Employment Rights Bill

Jon Pearce Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

I, too, am a proud member of the GMB. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

This Bill delivers on a key Labour manifesto commitment. It provides a framework for the biggest change in workers’ rights in 50 years. We have heard in this debate that it will ban exploitative zero-hours contracts, abolish the scourge of fire and rehire, and modernise trade union laws. I would like to focus my comments, though, on the vital reforms that this Bill will deliver for young families, and particularly women, in my constituency of High Peak and across the country.

As the Conservative leadership debate is shamefully focusing on whether women should have less maternity pay, and whether a woman can be a mother and a leader, let me tell Opposition Members that they can—and they are, in businesses up and down this country. If the Conservatives joined us from wherever they are—perhaps somewhere in the 1950s—they might understand that far better.

Before I entered this House, I was an employment lawyer advising businesses small, medium and large. One of the occupational hazards was friends and families wanting advice about workplace rights. The most depressing aspect of those chats was that new mums wanted and needed those conversations most. The story was always basically the same: they had just returned to work from maternity leave, and their employer had informed them that they were no longer needed, their job no longer existed, or that they were at risk of redundancy. The joys of that first year to 18 months with a new baby were all but tarnished because of worries about the security of the mother’s job.

An estimated 4,000 pregnant women and mothers returning from maternity leave are dismissed each year. We have to do better if we are to improve productivity and grow our economy. We have to show young families and young mums that they matter, and that their contribution to society and our economy is valued. This Bill will do that. It will create the power to ban the dismissal of women who are pregnant, on maternity leave, or in the six months following their return from maternity leave.

It is depressing that the Opposition wish to portray protecting mums from dismissal as red tape and a burden on businesses, when good businesses know that this is the right thing to do. When I vote for the Bill, I will do it to show every working family in High Peak and in Britain that we are on their side. We are the party that values families.

Employment Rights Bill (First sitting)

Jon Pearce Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I also refer to my declaration of interests and my membership of Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

I also refer to my declaration of interests. I am a member of GMB.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I draw people’s attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am also a member of the Unite and GMB trade unions.

Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting)

Jon Pearce Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I refer to my declaration of interests and my membership of Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of the GMB.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I again refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

In the last minute, I call Jon Pearce.

[Jon Pearce]

Q You are probably the second or third witness who has raised the idea that the removal of the “one establishment” reference will require consultation with people who are not at risk of redundancy. I am interested in that interpretation, because you would need to consult only with affected employees and their representatives, so it would be only people who are at risk of redundancy or are to be made redundant. Could you clarify your understanding of that?

Alasdair Reisner: I should first clarify that I am not an expert in redundancy. However, based on the conversations we have had, you have to look at how individual employers would respond to the new environment. I do not think this would ever be the case, but it is almost as though people feel that the only way out of this will be to have a permanent rolling redundancy consultation within their business to try to address the fact that there are people on geographical sites who are coming off and going on all the time. Under a new approach, there is no other easy route that would help to address that issue.

[The Chair]

On behalf of the Committee, let me say thank you very much for your evidence. You are definitely not a tail-end Charlie.

Alasdair Reisner: Thank you very much.

Employment Rights Bill (Fifth sitting)

Jon Pearce Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Pearce]

I should refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB.

The shadow Minister talks about employment rights from day one and the extra burden, when the reality is that cases of discrimination and whistleblowing can be brought on day one. Giving some structure to the probationary period will actually assist many employers. In my experience in private practice advising businesses, many of them found themselves subject to claims of discrimination because they failed to go through a proper process. The Bill will assist businesses in giving a greater structure and could potentially lessen the burden on employers with regard to the threat of litigation.

[Justin Madders]

I think I understand the point my hon. Friend is making: sometimes, an individual who is aggrieved about their treatment will find a legal claim to pursue the employer even if it does not necessarily fit their circumstances. Giving a much clearer structure for employers will hopefully allow closure—I think that is probably the right word—for both sides.

The shadow Minister asked about the evidence on flexible working. I refer him to a Flexible Jobs Index survey in 2023 which found that nine in 10 people wanted to work flexibly, but only six in 10 were able to do so. There is clear evidence, and we heard plenty in the evidence sessions about that.

