in compliance with a requirement made under that section to provide information may be used in evidence in criminal proceedings against the person. This amendment enables such a statement to be used in criminal proceedings taking place after the repeal of section 9 by the Bill.
Schedule 7 sets out transitional and savings provisions ensuring a smooth changeover from the existing enforcement framework to the new provisions. That is important, as Members have debated at length already. Amendment 203 addresses the repeal of section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the evidentiary treatment of statements obtained under that provision. The amendment will ensure that such statements can continue to be used in criminal proceedings post repeal, subject to existing protections against self-incrimination under section 9(2B). This is a targeted, proportionate and necessary amendment, which safeguards the integrity of enforcement proceedings during a period of legislative transition. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Greg Smith
As the Minister outlined, Government amendment 203 relates to section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, which provides that a statement made by a person in compliance with a requirement under that section to provide information may be used in evidence in criminal proceedings against the person. The amendment enables such a statement to be used in criminal proceedings taking place after the repeal of section 9 by the Bill.
Similar to the previous two groups of amendments we have considered, this is a sensible amendment to make sure that nothing falls through the cracks as enforcement functions transfer to the fair work agency. It is all part of a continuing theme, and the points that I made in the previous debate apply as much to amendment 203 as they did to the previous amendments.
I understand what the Minister said about every Bill being subject, during its passage, to a number of technical amendments by Governments of all different political compositions. I gently it put back to him that this Bill seems to have had an extremely high number of technical Government amendments, and that all tracks back to the unnecessary speed with which it was presented to Parliament.
Government amendment 204 contains transitional provision to ensure that once the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority under the Modern Slavery Act 2015—
Sir Ashley Fox
Government amendment 203 seeks to address an important transitional issue arising from the repeal of section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 by the Bill. Section 9 currently stipulates that a statement made by an individual in compliance with a requirement to provide information under that section may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings against them. The amendment ensures that any statements made under the provisions of section 9 prior to its repeal can still be used in criminal proceedings that occur after the repeal takes effect.
The amendment is a necessary adjustment to maintain the integrity of the legal process. It will ensure that evidence obtained while section 9 was in effect remains valid and admissible in criminal cases, even after the section’s formal removal from the statute. Without the amendment, there could be ambiguity and potential legal challenges regarding the admissibility of evidence, which could undermine ongoing enforcement efforts and hinder the administration of justice. By making this provision, the Government ensure that no gaps are created in the legal framework, preserving continuity and clarity in the application of the law.
As we transition enforcement functions to the fair work agency, such amendments are vital to ensure the process is as seamless as possible. The purpose of amendment 203, and others like it, is to safeguard that critical aspects of the previous legal framework remain intact, even as the functions are reassigned or modified under the Bill. The changeover to the fair work agency is a significant shift, and these amendments are an important step in maintaining enforcement consistency. Given the complexity of transferring powers and responsibilities between agencies, the amendments ensure that no legal actions or evidence will fall through the cracks during the transition. They will ensure that enforcement remains robust, and that any evidence gathered or actions taken before the changeover still hold legal weight under the new system.
Although the adjustments are sensible and necessary, the number of Government amendments made in Committee leaves me with some concern about whether every possible issue has been addressed. The amendments we have seen so far have been well intentioned and critical for ensuring legal continuity, but I would appreciate the Minister’s reassurance that nothing has been overlooked in this important process.
As we know, the task of realigning enforcement powers can be complex, and with numerous provisions being amended or repealed, the risk of something slipping through the cracks is a valid concern. Opposition Members are asking for clarity that even with these detailed and helpful amendments, the transition to the fair work agency will not inadvertently create gaps or unintended consequences. I urge the Minister to provide additional assurances that all potential legal or procedural pitfalls have been anticipated, and that the Government have taken every necessary step to guarantee that the work of enforcement officers and the legal process will continue without interruption. Although the amendments are certainly a step in the right direction, we must remain vigilant to ensure that the full scope of the transition is properly managed and that the system continues to protect the rights of workers effectively.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 204, in schedule 7, page 148, line 28, at end insert—
“10A (1) Where—
(a) a slavery and trafficking prevention order requires a person to notify the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in accordance with section 19 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”), and
(b) immediately before the day on which paragraph 53 of Schedule 6 comes into force, that requirement has not been complied with,
that requirement has effect, on and after that day, as a requirement to notify the Secretary of State.
(2) On and after the coming into force of paragraph 54 of Schedule 6, the reference in section 20(2)(g) of the 2015 Act (as amended by that paragraph) to a slavery and trafficking prevention order made on an application under section 15 of that Act by the Secretary of State includes a reference to such an order made on an application under that section by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.
(3) In this paragraph “slavery and trafficking prevention order” has the same meaning as in the 2015 Act.
10B (1) Where—
(a) a slavery and trafficking risk order requires a person to notify the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in accordance with section 26 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”), and
(b) immediately before the day on which paragraph 56 of Schedule 6 comes into force, that requirement has not been complied with,
that requirement has effect, on and after that day, as a requirement to notify the Secretary of State.
(2) On and after the coming into force of paragraph 57 of Schedule 6, the reference in section 27(2)(g) of the 2015 Act (as amended by that paragraph) to a slavery and trafficking risk order made on an application under section 23 of that Act by the Secretary of State includes a reference to such an order made on an application under that section by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.
