Employment Rights Bill

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is an absolute honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), and I know the whole House will join me in thanking him for all the work that he has done in shaping the Bill before us today.

The Employment Rights Bill, which I am also proud to have played a small part in shaping, represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The Bill is a testament to the values that we stand for: a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work; dignity; protection; bargaining powers for workers; and a safety net for the most vulnerable when they need it the most.

There is much to celebrate in the Bill, as we have heard in the many excellent contributions today. I have also put my name to many of the amendments that we have heard hon. Members speak to in the House. I do feel that all of them are designed to strengthen the Bill further. However, given the time constraints, I shall focus my remarks on my amendments relating to statutory sick pay.

As we all know, and as has been said very eloquently today, the current system of statutory sick pay is not just insufficient, but completely and inexcusably broken. We have the worst system in Europe, which is shameful. Workers are entitled to just 17% of the average weekly wage, yet the cost of living does not suddenly plunge by 83% when they are sick. Their rent, their energy bills and their grocery tabs are not discounted, so why does SSP remain such a paltry sum? Being forced to survive on £118.75 a week—if they are lucky enough to get that in the first place—leaves workers exposed to financial hardship. It forces many to make the difficult decision to go to work when they are unwell.

It is therefore quite right that the Government have put forward major, necessary and welcome reforms. They include: removing the three-day waiting period, so that workers are entitled to sick pay from day one of illness; and extending sick pay to all workers by removing the lower earnings limit and implementing a fair earnings replacement percentage of 80%.

These reforms will directly benefit more than a million low-paid workers, a disproportionate number of whom continue to be those from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, women and young people. There is much more that we can do to strengthen the Bill, which is why I have tabled two amendments, which will do just that and ensure that no worker is left behind. Amendment 7 calls for sick pay to be aligned with the national living wage. Let me make it clear that uprating SSP is popular with businesses as well as with workers. Six in 10 employers agree that the rate is simply too low for workers to survive on. We know that because the poverty rate among those claiming SSP is more than double that among the overall working population.

Amendment 7 makes it clear that if a person is working full time, they should not be paid poverty wages when they are unwell. No one should have to choose between their health and their financial security, which is why my amendment would immediately raise SSP to around 67% of the average weekly wage, putting us on a par with many of our European counterparts.

My new clause 102 is about ensuring fairness. Although I welcome the Government’s proposed system, the reality is that 300,000 workers may actually end up worse off than they are today. Those who earn slightly above the current lower earnings limit of £123 up to £146 per week would receive 80% of their earnings, which is lower than the SSP rate that they would receive today.

We cannot allow anyone to be left behind. Although removing the waiting period puts more money in people’s pockets from the beginning of the illness period, workers taking more than four weeks off due to long-term conditions, going through cancer treatment, recovering from serious operations or suffering from mental health crises will face the biggest losses under the new system.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

Research has found that the cost of presenteeism to the private sector in mental ill health alone is £24 billion a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that shows that reforming our statutory sick pay is the most pro-prosperity, pro-productivity policy that we can pursue?

[Imran Hussain]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he makes the case brilliantly against some of the nonsense arguments about productivity that we have heard from the Conservative Benches today. It is the right thing to do, but also it will lead to much improved productivity and a better, healthier, happier workforce, as well as being much better for the employer.

My amendment and new clause would ensure that every worker receives, at the very least, the same amount of sick pay that they would have done under the current system, and not a penny less. I urge the Government to support them, as they are very much in the spirit of this legislation.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on advancing the Bill—eight months into their mandate, we are at the remaining stages. In Northern Ireland, 13 months after restoration, the proposed NI “good jobs” Bill has not even been introduced, and doubt is growing as to whether it will pass in this mandate. Once again, workers and businesses in Northern Ireland are paying the cost of dither and lack of ambition. Does he agree that those same barriers to people on sick pay also apply to women on maternity leave? Would he support in principle my new clause 23, which would raise statutory maternity pay for women in work to the living wage for the later parts of maternity leave?

[Imran Hussain]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the case brilliantly. I would support that in principle, because the challenges are exactly the same. I said at the beginning of my speech that many of the amendments, if not all—not the ones tabled by the Opposition, but the reasonable ones from the Government Benches—are constructive and designed to improve the Bill further.

My hon. Friend the Minister and I have had the great pleasure of working together for many months on the Bill, so he will know that I come from a position of sincerity to strengthen the Bill further. I fully understand that amendment 7 is a probing amendment, which will not be voted on in Lobbies. However, it does reflect the ambition that we should rightly have because it is shameful, frankly, that we are in the situation of offering among the lowest statutory sick pay. Our partners across Europe, quite rightly, are much better on this.

