Employment Rights Bill (First sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Justin Madders
Main Page: Justin Madders (Labour - Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)Department Debates - View all Justin Madders's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (First sitting)
Justin Madders ExcerptsTuesday 26th November 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 November 2024 - (26 Nov 2024)
The Chair
If nobody objects, we will not sit in private before we start hearing from witnesses. Do any Members wish to make a declaration of interests in connection with the Bill?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I refer to my declaration in Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a trade union member.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I also refer to my declaration of interests. I am a member of the Unison and Community trade unions.
Justin Madders
Mr Stringer, I do not think that I actually mentioned my trade union memberships. For the record, the individual unions are Unite and GMB.
The Chair
Thank you, Minister. If any interests are particularly relevant to a Member’s questioning or speech, they should declare them again at the appropriate time.
Examination of Witnesses
Matthew Percival, Jane Gratton and Alex Hall-Chen gave evidence.
Greg Smith
Q
Matthew Percival: It is very difficult to put a number to it, because there are so many unanswered questions in areas where details are intended to be put into the Bill at a later stage. That leads to a wide range of potential estimates about the impact of a number of the measures. Work we are doing at the moment will give us updated figures on sentiment around a number of measures. We are looking to publish that soon, and I will make sure that we include those numbers in our written evidence.
Jane Gratton: The feedback we have had from members has been concern about increased cost, complexity and lack of flexibility to manage the workforce in the way that a business needs to. Members say that there would be a reduced hiring appetite were this legislation to come in, and that they would be less likely to recruit new employees due to the risk and difficulty, particularly under the day one rights, unless there were at least a nine-month probation period with a light-touch approach. There would be a preference for contractors and temporary staff, again to reduce the risk and avoid legal complications. To give some figures, 38% said that there would be a hiring freeze, 25% said that the Bill would result in less pay, and 30% spoke of less investment in their business. There would be significant risks and costs, particularly to small and medium-sized enterprises.
Alex Hall-Chen: In addition to considering recruitment levels at the higher level, we are also getting feedback about types of recruitment and the impact that the policies will have on that. We have had a lot of feedback, particularly with respect to day one protection against unfair dismissal, that essentially boils down to the fact 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. I think there are really important questions about what that means for people on the fringes of the labour market, especially as those are precisely the people the Government need to get back into work to meet their 80% employment rate target.
Justin Madders
Q
On a more general point, Jane in particular said that a lot of the businesses you represent do a lot of the things in the Bill already. Do you think it is important that we have a level playing field so that good businesses are encouraged to treat their staff properly?
Jane Gratton: Yes. There has been a cautious welcome for some of the measures in the Bill—lots of businesses agree with the sentiment that it is about fair pay, security and non-discriminatory workplaces—but the question is around the proportionality of the changes that are being introduced in relation to the problem that the Government think needs to be addressed. From a business point of view, it is about the additional complexity and, in respect of some of the detail of the measures, the restrictions that the Bill will impose.
For example, on changing the “one establishment” rule, the feedback from members has been, “For every change, will we have to consult all our employees across all of our businesses, even if they are doing completely different things at different ends of the country, with different levels of skill and job role? It is disruptive for the business and unsettling for every employee.” It is about the detail. In principle we all want these things, but the detail of some of the measures and the impact they are likely to have is causing a lot of concern.
Matthew Percival: You are right to say there is a live consultation on a number of measures, and the consultations on a number of things are promised to come but have not started yet. That is why I resisted putting a figure on what it would currently cost, because there is a wide variance in what that could end up being. We are committed to trying to find a landing zone for the Bill that means that the Government can deliver their ambitions, which include the Bill not having a negative impact on the ambitions around growth or the focus today, outside this room, on the “Get Britain Working” agenda and an 80% employment rate. We want to stitch all those things together and find that landing zone.
It is a credit to you and to colleagues that the engagement we have had up until now has led to things like some movement on the recognition of the importance of a probation period. There is so much in the Bill and we have only really scratched the surface in terms of what we have been able to get into the detail of so far. We are hoping that through this process, and as the Bill progresses through Parliament, we are able to give the same amount of attention to the rest of the Bill.
Justin Madders
I can assure you of that, do not worry.
Alex Hall-Chen: I echo Jane’s point about there being quite significant support in the business community for parts of the Bill. A good example is fire and rehire: two thirds of IOD members agreed with the principle of outlawing fire and rehire. Where we have concerns is, as others have said, around not only proportionality but the detail. On fire and rehire, for instance, there is concern that it will make any changes to contracts, whether or not they are actually net positive for both the employee and the employer, much more difficult to achieve.
Justin Madders
Q
Jane Gratton: Employers know that a happy and engaged workforce is more productive. It is in their interest to make sure that they look after their workforces, and most businesses are good, caring employers. The worry with the legislation is that in trying to address bad behaviour by a tiny minority of businesses—of bad actors—the cumulative impact and cost of all this will have a negative impact on the majority of very good businesses. Again, it comes down to the proportionality. These are huge changes, and one concern is that they have been brought in at such pace—although we are very grateful to the Minister and the Department for the time they have been able to give us in terms of consultation—that there are things written into the Bill that our members do not feel they have had sufficient time to be consulted on, because of the pace of change.
I think we need further engagement on some of these key aspects, including the reference period for offering guaranteed hours and extending those things to agency workers. There is a lot of disquiet around how that would work, particularly for companies that offer seasonal work, such as Christmas and holiday periods. How does a 12-week reference period equate to that? It does not seem to work. It would be better to have a 26-week period, for example. There are a lot of things.
The other thing that has come up often is a real nervousness around removing all the waiting days for statutory sick pay. Again, employers are really on board with supporting people who have a long period of illness, but some of the feedback from members has been that it is the single day of sickness absenteeism that causes the most disruption and impact. Rather than its being day one, a lot of employers have said, “Could it be from day two? Can we pay from day two, so the Government meets us halfway?” The overwhelming response from businesses has been, “Can Government please minimise the additional cost of these regulations on all businesses, but particularly on small and medium-sized companies?”
Matthew Percival: Yes, there is a lot of confidence in the idea that employee engagement helps to boost productivity; that is why businesses make it a priority. I am not sure they believe that much in this Bill is going to increase productivity, though, because they are not convinced that much in this Bill is going to improve employee engagement.
To take a couple of practical examples, I already mentioned in the industrial relations space the importance of the recognition process, where there is a great deal of concern that, if you recognise a trade union that does not speak for much more than a tiny proportion of your workforce, and you elevate that voice ahead of the voice of the actual workforce, that is not going to boost employee engagement. Employers are happy to work with trade unions who are the representatives of their workforces, and it is right that they should do that, and it is right that, if there are any employers who will not do that voluntarily, there is a statutory process that can force them and bring them to the table. But in the same way that we have employment law not because every employer has negative intentions, but because there are a small minority who have the potential to abuse their power, it is also appropriate to regulate the actions of trade unions in the industrial relations space.
Another quick practical example within the zero-hours contract aspect of this regulation is 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. We think there could be two other constructions worthy of consideration.
One of those constructions could be a right to request framework, where there are good tests on when an employer needs to accept a request versus not, just as we have around flexible working currently. Or you could call it a right to have, if you like, but at the moment I have not seen a difference between a right to request that an employer has to accept other than in limited circumstances, and a right to have that you do not have the right to have if an employer meets the same test for limited circumstances. What really matters is not whether you call it a right to request or a right to have, but what the test is for when an employer accepts the request. That would minimise significantly the administrative burden, rather than calculating lots of offers for people who will not want to accept them.
A number of individual businesses have told us that, if the Bill is to go with the grain of the good practice that already exists within industry, they will monitor people’s hours where they already have mechanisms to do so, and there will be a trigger for a conversation between the individual and their line manager in the event that their hours regularly exceed the hours guaranteed in their contract. Those who have that policy in place tell us that, most often, that leads to no change in contract. The hours are picked up as extra hours, and the individual does not want to guarantee them in their contract. There will be occasions when the individual does change contract, but those businesses say that the majority of people in that situation do not want to change their contractual arrangements, so we are hoping to minimise the admin burden.
Alex Hall-Chen: I just want to emphasise that employers absolutely recognise the link between the two. That is why, in many cases, they are ahead of the legislation. A good example of that is flexible working: 90% of IOD members’ organisations already offer at least one form of flexible working to their employees.
The concern is about the scale of the changes and the costs associated with them. We know from the Government’s impact assessment that that may be as high as £5 billion a year, with the cost disproportionately falling on small and medium-sized enterprises. A frequent piece of feedback that we get from members is that they feel that the Government do not understand how difficult it is to run an SME at the moment and just how tight profit margins are. That is primarily where we are coming from. These changes are huge—to an extent, they are unprecedented—and will impact on those already very fine profit margins.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Q
Jane Gratton: It is really important that there is a probationary period, and it should be at least nine months. Businesses ideally want a 12-month probationary period, not least because some individuals are required to undertake mandatory training, which takes 12 months or more. We could live with a nine-month probationary period.
The key thing is that there should be a light-touch approach during that period so that businesses are not discouraged from taking a risk on employees. Employers should not have to introduce very stringent performance monitoring from day one, which helps neither the employee nor the business. Having structure during the probation period is good, but businesses need to be able to end the relationship on the basis of ability or performance, as we do now. There should be no greater risk to an employer of an employment tribunal than there is currently during the probation period.
Matthew Percival: Typically, a business’s standard probation period is no longer than six months. However, that does not mean that it is appropriate to set in regulation a limit on probation periods of six months. That is important for us, because a common response of an employer who sees that an individual is not performing quite to the level that they would want to be able to confirm them in post is to say, “Okay, we have gone through our standard probationary period, but we are willing to continue to invest in you, offer you more support and training, and extend that probation period, rather than rush to a firm yes or no decision for confirming employment.”
It is important that the regulations do not prevent the employer good practice of being willing to extend someone’s probation and give them more time to adapt to work, particularly if we are thinking about the challenge of getting people back into work who have had a period out of work. That is a big public policy and economic priority at the moment. We are in the same camp: certainly no less than nine months, so that there is that extra time before an employer is forced to make a firm yes or no decision on confirming employment, but preferably 12 months.
Alex Hall-Chen: Similarly, the feedback we have had from members is that their probation periods tend to be between three and six months, but as the other panellists have said, given exemptions around training and the potential to extend probation periods, nine months would be the minimum and 12 months would be preferable. As to the specific process, the lighter-touch dismissal process is better. We have done research that suggests that even a light-touch dismissal process, as defined by Government at the moment, would not solve the issue. A third of our members said that it would not mitigate their concerns around this policy at all, and half said that it would only partially mitigate their concerns, so we remain worried about the impact that this policy will have.
Justin Madders
Q
David Hale: To go back to the previous question, what I hope you will support is the introduction of a statutory sick pay rebate in the Bill. We have always been very clear that a rebate is important with any changes that increase SSP costs, because if you do not have a rebate, you systematically disadvantage the firms that take on people who are sick or likely to get sick, and those firms are already not supported enough by Government policy.
If you want to make changes to statutory sick pay, as the Bill proposes, you should put in a statutory sick pay rebate to cater for the risk to small firms. Say a firm has six staff members and two are off at the same time, that is 33% of the workforce. It would be very useful if the Government stepped up and actually supported firms that are taking on the people they are talking about. So it is a question more for you than for me: will the Bill include a rebate or not?
Justin Madders
Q
David Hale: It is a good question. It partly goes back to the overwhelm. We can talk to only so many small businesses at a time, and we can talk to them about only so many things. We can say, “If the changes to unfair dismissal come in, how will that change your recruitment?” We can have that conversation, or we can say, “If there are changes to zero-hours contracts, will that mean you have to ban swapping shifts in your business, just to cater for your regulatory risks?” We can explore those things, but only one at a time. We have 40 minutes today. We will spend less than a minute talking about each of the measures in the Bill. That overwhelm has a time consequence for good engagement and good exploration.
