Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.”

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex McIntyre]

Will the shadow Minister give way on that point?

[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.

[Justin Madders]

I am sure that was in “GoldenEye”!

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

New clause 5 extends to Northern Ireland the benefits of strengthening statutory sick pay by removing the waiting period, allowing employers in Northern Ireland to benefit from the same increased productivity as businesses in Great Britain. Enabling employees to take the time off they need to recover from short-term illnesses will help to reduce the overall rate of sickness absence. Statutory sick pay is a transferred matter in relation to Northern Ireland. Following official-level engagement, the Minister for Communities in Northern Ireland has agreed for us to bring this measure forward and will be seeking a legislative consent motion for it.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.)