I ask the Minister to seriously consider new clause 102. Again, it does not ask for any immediate action today; it asks the Government to come back to the House in three months to report back that nobody will be worse off as a result of these measures. I do not think that is ever an intended consequence of the Government’s excellent measures, so I look forward to my hon. Friend engaging with me further on that.

Finally, I want to end by paying tribute to the millions of workers who are the backbone of our economy. It is my hope that, with the amendments and new clauses that we have proposed today, we can take significant steps towards a society that rewards workers instead of punishing them, that treats them with dignity instead of malice, and where no one must choose between their health and their livelihood.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

I place proudly on the record that I am currently a member of Unite and GMB. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to my good friend Terry Jones, a brilliant Scouse trade unionist who sadly passed away this morning. He supported the Bill wholeheartedly.

Forty-five years after Margaret Thatcher began her war on trade unions, the Bill is hugely welcome and long overdue. It is a step to turn back the tide and strengthen the power of workers. In a former life as an industrial organiser for Unite the union, I saw how difficult it was to build industrial strength in workplaces because of the restrictive legislation supported by previous Governments of all colours. The Bill will hopefully begin at long last to turn back that tide.

Hon. Members have already discussed key measures in the Bill, and there is so much to welcome. I congratulate the Minister on his efforts in getting the Bill to this place, and I also congratulate him and his team on taking two points off Arsenal, which helped us no end on Sunday.

The Bill needs to be not the end, though, but the beginning of a renewal of trade union rights. If we want to tackle the injustices done to the working class from low pay and poverty to sordid inequality, we need to empower the institutions that were founded to fight for the working class. Be in no doubt about the scale of the problem: 60% of those who use the nine food pantries run across Liverpool are in work, including public sector workers from nurses to Department for Work and Pensions workers. Let that sink in: 60% of those relying on emergency food aid are in work. That tells us how broken the labour market is for so many people.

Economic growth goes hand in hand with fixing the broken economic settlement, hence the importance of the Bill. I will focus my comments on the amendments but, for the record, tomorrow we will debate two new clauses that I have tabled about upholding trade union rights and outsourcing. My amendments for debate today—amendments 326 and 327—are aimed at strengthening protections against unfair dismissals, but in my brief time I will focus on amendments tabled by colleagues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) has tabled a series of crucial amendments to strengthen the Bill. He deserves a huge amount of credit for getting the Bill to this place. His amendments include amendments 265 to 267, which would enhance the Bill’s provisions against zero-hours contracts. Those contracts leave workers with precious little control over their lives, allowing bosses to dictate shifts with little or no notice, with workers vulnerable to gross exploitation. It is no wonder that workers overwhelmingly prefer regular contracts. For example, when Wetherspoons introduced the option of guaranteed hours for its workforce, 99% of workers opted for that, with just 1% choosing the zero-hours contract model. The amendments would help ensure that when we say we are banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, we actually mean it.

My hon. Friend has also tabled new clauses 62 to 65, which would strengthen the Bill’s protections against the disgraceful practice of fire and rehire. I saw in my own family the devastating impact that this cruel practice can have in destroying livelihoods when my brother was a victim of fire and rehire at British Gas. This immoral practice should never again be able to be used by rogue employees as a weapon against the working classes of this country. I fully support those strengthening new clauses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) has tabled amendment 7, which would raise statutory sick pay to the level of the national living wage, and new clause 102, which would guarantee that workers do not lose out under the new fair earnings replacement proposals. We should have learned from the pandemic that no one should be forced into work when they are ill. Those amendments and others would help to make that a reality. I really hope that the Minister and Front-Bench Members are listening.

The devastating consequences of Thatcherism’s assault on working-class communities and trade unions are seen in towns and cities across the country. Once vibrant industrial towns have been hollowed out and industries destroyed, with insecure work replacing well-paid, unionised jobs. The never-ending doom loop must be broken if we are to rebuild communities that at the moment feel forgotten, betrayed and abandoned by successive Governments since Thatcher. The Bill must be a decisive step in breaking away from a failed settlement and finally building a country that works for us all.

Fireworks: Sale and Use

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)]

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

Like many other Members, I have been calling for tougher action on the misuse of fireworks for many years, because this issue is of great concern to many of constituents in Bradford East. Across our community, the inconsiderate and antisocial use of fireworks by a small minority is causing misery—as others emphasised, it is a small minority, as many people use fireworks considerately. As we have heard, families have been kept awake at night, residents are disturbed during the day, and vulnerable groups, such as children with sensory sensitivities and the elderly, have been disproportionately affected.