I do not want the officials who have engaged with us about the Bill to feel that that is not appreciated, but I do think there are process problems. This Committee is taking evidence from different groups in turn to explore the Bill over a two-day period, I think, but that is not the approach that the Department has taken, and that is a problem. At the Department level, each measure would have to be explored in turn, with different groups coming together. At the moment, the way in which the process has worked has created more division than is necessary. It has set up two sides—worker representatives and business representatives—and set them in opposition, without providing a voice for those at the biggest potential risk, which is the people who are out of work.
That is on the broad scale, but there are a lot of practical things, too: can we have regular meetings, organised at the same time each week, rather than them coming in and out of diaries, and that sort of thing? That is a practical issue, but those issues are important.
The Chair
Dom, do you have anything to add?
Dom Hallas: Just on the process point. People sit here on our side of the table and say, “Things aren’t being communicated well,” when the problem—let us be honest—is with the policy.
One of the broad challenges here, especially for small businesses, which David and I work with, is that, with an impactful piece of legislation, even communicating to them what is going on is difficult. They are a disparate group; we certainly cannot sit here and claim to represent the entirety of the tech start-up community, even if we work with a big community of businesses.
I am mindful of two things: the length of the implementation period is absolutely important, but the way the Government go about it and choose to operate in that period is also important. What does it mean, frankly, to explain to employers what their obligations are? How are we going to go through that process? We need to think about that coherently now, so that we do not get to that period later and, suddenly, it is panic stations. That will be really important.
Greg Smith
Q
Cathryn Moses-Stone: I cannot talk to the specifics of the Bill’s initial cost implications, but I can talk to the cost implications of having really highly trained managers in the workplace. When thinking about general management training, we know that chartered managers, on average, boost a business’s revenue by £59,000. We know that the average pay rise of a chartered manager is £13,000. We see in a lot of our data that there is a direct productivity impact on an organisation from having highly skilled, highly trained managers who are able to implement policies that increase retention, retain talent, boost morale and create a more positive workplace culture, which prevents turnover, which saves a business from losing money.
It probably also comes back to the point that managers need time to get it right and to understand it, so that the burden on their business in the long run is not huge because they have the right amount of time to understand how they will work with their employees so that they do not have to escalate everything to tribunal. The early training period is crucial for the wider cost savings, because we know that there are lots of concerns from businesses on these issues, as well as the broader sentiment of being in support of the Bill.
Ben Willmott: One of the challenges for a business looking to upskill its managers is that that will incur a cost. If we look at the proposed increases in employment costs overall, we see those from the different measures in the Bill and those from the changes in the Budget, which also need to be taken into account. Businesses will have to find the money to upskill and train their managers. That is one reason why we are saying that ACAS needs to be resourced, particularly to help those smaller businesses that are more resource-challenged and have less knowledge and capability around the HR and people-management side of the business, which is so important to this.
Carly Cannings: Ben made a really important point about making sure that small businesses are adequately resourced to deal with the changes. I am, as many employers are—as the statistics bear out—very supportive of raising the standards of employment, and the Bill certainly takes a step in the right direction towards raising standards. The balance that needs to be struck is about making sure that employers, and particularly small employers, are able to cope with the changes.
There are lots of businesses out there already doing really good things, and some of the things in the Bill will be measures, practices and policies that lots of employers already have in place. That is not the case for everyone and, in particular, that might not be the case for small businesses. Echoing Ben’s point, small businesses are more likely to fall foul of the legislation accidentally, rather than intentionally, because they do not have the right access to support and advice in the same way. That is an important point that must not be missed.
Cathryn Moses-Stone: Would it be all right if I added a point? It is true, obviously, that there is a cost to training managers, but that is why we are also really concerned about the proposed defunding of the level 7 apprenticeships, because there will be a huge knock-on impact. Potentially, a huge skills gap could open up in highly trained management across the UK, at a time when businesses are going to be required to know their staff and to implement the legislation in the right way. We are concerned about how that aligns with the development and delivery of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Q
I have a more general question about what you see as the current weaknesses in the employment rights sphere. What do we need to do to give people more protection and security at work? Do you think the Bill addresses that?
Ben Willmott: The introduction of the fair work agency—a single enforcement body—is a positive step forward, but there needs to be further thought about how to improve the labour market enforcement system. We need a long-term strategy to improve labour market enforcement that includes not just a fair work agency but the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Health and Safety Executive, not in a single enforcement body but as part of the strategy. We need measures to improve the efficiency of the employment tribunal system, which we know is swamped, and we need to increase the overall number of labour market inspectors—by international standards the UK is under-resourced on the number of inspectors.
As I have said before, we also need to significantly increase ACAS’s budget so that it can help small firms to comply. If labour market enforcement is about getting the carrot and stick balance right, that is why it is so crucial that ACAS can play that role in helping to raise employment standards. Businesses that are not bad employers—those that are poorly resourced, or might be knowledge-poor or time-poor, particularly micro and small firms—tend to fall foul of legislation because of those issues, not because of any malicious intent.
Cathryn Moses-Stone: I will start with the latter part of the question. We have a lot of data showing the impact of good management practice on both productivity and an improved workplace culture. Much of the Bill falls into that camp. For example, we know that one third of employees have cited negative work culture as a driver for leaving their organisation. That is obviously driven by ineffective management. We know that when managers in organisations have mutual trust and respect with their direct reports, they find that productivity rises. Poorly managed teams have lower motivation, satisfaction and retention. We believe a lot of the elements of the Bill are tied up in driving much of that in a positive way.
The things we are worried about, which echo what I have said before and what Ben has said, come down to implementation—that is, what the fair work agency looks like, how it behaves, how it supports, and how it gives space for managers to upskill. We know that 40% of our managers have expressed some concern about the detail of some of the policy, such as the right to disconnect. For example, what defines business-critical comms, versus just maintaining team comms?
We know that with high-quality management training—helping people to understand how to have difficult conversations, prioritise and have emotional intelligence—people can navigate those things much more effectively in the workplace. Our worry is about what the implementation will look like and about how managers and leaders will be supported in respect of the fair work agency.
Carly Cannings: I think the Bill is about raising minimum standards. As I said previously, a lot of employers are doing a lot of good things. Let us be realistic about the impact of the Bill: it is about raising minimum standards. Cathryn alluded to the bigger picture of creating happy, thriving workplace cultures, and it goes far further than that. This is not a call for further legislation; for me, legislation is about raising minimum standards. There is so much more outside and beyond legislation that makes a real difference to whether somebody has a happy, thriving workplace culture, and the benefits of that culture.
Thank you, Cathryn. You have done a very good job of outlining the things that I see in reality and when working with my clients—the factors that play a part in creating a workplace culture. Like I said, for me the Bill is about raising minimum standards.
Justin Madders
Q
Cathryn, you spoke about surveys with your managers and about the strong support for the Bill, and you said that there is nothing in the proposals that should alarm a responsible business. Given what you also said about the pace of implementation and the need to continue dialogue, if we get that right, would you still say there is nothing in the proposals that should alarm a responsible employer?
Cathryn Moses-Stone: First, the right to disconnect was just a useful example of the sort of concerns we hear.
We are not saying there is nothing for businesses to be alarmed about. One of the challenges that managers and leaders face is implementing and managing change across their organisations, and that is a complex thing. That comes back to our point that we have a whole suite of data on the impact that highly skilled managers have on managing change in their organisations, and the knock-on impact that has on recruitment, retention, productivity and the success of a business. It does not mean it is easy and straightforward; I do not think many things that managers and leaders do are easy and straightforward. Again, it comes back to the core principle of having the right amount of time and being able to support managers to skill up. That at least gives them the tools to be able to tackle these complicated things head on, because they will be complicated.
Ben Willmott: I absolutely agree that there is a significant role for well-designed, effectively enforced employment regulation to support overall improvement in employment standards and to support efforts to improve employee engagement and productivity. The key is that it has to be well-designed regulation. If it is excessive or too complex to implement on the ground, it will lead to increased costs, and that will undermine the ability of businesses to improve job quality, invest in recruitment and skills, and support technology adoption and things that will drive productivity. That is why, as we move forward, the consultation is so important.
An example of a measure in the Bill is around the reference period for workers to have the right to guaranteed hours. It is not set out in the Bill, but in “Next Steps” it is set at 12 weeks. In our view it is crucial that there should be consultation on the 12-week reference period. The Government have set out their principles for a modern industrial relations framework: accountability, proportionality, collaboration and balancing the interests of business and workers. Those principles need to apply as we roll out and implement the proposals, so 12 weeks is a test that should be subject to consultation, because it is so important to the functioning of that right. That is the sort of thing where we want to see consultation—where it would help to decide that the ultimate regulation is effectively designed and can work.
Steve Darling
Q
Ben Willmott: The Bill is focusing businesses’ minds on how they recruit, manage and develop their people. I will refer to comments I made earlier. If the measures in the Bill are designed the right way, they can support improvements in overall employment standards. But if consultation is not effective and measures are introduced that are not workable, it will have the opposite effect. It is about finding the right balance.
Cathryn Moses-Stone: Similarly, we have a lot of data that shows that policies like flexible working, enhanced family-friendly rights and day one rights make employees feel valued and supported, which in turn drives better performance.
We did a study last year looking at the impact of trained managers in effectively delivering hybrid working. By way of example, 68% of our managers said that hybrid working made it easier to increase their work productivity, and that was a result of managers being trained to manage teams that work in a hybrid way. We know that where managers trust their direct reports—this is what our evidence shows—they find that productivity rises. As I have already said, poorly managed teams face lower motivation, satisfaction and retention, and ultimately impact on business delivery. So really good management in designing work that allows employees to thrive is important.
We must remember that managers are employees themselves. Managers want it to work for themselves as much as they want it to work for employees. That in turn will boost productivity at the higher levels of the organisation as well. We have lots of data that backs that up. Again, it is all about how the legislation is implemented and all about the time and space that is given to support managers to do that.
Ben Willmott: The other thing I would add is that our members are certainly supportive of the ambition behind the Bill. Our member survey shows that there is significant support for changes to improve statutory sick pay and to improve parental leave.
There are definitely areas of the Bill that have support, but I will give an example of an issue. When talking to members in sectors that might bear more cost from changes to statutory sick pay, we found they were much more sanguine in September than they were after the Budget, because they are now thinking about it in the context of broader changes. The cumulative effect of changes and increases in employment costs needs to be taken into account when we think about individual measures.
Carly Cannings: On the point about productivity, if you look at what makes a workforce productive, there are lots of things that go in the mix, such as feeling engaged in the work you are doing and valued by your managers, as well as having an environment around you that offers things such as flexibility. The factors that lead to productivity are broad. We need to be realistic about the measures in this Bill and how far they will go to support productivity, given that lots of employers are probably already meeting lots of these minimum thresholds.
It is a step in the right direction. It raises the profile of things such as flexible working, so hopefully more businesses will adopt it—it is now a day one right anyway. It definitely moves in the right direction in terms of creating that happy, engaged workforce who feel valued and able to work in a way that works for them and their employer. Again, it is back to that point about raising minimum standards. There is more to this element about workplace culture and productivity than just minimum standards of employment legislation.
Cathryn Moses-Stone: Echoing that, it is important to acknowledge that lots of forward-thinking employers are already doing a lot of this stuff anyway. They are doing it for a reason, because they are seeing the impact on their business. That must not be forgotten.
Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Justin Madders
Main Page: Justin Madders (Labour - Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)Department Debates - View all Justin Madders's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting)
Justin Madders ExcerptsTuesday 26th November 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 November 2024 - (26 Nov 2024)
The Chair
I remind Members that questions are not limited to what is in the brief, but your questions must be within the scope of the Bill. In line with this morning’s session, for each panel of witnesses I propose to call the shadow Minister to ask the first question, then the Minister, and then the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I will then go back and forth between the Government and Opposition sides. Anyone who wants to ask a question should catch my eye. We must stick to the cut-off times specified in the programme order, so I will interrupt questioning if necessary. I remind Members that they must declare any relevant interests both when speaking in Committee and when asking questions. We are being broadcast.
Before we start hearing from witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interests in connection with the Bill?
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 to my membership of Unite and the GMB.
The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of USDAW, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.
Greg Smith
Q
Neil Carberry: I will not repeat what Allen said about the aggregate cost of the Bill, but clearly it is an enormous piece of legislation, coming at a time when businesses—particularly consumer-facing businesses—have been through the pandemic, are carrying more debt and are struggling to drive the growth that the Government want. Among my members, as with many business organisations, the tone of the debate about the Bill was changed by the Budget. That was particularly around the shift on the threshold, which directly pushes up the costs of all of the people for whom an employer’s decision to hire is maybe more marginal. I associate myself with Allen’s comments on that.
More specifically, for those who are not familiar with it, our sector places 1 million people into new permanent jobs every year, but it placed 1 million people as temporary workers into workplaces today. So I come at this from the point of view of what do those people need to have good, positive, healthy working lives. Colleagues may remember the attempt to change the conduct regulations to allow agency workers to replace striking workers, which we opposed, because at the REC we believe in protecting temps and putting them in the right space.
The most important thing for our sector is the proposal to apply the same tests and rules on zero-hours contracts to agency workers as to directly employed workers. I will be really frank about that: there is a power in the Bill, we have been through the consultation, and we cannot see how any of the approaches in the consultation work. For some of the reasons that Allen has set out, agency workers are well protected. They benefit from the Employment Agencies Act 1973, from their own set of conduct regulations—the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, passed by the last Labour Government—and from the Agency Workers Regulations 2010.
There is a lot we can do to deliver the Government’s commitment to more certainty for agency workers—it is just not by applying the powers in the Bill. We fear that the Government are trying to avoid direct employers moving to agency to avoid the powers in the Bill. A few direct employers doing that is not worth damaging the employment prospects of 1 million people. For instance, if a supply teacher in a school has worked the autumn term to cover a sickness absence, and then the absent teacher comes back, we cannot see how giving that supply teacher a right to a contract from that school is good for the school or the supply teacher. Ultimately, we think that we will just see a move to using more overtime and lengthening the working hours of existing staff. That will be net negative for the workforce.
I think there are things that we can do on the zero-hours rules to protect agency workers, but it is not applying the proposals in the Bill. More generally, I think our members would say that the Bill feels a little undercooked in its thinking. I think it is a very quick Bill, and that there is quite a lot in it that employment lawyers and our members are looking at and thinking, “How would that work?” A classic example would be the collective consultation sections of the Bill. I do not think it is in anyone’s interests for large companies employing thousands of people to be stuck in perpetual collective consultation when they are shutting down one site with 20 people in it. That is just an example of one of the things that maybe need to be worked out through regulation—lots of this is in regulation—but we need to ensure that we are not putting up barriers to employment with the Bill.
Justin Madders
Q
Allen Simpson: It is more about the unknown. Again, reasonable notice is an important principle and there should be protections. I think that the challenge will be—I notice, by the way, from what I understand from having read what is, again, a complex and lengthy piece of work, that the Government are intending to leave it to case law and employment tribunal systems to figure out what “reasonable notice” means. In general, with different sorts of work, it is reasonable to say that there are different versions of what “reasonable notice” means. If I were going to go and work on an oil rig for three months, I would want more notice of a change of shifts than if I was going to work in the local pub. Therefore, I think it is partly about figuring out what the right starting position for notice is. It is partly about reflecting differences in things, such as whether it comes with a residential element; there are questions around that.
Then there are some practical things that I think will come out in the wash, but do need considering, such as shift swapping. What if two chefs say, “Do you mind covering Saturday, because I want to go out with my friends?” “Yes, of course; that’s fine.” Is that allowed, or can that decision only be taken outwith that notice period? There are also questions around other things. What if you put out a message saying, “There is a shift available; does anybody want it?” Have you made an offer of employment to everybody you have put that message out to? Is there a time after which you are not allowed to do that? One last thing: what if somebody agrees to move their shifts around—so you say on the Friday, “Do you mind coming in this Saturday and you can have next Saturday off?” “Yes, absolutely. Fine.” Is that acceptable?
Therefore, there are there are some practical questions about, first of all, the principle of different suitable notices of shifts depending on different forms of work, and about some practicalities, which I am sure are solvable, around the management of it.
Justin Madders
Q
Neil Carberry: I think it is reasonably well noted that we were disappointed that an employment Bill was not brought forward in the last Parliament. It is time to raise enforcement standards. One of the most common worries that I hear about this Bill, for which I will not hold you accountable, Minister, is the experience that businesses have had of being the ones who comply and take on the on-costs—there are quite significant costs associated with this Bill—and then watching people flout the law and not face enforcement, so a fair work agency is a good idea.
If I may, I have a couple of guide points that we have heard from our members. One is that we are great fans of the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate. We think it does excellent work as our regulator. It sometimes annoys the hell out of me, but that is what it is for. The team there are deeply expert, and, in the creation of the fair work agency, I would be—if you would forgive a Scottishism—scunnered if we lost that expertise. Maintaining expertise as we move into the FWA is really important, and that goes with properly resourcing the FWA and giving it the capacity to maybe draw down some of the claims that currently take two years to go to employment tribunal.
The other thing, which is maybe a bit more challenging, is that, when we have done this in the past, success has been delivered by making these bodies of the labour market, not of the Government. If you go back to the 1970s, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 was guided into existence for its first two decades by the Health and Safety Commission.
As a former low pay commissioner, I will say that we hear a lot about businesses’ views of the minimum wage in the ’90s; they were against the minimum wage at £7.20 an hour in 1999, and that is why it was not introduced. They were in favour of one at the introductory rate, which was developed by the Low Pay Commission. I would really like to see the FWA have that kind of tripartite guiding force to make sure that it is as much of us and our union colleagues as it is of the Government.
Greg Smith
Q
Jim Bligh: Unfair dismissal and the probation periods are a concern for us. Most of our sector uses three or six-month probation periods now. About 85% of our members have told us that that is what they will use. About 6% use 12 months. There would be, I think, a concern about a nine-month period—the reduction from two years. It is critical that performance management from day one does not put a significant burden on SMEs in particular, and it is important that we keep the flexibility. If something is not right for the employee and not right for the employer—that performance is not there, that quality standards or whatever are not met—there should be flexibility in ending that employment relationship, on both sides.
What concerns us about the Bill’s proposals is that young people or people re-entering the workforce—which rightly is a priority for Government as well, and I note that Liz Kendall is speaking about this in the House at the moment—could be shut out under the changes that are coming through in the Bill. Our proposal would be to revert to a 12-month probation period. Obviously, people automatically qualify for unfair dismissal on some elements. It is right that those elements are retained, but it is important to us that you keep that flexibility from 12 months, that you have a light-touch approach and a process there as well, but also that we have enough time to implement.
What concerns us is that we are talking now about changes that will come in, I think, in two years’ time—that is a commitment from Government. That period is welcome, but we are not certain what the final provisions of the Bill will be. There is a long commitment to consultation, which we also welcome. Our proposal would be to implement two years after Royal Assent, to make sure that that concrete security and guarantee is there and that the goalposts are not shifted for employees and employers as they start.
Jamie Cater: I would echo that and agree with those comments. Stepping back slightly to look at the bigger picture, it has become difficult for us, with members, to separate out the impact of the legislation and the impact of the autumn Budget—the increase in employer NICs in particular, but in general the tax burden on businesses. That, taken together with the measures in the Bill, increases the cost and the admin associated with taking on people. There is a risk that that disproportionately impacts people on the edges of the labour market, I suppose.
It is very welcome that the Work and Pensions Secretary is today talking about how to reduce economic inactivity, particularly focusing on skills and health. We really support that focus, but there is a danger that the measures in the Bill, combined with the total cost impact, will make employers less likely to take that risk on someone.
On the protection for unfair dismissal in the statutory probation period, we typically hear from members that the usual approach would be to have a six-month probation period in an employment contract. They might then have a bit of additional flexibility for someone who is a borderline candidate if they need to be kept on probation for a bit longer, perhaps if they need a bit more skills training, experience or additional guidance in something before a firm decision is made about permanent recruitment.
Members often talk to us about effectively a six plus three model, where there is a contractual six-month probation period with the flexibility for an additional three months’ probation if there is a bit of uncertainty. The Government’s stated preference for a nine-month statutory probation period feels about right. That is probably the minimum; we would not want to see it go any lower than that. I think our preference would be 12 months, just to give that additional leeway, but nine months is probably about right for what we see reflected in standard practice from our members.
Justin Madders
Q
Jamie Cater: To come back to the impact of things like statutory sick pay, I think that will help with productivity and retention. We see a huge amount of feedback from member companies about their own investment in health and wellbeing, and the positive impact of that in keeping people in work, helping with productivity and reducing presenteeism. I think the measures on statutory sick pay will help with all those things, including reducing long-term sickness absence, reducing presenteeism and improving people’s productivity. I think all those measures are really positive.
However, what we need to be careful of, and what we are concerned about—going back again to the impact of the Bill alongside the autumn Budget—is that it does not reduce or restrict employers’ ability to continue to invest in all those other things that also improve productivity. We have heard concerns about impacts on training budgets, internal budgets for things like occupational health and wellbeing, and investment in technology and new machinery that can help workers to become more productive and efficient. There is a risk that some of the costs associated with the Bill and the autumn Budget mean that those internal investment budgets will be squeezed. There is an opportunity, through some of the measures in the Bill, to improve productivity and improve security for people in the labour market, but we need to ensure that some of those other measures are not undermining those benefits.
Jim Bligh: I agree with that as well, and I endorse everything that Jamie just said. I think that the statutory sick pay clarifications are particularly helpful, and the clarity on parental leave should be helpful too. Flexibility is also important, and we need to ensure that the flexible working practices that are already widespread in our sector, as I know they are in other sectors as well, are protected and clear. I think there are concerns that potentially outweigh some of those benefits, which we are very keen to explore with the Government through the consultation periods.
Justin Madders
Q
Jim Bligh: I think we would accept that your manifesto had a pledge to remove it from two years and take it back down. We are aware, and we are grateful for the fact, that Government have moved it from day one up to nine months—I think that is really important. Pragmatically, we should look at a 12-month window instead, which worked well before and we think could work well again in future.
Jamie Cater: This depends on the detail of what comes in secondary legislation and on further consultation about exactly how that statutory probation period works, particularly the light-touch process for fair dismissal during the nine-month period.
From our perspective, the lighter touch the better. Businesses will want to know that they will have what they need in terms of following the correct process. I am thinking about ACAS having the capacity to update things like their disciplinary and grievance procedures. If and when there are claims going to an employment tribunal around unfair dismissal, the tribunal system must have the resources to deal with the potential uptick in the number of claims going through that system. So it is about how that fair dismissal process works following the consultation process, and then ACAS and the employment tribunal having the right resources to cope with that.
Justin Madders
Q
Mick Lynch: I am hoping it will be, Minister. I am hoping that bad employers will have to think twice about being badder again, in P&O’s terms. I have to emphasise that we were on good terms with P&O. We— both unions—were negotiating their new vessels. They deceived us deliberately. They took legal advice that, rather than negotiate with us the new-technology vessels that were coming in, they would rather sack all their people and break the law, and use security guards to get our people out.