I will briefly touch on the issue of third-party harassment. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield gave a scholarly run-through of some of the issues, but for the benefit of the Committee, third-party harassment was actually unlawful for the five years between 2008 and 2013, and I am certainly not aware of businesses claiming that that was an undue burden. That was repealed in 2013 because, at the time, it was considered that there were broader protections available regarding third-party harassment. However, that interpretation was challenged in the Nailard judgment in 2018, which found that employees were not in fact protected against third-party harassment. One of the intentions behind the Bill is to close that gap. We think it is absolutely fundamental that, if someone is being harassed at work, it should not matter how big their employer is. Harassment is unacceptable in all its forms, whoever someone works for and however big their employer is, and we intend to close that gap.

Employment Rights Bill (Sixth sitting)

Jon Pearce Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I would like to amplify the issues raised from the Opposition side of the room. There are serious concerns, and we need to ensure that the regulations are as simple as possible and easy for employers to understand. I fear that this is a charter for HR consultants and lawyers, rather than driving the agenda that I am sure most people in the room genuinely wish to see being driven forward. I ask the Minister whether, before we reach the end of this Bill stage, further simplification could be brought forward.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The Agency Workers Regulations 2010 came into force in October 2011, under the leadership of David Cameron and the coalition, and there is similar wording in the agency worker regs. Regulation 9(4)(a) states that

“the most likely explanation for the structure of the assignment, or assignments, mentioned in paragraph (3) is that H, or the temporary work agency supplying the agency worker to H, or, where applicable, H and one or more hirers connected to H, intended to prevent the agency worker from being entitled to, or from continuing to be entitled to, the rights conferred by regulation 5”.

The legislation that we are considering is not out of the ordinary in its complexity. This is just necessary—

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Would the hon. Gentleman accept that this legislation will be imposed on businesses with perhaps one employee? There will be no exemption for any minimum size.

[Jon Pearce]

Yes, I would, and it is entirely right that it should be. We have to have a level playing field within the UK; otherwise, we see all the perverse incentives that hon. Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, are keen to avoid. We cannot have a two-tier workforce.

Returning to my original point, law is often complex in the way it is written, but that does not mean it will be complex in its application. It will only be complex where there are attempts to avoid it. It is absolutely right that the law is tight on this so that we do not have huge amounts of avoidance within the business sector from unscrupulous employers. Most employers, as we know, do not exploit zero-hours contracts, for example, so it is entirely right that we make sure that those who wish to exploit them cannot.

[Sarah Gibson]

The hon. Member for High Peak quotes an equally incomprehensible piece of legislation. It occurs to me that some time ago, the banking industry was accused of a similar problem when it spoke to its clients and was obliged to improve its conversation and make sure that it was intelligible. Surely this is an opportunity for us to be able to do the same. If we are going to apply legislation to sole practitioners, effectively, who are taking on one or two employees, is it so much to ask that we do not have one single sentence that lasts an entire paragraph?

[Jon Pearce]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Gibson]

I will not for a second, but will afterwards, if that is okay. I have spent the last 20 years deciphering the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and recently had the pleasure of teaching two postgraduate students the Fire Safety Act 2021. Neither of those two pieces of legislation are easily understandable, and it does not help the industry that I know so well, which is employers who come straight out of school and into industry. They do a fantastic job, but they do not need added complication. I believe that the hon. Member for Bridgwater makes a good point in saying that it is not beyond us to make legislation slightly easier to read. Sorry, I was going to give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

He is shaking his head—that is good. I certainly do not envisage that to be the case, but we recognise there is a backlog in the employment tribunals. Like many public services, they are under pressure, and there is a plan to recruit more judges in the new year.

[Jon Pearce]

I want to pick up a point that the shadow Minister made about the effect of the pandemic on the backlog of employment tribunal claims. When the last Labour Government left office, the time between a claim being brought and the first hearing was about 30 weeks. By 2019—pre-pandemic—it had increased to 38 weeks. We are now at about 55 weeks. We have seen a huge increase in that time, but it was already rising significantly pre-pandemic.

[Justin Madders]

There are a whole range of Government performance indicators where trends were already going in the wrong direction before covid hit, and that is just another of them. We recognise that there is more to be done to deal with the backlog, which is why we intend to recruit more judges in the new year. We hope that the Bill will not increase demand on the tribunal service, and that the extra time we are giving and the other powers we are giving the fair work agency will encourage people to resolve their disputes without going to litigation. We understand that it is a tremendous expense to go to employment tribunal, and of course, by that point, the employment relationship is already fractured beyond repair. This is the right thing to do, it is consistent with the Law Commission’s recommendations, and we think it will improve access to justice.

