Employment Rights: Terminal Illness
Greg Smith Excerpts(5 days, 13 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. We have heard a good and powerful debate this morning. I thank the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) for securing and leading the debate. As he said, he has championed the Dying to Work campaign for many years, including in his role at the TUC in the midlands before his election to this place.
As we have heard from many hon. Members, the campaign was founded by Jacci Woodcock, a sales manager from Derbyshire, who was forced out of her job after being diagnosed with breast cancer in 2012, when she was given 12 months to live. Jacci was appointed a Member of the Order of the British Empire in the Queen’s birthday honours list in 2019, and I commend her hard work over the years.
As a result of Jacci’s work, many people have been protected from unfair dismissal and provided with invaluable support following the tragedy of a terminal diagnosis. It is clear from this debate, and more widely, that there is more to be done to support people with a terminal diagnosis. Being diagnosed with a terminal illness is often sudden and unexpected, meaning those with the diagnosis and their families are forced to adapt to the new reality with little or no notice. People often decline quickly and, by the time the family work out what support is available, their loved one is in desperate need of help or, in some cases, has tragically already passed away.
In other cases, despite the diagnosis, the person may have many months or even years left, and is willing and able to keep working, with some minor adaptations to their workplace arrangements. In my research for this debate, I found some startling statistics. According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, just a third of UK organisations have specific provision for those with a terminal illness, meaning they have no policy, guidance or line manager or awareness training. It appears that the hesitancy of so many Brits to discuss health and serious illness has created a stigma about raising this issue in the workplace. That means that employers and employees often have to make it up as they go along, rather than follow standardised guidance developed by experts in the field.
As the Dying to Work campaign highlights, terminally ill people often do not have time to adapt to the reasonable adjustments put in place by employers, and are often forced to undergo stressful HR procedures. There are many financial worries left behind for families, as other hon. Members have mentioned. Cancer Research UK projects that one third of Brits will be diagnosed with cancer in their working life. According to a Macmillan Cancer Support survey, 37% of cancer patients have experienced discrimination on return to work.
It is vital to end the employer lottery. Individuals are currently at the mercy of their employer far too much, and often do not know their rights or what support is available. As the population ages and treatment options improve, more and more Brits are going to be living and working with a terminal illness. At present, the legal position of terminally ill employees mainly depends on the written and verbal agreement between employee and employer.
There is little specific law covering terminal illness, when it is clearly going to become ever more present in society. I suggest one of the best ways to help people with a terminal illness is to improve the information available on diagnosis, and to encourage employers to develop best practice guidance and training, so that any employee diagnosed with a terminal illness can receive support as quickly as possible. That would avoid the situation where even compassionate employers are playing a game of catch up or having to make it up as they go along.
It is vital that people understand their rights under the Equality Act 2010, which makes it illegal to discriminate against people with a disability and legislates that employers must make reasonable adjustments so that employees can do their work. That would include flexible working hours, reduced workload, reallocation of duties, time off for treatment and, where appropriate, working from home. Employees must be made aware that they can and should make the most of sick leave, extended special and compassionate leave, annual leave and flexible working.
There is no benefit specifically designed to help people with a terminal illness, but special rules are in place to expedite access to benefits for those with less than 12 months to live. Previously, that was limited to those with less than six months to live; I am proud that the last Government extended that period to 12 months, which in turn has provided quicker access to benefits, higher payments for certain benefits and the avoidance of the need for a medical assessment. Those with a terminal illness can access benefits designed to help with the additional costs of disability and ill health, such as disability living allowance, personal independence payments and attendance allowance. For those with a disability or in ill health, there are also the benefits designed to act as income replacements, such as employment and support allowance and universal credit.
I will end by mentioning the employment rights of not just those with a terminal illness but those who care for them—the spouses, children, brothers and sisters forced to take time off work to care for a terminally ill loved one. I am proud that the previous Government passed the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, which created a new statutory right to carer’s leave that came into effect in April 2024.
Employees are now entitled to take one week of unpaid leave a year if they have caring responsibilities, and that leave entitlement is available from the first day of employment, with no qualifying period. On top of that, employees also have the right to reasonable time off if a dependant is ill or injured or if their care arrangements are disrupted. Carers are protected at work from discrimination by association, and the Equality Act 2010 protects those caring for disabled or elderly people from discrimination or harassment.
I am aware of previous attempts to introduce legislation to address the injustices that come with a terminal illness—most recently, a private Member’s Bill proposed in 2022 by the former Member for Stockton North. For a range of reasons, these past attempts have not succeeded but I am committed to working with right hon. and hon. Members across the House to get these issues back on the agenda and improve the lives of those who, tragically, have a diagnosis of terminal illness, to make sure that in their final months they are supported and cared for with the compassion that they deserve.
Employment Rights Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsTuesday 17th December 2024
(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates 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 (Thirteenth sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsTuesday 17th December 2024
(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates 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.
Draft Recognition of Professional Qualifications and Implementation of International Recognition Agreements (Amendment) (Extension to Switzerland etc.) Regulations 2024
Greg Smith Excerpts(1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition welcome this update. It is good to see the Government bringing into force an agreement made by the Department for Business and Trade when my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), the Leader of the Opposition, was Secretary of State under the last Government. This legislation will reduce labour costs but will not impinge on Britain’s autonomy over immigration or regulatory policy. It is required to prevent a cliff edge after the previous agreement expires on 31 December.