We need good enforcement, a powerful agency that knows what it is doing and has a clear remit, and the right deterrents. I think that goes into company law in some ways. I do not think any of those people were worried about being disbarred as directors, as fit and proper persons and all the rest of it, and I do not think they were worried about their profits being affected by any fine they would get. As it happens, I do not think anything has happened to them at all. As a director, you have got to think about whether you are going to pay your VAT, whether you are going to pass on the national insurance, and whether you are going to pay the rates and all the bills from your suppliers. You should be thinking very seriously about the consequences for you in employment law, and other laws related to employment.
But as trade unions—as representatives of the workers —we have got to have the power to intervene where we know employers are breaking the law. That is a real shortcoming. The power is all with the employers. They can injunct me personally. They can injunct my trade union. They can close us down for making clerical errors on ballots—just misnaming or misbranding the grades in a dispute—and they will do it if they get any chance. We have no power to injunct them on behalf of our members, it seems. I think that needs to be considered. The fair work agency and its enforcement powers should be at the level of injunction to stop these rogues getting away with it in the future.
Martyn Gray: I agree with that. I would add that what is quite helpful is the Bill’s removal of vessels being treated as individual establishments. That is particularly helpful when it comes to redundancy consultations, and what we saw with previous case law under previous legislation. In the case of Seahorse Maritime v. Nautilus International it was determined that each individual vessel had to be treated as a single establishment. That removed the right for operators with significant GB links anyway—in those particular circumstances—to circumvent the need to consult with recognised trade unions on what amounted to mass redundancies. There were more than 20 people being made redundant from that particular employer, but they were able to circumvent that, because each individual vessel was treated as a single establishment. That is a really helpful feature of the Bill, and something that I think should be celebrated and praised. It is going to be very helpful in our being able to defend our members’ rights and hold companies to account for their responsibilities when going through a redundancy process or collective consultation on business restructuring in organisations.
Linking that point to P&O Ferries, it would not have made a difference there; each of the P&O Ferries establishments was more than 20, so there would have been a requirement for the collective consultation anyway. Indeed, two of the P&O Ferries operations would have been more than 100 people, so they would have required slightly lengthier consultation periods under the legislation. However, this Bill will be helpful in a wider maritime context, where there are smaller numbers of seafarers engaged, in being able to defend their rights and interests and really hold a company to account over the need to make those redundancies. The change to fire and rehire is quite helpful as well, with businesses needing to demonstrate a clear and identifiable need instead of seemingly being able to operate on a whim.
Gemma Griffin: I do not disagree with any of that. Talking about significant ties to the UK, this is something that you have to keep in your mind. Often in shipping there are myriad different employers based outside the UK—the flag of the vessel can be EU, in many cases, or UK or whatever. When you look at the Dover straits, yes, DFDS has both UK and French flagged vessels, but our vessels are doing 42 sailings a day in and out of Dover port, and up to 54 in the summertime. Other operators are doing more or less the same. If that is not a clear link to the UK, I would like to know what is. It is not the same as one sailing every day out of a port in the North sea.
As an operator that holds our seafarers in good stead as the absolute backbone of our organisation, I would like to be able to see a way of capturing that in UK law, so that we will not find yet another loophole, with the flag state being responsible but doing nothing and the port state, in this case the UK, wanting to do something but not capable of doing it. That sounded like a bit of a riddle—I do apologise.
Justin Madders
Q
Let me pick up on something you said earlier, Mick, though others can answer as well if they want. You talked about injunctive relief as a potential solution to the threat of fire and rehire. We are consulting at the moment on measures including interim relief as a potential action that unions can take on behalf of their members. Can you say a little bit about why you would prefer injunctive relief, rather than interim relief?
Mick Lynch: Interim relief can take time, and I am not convinced that tribunals will have the power and the kudos to achieve it. I am not a lawyer, as you know, Minister, but I want the ability for unions to make an intervention on behalf of workers. It would have to be based on law and something that the company has done wrong, but it seems to me that injunctions are immediate and carry the weight of a higher court. When we get injuncted under the anti-trade union laws, it is at the High Court and it is immediate, and there is no doubt about the effect of that injunction. If you want to defy it, it is on your organisation’s head, whether that is a trade union or a multinational company.
If it is not called injunctive relief, I do not mind—I do not mind whatever way the Bill comes out—as long as it has the power of immediacy and enforceability through proper channels. That is what we want to see. We do not just want a slap on the wrist that the company factors in; if you have added another £10,000 to the fine, but they are sacking 2,000 people, they do not really care. What we want is for them to be forced to stop the activity, subject to the full force of the law, not just a minor blip on their spreadsheet. Whether it is called an injunction or interim relief, I do not mind. If the tribunals are beefed up so that they can do that, that is fine, because that can be a good channel as well. I am open to suggestions on that, but I hope we get the power to do it.
Justin Madders
Does anyone else want to respond?
Martyn Gray: We have spoken about unintended consequences, but an intended consequence of this Bill is addressing an imbalance between the rights of employers and of employees and workers in the UK. As a trade union, we are subject to much higher bars and thresholds when it comes to being prevented from enforcing the rights of our members or the rights of workers, and from standing up for what is right, what is appropriate and what is fair. It would be good to have a mechanism where an employer can be held to the same scrutiny, can be held to account in the same way and with the same preventive immediacy, without the consequences that we would have to face—because employers do not face the consequences if that injunction is granted and it then turns out not to be fair or appropriate, or if it is done on appeal; that is just dealt with.
This measure is about fairness and being appropriate. It is right that unions can make interventions on behalf of the members they represent, and can do so without needing to worry about having to put significant amounts of members’ money at risk. Should that then turn out to be something that needs to be resolved at a later date, unions tend not to pick those particular fights and arguments without having first looked very carefully at what is within the realms of the law and what is not. It would be extremely unusual that that mechanism would be abused, should it be granted. It is really important to ensure that the intended consequences of placing the rights of workers and of employers, and of trying to increase the rights of workers to a point at which they can address some of the imbalance, are supportive here. That would be a big help in being able to defend the rights of workers.
Gemma Griffin: I agree. The very nature of the thing is that employers and organisations are larger than employees. If employees are not able to collect themselves to a sum total where their voices can be heard, then they have no chance. There is something fundamentally wrong in this day and age that a union agreement can just be put to one side and actions taken—just completely and utterly taking the voice away from employees. When we look at how the United Kingdom operates on an international level, we are quite happy to sit with the unions and employers to negotiate at International Labour Organisation level and International Maritime Organisation level and so on—but when we come home into our own shores, those rules do not apply. The unions are not the enemy of our organisations.
It is a really poor message that we are sending out: that organisations that do the right thing and, like DFDS, recognise employees’ rights are disadvantaged, because before we sell a single ticket to a passenger, we are already hugely more costly than our operators in the same field. But we make the choice to start a race to the top instead of joining that race to the bottom.
Greg Smith
Q
Paul Nowak: Can I make a point first about the symbiotic nature of the relationship between Labour and the unions? We certainly have a shared history and shared values, and in some cases we have unions that are affiliated to the Labour party. The TUC represents those 5.3 million workers regardless of who is in government, and it does not have a formal relationship with the Labour party. Our job as trade unionists is always to want more and better for working people. I think it is important to recognise that this will be the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in decades—I was going to say in a generation, but it is more than that. It will directly benefit millions of working people.
I came in at the end of the last panel, and Mick was talking about sectoral collective bargaining. The Government have indicated that the first fair pay agreement will be in social care. We would love to see that approach—those fair pay agreements—rolled out to other sectors of the economy. That is a point that we will make going forward.
It would be churlish not to accept that the Bill is a big upgrade to workers’ rights and to union rights. This will be the first time that a Government have repealed anti-union legislation in my 35 years as a union activist, and I think it is really important that they do. If we take the minimum service levels legislation as an example, we always warned that it would be unworkable. It was red-flagged by the Regulatory Policy Committee and by the Government’s own impact assessment when it was introduced, and not a single employer has ever used the legislation. We will be positive; there will always be more that we would like any Government to do on behalf of working people, but this is a really important piece of legislation.
Maggi Ferncombe: I agree. To be frank, as the largest trade union in the country, the political stripe of the Government does not matter to us; we will obviously do what we can to improve public services and the terms and conditions and salaries of workers in those public services. You asked what more we would want, but, to be honest with you, we want an extension of what is already in the Bill: the opportunity to have some sort of legal mechanism for collective claims. Individual workers, unions when they are involved, employers and employment tribunals spend hundreds and hundreds of hours trying to deal with individual claims from individual workers. An unintended consequence would be the savings to employers from not having to deal with individual claims that take years to go through tribunals. If there was an opportunity to have a mechanism to deal with it collectively, it would save everyone time and money, including employers.
Dave Moxham: We have a disproportionate number of zero-hours contracts in Scotland, probably because we have proportionally more small businesses as part of the UK economy. We welcome the moves in the Bill to address that. I heard the evidence given by the last panel, and from our perspective the majority of employers do not use them but they have an intensive impact. For the last 10 years, the STUC has run a campaign called BetterThanZero, which goes out daily and talks to these workers, who are predominantly, but far from all, young workers. The impact on their lives—ergo the impact on the economy because of their lack of stability, certainty and security—has a far wider effect than on just the individual and cannot be overestimated. When we look at the provisions currently in the Bill, we certainly believe that what defines a short-hours contract and some of the other things that have yet to be decided need to be quite strong. If you go on to the internet, you can already see discussions among employers about how they will circumvent the proposals, so that will be one area where we will be looking for strength.
Hannah Reed: There is an awful lot to welcome in the Bill, and I will not take up the Committee’s time by listing it. We can submit evidence to you on equality rights, trade union rights and so on.
Like all Committee members, I am sure, we are keen to ensure that the Bill comes out as watertight legislation that makes a real difference to people’s rights. There are some elements of the Bill where we would want to continue working with you as a Committee and with the Government to tighten up what we consider to be potential loopholes, and I will briefly name three areas.
The first is the provisions on fire and rehire. Unite’s concerns are that some of the uses of heavy-handed tactics by employers that we saw during the pandemic and since could still be lawful under this Bill. We are concerned that employers may be able to justify fire and rehire in certain circumstances, and our view is that there needs to be a total ban. We are not confident that the employment tribunals will look behind the corporate veil or question an employer’s arguments for why they needed to use fire and rehire tactics, so we do not think it goes far enough. Importantly, there is nothing in the Bill at the present time that stops the employer from sacking the workforce. While we welcome the Government’s consultation on interim relief, we, like previous participants. would like to see some measures before that that stop the employer and require them to open their books to demonstrate to forensic accountants that changes are needed, and to provide a genuine opportunity for negotiation with trade unions. We are very equipped; we know what needs to be done if changes are needed.
Secondly, we would like to see further measures in the Bill to extend collective bargaining. Very briefly, we recognise that there are important measures on statutory recognition in the Bill, but we would like the Government to consider going further, particularly to ensure that laws prevent the abusive practices seen in the recent Amazon campaign. We would also like faster routes to recognition. Workers often have to wait for six months and are repeatedly asked, “Do you want statutory recognition?” They repeatedly say, “Yes, we want statutory recognition,” but employers are given time to fight against the workers’ will. We think there should be a faster route to automatic recognition.
The last point I would raise is on access. I have already talked about the benefits of working people having the opportunity to meet with trade unions in the workplace, to tackle discrimination and press for better pay and conditions through negotiation. We would like to ask the Government to look at the access measures, to see if there are ways of having a default or free-standing right of access so working people have a genuine right to democracy and representation at work.
Justin Madders
Q
Paul Nowak: The research was based on a very modest estimate, taken from the Government’s own suggestions that there would be improvements on things like productivity, reducing absenteeism and bringing back into the workforce people who currently find it difficult to access the workforce, for example because they have caring responsibilities or a need to balance work and family life. We assumed a 1% uptick across those measures —as I say, a very modest assessment—which meant £13 billion-worth of positive impact on the UK economy.