Amendment 16 agreed to.

Amendments made: 17, in clause 1, page 11, line 22, leave out “three” and insert “six”.

This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 27BF(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from three months to six months.

Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 11, line 26, leave out “three” and insert “six”.

This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 27BF(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from three months to six months.

Amendment 19, in clause 1, page 11, line 28, at end insert—

“(3A) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under section 27BF(4A)(a) relating to a notice unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on or before which the notice should have been given (see section 27BD(5A) and (5C)).

(3B) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under section 27BF(4A)(b) or (c) relating to a notice unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on which the notice is given.”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 14.

Amendment 20, in clause 1, page 11, line 28, at end insert—

“(3C) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under section 27BF(4B)(a)unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the last day of the initial information period (see section 27BEA(3) and (4)).

(3D) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under section 27BF(4B)(b) unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which the worker first becomes aware of the failure to which the complaint relates.”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 15.

Amendment 21, in clause 1, page 11, line 30, leave out “this section” and insert “section 27BF”.

This amendment corrects an incorrect section reference.

Amendment 22, in clause 1, page 11, line 31, leave out “three” and insert “six”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 16, 17 and 18.

Amendment 23, in clause 1, page 11, line 36, leave out “(3)” and insert “(3D)”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 20.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

No, I do not accept that. It is not helpful to see this as either/or. As I explained, there is a symbiotic relationship between businesses and their workers—their employees. Neither succeeds without the other. It is therefore not the case that I, in any way, shape or form, want to put all the burden on one or the other; what I am arguing for, and what I hope Members in all parts of the Committee can reflect on and appreciate, is some of those real-life, lived-experience and real-world examples, where things just do not go very well and people find themselves—

[Jon Pearce]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Smith]

I am very happy to do so once I finish this train of thought—we are getting far more debate in Committee than we do in the main Chamber.

We have to find the balance, where we do not just point the finger at the business owner or the worker, but see them as a symbiotic being—because neither side can survive or thrive without the other.

[Jon Pearce]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way so often. I want to address a principle: the Working Time Regulations 1998 established that if an employee, or indeed an employer, wishes to take holiday, the statutory notice period will be twice as much as the holiday taken. That is the same principle in the Bill, in that it is perfectly reasonable for a worker who does not have guaranteed hours to be given notice when work is not available. That statutory principle has been in place since the last century, so this is not outwith what every worker should expect. It is perfectly reasonable that if a worker has been told that work is available, they should be given reasonable notice if it is not. The shadow Minister’s Government kept to that principle, and it is perfectly applicable to employees and workers in this situation as well.

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is right about the principle of notice for holiday—that is quite clearcut. Holiday is pretty much always planned, although there are circumstances in which someone might need to take leave at very short notice—perhaps they have one of those dreaded phone calls that a relative is seriously ill, so they have to leave to be with them, or there might be some other pressing emergency. I think most employers will be flexible and compassionate about such emergency circumstances, ensuring that an employee can be with a relative who has been in an accident or is critically ill, for example.

Generally speaking, though, holiday is planned—just as, generally speaking, the availability of work is planned—but as with emergency situations when someone might need rapid time off, other emergency or out-of-control situations might affect a business. It would then put an intolerable pressure on that business suddenly to have to pay someone an amount of money that might be more than they would even have earned in that day—selling beer or cake in the hospitality sector, or producing a cabinet in furniture making, or whatever it might be.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates where I am coming from. We are not talking about the vast majority of cases or the bulk of the economy here; we are talking about the unexpected emergency scenarios that are out of anyone’s real ability to predict, which happen in the real world. I am therefore very concerned that the rigid provisions being proposed by the Government will put a number of businesses in a difficult place.

Employment Rights Bill (Seventh sitting)

Jon Pearce Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[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—

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Pearce]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my membership of the GMB. I apologise to the shadow Minister for not taking his interventions yesterday. I did take two, if that assists.