(3) In this paragraph “slavery and trafficking risk order” has the same meaning as in the 2015 Act.”
This amendment contains transitional provision to ensure that, once the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 have been transferred to the Secretary of State, that Act continues to operate as intended.
The amendment is essential to ensure the seamless and effective operation of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 during the transition of functions from the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority to the Secretary of State. At its core, it is about continuity and clarity. Slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders are critical tools in the fight against modern slavery. They impose important requirements on individuals for the purpose of protecting people from being victims of modern slavery, including requirements to notify enforcement authorities, and those obligations must remain enforceable.
Without the amendment, there is a clear risk that existing legal obligations could become unclear, creating loopholes for offenders to exploit. The amendment ensures that notification requirements transfer seamlessly to the Secretary of State, safeguarding our ability to hold individuals accountable and protect victims of exploitation. It also ensures that where an application is made to vary, renew or discharge a slavery and trafficking order, the courts can treat orders originally made by the GLAA as if they had been made by the Secretary of State. That provides legal certainty for courts, enforcement agencies and affected individuals alike.
This is a technical but vital amendment that protects the integrity of the legal framework and ensures continuity.
Greg Smith
Apologies for my premature comments on amendment 204, Mr Mundell; I accidently believed it had been grouped with the previous amendment.
Amendment 204 contains transitional provision to ensure that, once the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 have been transferred to the Secretary of State, that Act continues to operate as intended. I would be grateful for the Minister’s assessment of how the creation of the fair work agency will allow for more effective identification and prevention of modern slavery offences. As we debate the amendment, it is important that we are fully appraised of the detail and the assessment that the Minister, the wider Department for Business and Trade and the Government have made. This is an important matter that all Committee members, and Members of the wider House of Commons, take incredibly seriously, and I urge the Minister to do so.
Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Greg Smith
Main Page: Greg Smith (Conservative - Mid Buckinghamshire)Department Debates - View all Greg Smith's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsThursday 16th January 2025
(1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 January 2025 - (16 Jan 2025)
Sir Ashley Fox
That would not be quite enough to offset the £5 billion-worth of costs for small and medium-sized enterprises. The advantage of the new clause is that it would not cost either the taxpayer or employers any money. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.
The truth is that, currently, many people simply do not have the time to offer to the role without employer support. The measure I propose would make it easier for specials to perform their duties and, I hope, help recruitment. Unlike so many of the proposals in the Bill, it would not cost either employers or the taxpayer any money.
I am pleased that this campaign has the support of the Association of Special Constabulary Officers and more than a dozen MPs from Government and Opposition. We also have the endorsement of 10 police and crime commissioners. Importantly, Assistant Chief Constable Bill Dutton, acting in his capacity as the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for the special constabulary, has provided his written support for including special constables under section 50. The Minister has received letters from hon. Members in all parts of the House, and I believe that some of his ministerial colleagues, too, may have received letters or held meetings with Government Back Benchers.
The new clause could help with the recruitment and retention of many new special constables and it would make our streets safer. It would also finally recognise the work of the specials and put them on the same footing as the thousands of other people in this country who are allowed time off work to complete valuable civic duties. I ask the Minister to consider that.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I would like to add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater has proposed. The first duty of Government is to protect citizens from threats abroad and keep them safe at home. Given all the other rights and extensions of rights that the Government are pushing in the Bill, it would seem unusual if support for our special constables, whom I salute for all their hard work day in, day out as part of the mission to keep the British people safe, were not included. I urge the Minister to consider the new clause in a genuine spirit of trying to work together on this issue.
I am tempted to rise to the bait set by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles. We have many differences of opinion about the Bill’s provisions, but, in the spirit of the Bill, surely we can find some cross-party consensus on extending employment rights to special constables going about their duty—the often dangerous duty that they carry out on behalf of us all.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I rise to strongly support the new clause. We have seen throughout our debates in Committee that there are opportunities for changing the weather around our employment world, whether it is around foster carers, adoption or volunteering—the subject of new clause 38, championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster), which we will discuss later.
I hope that this new clause falls on fertile ground because, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater has highlighted, volunteering across the piece has significantly reduced. We need to change the weather around the employment world and make sure that people feel able and confident to volunteer, as we know that policing is a particular challenge.
I welcome the Government’s plans to invest in neighbourhood policing. Special officers are often involved in that. People feel confident when they see a uniformed officer on the street. The public do not care whether it is a paid officer or a special officer; it is a trusted individual. The more we can drive that agenda, as I know from my residents in Torbay, the more it will be welcomed. I look forward to a strong endorsement from the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Christopher. I start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater on the new clause and join him in paying tribute to his constituent Emma-Elizabeth Murphy and all special constables who perform the vital work that Members have spoken in support of. We recognise and value the vital role that special constables play, which includes supporting neighbourhood policing. We are committed to ensuring that police forces have the support that they need from the Government to tackle important matters of public safety.