In many ways, this just reflects what already happens in unionised workplaces. One of the things I do as the general secretary of the TUC is to visit places up and down the country, large and small. Some of the most successful and most productive employers in this country —whether it is Airbus, Jaguar Land Rover, Rolls-Royce or, indeed, our largest private sector retailer—are employers who have close working relationships with trade unions and treat their staff with respect.
This legislation is really important, Minister, because it does what it says on the tin. It is about making work pay, and for far too many people in this country, work does not pay at the moment. We have a problem with low-paid, insecure employment, with over a million people on zero-hours contracts. Overwhelmingly, when you ask those individuals if they would like the right to guaranteed hours, poll after poll shows that 80%-plus say they would. When you play that out in practice—I know that the Work Foundation did some work with Wetherspoons. When Wetherspoons offered their staff a choice between zero hours and guaranteed hours, 99% of their staff took the guaranteed hours. That is good for those workers, but it is also good for employers, because workers who are securely employed, who feel good about their work and who are supported at work are more productive, and employers are more likely to invest in them. I genuinely believe that this legislation is win-win—it is a win for employees and workers but a win for employers as well, and it is good for the UK economy overall.
Justin Madders
Q
Maggi Ferncombe: Let us take a sector within Unison such as the care sector, where you have low-paid workers who, some of whom are on zero-hours contracts or working away from home, potentially for 10 or 12 hours a day, but only getting paid for five of those. The amount of money they put into their local economy will be a lot smaller than if you had a fair pay agreement with proper regulation, where people were paid adequate salaries and had better opportunities to train.
We must bear in mind that the care sector has one of the largest vacancy rates, with 130,000 vacancies at the moment. That is simply because care workers are either taking on additional part-time jobs in the evening or morning—I do not know when they have time—or taking on jobs in supermarkets or call centres because they can get paid far more. If they were paid a better salary, they would put more money into their local economy and would pay more tax. Ultimately, that would be the benefit for the economy from that particular sector. Those 130,000 vacancies are a growing problem; we are an ageing population, and having a properly remunerated workforce in social care will bring nothing but benefits. It is very hard to quantify how much that will be; it all depends on what the fair pay agreement comes out with.
Dave Moxham: I will just quote a number of different quantifications. I know that small businesses, particularly in hospitality, have been a large focus for this Bill and more generally. The estimates made by hospitality businesses of the cost of staff turnover are anything from £5,000 an employee to £15,000 an employee, although none of those are my estimates. Then consider that it is an industry with incredibly high turnover—we are talking a 30%-plus turnover. I have not done the sums, because there are various estimates, but you can work out how a relative improvement in retention would impact the hospitality sector. Some of the measures here that we believe would encourage lower-paid hospitality members to stay in the workplace would have an incredible impact.
Hannah Reed: We do hope that the Bill will lead to an expansion in collective bargaining, because it is the tried and tested method and internationally recognised as the best way of improving pay and conditions and reducing staff turnover. We know that there is a skills shortage in this country; reducing turnover and investing in skills, which is what trade unions work with employers to do, will have significant economic benefits, including improved productivity.
I must confess that today I quickly read the Regulatory Policy Committee report, which raised questions about whether the measures in the Bill are justified. Speaking as a trade unionist who speaks on a daily basis to working people, there is not a single measure in the Bill that is not needed. One of the risks with impact assessments carried out by the Government—we hope that the Government will look at this—is that often they capture quantitative data but do not look at the qualitative data. What is the actual experience of working people in the workplace? Where is the harm and what needs to be addressed? We know that in hospitality, for example, one of the big issues our members face is a lack of security or certainty over hours. The costs of childcare for hospitality workers are huge, and the inability to pay rents or even dream of saving for a mortgage is a very significant problem.
There are also real problems of sexual harassment. One of the things that really surprised me was that the RPC said that it could not see a justification for further regulation of third-party harassment. To give some statistics, the NHS staff survey this year showed that 8.67% of NHS staff experience some form of harassment by either the public or patients every year. We know that there are major staff shortages in the NHS. Exposing our workforce to harassment by third parties is a major problem.
In hospitality, it is far more rife. Unite did our own survey that showed that 89% of our members reported being subject to some form of sexual harassment in the last year. Many of them—56%—said that that was from customers, and at least half our members said that they were considering leaving the workplace because of the sexual harassment they have experienced. There are many rights in the Bill that we believe will help to deliver better employment and support businesses to become more productive and more profitable.
Justin Madders
Q
Paul Nowak: I think it is a misplaced concern. Union recognition ballots are the only democratic test that we have where we would expect not only to get simple majorities, but to have 40% of those who are eligible to vote voting in favour. I think it puts a barrier in place towards unionisation. We would not use that democratic test in a parliamentary election, a local council election or the election of a leader of a political party, and it seems perverse to put that obligation on unions and workplaces.
Unions derive their credibility and their ability to represent people from being genuinely representative of the workforce, and it is in nobody’s interest to have a union that only represents a minority of the workforce. Unions are always striving to represent the majority of the workforce in workplaces, and I think we do that and prove that very effectively in workplace after workplace.
At the moment, the system is effectively gamed towards hostile employers to frustrate the will of people to join a union. We effectively count abstentions as no votes. Again, that is not a democratic test that we would put up anywhere else. Taken alongside the other provisions in the Bill, including the union right to access the workplace, the simplification of the recognition procedure is really important in representing the democratic view of the workforce.
Going back to a previous point, I think it is important to say this, Minister. No piece of legislation requires people to join a union or requires a workforce to vote for union recognition. All those decisions rest with the workers themselves. That is a really important underpinning point for the way we do trade unionism in this country. With this change in legislation, we get a level playing field for unions.
Justin Madders
Does anyone else want to come back on that one?
Maggi Ferncombe: Can I just make a point? It is almost like unions are the enemy, when you hear certain businesses talk. Unions have a common goal with every employer where we organise, and that is for the organisation to do well, because that means that the staff and the workers will do well as well. Especially in the sectors that I represent, we have an absolute common goal with all the public sector bodies. We want good-quality public services. Working with trade unions is the best way to achieve that, and good employers know that. Good employers know that working with us will save them time, money and energy. They will have a workforce that are much happier in what they are doing, and they will be more productive, with less sick days. The statistics are all around. Putting additional barriers in place where workers cannot undertake the fundamental right of joining a trade union—I think it is a false barrier, to be perfectly honest with you, because if workers really want to join, they will.
Dave Moxham: Very briefly on the access issue, individual workers should have the right to say yes or no, but in order to exercise their right, they need to know the possibility. The possibility comes from very simple, but hopefully very straightforward and not bureaucratic, arrangements that expect an employer once in a while to provide access for a union to speak to those workers. It should be really simple. You do not get to exercise the right to say yes or no if you do not know in the first place.
Hannah Reed: I have one quick comment. I totally agree with the points on access. Trying to think about it from an employer’s perspective, if a substantial number of workers within your workplace are saying, “We want trade union recognition,” ignoring that—saying no to those requests—must have an impact on staff morale.
Another point we would add is that our concern is that the statutory recognition provisions are not balanced. All the provisions at present tend to be weighted too much towards the employer, because the employer can delay the process, providing them with more and more time during statutory recognition to invest resources and put pressure on workers not to vote for recognition.
We welcome the consultation from the Government, and we want to work with them to strengthen the provisions to provide much earlier access, so that it becomes the norm in the workplace that the trade union is present and that workers can ask questions, but also that there are stronger unfair practice provisions. I know that we look at international practices, and I noticed in the States just last week that the National Labour Relations Board actually made it unlawful for employers to hold meetings with staff for the purpose of trying to convince them not to support recognition.
Could you imagine a law within the UK—we hope we could get to this point—where there is actually a level playing field, and where employers cannot create a hostile environment and say to workers, “You cannot have a democratic right. You cannot have your choice to have a say”? That is what collective bargaining is: giving workers a say over their own pay and their own terms and conditions. That is not something that is foreign; it is just about empowering workers to have their voices heard by their employers.
Greg Smith
Q
Jemima Olchawski: At Fawcett, we really welcome the Bill. Overall, we still have an economy and workplaces that consistently disadvantage and exclude women. That means that they are much more likely to be on zero-hours contracts, to be in low-paid work and to be held back by a lack of access to quality flexible part-time work. Each of those issues is intensified for most black and minoritised women, and for disabled women. The situation results in serious consequences for individual women. We have a gender pay gap of just under 14%. On average, women take home just over £630 a month less than men. It also has a detrimental impact on our economy, because it is a marker of the ways in which women are not fully participating or contributing to the economy at their full potential. Estimates indicate that that means we are missing out on tens of billions of pounds of GDP.
We strongly support the measures as an important step towards redressing that balance. In particular, we are pleased to see the inclusion of equalities action plans as an important way to get employers to drive forward progress on the gender pay gap. We are glad to see the emphasis on the importance of flexible working and the day one right to statutory sick pay, which will have a disproportionate beneficial impact on women, as well as further protection from sexual harassment in the workplace. Some 40% of women experience sexual harassment at some point during their career.
There are areas where we would like to see additional inclusions or things going further. Flexible working is incredibly important for women who have caring responsibilities and continue to do the majority of unpaid care, and having access to flexible work is vital to enable them to progress and earn to their full potential. We would like to see a duty on employers to advertise jobs as flexible, rather than a situation where women have to wait until they are in a job before they can begin that conversation. You cannot move into a new job if you are not sure whether you will be able to replicate the flexibility that you have in an existing role. That leads to women being under-employed and their skills underused.
The day one rights to maternity, paternity and parental leave are important, but they have to be remunerated. There has to be a day one right to pay if we actually want people to take it. Particularly if we want men to take on more caring roles, we need to make sure we have a refocus on remunerated leave, and that includes parental leave. We welcome the fact that there will be a review, but we need to think about this as part of those measures.
I would like to see more around equal pay in the Bill. Measures could be taken that would support women to access fair pay, such as pay transparency and ending salary history questions. The last thing I would like to see more on is making sure that there is proper enforcement of those rights—that the enforcement bodies are properly resourced and have the teeth to ensure that the rights really hold.
Joeli Brearley: It is a big question that you have asked. I support everything that Jemima has just said. We are very supportive of the Bill, but I think there is a lack of clarity on some of the areas that we are particularly interested in. On flexible working, we are really pleased to see that the Government want to make it the default way of working. That is really important, but we need to know exactly how, and what mechanisms will be in place to do that. The current law on flexible working isn’t working. We want to see an advertising duty as well, which I am sure we can explore in a bit more detail later.
We are also very supportive of parental leave being moved to a day one right. It is kind of amazing that that is not in place already. But without it being remunerated, take-up will be very low. We would have liked to see more on parental leave. We have a shockingly low rate of pay for maternity. We have the worst paternity benefit in Europe. This is causing huge problems for families, particularly new families that have just had a baby. They are getting themselves into terrible amounts of debt. Also the way that our parental leave system is structured means that women are responsible for the care of a baby. They tend to take long periods of time out of work, whereas men tend to go back to work very quickly. They fall into the role of breadwinner, and the woman falls into the role of caregiver, and that continues for the rest of their lives—which is why there is such a large gender pay gap.
The redundancy protections are great. Again, we are very pleased to see that, but we need specifics about what it means. We would like to see that pregnant women and new parents can only be made redundant in exceptional circumstances. By that we mean when a business is closing or perhaps when a service has stopped being delivered. It is very difficult, if you are made redundant when you are pregnant or have just had a baby, to get another job. Often you are made redundant and then cannot access statutory maternity pay. These are very particular circumstances. We know that many women are still being made redundant when they are pregnant or when they are new mums; 17% of calls we get to Pregnant Then Screwed are related to redundancy, so it is a big problem.
