Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Ian Lavery and Justin Madders(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
The Government are committed to strengthening the collective voices of workers and restoring the principle that work should always pay. That is why we introduced the Employment Rights Bill, which will restore the school support staff negotiating body and introduce a framework for a fair pay agreement in adult social care. Combined with other measures in the Bill, that will empower workers, unions and employers to come together to negotiate fair pay, terms and conditions.
Ian Lavery
I thank the Minister for that answer. It was fantastic of the Labour Government to bring in the Employment Rights Bill within their first 100 days—an absolutely brilliant achievement. Experts say that sectoral bargaining is a force to be reckoned with for both employees and employers, so what plans might the Government have to extend sectoral collective bargaining in other sectors of the economy?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is right to say that there is plenty of evidence worldwide that collective bargaining improves terms and conditions and the overall vitality of the economy, but we must start somewhere. About 5% of the entire working population are employed in adult social care, and with a 25% turnover rate and rampant abuse of zero-hours contracts and the minimum wage laws, we felt that that sector needed the most attention first. We must make a concerted effort to drive up working conditions, because those who work in that area have been undervalued and underappreciated for far too long, and that has to change. We must focus on getting it right in adult social care, and we will see where that takes us.
Post Office Horizon
Debate between Ian Lavery and Justin Madders(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their contribution. We are concerned that matters are taking too long. We have been working with lawyers who have signed up to a framework for representing claimants, and we are looking at ways we can speed the process up. There are issues in terms of collating enough expert evidence to support the claims, but we are looking at how that can be accelerated. On the independent process, we are looking at an independent mediation step after the initial decisions and offers are made, and ultimately an independent appeal decision will be considered as well.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
A whole number of individuals out there have been convicted and have paid huge amounts of money—£10,000, £20,000 or £30,000—back to the Post Office, but because they were directly employed not by the Post Office, but perhaps by their sub-postmaster, they cannot get any redress. They are victims of the Horizon scandal equally as much as anyone else. What advice can the Minister give to people in my constituency of Blyth and Ashington who find themselves in those circumstances?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend refers to some specific circumstances that I would welcome further information on. If he can contact the Department, the relevant Minister will look through those circumstances to see whether there is anything we can do, because we do not want anyone to be out of pocket as a result of this scandal.
Employment Tribunal Fees
Debate between Ian Lavery and Justin Madders(9 years 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
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of the introduction of fees for employment tribunals.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. An essential part of any democracy is an economy that works for the whole population. That means there should be not only full employment, or as close to that as can be managed, but opportunities for everyone to make the most of that economy. There should be no glass ceilings. People from different backgrounds should all have the same chance of making it into their chosen job. Crucially, in the context of this debate, an individual should have the security of knowing that if things go wrong, they have a realistic avenue through which to seek redress.
To my mind, we have a system in place that puts security near the bottom of the pile in terms of priorities. Security should be the cornerstone of any settlement on how the workplace operates. No matter how imperfect the current system is, if there are workplace rights and protections that this place has deemed a necessary part of the social contract between Government and the country, we should be absolutely sure that those rights can be genuinely enforced, if we are not to have an illusory scheme of protection.
The employment tribunal system has a social benefit for everyone and should therefore be accessible to all members of society. It is worth reminding ourselves that tribunals took on their present character as employment courts to resolve disputes between employers and workers in 1971, as part of that year’s Industrial Relations Act, largely arising from the recognition that unresolved workplace grievances had led to a proliferation of official and unofficial industrial action. Those origins should serve as a clear warning that if we are to live in a just society, we need an accessible and fair system for resolving disputes.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important issue to the Chamber. Does he agree that the introduction of these fees disproportionately affects women, particularly those who are pregnant or in part-time employment? That issue must be addressed.
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will address later some of the disproportionate impacts of the fees, but they are part of a bigger picture: they are part of a sustained attack on working people in this country. A lot of the legislation in the previous Parliament and currently going through the House is nothing more than an attack on basic workplace rights and protections. If our ambition is to have an economy and country where everyone has a stake in their prosperity, we should value the security and sustainability of jobs as much as the means of creating them.
It is widely recognised that losing a job is one of the major occasions in life on which people face extreme pressure and stress. Obviously, it is not quite as significant as some other issues, but for many, it can be a pretty traumatic experience. It can affect a person’s marriage, health, home, finances and, of course, family, yet we seem to be fostering a culture in which an individual is considered a disposable item to be cast aside with barely a second thought. While that culture exists, it is important that we have strong protections in place and—this relates to today’s debate—an effective and accessible system enforcing those protections.
Let us look first at the stark data, which show that the number of tribunal claims lodged has fallen off a cliff since the introduction of fees in July 2013.