Special constables, along with the full range of police volunteers, bring valuable and diverse skills that complement the roles that officers and staff play in delivering the best service to the public. We recognise that there has been a fall in the number of special constables over recent years. Further work needs to be done to understand exactly the reasons for that. Initial consideration suggests that a range of factors has led to the reduction in the number of special constables. It is not clear whether the new clause would reverse that trend or what its impact on business would be—the hon. Member for Bridgwater has been a constant critic of the Bill’s impact on businesses—so we need to understand that better.
We are already doing a range of work to support special constables and employment rights more broadly. We are introducing the neighbourhood policing guarantee, which will put thousands of additional police officers, police community support officers and special constables on our streets and restore patrols in town centres across the country.
Many employers already support their employees to volunteer in a special constabulary. Under the Employer Supported Policing scheme, led by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, a number of organisations across a range of sectors have committed to supporting members of their workforce to serve as special constables, in recognition of the opportunities to build new skills and support local communities. The Home Office is also supporting the NPCC to develop and implement initiatives to improve the recruitment and retention of special constables. That includes developing a refreshed national citizens in policing strategy and a national special constabulary working group.
I will not be able to accept the new clause, but I am sympathetic to the case that has been made. In preparation for dealing with it, I learned that that the initial legislation that introduced time off for certain public duties is now 50 years old, so it seems time to consider this issue in the round, and the role of special constables will no doubt be included in that. The Home Office will clearly have an important say. As I said, a number of factors has led to the decline in the number of special constables in recent years.
Greg Smith
The new clause has been tabled for some weeks now. Has the Minister engaged with the Home Secretary, the Policing Minister or any officials in the Home Office? Have they presented a view on this proposal yet?
Justin Madders
We have had various discussions within the Department. Information has gone over to the Home Office, and we are waiting for a response. Obviously, I cannot speak for the Home Office, so I cannot set out its position. As I say, I think it is time more generally to consider all the legislation relating to the right to time off for public duties. It is too soon to accept this new clause, but I hope the hon. Member for Bridgwater is assured that we are taking this issue seriously and considering it.
Greg Smith
I commend the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling new clause 35. It is not the Opposition’s intention to support it at this stage, but I want to be clear that the principle behind it is fundamentally good: ensuring carers are not left on a financial sticky wicket, which is a very real problem in the country. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Torbay said that it was a probing amendment, but we believe that it is not currently fully thought through. We can all agree—I would be surprised if we did not—on saluting the incredible work that carers do up and down the land. They are all heroes in their own right and they do incredible work to look after those they care for. Their work merits a genuine use of the word “amazing”. It is a word that has been applied to far too many things in this world that are not amazing, but I think we can all agree that the work carers do genuinely is amazing.
Our rationale for saying that this new clause is not thought through enough is that it does not produce realistic solutions to solving the financial gap for carers, which we acknowledge exists. I would be interested to know the rates of payment the Liberal Democrats think would be appropriate for carer’s leave, how the rates they envisage have been benchmarked, and if they have understood the likelihood of take-up of carer’s leave and therefore the ability of employers to absorb this cost. The hon. Gentleman was very clear about that 10.6 million figure he gave. Any solution that seeks to close the financial gap must accept some of the realities and take on board the costings that will have to come from somewhere to ensure that that financial burden can be met, notwithstanding the acceptance that carers need more support for—I repeat—their amazing work. That is why we believe this new clause just does not work at this time, and I would be surprised if our position were that different from the Government’s.
The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)
I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my membership of the National Education Union and USDAW.
New clause 35 would commit the Government to introducing an entitlement for employees with caring responsibilities, to be paid at their usual wage level, while taking carer’s leave. It would give carers an entitlement of up to a week of paid leave and require employers to cover the cost.
I want to underline that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting employed unpaid carers. In the October 2024 Budget, we increased the earnings disregard for carers from £151 to £196, meaning that they can earn up to £196 without losing any of their carer’s allowance. In effect, that means that they can work 16 hours a week at the national living wage.
We have two concerns about the new clause. First, it would introduce significant new costs for employers without giving consideration to the potential impact on businesses, in particular small ones. Secondly, under the proposed approach, individuals taking carer’s leave would be treated more favourably than employees taking other forms of leave to care for family members, such as maternity or paternity leave, where a flat statutory rate is available. There is no clear rationale for taking a different approach, and it could raise questions about differential treatment of different groups. For those reasons, the Government do not support the new clause.
However, supporting carers who want to work alongside managing their caring responsibilities is an important element of our plans to modernise the world of work, which will ensure that there are good jobs for carers and a skilled workforce for employers. The Carer’s Leave Act 2023 gave employed carers a new right to time off work to care for a dependant with long-term care needs. We will review that measure and consider whether any further support is required. That will include looking at potential options for paid leave. The review will draw on evidence from carers and employers and learn from their experiences, so that we can understand what is working in the current system and identify where improvements may be needed. Through that work, we will also engage closely with smaller employers and sector bodies to ensure that we fully understand the potential impacts and benefits that further policy development could bring for them. It is right that we allow the review to run its course to enable an evidence-based decision on whether there is more we can do to support working carers while balancing impacts on businesses.
I heard what the hon. Member for Torbay said about the new clause being a probing amendment, and I hope that what I have said gives him reassurance about our commitment to that review. I therefore invite him to withdraw the new clause.