What we do not have at the moment, but really need, is data that shows us what is happening on the ground. A report was done by the Equality and Human Rights Commission under the coalition Government that found that 54,000 women a year are pushed out of their jobs for getting pregnant or for taking maternity leave, and 77% of new mums experience some form of discrimination. That report was done in 2016, and there was a guarantee at that point that the report would be done again five years later. It is now nine years later and we still do not have any new data to show us exactly what is happening on the ground. Without it we are making decisions in the dark, so we would really push for that report to be done again.
We would have liked to see something in the Bill on non-disclosure agreements. Our research found that 435,293 mothers had been gagged by non-disclosure agreements when experiencing some form of discrimination. It is a serious problem. Again, we do not know what is happening in companies across the country. Women tend to experience this form of discrimination and are then forced to sign these agreements and are given a low amount of compensation. They suffer mental health consequences because of that. We want to see the UK follow what Ireland has recently done, so that non-disclosure agreements cannot be enforced unless the claimant wants them to be. We would also have liked to see something in the Bill on miscarriage leave, because at the moment there is no right to any leave or pay if you miscarry before 24 weeks. We would have liked to see something on fertility treatment. As many of you will know, we have a baby crisis in the UK—we are not having enough babies. We want to encourage people to have fertility treatment, so we need a legal right to time off.
We would like to see something on reasonable adjustments. There are currently reasonable adjustments if someone has a disability, but not if they have a dependant with a disability. Many mothers of disabled children are struggling in the workplace because they need time off for appointments, or whatever it may be. We would like to see a requirement for all employers to publish parental leave policies.
Justin Madders
Q
Jemima Olchawski: There is strong evidence that the majority of sexual harassment experienced in the workplace comes from third parties. This is where someone experiences harassment from a client, customer or patient. Some of those who are most vulnerable would include those working in retail and hospitality. It is essential that anyone working in those environments is as safe as they can be and respected in their workplace. We would consider it essential that employers’ responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment includes third parties, because as a victim, it is not relevant that the person was not a direct co-employee. What matters is the harm experienced. It is absolutely within the bounds of good practice and reasonable steps for employers to address that.
Joeli Brearley: Nothing from me. It is not my area.
Steve Darling
Q
Jemima Olchawski: It could be strengthened by having clear guidance and expectations around the reasonable steps that will prevent. That should include multiple reporting routes, which might be anonymous if that feels more appropriate, and training for managers. Our research shows that managers want to respond appropriately, but often when those conversations come up, they do not know what the right thing to do is. Consequently, lots of those conversations end up going badly, and young people or employees do not get the support they need.
It is also important that enforcement agencies have the resource to investigate whether policies and procedures are in place, so that we can embed a culture of prevention rather than just respond decently when incidents happen. That is in the interests of employers too, because cultures where there is bullying or harassment are bad for productivity and staff turnover. It is in everyone’s interest to ensure we address this and cut it off at the pass.
Joeli Brearley: The only thing I would add is that when women experience sexual harassment or any form of discrimination and want to access justice, the justice system is currently failing them—it is not working. We know, certainly in cases of pregnancy and maternity discrimination, that fewer than 1% of women who have that experience even raise a tribunal claim. Part of what we need to do is extend that time limit to raise a claim. It is currently three months. It needs to be at least six months, so that women have the opportunity to recover from their experience before they start to go through that onerous, difficult process of raising a tribunal claim.
Greg Smith
Q
Alasdair Reisner: It is an interesting question. There is the notification element and the consultation element. I suppose we have to ask what the policy is trying to achieve. If it were trying to avoid people almost hiding redundancies by doing them in small units, I do not think we would have any complaints about ensuring that notification was still required. It is where you are forcing people into consultation who are never going to be made redundant, yet they find themselves under the scope of that. Splitting those two things apart—so you would still have the notification, but you would not necessarily have the consultation for those who are unaffected—is something we are exploring. I do not want to say that that is the silver bullet that will solve things. We have not even discussed that collectively as an industry; we are just trying to consider what options might be on the table.
Justin Madders
Q
Alasdair Reisner: It is a cliché, but we rely on the people we work with, and they must be represented. Having good, positive relationships with the employees’ representatives is crucial. The CIJC has for decades provided us with that vehicle—I should say that it is not the largest overall; it is just the largest in the construction sector. I think back to covid, when we needed a relationship with the workforce that provided us with the independence —I have to say that Unite was brilliant at that time—to engage with the rest of the industry to say, “We’re all working collectively towards a common good.”
From discussing the Bill with members over the past few days, I know that one of the potential concerns is that it might in some way undermine existing collective agreements. I do not think that is written in the Bill; it is more in the discussion that has happened prior to the Bill. That is something we would like to protect. I am not going to pretend it is all sunshine and roses—sometimes it can be quite challenging—but I think we would want to ensure that whatever the outcome of the Bill, there is a strong, positive partnership between the employers’ representatives and the employees’ representatives.
Employment Rights Bill (Third sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Justin Madders
Main Page: Justin Madders (Labour - Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)Department Debates - View all Justin Madders's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Third sitting)
Justin Madders ExcerptsThursday 28th November 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 November 2024 - (28 Nov 2024)
Greg Smith
Q
James Lowman: There are probably three things. First, those issues are becoming a challenge in the recruitment and retention of people. I understand that from the point of view of colleagues, who go back to their family and find that their family is not comfortable with them going to work in an environment where they can be subjected to violence, with inadequate support from the police and others. That is probably a generous assessment from me.
There are particular provisions in the Bill related to employers taking all reasonable steps around preventing harassment. That concerns our members, because, as they see it, they and their colleagues together are the victims of crime, so they then need to have responsibilities for how the 15 million customers a day who use convenience stores might behave. That needs to be very carefully brought out in guidance and regulations, in terms of what those reasonable steps are, because it would be unfair to put further burdens on businesses that are already the victims of crime.
I do not believe that the provisions in the Bill would make it harder to recruit on that basis, other than what we talked about in some cases, particularly where there is a higher-risk appointment and retailers are less comfortable making it due to the difficulties of moving that person on, if it was the right thing to do. Harassment is an angle on that, but the Bill’s provisions would not make markedly worse what is quite a challenging situation with recruitment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
Q
Claire Costello: As an employer, we are really pleased to see that it will level up. There are a lot of things in the Bill that we already do. We are delighted to have really good relationships with our trade unions, and we have had access to rights on day one, from a flexibility point of view, for a lot of years. It would be good to see that levelling up across businesses, but I will hand over to my peers here, because they speak on the industry’s behalf, whereas I speak on behalf of an organisation.
Helen Dickinson: I think the answer to the question is, “As long as we do not end up with unintended consequences for responsible businesses.” There are examples that we have already highlighted, and I am sure that we can find some more. The goal surely has to be to ensure that the detail of the measures is firmly targeted at the unscrupulous. That is good for everybody, because it levels the playing field and gets rid of poor practices. I think everybody here would be 110% aligned behind that.
At the moment, the risk is in certain parts of the Bill. There is obviously a very open and sequenced consultation process, so the most critical thing is the adequacy, the collaboration and the ability of unions, employers and Government to work together to ensure that we do not end up with those unintended consequences. I am sorry to say, “It depends,” but the answer is that it depends.
James Lowman: I agree: it does depend. Just to give you a flavour of how flexibility works in our sector, a lot of changes to shift patterns are from colleague to colleague, often through apps or WhatsApp groups. That is the reality of how shifts change. One of the people working shifts is often the owner of the store, so it is very much something that they are doing with those colleagues.
It is really important that the Bill, in wanting to codify and formalise some of those rights, which is good and fine, does not remove some of the flexibility and the informality, which is part of what gives flexibility on both sides. One of the reasons why we have great staff retention in our sector is that people want those local jobs where they have that flexibility; it fits in with their lives. It is really important that in framing regulations and guidance, we deal with things such as how businesses can respond to late changes in availability. There are often circumstances completely beyond our control—for example, there could be a massive delivery disruption or extreme weather changes. These are the realities of running a store.
Helen Dickinson: So does sickness.
James Lowman: And sickness, which we may come on to. Those factors are particularly challenging in a small store. If you have 16, 17 or 18 people working in a large store and you are one person down, that is a problem. If you have two or three people working in a shop and you are one person down, that is catastrophic in the context of that shift. That shift is important to customers, the other colleagues and the business. In enshrining greater flexibility it is important that we actually deliver greater flexibility, rather than inhibiting the flexibility that is already baked into the way we operate day to day.
Justin Madders
Q
Claire Costello: All of the above. We pride ourselves on being as forward thinking as we can be. There is always an affordability in there, but we tend to listen very clearly to our colleagues. We work closely with our unions as well. We have focused on areas that our colleagues have told us are important to them. If I look at the bereavement policy in the Bill, for example, we built that in. We worked with Cruse, a charity that is significant in that sector, and have done something pretty unique in terms of support.
The Bill is a great development for industry. There are things that we have done, which were already quite different, in there. We do not insist that it is within the first 50 days; we ask for them to use it flexibly, because it could be a significant birthday or date. We also do not limit it to direct family members because, in today’s modern family and society, it is not always your parents who are the closest to you. We have made it based on the relationship that you have with the person that has passed, and therefore what bereavement means to you may be different.
You might want to take a week off at the beginning. It may be that you want a couple of days, and then four or five weeks later you need a couple of days, or even a year later you need to take time off because it is an anniversary and you need to support people. Things like that are where we have written policies and worked with our colleagues to do something that works for them. It is to drive retention. It is to drive engagement. It does mean that we have, hopefully, a happy group of people who want to work with us. As a member-based organisation, that is important to us.
Another good example on the bereavement policy is that I noticed that it did not cover pregnancy loss. Again, that is a policy that we have worked really hard on and I think that is an opportunity to put something slightly different into the Bill, because bereavement is bereavement. How do we make sure that it covers all aspects of it in the right way?
Justin Madders
Q
Helen Dickinson: No, the overarching point is exactly as has been said. The most successful retail businesses are ones that have highly engaged workforces that are aligned to the objectives of the business and feel part of the success of a company. People who feel like that are going to work harder and the business is going to be more successful. It is all part of a reinforcing system. If it is done well, from an individual company point of view, the exemplars are the more successful businesses. It comes back to ensuring that the Bill targets those at the bottom of the pile, those that are not engaging in the right way in having forums for employee engagement or having a two-way dialogue on flexible working or whatever it might be. It should be a win-win, but I think the risk is big in terms of making sure that we do not end up with those unintended consequences.
James Lowman: Retail is based on respect for colleagues and customers. That is how businesses work, and I think that the Bill and the principles here are very much in line with that.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Q
Helen Dickinson: That would help. I am jumping straight in, because I feel quite strongly about this one. I do not want to rerun some of the challenges of the Budget, but the pace of additional costs that have come in for every business—particularly for retail, because of the nature of flexible work, with a lot of part-time contracts and the changing of the threshold—means that every single retailer in the country needs to look very hard at their investment plans and workforce plans, and everything that sits around that.
I think that everybody sort of breathed a sigh of relief with the clarity that the timetable was for 2026, but even now, looking at the scale of the proposals, it would be great to have more visibility over the sequencing of the different consultations, so that the industry can gear up in the right way to be able to respond effectively to them, and to make sure that we have longer than six-week periods to respond, with four consultations all going on at the same time, because that all makes it quite a challenge.
Coming back to the direct point of your question, in terms of implementation, if there are changes that need to be made in companies, I think that a run-in, or an implementation period that is workable and that gives those companies the chance to make any changes to processes, is a necessity for ensuring that the Bill lands in the right way and that we do not again end up with some of those unintended consequences. I think the Budget has unfortunately made the backdrop that much more challenging, just because of the things that people already need to deal with now and over the next six months.