Switzerland is the United Kingdom’s fourth-largest trading partner. The total trade in goods and services between the UK and Switzerland, in the four quarters to the end of quarter 2 in 2024, was worth £46 billion. According to the Department for Business and Trade,
“The agreement also safeguards the autonomy of UK and Swiss professional regulators to…set and maintain standards…assess against these standards…decide who is fit to practise the profession”.
The UK-Switzerland recognition of professional qualifications agreement, which this legislation implements, was welcomed by the Law Society for continuing the regime under the previous UK-Swiss citizens’ rights agreement.
I have just three questions for the Minister. Does he have plans to extend the mutual recognition scheme further with Switzerland, such as to include financial services, and with other countries, such as the United States? Will he confirm that the legislation will be enacted in Switzerland on the same date? Has he considered a data exchange for qualifications that regulators deem not comparable?
Mr Alexander
The questions one always fears are the short ones that come with no thinking time, but I shall endeavour to answer the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Alexander
Exactly—and I am getting used to the challenges of being in government, as distinct from in opposition.
First, in all seriousness, I thank the hon. Gentleman for what I anticipate will be his support for the measures. He is entirely right to recognise that the work was undertaken under the previous Government and he can rest assured that the lodestar for the incoming Government in the last six months has been continuity where it makes sense in the interests of the United Kingdom economy. In that spirit, I hope that we can find common ground this evening.
As I set out, the regulations implement the UK- Switzerland recognition of professional qualifications agreement and require regulators to operate routes to recognition for comparable Swiss professional qualifications in accordance with that agreement. On the issue of extending mutual recognition, we will take a phased approach to make sure that we avoid the cliff edge that the hon. Gentleman eloquently described.
The hon. Gentleman can rest assured, however, that one of the early negotiations that we have initiated is on a Swiss FTA, which again reflects work that was undertaken under the previous Government. We have looked carefully at the mandate and negotiators have begun that process. When one looks for equivalent countries around the world where there are clear synergies in the character of the economy and the economic opportunities, Switzerland is high on that list. In that sense, whether in relation to the mutual recognition of professional qualifications or other aspects of our regulatory arrangements more broadly, we continue to look carefully at opportunities for UK-Swiss co-operation.
On the date of introduction for the Swiss legislation, I do not have that to hand. As I said, Switzerland is passing legislation to require Swiss regulators to recognise UK qualifications to ensure that the benefits are mutual. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about what we understand the Swiss parliamentary timescale to be.
As I have emphasised, the regulations continue to uphold the principle of regulator autonomy as set out in the Professional Qualifications Act 2022. My officials have also engaged extensively with regulators and the devolved Governments on the implementation. I trust that hon. Members understand and recognise the need for the regulations, as the hon. Gentleman set out, and the benefits that they will bring to the UK services trade. I thank hon. Members and commend the regulations again to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Employment Rights Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsThursday 12th December 2024
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates 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 (Eleventh sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsThursday 12th December 2024
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates 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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Greg Smith Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
There is no clearer pointer on business confidence than the Bank of England’s recent survey on employers’ responses to the Budget. Some 59% expect lower profit margins; 54% expect to raise prices; 54% expect lower employment; and 38% expect to pay lower wages than they otherwise would have. Now City AM reports that Labour has carelessly lost all its business backers. Will the Secretary of State show any contrition, admit that business confidence is through the floor, and start standing up for business, rather than the Treasury?
Jonathan Reynolds
Well, what can I say? Was it the Conservative party that increased corporation tax from 19% to 25% in one Budget, and that crashed business investment and confidence because of the way it mishandled Brexit, failing to prepare for either outcome of a yes/no referendum? And which Opposition Front Benchers played a role in the mini-Budget? Frankly, it was all of them. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I will not take advice from him. Since the Budget, I have heard repeatedly from Conservative colleagues that they want to lower taxes and increase spending, even though they cannot account for the promises that they made when in government. That is not credible unless they engage with reality, as this Government are doing. Whether it is the response to the Chancellor’s speech at Mansion House or finally sorting out Marks & Spencer this week, this Government are getting on with the job and looking to the future.
Greg Smith
Sorry seems to be the hardest word. [Interruption.] I am talking about the Government’s Budget. Further proof of how low business confidence is getting under this Government was given in evidence to the Employment Rights Bill Committee. Jane Gratton of the British Chamber of Commerce predicted
“a reduced hiring appetite were this legislation to come in, and that”
their members
“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.]
If business confidence is low, employment goes down. We already know that every Labour Government leave unemployment higher than when they took office, but is it not a bit extreme for this Labour Government to legislate for that outcome?
Jonathan Reynolds
If the hon. Gentleman googles that statistic, he will find that it is not actually true, but I appreciate that it is demanding being in opposition, and that there may not always be the capacity and resources required. As we heard on the excellent Second Reading of that legislation, the vast majority of employers in the UK already operate to a higher standard than the level to which the floor is being raised in the Employment Rights Bill. I do not in any way pull back from saying that some of the most vulnerable, insecure and low paid members of our society will benefit from the Bill; that is exactly what it is about. Those people may have given up on politics or think that the mainstream political system will not deliver for them. I reject the claim that certain industries require a supply of labour from jobs that do not give people the security and dignity that they need. This is a set of proportionate, reasonable reforms that will make a difference—
Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsThursday 5th December 2024
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates 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 (Seventh sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsThursday 5th December 2024
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates 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 (Fifth sitting)
Greg Smith ExcerptsTuesday 3rd December 2024
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates 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.)