I wanted to build on the point that the shadow Minister was making. I actually agreed with some of the examples he gave, in that there are emergency situations where things do not work out for a business. I am interested in whether the shadow Minister would apply the same principle when the employee has an emergency, which builds on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby. For example, an emergency for the employee might be childcare, the illness of a family member, or the death of a family member—actually that may not be relevant because that would be a different type of leave. In those emergency situations, there is a right to dependant leave, but that dependant leave is unpaid. Would the shadow Minister accept the principle in those circumstances that the employer should equally bear the cost and pay the employee?

[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]

Will the shadow Minister allow me to clarify?

[Greg Smith]

I will give the hon. Gentleman one more go.

[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.

Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting)

Jon Pearce Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I want to refer to a couple of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment and that, as the MP for Gloucester, I perhaps have a vested interest, given that a number of my constituents work over the constituency border in Cheltenham.

Flexible working will not be available in every role, for some of the reasons listed in the Bill, but for many roles there would be the ability to start half an hour later and finish half an hour earlier, perhaps, or to work different hours over the course of a week. Those are results of flexible working requests. I think that, sometimes, there is a haste from the Conservative party to equate flexible working with working from home—and to put little notes on people’s desks saying that they are not working hard enough. It is really important that we look at flexible working as a whole.

In my experience as an employment solicitor, the Bill is welcome, because the “reasonable” test is important in making sure that we are encouraging employers to think properly about flexible working requests. This measure is also very business friendly, because there is a long list of exemptions that will allow an employer to say, “Because of x, y and z, flexible working is not appropriate.” There is no requirement to accept a request; there is only a requirement to think about it, and to think about those exemptions reasonably. In the context of what we are trying to do, and that balancing act between rights for employees and rights for businesses, I think this lands in about the right place.

The shadow Minister is right that this change will not apply evenly in every sector; it cannot in every business, because of the reasons listed in the exemptions. Each business will have different requirements regarding customer demands, performance and quality. It would be quite difficult for a dentist to work from home, I suggest, but it might be quite easy for them to come in at half-past 9 two days a week. Again, that is a flexible working request. The reasonableness test deals with the purpose of the shadow Minister’s amendment, which is to look at how different sectors might approach the change rather than having a one-size-fits-all approach.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my membership of GMB.

I will apologise now if I have an out-of-date amendment paper; the one that I have is dated Tuesday 3 December. Very early on in our discussions, we had the strange definition of a small or medium-sized businesses as one employing 500 people or more. I just want to check whether the proposed amendment is indeed accurate, because it refers to

“the test of reasonableness in subsection (2)(b)(ii)”.

I do not think that any such subsection exists—I think it should be (3)(b)(ii)—but I appreciate that that might be my misunderstanding.

[The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)]

I draw the Committee’s attention to my interests, and to my membership of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the National Education Union.

The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire seeks to amend clause 7 in order to commit the Government to exempting the security services from the requirement to refuse a flexible working request only when it is reasonable to do so against one of the eight reasons set out in legislation. His amendment would also exempt the security services from having to explain to an employee why their request for flexible working could not be met. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Northfield, for Worsley and Eccles and for Gloucester have pointed out many good reasons why that is unnecessary, and I will explain why I think the same.

The grounds for refusing a flexible working request are intentionally broad, so that they capture all the business reasons that may make such a request unfeasible. That applies to the security services as it does to any other employer. I will not read out all eight reasons, but I will give some examples. The work may not be able to be reorganised among other staff, or quality or performance may be negatively affected. There may be a lack of work at a particular proposed time, or the business’s ability to meet the demand of customers—we have mentioned the Home Office—may be negatively affected. There is a huge range of reasons that could be used, and they would surely cover—

Employment Rights Bill (Ninth sitting)

Jon Pearce Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

I am building up to my wider point. To skip ahead, there will be circumstances where, even within the reasonableness test—I understand that test—something so unexpected and unforeseeable happens that the employer could not in any way have planned a protection for their employees around that. Despite that, the employer might find themselves challenged in a tribunal or, worse, some form of criminal investigation about why they did not take reasonable steps against a totally unexpected and unplanned-for eventuality. I accept that, in most cases, there are practical steps that could be put in place to prevent harassment of any sort, but there will be times where that reasonableness test could fall over and someone could find themselves in a very tricky spot, unable to account for why they did not prepare for the totally unexpected.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB. The hon. Gentleman is making the point that it would be impossible for an employer to reasonably avoid something so extreme and out of the ordinary, but that would actually fall directly in the test, because the tribunal would look at whether it was reasonable for the employer to have put in arrangements, procedures or preparations to avoid a likely, foreseeable scenario. His concerns are completely misplaced, because no employer could reasonably avoid a situation that was impossible to avoid.