Claire Costello: I will add to the piece around implementation timing: it is really easy to think of this as, “Oh, it’s straightforward; it’s about writing a policy, then, once you are in a business, sharing that with your colleagues, making sure that your line managers know what is expected of them, and landing it.” Much of what we are talking about here will require businesses, certainly larger businesses, to think about how their systems are set up as well. It changes your payroll system; it changes your workforce management system. All that is doable, but it is at the same time as other changes that organisations will be working on in the background as well. That is what we need to factor in.
On top of that, where we then have colleagues who are themselves impacted by the changes, it is about making sure that you have time to make sure that they understand that and what it means to them. It is about that run-in. It is about more than the cost; it is quite significant from the point of view of process, understanding and implementation. That is the ask, really—it is the detail and the time.
Helen Dickinson: I am sure that James will have points from a sort of one-establishment type business, but, for multi-site businesses, you could be talking about 10, 100 or 1,000 stores and distribution centres up and down the country, so we should not underestimate the significance of the need for up-front visibility of the changes.
James Lowman: The other change that has happened with the Budget and those additional significant costs on businesses is about how retail businesses respond to them. In maybe a medium-sized business—among our medium-sized members—they might have had to take out layers of management. That might include, for example, HR functions and things like that, and losing that support. In an individual store, with an independent retailer, that retailer is probably working more shifts behind the counter and in the store themselves, rather than working on the business and managing the business. That will be a consequence.
Decisions are being made to cut back shifts to compensate for those significant additional costs, so the ability and the time available for businesses of all sizes—particularly some of the smaller and medium-sized ones —to implement these changes is less than it was before the Budget, or before April. That is the reality of it.
Again, yes, it is partly about timing—that is very important and I align myself with what Helen and Claire have said about that—but that also makes it even more important that the guidance and regulations are absolutely right, so that those already increasingly and additionally stretched businesses are not spending more time in employment tribunals and having to deal with complex interpretations with their colleagues, or struggling to fill shifts and therefore having to work more hours themselves.
Greg Smith
Q
Liron Velleman: At Community, we are confident that the Bill would represent a positive step for our existing members and would allow for greater coverage of trade union membership across the sectors we work in. For example, in the third sector or in education and early years—especially in early years, where, in some of the private provision of nurseries and early years settings, there is not currently as much trade union coverage—the Bill would make it easier for people to join a trade union and see the benefits of membership. On whether it would bring full unionisation of the economy, I am not sure it would necessarily go that far, but some of the onus is on trade unions to make sure that we are delivering, in a modern way, the best way for working people in this country to understand the benefits that they could receive by joining one of our unions.
Joanne Cairns: I agree with Liron. We have good relationships with a number of major employers where we are recognised. You heard earlier from the Co-op. We are recognised there and by a number of other major employers. However, across the retail sector, trade union membership is currently at around only 12%, which is a similar level to the rest of the private sector. Very often, the reason people have not joined a union is simply that they have not had the opportunity to find out about what a union does—nobody has ever asked them to join a trade union. We think that the rights that the Bill will bring in around access to workplaces will be particularly important. The Bill will also simplify the statutory framework around recognition, which is currently extremely burdensome and makes it very difficult for trade unions to gain statutory recognition, particularly with larger employers.
Justin Madders
Q
Joanne Cairns: Across the whole economy, precarious employment is a major issue. There is clearly a need for policy intervention in the labour market. The TUC estimates that one in eight people are in precarious employment, and that has risen by 1 million people since 2011. It has risen nearly three times faster than secure employment. That is certainly backed up by what we see with our members. Living standards have fallen quite significantly, and the impact of insecure work on our members is significant.
Of our members, 40% tell us that they have missed meals to pay their bills, 73% cannot afford to take time off work when they are ill, 15% struggle to pay their bills every month, and more than half have told us that financial worries are having an impact on their mental health. The level of statutory sick pay and the three waiting days for it is an issue of major concern for our members, as is having contracts that do not reflect the hours that they normally work. We welcome the Government taking action in those areas.
Steve Darling
Q
Liron Velleman: The Bill should have a positive impact on productivity. Following on from Joanne’s previous answer, when people are in insecure work, they are worried about whether they are going to lose their job tomorrow, whether they will lose some of their benefits or pay, and whether they will have the security of knowing what shifts they will be working. Tightening up lots of parts of employment legislation currently on the statute book should give workers extra confidence, so that they will be able to be happy at work and work more flexibly, representing the current state of the economy rather than keeping to how things were. That should, in totality, result in greater productivity for businesses as well as for individual workers.
Greg Smith
What do you base that on?
Nye Cominetti: Internationally, we can draw scatter plots of the employment level in a country and the extent of employment regulation, and basically those lines come out flat. You have some countries with very high employment and very high levels of regulation, and some countries with lower employment and high regulation, so there is no clear relationship with the employment levels across countries. That is confirmed by the OECD, which has done lots of detailed work looking into the impact of periods when countries have either rowed back on reforms or expanded them.
What we do see in the employment data is that when you beef up the reforms around dismissals for individual or collective workers, you tend to see lower hiring rates. So the rate at which workers move around the economy will probably slow down if you make it significantly harder for employers to fire workers, and that gives rise to potential implications for productivity growth. Now, I still think those effects will be small. When the Office for Budget Responsibility, in one or two years’ time, starts putting the numbers into its forecasts, I expect them to be very small indeed. My expectation is that the employment level will be very, very narrowly lower if anything.
To give you some sense of scale, the OBR said it thinks that the employer national insurance contributions bill will be about £25 billion, and that that would lower the employment level in this country by 0.2%. The DBT said that it thinks the direct costs of the measures, including sick pay, are in the order of magnitude of £5 billion. If you compare those numbers, that starts to give you a sense of the scale of potential employment effects that we are talking about. I am sorry not to give you a more exciting answer, but my best guess is that the impact on employment levels will be small.
Justin Madders
Q
Nye Cominetti: It is a good question. One of the ways that I like to think about this package of reforms is that it extends to low-paid workers the kind of everyday flexibilities and dignities at work that people in professional jobs such as me and you take for granted. It is not the case that all low-paid workers hate their job or face the risk of losing their job every week, but it is the case that they experience a higher level of insecurity than higher-paid workers do.
You can look at that in various ways. In recessions, low-paid workers are more likely to lose their job, so they face a higher risk of losing their job in downturns. They are also more likely to rely on statutory sick pay if they fall ill, so for many low-paid workers, falling ill comes with an income shock. That is not the case for someone like me: if I fall ill, I go home and pick up an online meeting or two if I can, but if I cannot, I will get paid as normal. That is not the case for many low-paid workers, so that is a real insecurity.
Obviously, there are zero-hours contracts as well. For low-paid workers, I think roughly one in 10 is on a zero-hours contract. For higher-paid workers—the top fifth in the hourly pay distribution—it is a vanishingly small number and very uncommon indeed. I am sure that you have heard plenty of evidence about the kind of impact on security that zero-hours contracts can bring to some—not all—workers.
The most illuminating statistic is probably that 2 million workers say that they are fairly or very anxious about unexpected changes to their hours of work. You might think that that is because that comes with not just an impact on their life—“I do not know which days I’m going to be working next week, and I have to make it work alongside childcare”—but a potential income risk as well. In many respects, the working lives of low-paid workers are less secure than those of higher-paid workers. My hope is that some of these measures will go some way to redressing that balance.
Justin Madders
Q
Nye Cominetti: I would not want to try. It is not quite the same, but the closest that some studies have tried to get is saying to workers, “Would you consider this alternative job, which would improve your terms and conditions in these respects, but offer you lower pay?” That tries to get at the question of how much pay people would be willing to trade off for those other benefits, such as a more stable income or a better relationship with management.
It does not directly answer your question, but there was a study in America of Walmart workers which found that they would accept a 7% pay cut in exchange for being treated with better dignity by their managers, including things such as better advance notice of their shifts and not getting messed around late in the day to come in and pick up extra hours. I definitely cannot quantify it, but more ambitious researchers might be able to.
Steve Darling
Q
Nye Cominetti: Well, I have a few caveats. First, overall employment rates are lower in high-deprivation areas, so we need to remember that all these measures will have an effect on workers, rather than those who are not working. If you want to improve income levels, this is not the place to do it. As I was just saying, however, we know that low-paid workers experience those issues of insecurity at higher rates than high-paid workers.
You also need to remember that there is not a one-for-one overlap between high pay and high income and low pay and low income. Some low-income households will have higher-paid individuals in them, but because of having a large family or having only one earner rather than two, they will still end up in that low-income category. That caveat aside, it is still the case that any measures that improve working lives for low-paid workers will have the biggest impact on lower-income households.
There are questions about what the knock-on effects are going to be. If you were really optimistic, you might say that some of these measures to improve job quality could even have a positive labour supply effect. We know that, in the 2010s, that was a big driver of improved income at the bottom and massively increased employment among low-income households. So an optimistic take on these measures might be that you could trigger some of those kinds of effects, but that is much more uncertain.
Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Justin Madders
Main Page: Justin Madders (Labour - Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)Department Debates - View all Justin Madders's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting)
Justin Madders ExcerptsThursday 28th November 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 November 2024 - (28 Nov 2024)
Greg Smith
Q
Andy Prendergast: They key thing for us is that everyone who ultimately wants to join a trade union has the option to do so. It is important that people are aware of their rights, aware that they can join trade unions, and aware that they have a right to, for example, SSP on day one, statutory holidays and the minimum wage. Rights that people do not know about and that cannot be enforced are ultimately no use. This is shamelessly partisan, but I would like to see union rates being far higher, and I think that the economy as a whole would benefit from that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
Q
Andy Prendergast: I think the Bill is a major step in the right direction. One of the big problems that we have seen, certainly over the last 30 to 40 years, is the huge increase in insecurity in the workforce. That tends to have a massive impact on the individual concerned and their ability to fully partake in the economy, and to make long-term commitments through mortgages and loans—the kind of stuff that drives the economy. Ultimately, we have seen that as they have lost their guaranteed hours—in zero-hours jobs, for example—and there has been the removal of their employment rights, those people are less able to exercise those rights. So we see the Bill as a major way of moving industrial relations forward.
We would also point to the work around the pandemic. In the last 14 years, we were very much locked out of Government in most areas, yet when the pandemic came around, there was a fantastic bit of work between the CBI, the TUC and the Government, with Rishi Sunak standing on the steps of No. 10 talking about the fantastic work that led to the furlough scheme, which saved millions of jobs and millions of people from poverty. What surprised us is that that great work was then stopped virtually as quickly as it happened. If we look at other G7 countries, a tripartite system is what drives higher levels of productivity, lower levels of inequality, and ultimately, higher levels of investment and economic outcomes. We think that the Bill is a long overdue step in the right direction of moving some power back towards workers and away from businesses, too many of which exist for exploitation.
Mike Clancy: I echo those comments. If we look at the responses from the business community, yes, there is going to be some anxiety about the detail and how it will work—again, I reference my experience not just in ACAS, but from working with employers more generally—but we find ways to do this and operate in practice successfully. Good employers have nothing to fear in the Bill. That is not just good employers that are larger, and we think that with the right degree of consultation, which the Government have committed to, we will be able to address those areas where there are a few wrinkles and things to ensure work in practice.
We have to reflect on what the alternative was. The deregulatory, more de minimis approach to employment regulation applied previously, and if that trajectory had continued, we would not have addressed the issues of precarious work and productivity, and we would not have been able to do that in a way that looks at the workforce of the 21st century, as opposed to looking backwards.