Steve Darling
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would ensure that workers in the early stages of an employment dispute, such as a disciplinary or grievance hearing, can be supported by those who are qualified, rather than just by trade union representatives or similar colleagues. It would allow for matters to be brought to a head much sooner and prevent cases from necessarily going to tribunal, which clogs up the tribunal system. I hope the Government will take the new clause in the positive sprit in which we tabled it.
Greg Smith
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Torbay said. On one level, I would be interested to know why the Liberal Democrats think the expansion is needed, where the shortfalls are in the current right to be accompanied, and what benefits the new right would bring. I think that what the hon. Gentleman is proposing could be done through existing legislation in many respects.
That said, representatives of the charity and third sector who seek to represent those in the teaching profession have welcomed the new clause, because the teaching unions have a bit of a monopoly at the moment. Although my mother has been retired for many years, she always joined a union through considerably gritted teeth—she may have been the only Conservative in the staff room, but she gritted her teeth. In fact, she may even have taught for many years in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield. The teaching unions have that monopoly because of the insurances and so on that they give to teachers. The new clause would widen things out and allow teachers who do not wish to join a union to get the support they need—accompaniment at a hearing—from a charity or third sector organisation, which may be welcome.
We need more clarity on the impact that would have on the teaching profession, which is why we do not think the new clause should be accepted at this time. However, the hon. Member for Torbay has opened the door on an area that it is important for us to explore as the Bill proceeds, and perhaps in future legislation.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling the new clause. I think its origins are in written evidence to the Committee from the edu-legal organisation Edapt, which has been raising this issue with successive Governments for a number of years.
It is important to set out the position under current law. Section 10(3) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 explains that when a worker is asked to attend a disciplinary or grievance hearing they are entitled to bring a companion who is either a fellow worker, an official employed by a trade union, or a workplace trade union representative that the union has reasonably certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion at such hearings. Employers are free but not obliged to allow workers to be accompanied by someone who does not fall into those categories. Some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed, such as a professional support body, partner, spouse or legal representative.
As one of the initial steps in resolving tensions when the worker-employer relationship has broken down, the provisions of the 1999 Act seek to keep disciplinary and grievance procedures internal to a workplace. Expanding the types of organisations that can be involved in representing workers could lead to hearings requiring legal representation for both worker and employer. We certainly do not want to see internal disciplinary or grievance hearings ending up in a legal battle. That would invariably increase the cost of holding a hearing and potentially decrease the chances of an amicable resolution. Equally, introducing increased legal expertise from outside the workplace could increase the likelihood of a tribunal. Workers and employers may judge ACAS conciliation or mediation unlikely to resolve a dispute because legal arguments have been made during an internal disciplinary hearing. We certainly believe that amicable resolutions are the swiftest way for justice to be delivered.
The new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to set out and define in regulations the professional bodies that could represent employees in disciplinary and grievance hearings. Although, as the shadow Minister said, this measure relates specifically to the education sector, one can easily see a whole range of organisations beginning to knock on the door. It would raise all sorts of questions about regulations, standards and enforcement, and it would inevitably expand quite quickly.
As the shadow Minister said, it is not clear beyond the written submission to the Committee where the demand is for the expansion of this right. Employers are of course entitled to nominate individuals or organisations for recognition. The Government are clear that trade unions are best placed to provide workplace representation. The legislation is fit for purpose in terms of ensuring that that is done in a proportionate and balanced way. On that basis, we reject the new clause.
Greg Smith
I heard very clearly what the hon. Member for Torbay proposed on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I think we all salute everybody who volunteers. We can all celebrate people who give up their time freely to do something worthy in our constituencies, communities and neighbourhoods—including the Scout and Girlguiding groups that the hon. Gentleman spoke of.
It is clear from the passion with which the hon. Gentleman spoke that the Liberal Democrats are still pining for the coalition days, when the big society was the centrepiece of the vision that the Prime Minister—now my right hon. Friend the noble Lord Cameron—had for this country. On one level, I had thought that one of the greatest successes of the coalition Government was—until the 2024 general election—the electoral annihilation of the Liberal Democrats, but they are still pining for many of the things that my party and theirs did together in that coalition period.
In theory, the new clause is actually very appealing; we all want to support people to do good and give their time freely in their communities, neighbourhoods and areas—in our constituencies. But where I take issue with the hon. Gentleman is that, time and again in this Committee, too much has been left to yet another consultation. While I hear his argument, “What harm would another one do?”, I think we are consultationed out at the moment. I do not think it would be helpful either for the Government, in achieving what they wish to achieve through this very wide-reaching piece of legislation—albeit with disagreement from the Opposition Benches—or for employers to have to take on yet another strand of burden in this regard, so the Opposition will not be supporting new clause 38.
However, we do want to explore ways in which volunteering can be more greatly encouraged in all of our communities. As a starting point, although consideration of the definition of volunteering would be included as part of the hon. Gentleman’s proposed consultation, we need a better definition before we consider any wider consultation on time off and so on. At the moment, it is far too wide-open a goal and too broad a word. If we asked everybody in the country to give their definition of volunteering, we would probably get 70 million different answers. If we had greater clarity about what we are really talking about—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater’s very clear and defined proposal on special constables, which of course is an incredibly worthwhile and nation-enhancing bit of volunteering—then we could potentially get somewhere, but at the moment, volunteering could mean literally anything to anyone. That is not to undermine the good work that people do day in, day out across our country, but we need greater clarity.