To go back to the fundamentals, as the hon. Gentleman said, we and employers should be taking all appropriate and reasonable steps, because 40% of women in the workplace suffer sexual harassment. These measures are reasonable in and of themselves, so I put it to him that he is worrying about something that is covered by the test.

[Greg Smith]

In many respects it is my job to be worried, to properly kick the tyres and to understand the operability of what the Government are trying to achieve. I certainly take the hon. Gentleman’s point on sexual harassment, and there is very clear criminal law in place that is probably more appropriate to bring perpetrators of such heinous crimes properly to justice. My concerns about the reasonableness test are less about that which can and should be pursued through criminal legislation; they are more about other forms of very subjectively tested harassment, as well as some points that I hope to make about freedom of speech. Hopefully, the hon. Gentleman will reflect on and understand those concerns when I get to that point.

Employment Rights Bill (Tenth sitting)

Jon Pearce Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree to differ on that point. I am sure that the Government’s proposals will support those who are facing sexual harassment from third parties. As colleagues on the Committee have highlighted, the reality is that the legislation is about taking all reasonable steps. It is not saying that when somebody walks in and abuses an employee it is an immediate red line. The reality is that the employer needs to have taken all reasonable steps. I am very comfortable with the proposals. The Liberal Democrats will vote against the amendment.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

I promise to keep my comments brief. Clause 15 will amend section 40A of the Equality Act 2010 to provide that an employer must take all reasonable steps to prevent the sexual harassment of employees in the course of their employment.

The concept of “all reasonable steps” has been part of the Equality Act 2010 since its inception, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester referred to. Section 109 of the Act provides a defence for the employer in respect of the discriminatory acts of the employee. It is about vicarious liability: in effect, if the employer can show that it has taken all reasonable steps, it will not be liable for the acts of the employee.

Exactly the same “all reasonable steps” test is being applied here. In my experience as an employment lawyer, employment tribunals are very well-versed in it and have a huge amount of experience with it. It would be a matter of fact for them to determine. It is important to understand that it will be, and always has been, a proportionate test that looks at the size and resources of the employer and the context of the employment situation.

There will inevitably be guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission on how employers should take all reasonable steps and what those steps might be, but it will be fact-specific. It may well include steps to mitigate, such as some form of risk assessment, policies, training or means by which an employee who is at risk of or has suffered third-party harassment can report it and action can be taken. All those things are fairly standard. They happen already as a result of the vicarious liability element of the Equality Act; the clause would just extend them to third parties.

All third-party harassment cases and issues arise from a case called Burton v. De Vere Hotels, in which Bernard Manning made racist comments to a waitress at a De Vere hotel and the waitress brought a claim. Both the original employment tribunal and the employment appeal tribunal held that it was harassment, but it was overturned on appeal because the right did not extend to protection from third-party harassment. That was the start of the process of trying to protect employees in such circumstances.

The employment tribunal and the employment appeal tribunal said that the employer knew what was likely to be in Bernard Manning’s act—we can all imagine what might be in Bernard Manning’s act—but did not take the necessary steps to protect the employee in the circumstances. These are exactly the scenarios that the shadow Minister raised, in which we would expect the employer to consider very carefully who was staffing the event, what policies should be in place and how any issues should be managed—including, for example, by warning Bernard Manning that he might not wish to make racist remarks to members of staff.

When we talk about risk assessments, we must remember that the biggest risk is that third-party harassment will continue. That is the most fundamental issue. I emphasise a point that the shadow Minister will find relevant: a 2023 Buckinghamshire healthcare NHS trust staff survey showed that there had been nearly 400 incidents of sexual harassment by third parties. Many of those incidents will have affected his constituents. It is vital that we make this legislation, because employee representatives at the trust have said that one thing that would help is a protection against third-party harassment. If we do not include this provision in the Bill, we will continue to leave his constituents exposed. I encourage the shadow Minister, who I genuinely believe cares about harassment, seriously to reconsider his opposition to the clause.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I rise to speak in support of new clauses 39 and 40, which stand in the name of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts).