I have written to Ministers on a number of occasions over the past decade to call for stronger licensing powers, a reduction in noise levels and restrictions on the sale of fireworks, yet they have failed to act. Time and again, they have insisted that the existing laws are sufficient, but that response ignores the reality on the ground. The question we must ask is: if the powers are adequate, why do so many of our communities feel that their concerns are being ignored? Why are so many residents, councils and charities calling for change? Let me be clear: I am not calling for a complete ban on fireworks. Alongside my constituents, I am calling for a sensible and balanced approach to regulation that ensures fireworks can be enjoyed safely without causing undue harm and distress.

Firework misuse is not unique to Bradford, although the impact on our city is clearly felt. Residents have shared their harrowing experiences. Meanwhile, Ban the Menace Fireworks, a local initiative, is supported by 30,000 signatures, and the number continues to rise. That highlights the devastating impact of late-night fireworks on the public. Quite rightly, animal welfare organisations including the RSPCA and Dogs Trust have made it clear that the distress caused to pets, livestock and wildlife is unacceptable. Those charities have called for clear, achievable reforms. It is clear that the current legislation is outdated, not working, and insufficient.

[Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituent Hayley from Adel, who is woken at 3 o’clock in the morning, that we have to address this antisocial behaviour? As he says, the current legislation is not working. A reduction in the decibel limit would not diminish the joy; in fact, it could increase the joy, because it could increase accessibility for people to attend fireworks displays. It would diminish the terrible impacts we have heard about today, from Roxie to the tragic story of those in the Public Gallery.

[Imran Hussain]

My hon. Friend is right. Those who use fireworks responsibly would be little concerned about a reduction in the noise level. It is a sensible call that many people, including my constituents, charity groups and others, have been making for many years now.

While the current laws restrict the hours during which fireworks can be set off and impose age restrictions, they do little to prevent the antisocial behaviour that we see in our communities. Much of the misery is caused by antisocial behaviour. Our local authorities and police forces, including my own Bradford council and West Yorkshire police, have repeatedly stated that their hands are tied by inadequate laws and a lack of resources. Despite the challenges, I take this opportunity to commend Bradford council for its proactive approach in working with venues and other parties to reduce the antisocial use of fireworks, and in calling for stricter laws on noise levels and sales.

I feel that any criticism of local authorities is not warranted, because the reality is that if they had the extra powers they have been requesting for many years—certainly during my time in Parliament—they would deal with the issue differently. We must not forget that over the last decade trading standards and our police force have had their resources massively reduced, which impacts enforcement. I consistently argue that councils need more powers to tackle the issue effectively.

In recent years, we have heard about the issue from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), who previously introduced a Bill on the subject. Today, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) is doing fantastic work in this area, and she has my full support. The measures they have brought to Parliament are backed by many public petitions signed by thousands in all our constituencies. That is why I urge the Government to take immediate steps. This is not a call to end fireworks—that is certainly not my call, which I hope is supported by others. Fireworks can and should be a source of joy, community and celebration, but their misuse is causing distress, harm and destruction to too many people.

It is time for the Government to listen to our communities, empower councils and put in place sensible, enforceable regulations that balance enjoyment with responsibility. The Minister and I have worked together for many years and I know he understands this. I therefore urge him to address four points in particular today: stronger licensing and enforcement powers, the reduction of noise levels, restrictions on the sale of fireworks, and giving further enforcement powers not just to local authorities but to trading standards and other enforcement bodies, to allow us to move forward.

UK Supply Chains: Uyghur Forced Labour

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

Let me pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his sustained effort on, and interest in, these issues. It has come at some personal cost; he has received criticism from foreign Governments. He is an example to us all in this Chamber in his willingness to speak up for human rights without fear or favour.

On his point, first, I see the answer as involving enforcement of the current legislation. It is important to reaffirm that legislation is clear about companies’ mandatory obligations, regardless of whether they import from Xinjiang or elsewhere. Secondly, as I have said, we intend to look carefully at whether lessons can be drawn from other jurisdictions, notwithstanding the good efforts of the right hon. Gentleman and many others in this Chamber at the time of the initiation of the Modern Slavery Act.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)]

Earlier this year, the Global Legal Action Network and the World Uyghur Congress filed a legal case against the National Crime Agency’s decision not to investigate suspected forced-labour goods from Xinjiang. That led to a landmark ruling, which established that any goods suspected of being linked to Uyghur forced labour can be considered criminal property when offered for sale in the UK. What measures have the Government taken in the light of that landmark decision? What protection is there, and what accountability measures are in place, in instances where UK businesses are still involved with goods produced from forced labour?

[Mr Alexander]

It is important to draw a distinction between the legislative approach taken by some jurisdictions, which have named countries and provinces where there is abuse of human rights, and the statutory foundation for the way that British business is expected to conduct itself, not least in relation to modern slavery and threats to the supply chain. Notwithstanding the ruling of which the hon. Gentleman speaks, the obligations on companies predate that ruling and are set out very clearly in the Modern Slavery Act.