Justin Madders
Let us start where we can all agree: volunteering is a very important part of our society and we want to do everything we can to encourage it. It is a central part of civic life and has a positive impact on our society, and we all pay tribute to the volunteers in our communities. There are large employers that have impact days and corporate social responsibility days where they come into the community—there are a number of examples in my constituency where that has happened. Larger employers, in particular, have been able to pool their resources and have a real benefit in their communities.
However, as the shadow Minister outlined, the Government will be undertaking a significant number of consultations, and we do not wish to add to that at this stage. We want to focus on the priorities in our “Make Work Pay” agenda. In particular, we want to see how the enhanced right to flexible working will benefit people’s ability to volunteer. We believe that when we implement the new rights to flexible working in the earlier parts of the Bill, they will enable employees to access flexible working requests in order to fit in their volunteering, and that further legislation is not necessary at this time.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is delivering the Know Your Neighbourhood fund, which has a key focus to ensure that learning is shared
“on how people in disadvantaged areas can be supported to volunteer and improve their social connections”.
So there is work going on in Government, and a recognition that volunteering is an important part of the fabric of our society, but, as has been indicated, we do not wish to undertake additional consultations at this point.
Greg Smith
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Certification Officer to publish a report on the impact on various sectors of the economy of introducing a four-day week. The Certification Officer is responsible for ensuring that trade unions carry out their statutory duties, and it is important that it is aware of the impacts of this policy, which various elements of the labour movement and the trade union movement have supported.
We have seen just how effective the four-day week has been where it has been tried. Let us take the example of South Cambridgeshire district council, which introduced it for its workers in 2023. The Mail reported last week that one in six staff have a second job during their day off. That is despite the council’s website stating that the time off is to allow workers to “recover and re-energise” for the “more intense” four-day week. It is full-time pay for part-time work, and then some.
It would be extremely helpful for all concerned if we had a little more transparent information about the effects the four-day week might have on the economy as a whole if introduced more widely. That is why we have tabled new clause 42, which would require the Certification Officer, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the economic and financial impact of introducing a four-day week.
The report would be required to cover the retail and wholesale industry; the manufacturing industry; the finance and insurance industry; the health and social care industry; the construction industry; the education industry; the public sector and defence industry; the transport and storage industry; the arts and recreation industry; and agriculture, mining and fishing. To ensure that the report is balanced, the Certification Officer must consult business owners, workers and consumers, although that, of course, is not an exhaustive list.
For full transparency, we would like to make sure that any submissions that are received are published, preferably in a way that can be questioned in this House. The new clause aims to introduce a “look before you leap” ethos into the Government’s policymaking. Given the state of the Bill, I would argue that that is very much needed.
Steve Darling
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has had a road to Damascus moment on the need for further consultation on the Bill. I am delighted that the Conservatives believe that consultation is a good thing, unlike my Conservative council colleagues in Torbay. I look forward to the Minister looking kindly on the new clause, which shows that the Conservatives believe in consultation. I would ask that he please grasp this opportunity.
Greg Smith
I listened carefully to the Minister’s response. The four-day week is subject to much media interest at the moment, and it is important that we keep a close eye on moves to shorten the working week, given the impact it would have on productivity and growth in our economy going forward. For the time being, I am happy not to press the new clause, but the Opposition are concerned, and we will keep an incredibly close eye on the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 46
Adoption pay: self-employed persons
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations enable statutory adoption pay to be payable to persons who are—
(a) self-employed, or
(b) contractors.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the meaning of ‘self-employed’ and ‘contractors’ shall be set out in regulations under this section.”—(Steve Darling.)
This new clause extends statutory adoption pay to the self-employed and contractors.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Steve Darling
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would extend statutory adoption pay to those who are self-employed or contractors. I must declare something of an interest, although I do not formally need to, because I am adopted myself, and this issue is extremely close to my heart. When I was leader of the Torbay unitary council, we went from “failing” to “good” for our children’s services within two years. That is probably the biggest achievement of my life. Again, it was something I was driven on because I am adopted. In the ’70s, I was very fortunate to be adopted by Eric and Penny. Eric was not a toolmaker, but he was a lorry driver, and would potentially have benefited had there been an opportunity such as the one I have outlined in the new clause.
I encourage colleagues to step back slightly and to reflect on the challenges in social care, and particularly children’s social care, and on the heavy costs—I am sure colleagues are only too aware of them—to local authorities, which have a responsibility for children’s services. For those kids who need support, the best people are foster carers or those who adopt. When there is a lack of such people—when there is not that capacity—kids might have to be picked up by the private sector, and hard-pressed local authorities often have to pay through the nose for that. The new clause is about changing the weather again around support for youngsters in need. By extending statutory adoption pay to those who are self-employed or contractors, we would enhance the pool of those who can participate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for her help with the new clause. Earlier this week, she led a worthwhile debate on this issue, and I acknowledge the positive feedback the Minister in that debate gave on the proposals. I look forward to hearing from this Minister how the Government could take the proposals in this probing amendment forward.