The new clauses follow the publication of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Amendment) Bill, a presentation Bill that the right hon. Member introduced in co-operation with the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and Rights of Women. They would address a critical gap in workplace safety by mandating proactive employer responsibilities to prevent all forms of violence and harassment, including gender-based violence.

The Health and Safety Executive does not currently accept domestic abuse within its remit. That might come as a surprise to some Members, but the reason is that domestic abuse and other forms of gender-based violence are not explicitly covered in the 1974 Act, even though the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 underlines the fact that employers owe their employees a duty of care that covers protection from domestic abuse.

Discrimination law inadequately protects workers from gender-based violence beyond sexual harassment, especially when such violence is not physical. The UK’s ratification in 2022 of the International Labour Organisation’s convention 190 means that the UK should take a comprehensive approach that addresses all forms and threats of gender-based violence in the workplace, psychological and emotional abuse, physical abuse and stalking, including with respect to people commuting to and from the workplace.

New clauses 39 and 40 would address those issues. They would go further than the Bill’s provisions on protection from harassment, because new clause 39 would introduce clear, actionable duties for employers to safeguard employees from gender-based harm through risk assessments, policy development and training. New clause 40 would mandate that the Health and Safety Executive create an enforceable framework that holds employers accountable and fosters inclusive, violence-free work environments for workers.

I understand that this may have been the Minister’s first opportunity to hear these points. I hope he will consider them, perhaps on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I do not believe that unfair dismissal should be a day one right. I think this is a fundamental error by the Government. It is interesting that during the previous Labour Governments, under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the qualifying period was one year. There was a reason for that: by reducing it—by making it a day one right—we introduce an aspect of procedural unfairness to all small businesses. Small businesses might decide after a week that they do not want to keep someone in employment. They might not follow the letter of the law, and it might be procedurally unfair because not every t was crossed and not every i was dotted, and that will lead to an unfair dismissal case.

[Jon Pearce]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Let me just make this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked what the rationale was behind the day one qualifying period. I think the answer is that it is a demand from the trade unions; it is one of a long list of demands from the trade unions. This Bill is payback for the trade unions’ support for the Labour party. Those demands continue to come in, and we know that because the Bill is not even properly written. It is half-written—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Pearce]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Protection from unfair dismissal is already a day one right in respect of certain carve-outs from the two-year qualifying period, including for dismissal relating to a protected disclosure—whistleblowing—refusal to allow somebody to undertake jury service, or refusal to allow somebody to take family leave. That protection, and the principle of unfair dismissal, is already in statute as a day one right.

Let us look at other day one rights, which are worth exploring a bit further. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, employees have a whole raft of day one rights, including most of the discrimination acts under the Equality Act and protections for whistleblowing. I want to continue my hon. Friend’s argument in order to try to give employees reassurance, which I think will come with guidance and the statutory probation period.

Certainty on this issue would help many employers. What I found in practice was that there would be a probation period in the contractual relationship, but smaller employers that I advised often did not have a policy; they just had a shortened notice period—often a month, rather than the three months after the probation period. There would be no structure in place. All too often, I found that many of those employers got themselves into difficulty because they believed that they did not have to follow any process whatsoever, due to the two-year qualifying period.

More often than not, those employers were dismissing people for reasons of capability: the employee had not got up to the necessary standard, and there was an issue with their work. In those circumstances, the employer often did not have much of a structure or procedure in place, and would eventually get to the point at which it would, in effect, give up and decide that the employee was never going to get to the standard that it wanted within the probationary period. The employer would dismiss people without any process or meeting—even without speaking to the employee at all—and without taking any evidence.

All too often in the cases that I dealt with, it would come to light that there was a reason for an employee’s lack of capability, which related to an impairment. Many of those impairments were protected under the Equality Act, and those employees had protections against discrimination on the basis of disability. They had a right to reasonable adjustments that the employer had not considered because it did not ask the question, and which had not been implemented. In those circumstances, the employer is exposed to uncapped discrimination claims, which are very serious and very difficult to respond to, because no process has been followed.

It is really important that we seek to reassure small, medium and large employers that having a light-touch, clear structure will mean that no employer falls into that trap again, and that we will save a lot of employers unnecessary litigation.

[Laurence Turner]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in those cases where someone has ended up taking the equalities route because that is the only route available to them, it can be particularly reputationally damaging to the employer? Does he also agree that, because by the nature of those claims—particularly where they relate to disability discrimination—the system requires the claimants to stress an impairment of some kind, that process is also distressing for the claimant in a way that is wholly unnecessary? Making these changes would at least avoid those circumstances for both employer and employee.

[Jon Pearce]

I absolutely agree. Often, in those circumstances, it is extremely distressing for the employee, who, had the reasonable adjustment been in place to assist them with disability or to enable them to get to the required standard, would still be employed. They have to face the extra hurdle of declaring their particular impairment to the world.

Reputationally, these claims can often be hugely damaging for employers that had never intended to discriminate and would never have discriminated against an employee, but for the lack of process. As I say, there is nothing new in day one rights—protection from unfair dismissal is already, in certain circumstances, a day one right; Equality Act claims are a day one right; whistleblowing is a day one right—but the Bill will help employers not to fall foul of those day one rights that already exist and give a far clearer structure to the employment sphere. With those reassurances and with guidance, there is nothing for employers to fear from this legislation.

[Anneliese Midgley]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. About a year ago, one of my constituents in Knowsley was told that she needed IVF. She went to her employer to let them know that she was going to start treatment, and a few days later she was sacked. She was a few weeks short of having worked two years for her employer. She had previously passed probation and had no previous complaints or warnings on her work. Hon. Members will be happy to know that she did get pregnant and she had that baby a month ago, but while trying to get pregnant and in the early stages of her pregnancy she could not find another steady job. No employer wanted to take her on and being unemployed obviously caused immense stress.

My constituent did not qualify for maternity pay. She has worked hard all her life; she has studied and has a doctorate. She is now with a small baby on a statutory maternity allowance of £184 and is still not in a job. One in nine women are forced out of the labour market every year due to pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The two-year period in which someone can be dismissed was used unfairly against my constituent. The Bill will protect women across the UK, allowing them the right to a secure job and a family. I am sure we can all agree that the current situation for workers is unacceptable.

Employment Rights Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Jon Pearce Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

I rise to speak to amendment 126 standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends on the Committee. The amendment would require trade unions to notify their members every year of their right to opt out of the political fund and to obtain an annual opt-in to the political fund from their members.

It is as clear as day that Conservatives believe that it is important for people to have control over the money that they earn, which is why, as part of the Trade Union Act 2016, the Conservative Government made it unlawful to require a member of a trade union to contribute to the political fund if the member had not given that union notice of their willingness to opt in to the fund. The Bill aims to reverse that simple proposition, so that a member of a trade union is a contributor to the political fund of the union unless they have given an opt-out notice to the trade union. It seems that the sentiment underlying this change is that trade unions have more right to their members’ wages than their members do. Otherwise, why would this Labour Government seek to reverse that position?

Our amendment comes in two parts, of which the second part concerns the opt-out process contained in the Bill. It is not clear in the Bill whether there is any requirement for trade unions to remind their members of their right to opt out of the political fund. We think it only reasonable that they should have to do so annually, and that they should provide the necessary paperwork with the opt-out notice, so that those who wish to opt out can do so as easily as possible.

Polling published only this week shows that it has taken just six months—far less than the annual requirement that we are proposing—for a quarter of people who voted Labour last July to regret doing so. That might reflect the number of union members who previously opted in to a political fund but, within a period of months or perhaps a whole calendar year, having seen where their money has been spent and the causes that it has supported, regret having donated to that political fund through their union membership and no longer wish to do so.

I am sure that in the hustle and bustle of our busy daily lives, we have all had the experience of forgetting to cancel that direct debit or unsubscribe from a list or a newspaper—whatever it might be. We need to make that process as easy as possible. Just as companies that are about to increase a subscription on something or change the terms and conditions of a mobile phone contract, for example, are required to inform the customer of those changes in a timely manner, unions should be required to give their members not only a detailed reminder that they have the right to opt out of the political fund, but a clear instructional path through which it is as easy as possible to do so.

I do not see how the Government can object to our simple proposition that union members should be reminded annually of their right to opt out. Should the Minister or any Government Members disagree, I invite them to inform the House whether there will be any requirement on trade unions to remind their members, even in the most vague terms, that they can opt out. If so, how often will they have to remind their members of that right? If there is no requirement for trade unions to remind their members of that, or the Government are not interested in accepting the Opposition’s amendment, it seems to me that the legislation creates a subscription trap—to put it in any other terms would not do it justice.