Greg Smith
I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Torbay. The issues he raises are worthy of debate, but as he said this is a probing amendment, so these are matters for a future occasion.
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.
Greg Smith
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition cannot support new clause 51. The horrible practices outlined by the hon. Member for Dundee Central need to be tackled, but the Bill will already do that. I actually find myself in agreement with parts of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said. There are other routes within immigration law where such things can and should be tackled. No matter how much we disagree with parts of the Bill, if we take the view that the law must apply equally to everybody whether or not they are a British citizen, it is unnecessarily to carve out a particular section of people through new clause 51, when there is other legislation to deal with the abuses that no one on the Committee or in the House wants to see.
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.
Justin Madders
I will be brief. The clauses are simple and standard, and they appear in most legislation.
Clause 113 will allow the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments—that is, amendments that are immediately consequent upon a provision in the Bill—to primary or secondary legislation. Consequential amendments are necessary changes to other legislation to ensure that the law works alongside the changes to the law made in the Bill. Subsection (2) will allow the power to be used to amend primary legislation where we would not expect to be burdened with further primary legislation to make changes. Subsection (4) sets out that regulations that amend primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, thus maintaining Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the provisions made under the power.
Clause 114 will allow the Secretary of State to make two types of provision. The first type is a transitional provision, which can be used specifically to assist the changeover from the state of the law before the Bill comes into force to the state of the law when it is fully in force. The second type is a saving provision, which can be used to preserve certain elements of the old law even after the new law comes into effect. They are used to maintain specific rights, obligations or legal effects that existed under the old law so that the changes will not apply in certain pre-existing cases.
We have ensured that the powers conferred on the Secretary of State to make provisions under clauses 113 and 114 are limited. As I say, the clauses are customary provisions. I commend them to the Committee.
Greg Smith
As the Minister says, the clauses are standard in a lot of legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 113 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 115
Regulations
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 164, in clause 115, page 104, line 2, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives when making any regulations under this Act—
(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom; and
(b) its growth in the medium to long term.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term when making any regulations under the Act.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 165, in clause 115, page 104, line 2, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this Act unless the Secretary of State has—
(a) consulted such persons as they consider relevant to the proposed regulations; and
(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament a report of that consultation.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult and publish a report of that consultation before making any regulations under the Act.
Greg Smith
I think this will be the last set of amendments we discuss, so let us ensure that they are good ones. Amendment 164 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term when making any regulations under the Bill. Amendment 165 would require the Secretary of State to undertake consultations on all regulations published under the Bill.
The effects of the Chancellor’s Budget of broken promises are apparent for all to see. On 7 January, the yield on a 30-year gilt broke a 27-year record, at 5.198%. That is the highest figure since the Debt Management Office was created in 1998. On Monday, the yield rose to 5.461%. That is not abstract; it reflects dwindling confidence in the UK economy, puts extra pressure on the Government’s headroom against their own fiscal rules and could lead to taxpayers paying billions more just to service the Government’s debts.
The Chancellor has chosen to increase borrowing by an average of £32 billion a year for the next five years. That is the largest fiscal loosening in any fiscal event in recent years. It will add substantial pressure to those debt repayments. Earlier this week, The i Paper reported that average two-year and five-year fixed deals for those with 25% equity or deposit are now expected to rise above 5% in the coming weeks, causing more financial pain for buyers and those trying to remortgage.
The Budget, the rise in employer national insurance contributions and, importantly, the provisions in the Bill could not be described as pro-growth, yet the Government repeatedly assure us that growth is the one thing they will deliver, which will unlock everything else.
Amendment 164 would restore the Government’s good intentions and get them back on track. It would ensure that the Secretary of State has regard to the need to ensure growth when making regulations under the Bill. On the basis of all the evidence that we have seen since the general election, growth is clearly not front and centre in the Government’s thinking when they are making policy. It must be.
Amendment 165 would ensure that the Secretary of State consults properly before making regulations under the extensive powers in the Bill. It is merely to hold the Government to their word: they acknowledge that in many respects the policy in the Bill is undercooked and needs further work before implementation.
With these final amendments that the Committee will discuss, let us lay down the gauntlet and see whether the Government will put their money where their mouth is. If the Government are serious about growth, they will surely accept amendment 164.
Steve Darling
Throughout our debates, Conservative colleagues have been critical of the Government for not having an oven-ready Bill and emphasising the need for further consultation. I have sympathy with that, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham. However, the last Conservative amendment that we will consider in Committee would require consultation, so I wonder whether the Labour party’s proposals have worn the Conservatives down into believing in it. I am delighted by that; perhaps they have changed their minds on the rest of the Bill, too. I hope that the Minister will grasp the opportunity with both hands.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister’s amendment 164, as he said, would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the UK’s growth and international competitiveness when making any regulations under the Bill. As the shadow Minister knows, the Government are committed to getting growth in this country back on track and to maintaining and strengthening our international standing. I noticed that in his litany of negative economic news, he forgot to mention today’s growth figures, which show us back in positive territory.
Our employment rights framework is about ensuring that the economy works for everyone. The Government believe our plan to make work pay will bring the UK back in line internationally and tackle issues with low growth, productivity and pay. The plan is not only a core part of the mission to grow the economy, but crucial to delivering on our milestone to raise living standards across the country and to create opportunities for all. It sits alongside work on planning reform, the skills revolution, tackling inactivity and launching our vision for a modern industrial strategy. The strategy will enable the UK’s already world-leading services and manufacturing sectors to adapt and grow, seizing opportunities internationally to lead in new sectors, with high-quality, well-paid jobs. It will be grounded in long-term stability, a renewed commitment to free and fair trade, and a pro-business approach focused on reducing barriers to investment in the UK.
We have committed to full and detailed engagement with businesses and trade unions alike as we develop the detail of regulations under the Bill. Our published impact assessment evaluates a wide range of evidence and concludes that the package could have a direct and positive impact on growth. Our intention is to refine our analysis as policy development continues, including by publishing updated option assessments and impact assessments, alongside future consultations and secondary legislation, to meet our better regulation requirements. In developing the detail of regulations, our officials and Ministers will pay close heed to the potential impacts on growth, as well as to our international comparability. We are committed to ensuring that we get support across the country among workers and employers alike.
Amendment 165 would require the Secretary of State to consult, and to publish a report of consultation that has been undertaken on specific measures, before making any regulations under the Bill. As was noted by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, those on the Conservative Benches have taken a rather vacillating approach to consultation during the passage of the Bill, but we have been clear that we are pro-business and pro-worker. That is reflected in our approach, not just in Committee but with engagement since before the Bill’s publication, to ensure that our plan to make work pay is delivered.
As the Committee knows, we have committed to full and comprehensive consultation with all stakeholders. We began in October with an initial consultation package and, as set out in the “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document, we will consult further on the implementation of the Bill’s measures. Alongside formal consultations, we have conducted extensive engagement on how best to put our plans into practice. We have already held and attended about 40 meetings of external stakeholders related to “Make Work Pay”. Eighteen of those meetings have been specific to businesses, eight specific to trade unions, and seven held in a tripartite setting.
I have written to the shadow Minister with details of the engagement that has already taken place. The figures are not exhaustive and do not include officials’ meetings or recurring meetings with external organisations to discuss a range of topics. I therefore suggest that we are engaging and consulting fully and that the amendment is not necessary.
Greg Smith
Well, there we have it. The Government who say they are pro-growth have shown their true colours and will not back our amendment to prove their intentions towards growth. This whole Bill is a socialist charter and we know that we cannot have socialism and growth at the same time. The history books have taught us that time and again.
We deeply regret the Government’s resistance to these two amendments. We will continue to be the party that champions business, growth and getting our economy going again, while this Government do everything they can, in this Bill and in their Budget and in so many other ways, to hold our economy back.
Michael Wheeler
I am going to try an entirely new tactic to derail the shadow Minister mid-stride. This is a genuine question, and I hope he answers it. Does he agree that throughout our line-by-line discussion of the Bill, he has been most generous with his time in accepting interventions that I believe to have been valuable?
Greg Smith
I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is for others to judge whether any Member of this House has been generous or otherwise.
What I can say, as we come towards the end of our debate on the final amendments and move on to the final clauses, is that we have had a good debate in this Bill Committee. It has not been one of those where those on the Government Benches are told to be quiet in the interest of getting on with it. We have had a genuine debate and a back and forth. Although we have not always agreed, and it looks like we do not agree on the amendments we are debating right now, we have had a debate. Our constituents sent us all here to represent them in arguments over ideas, concepts and values, and practical steps to meet the ideas and values that we hold dear, and we have done so. I agree with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
On amendments 164 and 165, I repeat that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition regret that the Government do not wish to accept these pro-growth amendments. I will not press them for now, but we may well be seeing them very soon, when the Bill returns to the main Chamber on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
I hope the Committee will agree that, like other clauses we have debated in part 6, clause 115 is a straightforward and customary provision. It sets out various procedural aspects that are relevant to the making of regulations under the Bill by statutory instrument, with the exception of commencement regulations, which I will speak to separately as they are dealt with in clause 118.
Subsection (2) sets out that regulations made under the Bill may make different provision for different purposes, and that they may contain supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provisions. Subsections (4) and (5) explain what is meant by references in the Bill to the negative procedure and the affirmative procedure. The delegated powers memorandum sets out each power in the Bill, as introduced, and justifies the procedure set out in the relevant clause.
Greg Smith
I reiterate that we think the clause could have been improved by our amendments, but, for the time being, that is not to be the case.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 115 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 116
Financial provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for taking us through those standard clauses at the end of the Bill. The only thing worthy of comment, which has come up during our debates on many of the clauses, is the variable commencement timings of some of the provisions, as listed in clause 118. I appreciate that that can happen in legislation from time to time, but the variable timescale adds an element of confusion for businesses. Some provisions will be commenced immediately, some after two months, and some after longer than that.
With that, we come to the end of our debates on the clauses and will move on to decide on measures that we have already debated. As I said in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles in the last debate, we have had a good debate in Committee. We have clearly outlined a number of areas where the two major parties in the House of Commons disagree on the approach to the Bill, but let nobody be in any doubt that we have gone through it line by line and debated it in a good level of detail.