We Conservatives feel strongly about this issue. In the last Parliament, we passed the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which contained two significant and notable proposals on subscription contracts that are directly transferable to the principles of the amendment. First, it contained proposals on reminder notices, which mean that businesses need to provide notices to consumers to remind them that their subscription contract will renew and that their payment will be due unless they cancel. Secondly, it set a precedent to allow consumers to exit a subscription contract in a straightforward, cost-effective and timely way, with proposals that mean that businesses need to ensure that the process for terminating is not unduly onerous and that consumers can signal their intent to end the contract through a single—that is the important part here—communication.

During the passage of that Act, which set the precedent for much of amendment 126, the Labour party, then in opposition, supported those aims—in fact, the Bill did not go far enough for Labour. On Report, the then shadow Minister tabled new clause 29, on which the Labour party divided the House in order to support. It now seems to be arguing the other way on those very principles that apply to consumers, and to all our constituents, when it comes to trade unions and contributions to the political fund.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

rose—

[Greg Smith]

I give way to the hon. Member for High Peak, although he now wishes for it to be in Greater Manchester.

[Jon Pearce]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB. I am interested in the shadow Minister’s proposition, because the number of members of the Conservative party relative to other parties has been in the press over the last few weeks. Does the Conservative party do what he proposes and remind its members of the opportunity to leave on an annual basis, or do its members just do that of their own volition?

[Greg Smith]

As I alluded to, the hon. Gentleman seems to want his constituency to leave Derbyshire and join Greater Manchester, so he is opening up a can of worms there.

I am happy to tell the Committee that I pay my membership fees to the Conservative party by direct debit and I get that annual email reminding me that my renewal is coming up. I cannot see any circumstance in which I would ever wish to leave the oldest and most successful—most of the time—political party in the country, but it is very clear in those emails how to do so, just as I am sure it is for the Labour party and for some of the smaller parties that exist as well. That is an important principle. It is only to be regretted if we want to stray into the politics of that, which are relevant to the principles outlined in amendment 126 about opting out of political funds.

Of course it will happen time and again that, when an individual signs up to anything at all—be it a trade union political fund, political party, club, society, lobby group or whatever—they change their mind and wish to leave it. The best example that I can give is when the Labour party changed quite significantly on the election of a particularly left-wing leader after the 2015 general election, and many members of the Labour party, including Labour MPs, chose to leave it. Of course, they should have had that right and that freedom to do so, and I do not see why that right and that freedom should not be as equally applicable, as amendment 126 suggests, to the political fund of trade unions.

Labour’s proposed new clause 29 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 has direct read across to amendment 126, which we are debating today, and it had a two-pronged approach. It required traders to ask consumers whether they wished to opt in to subscriptions renewing automatically, either

“after a period of six months and every six months thereafter, or…if the period between the consumer being charged for the first and second time is longer than six months, each time payment is due.”

The second limb of that new clause would have required:

“If the consumer does not opt-in to such an arrangement, the trader must provide a date by which the consumer must notify the trader of the consumer’s intention to renew the contract, which must be no earlier than 28 days before the renewal date.”

If the consumer did not provide that notification, the subscription contract would not renew.

There seems to have been a considerable shift in the Labour party’s policy position on subscription traps. It seems to believe that consumers should be given every possible opportunity to cancel subscription contracts with businesses, but that it should be as hard as possible to cancel a subscription to a trade union political fund. That is not a coherent position, and that is not something that I think any Labour Member would wish to defend.

It is to keep the Labour party honest that we have tabled the first part of our amendment 126, which would require that, where trade union members have not opted out of the political fund, they must put in writing their continued agreement to pay the fund annually. Given that the Labour party wanted to enforce a more stringent mechanism on businesses taking people’s money through subscriptions, which would have been opted in to originally, I cannot see why the Labour Government would not accept that union members should continue to have to indicate in writing that they wish to continue to be subscribers to the trade union political fund.

This amendment is a simple, straightforward proposition that is entirely consistent with the lines that Labour Members took when they were in opposition in the last Parliament, which they now seem to wish to row back on. When the Minister responds, or when any Labour Member wishes to stand up, it is incumbent on them to say why they believe those subscriptions traps should continue and should be nakedly allowed for trade union political funds.