I will end simply by saying that although clause 119 gives the short title of the Bill and says that
“This Act may be cited as the Employment Rights Act 2025”,
the Opposition’s view is that it will, in reality, be the Employment (Job Losses) Act.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 116 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 117
Extent
Amendments made: 206, in clause 117, page 104, line 22, for
“Part 3 of this Act extends”
substitute
“Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 3 of this Act extend”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 207.
Amendment 207, in clause 117, page 104, line 22, at end insert—
“(ba) Chapter 3 of Part 3 of this Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland;”.
This amendment states the extent of the new Chapter proposed to be formed by NC48 and NS3.
Amendment 107, in clause 117, page 104, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) Sections (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: removal of waiting period) and (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: lower earnings limit etc) (statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland) extend to Northern Ireland only.”
This amendment is consequential on amendments NC5 and NC6; it limits the extent of new clauses (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: removal of waiting period) and (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: lower earnings limit etc) to Northern Ireland only.
Amendment 108, in clause 117, page 104, line 27, leave out “An amendment or repeal” and insert
“Except as set out in subsection (4), an amendment, repeal or revocation”.
This amendment is consequential on NS2 and amendment 109.
Amendment 109, in clause 117, page 104, line 28, leave out “amended or repealed.” and insert
“amended, repealed or revoked.
(4) In Schedule (Increase in time limits for making claims) (increase in time limits for making claims)—
(a) the amendments made by paragraph 9(3) and (4) extend to Northern Ireland only;
(b) the amendments made by paragraphs 10, 12 and 13 extend to England and Wales and Scotland only.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would limit the extent of certain amendments in NS2 so that they only extend to Northern Ireland or Great Britain (where they would otherwise extend to both). This is to ensure that the increase in time limits in those cases only applies in relation to employment tribunals in Great Britain.
Clause 117, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 118
Commencement
Amendment made: 110, in clause 118, page 105, line 17, at end insert—
“(na) section (Employment outside Great Britain) (employment outside Great Britain);”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would bring NC7 into force two months after Royal Assent.
Clause 118, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Title
Amendments made: 208, in title, line 6, after
“Adult Social Care Negotiating Body;”
insert
“to amend the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023;”.
This amendment is consequential on NS3.
Amendment 209, in title, line 6, after
“Adult Social Care Negotiating Body;”
insert
“to make provision for the implementation of international agreements relating to maritime employment;”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment is consequential on NC52.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Justin Madders
I wish to thank you, Sir Christopher, and the other Chairs who have presided over this lengthy Bill Committee. I also thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers and Hansard reporters. I thank all members of the Committee who have participated in what has been a healthy and engaging debate. No doubt there will be more discussions and debates to come as the Bill progresses. I also thank the officials Cal Stewart, Jack Masterman and Shelley Torey.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Christopher. All good things must come to an end, and sadly that includes this Committee. I echo the thanks given by the Minister to the workers—to everyone who has supported the Committee—and I thank our Front Benchers, who have done a sterling job and from time to time gently and appropriately warded us off our individual enthusiasms. Perhaps that was just me.
Work on what became this Bill began a long time ago. It is hard to believe that almost five years have passed since my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles and I first became involved in the discussions. To name contributors is to commit the sin of omission. That is the case too for the staff of the Labour party, due to the party’s professional code of modesty, but I would like to place a few names on the record. They include my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Kate Dearden) and for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), who previously ably represented the Community and Unison unions respectively, including through the Labour party’s national policy forum. That was in itself an exhaustive process. I just say to hon. Members that if they liked this Committee, they would have loved the NPF. I am sorry to disappoint Opposition Members, but there was no smoke in those rooms, and no beer. There were occasionally sandwiches.
I would be in error if I did not personally thank Jaden Wilkins in my office and the staff of the TUC for their consistently excellent research publications. I also thank some of the GMB figures who made critical contributions during that time, including the national political officers during that period—Tom Warnett, Caitlin Prowle and Gavin Sibthorpe, who put in more hours than anyone—the national legal officer, Barry Smith, and the staff of the research and policy department, Anna Barnes, Ross Holden and Cassie Farmer. Finally, I would like to mention the staff of the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation: Robbie Scott, Kieran Maxwell and Helen Pearce—the best political organiser in the labour movement, who herded cats and moved mountains.
Greg Smith
I echo the thanks that the Minister gave, particularly to the Clerks of the Committee, the wider Scrutiny Unit and everyone else who has worked so hard. These Bills are an enormous amount of hard work for the staff of the House, particularly the Clerks, and it is always appreciated by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Likewise, from the Doorkeepers and Hansard to everyone who prepares the room for us, it is an enormous job of work, and we thank them most sincerely. The Bill will shortly move on to Report, when the battle will recommence. In the meantime, Sir Christopher, I thank you and the other Chairs of the Committee for your chairmanship. We look forward to the next round.
Steve Darling
I echo the thanks to you, Sir Christopher, and the other Chairs who have ably chaired the Committee. I thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers and Hansard, who have reported throughout. I thank colleagues for the good-natured way that the Bill has been debated. This is my first Bill Committee, and I look forward with gusto to my next one. I also thank Laura Green, who has ably supported me throughout the Committee.