There is a lot in the Bill, but that is not surprising. There will probably be a long period of adjustment. With the right consultation, I think we will get to a position where we look back at this as a milestone in changing how we do things, a paradigm shift in relations. I think that it will drive better engagement not just for unionised workforces, but for workforces more generally, because that is where employers will see that they can answer the challenges on the next generation of technology insertion and organisational design, and make sure that they can get the talent that they need.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
Q
Andy Prendergast: As a union that represents a large number of relatively low-paid people, we regularly come across the barriers to getting back into employment. One of the big ones we have seen is the expectation of flexibility, and specifically one-sided flexibility. We have a lot of people who are on benefits and want to work; unfortunately, often the only jobs they are offered are zero-hours jobs. It is difficult for people on benefits, because it is a bureaucratic nightmare to get on them, and people need to be supported to come off them to a guaranteed wage in a guaranteed job. Too often, they are offered zero-hours contracts, which replaces the guarantee of certain levels of benefit payments with uneven levels of reward. We want to get people back into meaningful work.
There are clauses in the Bill on removing exploitative zero-hours contracts—and the point there is “exploitative”. We look after thousands of Uber drivers, for example, and for them flexibility is very much the driving point. In the same way, a number of people benefit from being on genuine zero-hours contracts. At the same time, organisations such as McDonald’s and Wetherspoons have 80% to 90% of their staff on zero-hours contracts. There is no excuse for that. We find that the moment an individual chooses to exercise their flexibility is the moment they stop being offered shifts. That is a major block on people coming back to work, particularly when they are on universal credit.
We want to be able to give people genuine offers of employment so that they can better themselves, fully take part in the economy and deliver for them and their families. The Bill goes some way towards addressing that.
Mike Clancy: I should make a general point before addressing more specifically the part of the economy your question focuses on. A failure of our economy for many decades now—in contrast with other economies with high levels of unionisation, collective agreement and partnership—is that we have not taken the fear out of change in the economy. That can mean that people’s reaction to change, and their ability to operate in the labour market, is correspondingly reduced. A lot of economies are able to ensure that if people lose employment, they are able to come back into employment much quicker—there are either statutory minima or collective agreements between employers, trade unions and others to make that happen. The Bill asks some fundamental questions about how we want to organise ourselves in the economy and says that, actually, it is better to have places where we convene and talk about the challenges than to do it company by company and enterprise by enterprise, and have an atomised conversation.
Andy touched on zero-hours contracts; we represent a lot of self-employed people, many of whom value their self-employment. Indeed, it is part of the process in film and TV production. They have experienced the precarity of that environment in recent years, particularly in relation to covid, and subsequently there have been other issues in respect of production. The legislation needs to look holistically at the economy. It is important to talk about flexibility in a way that engages all types of worker, not just those who may be able to work hybrid or remotely. The fact that the Bill makes employers, unions and others think about the flexibility proposition has got to benefit people’s ability to come back into the workplace.
Greg Smith
Q
Professor Simms: We have to be realistic about the resource capacity of our trade union movement at the moment. There are certainly things in the Bill that will make life simpler for trade unions—not necessarily easier, but it will require less resource to, for example, organise for a ballot, or to organise a re-balloting during a period of industrial action. At best case, that frees up some capacity to get on with the nitty-gritty of representing workers in the workplace and solving workplace problems. I cannot prove that that is going to happen, obviously, but that is certainly more than possible. But will it free up sufficient capacity to try and organise in the breadth of the retail sector, for example—lots of small employers? Personally, I think that is unlikely. I do not think that the UK trade union movement has that resource capacity at the moment.
Professor Deakin: Historically, what drives unionisation and strike levels is the economy. High inflation drives strike action and tends to drive union membership. Union membership, union activity and strike activity are highly sensitive to the wider economic context, which at the moment probably does not favour a massive increase in union membership. I would be very surprised if this particular measure moves the dial much on membership, and I do not think it will move the dial much on industrial action either.
What could happen, especially with the arrangements for sectoral pay bargaining, is that many workers, whether or not they are in a trade union, would benefit from sector-wide collective norms. That would be the case where the arrangements come in for two sectors that are mentioned in the Bill, and hopefully that is just the start. Other European countries and many countries outside Europe have sectoral collective agreements that, in effect, set a floor for an industry or sector. I am not sure whether you would call that re-unionisation, but I think the coverage of collective agreements is perhaps more important than simple membership, although unions depend on membership for their finances. The economic effects will turn very much on coverage.
Professor Bogg: As I said, the reforms to strike law are fairly modest, and I think that is true of collective bargaining laws. There are two incremental nudges towards sectoral institutions in two sectors, and there are some very modest tweaks proposed to the statutory union recognition procedure—lowering the preliminary membership threshold, potentially, and removing the majority support likely threshold—but it is difficult to see. I do not know what re-unionisation means, I must confess, but I will be very surprised if you see a radical upsurge in union recognition as a result of these very sensible but cautious changes in the legislation.
Justin Madders
Q
I want to ask you in particular, Professor Deakin, about the impact of the regulations on increased productivity and innovation—the general economic benefits. Do you think that that will have a positive impact on such issues?
Professor Deakin: I think so. The evidence internationally is that there is a strong correlation between stronger labour protection and both productivity and innovation. I think that sentiment in the research community has shifted very much in the past 20 years. That is partly because we have better data and probably better methods. Certainly, a generation ago, the World Bank was quite hostile to the idea of labour law and said that labour laws, in aiming to help workers, might harm them. That, however, is no longer the World Bank’s position. The World Bank has said that there can be too little labour law in an economy—too little protection for innovation and productivity.
Of course, productivity has many causes, and the way we regulate labour is only one issue. If we are talking about labour law, though, these reforms are essential to help improve the productivity position. Will this law on its own lead to an improvement in UK productivity? Not necessarily, because that depends upon how we regulate other areas of the economy, and that is affected very much by the way corporate governance works and also by training and other aspects that are not all covered by the Bill. But is this Bill essential in the area of labour law for improving economic performance? Absolutely. Does it go in the right direction? Yes, it does.
The research we have done in Cambridge, which I mentioned in my written evidence, shows that, on average, strengthening employment laws in this country in the last 50 years has had pro-employment effects, for various reasons. That is, as I said in my notes, not a predication or a forecast, but historically in this country, stronger labour laws are not associated with unemployment.
Professor Simms: Could I chip in as well and emphasise the point that Simon has just made about skills and training? Skills and training of managers—the professionalisation of managers—and of our workforce are really crucial ways of shaping productivity and innovation. They intersect very strongly with some of the issues in the Bill.
In general, the push to professionalise management of work—the managerial decisions—is a really important part of that more complex story that Simon has just spoken to. The signals through the law, but also through other areas of policy, to managers, organisations and employers about the professionalisation of their management are a really important thing that the state can do to support that general up-tick in productivity and innovation in general.
Justin Madders
Professor Bogg, do you want to add anything?
Professor Bogg: I am just a simple lawyer; I would not like to offer any views on the economics of it all. I will defer to my expert colleagues.
Justin Madders
Q
Professor Bogg: This is really the most critical point of all. We can enact shiny rights and put them on the statute book, and if they are not enforced, there is not much point to the entire exercise. What will be critical is the proper resourcing for a new body. The right direction of travel is for that to occur through a new agency, rather than having to co-ordinate across different agencies. I think that will make things more efficient.
It is also important that the employment tribunal system is properly resourced. I saw the welcome announcement that the time limits will move from three months to six months, in line with the earlier Law Commission recommendation. As the Lady Chief Justice said, the rule of law costs money in order for it to be done properly, so the tribunal system will have to be properly resourced. There needs to be a commitment to a principle of effective access to dissuasive remedies. That is absolutely central to all of this working or not working.
Professor Simms: Can I pick up on the enforcement case? It is important for the Committee to properly understand that the organisations that will be merged into a new agency have had to cut back, to some extent, on their advice and guidance to employers and employees because of the challenges of resourcing over the last years. They still work in those spaces, but they cannot do it at the scale that they have previously—ACAS in particular. Re-resourcing that expertise to support both employers and workers’ unions to make good decisions that never become a breach of any rights is really important.
Justin Madders
Professor Deakin, anything to add?
Professor Deakin: Enforcement is really critical. We do not have an effective enforcement regime in this country. Recent research on the minimum wage, for example, shows that on the whole, employers that do not comply with it can actually save money by not doing so. They are rarely punished, fined or required to pay wages back in a way that even covers the gains they make by not paying the minimum wage. We are not effectively prosecuting minimum wage breaches. We treat breaches of the criminal law involving theft in a supermarket, for example, and in other contexts extremely seriously. We do not treat wage theft with anything like the same seriousness.
There are hardly any company director disqualifications in cases of non-payment of the minimum wage. The message being given, or the one that has been given, is that compliance with the legal obligations is in some sense optional, and not complying can be profitable for firms. We are not the only country in that position. It is also an issue in the United States.
However, we can do more. We can certainly resource the inspectorate. In my note, I suggested that we can also facilitate collective remedies in addition to individual employment tribunal claims. It is difficult for an individual to take a claim to a tribunal, and it can also be costly for employers, who will, in many cases, have to organise a legal team to fight a case, and they will not get their costs back. It seems to me that neither side is necessarily happy with the way the employment tribunal system is working.
I believe that collective remedies, particularly through arbitration, which can be brought by trade unions—hopefully in future to the Central Arbitration Committee —are more effective than individual claims in many cases. It is not just a question of resourcing the new fair work agency. I think there should be a greater role for collective arbitration, and in my note I made some suggestions based on precedents from the 1970s, which could easily be used again.
Sarah Gibson
Q
Professor Deakin: There is a difference between a complex measure, written initially for lawyers to implement, and communication about that measure once it is enacted. I believe that the essential changes being made by the Bill can be effectively communicated. However, I entirely understand the problem faced by many smaller firms, which often lack resources when confronted with a legal claim. They may be able to take out insurance to cover their costs, but often it is the time spent in dealing with the dispute that is the real issue. I researched that about a decade ago, but I do not think the issues have changed. Often, litigants—claimants—feel unhappy about the way the employment tribunal system is working. Employers also often feel unhappy, even if they win a claim. Since that time, there has been an enormous growth in delays before employment tribunal claims are heard. It is an important issue.
Communication from the Department to all employers will be essential. However, I also think that there is scope for collective remedies, and to reassure smaller enterprises that other firms are complying with the law, so they do not feel under that much pressure not to comply because they see other employers not complying. I very much hope that we are moving towards a system of labour law in which we need less enforcement and litigation, with an inspectorate that is trusted by both sides. Countries such as Japan and Sweden, for example, have extremely low litigation rates. That is partly because they have highly effective inspectorate systems, and also because employers of all sizes have come to accept the importance of labour standards.
Professor Simms: I think that returns us to my point about the importance of agencies such as ACAS being able to advise in a way that is accessible. ACAS runs a free-access telephone service to support anybody with a problem at work, whether that is a small business owner or manager, or an individual employee. That kind of service, which people can use to ask questions, is an incredibly important part of any change. We know that a lot of the enterprise agencies also offer a similar kind of support. It is those support mechanisms, as well as the communication, that I think are really important. Just because the law is complex does not mean that we have to explain it in a complicated way.
Professor Bogg: These are real concerns, and they obviously need to be taken seriously. I can see that the day one dismissal protection may well cause real anxiety for small firms. I think the point has been made that you would not expect a small business owner to look through the Employment Rights Bill. I was up at 5 o’clock this morning feverishly sweating as I read my way through it, and it would not be reasonable to expect people without legal qualifications to do that. What will be crucial in later phases of this roll-out is having guidance, such as codes of practice, that are written in accessible ways for employers to be able to do the right thing, which most employers actually want to do. I think that is really important.
The area that will require a little bit more thought is the guaranteed hours provisions, which are complex. Some of that complexity is inevitable because this is a fiendishly difficult issue, given the range of different contractual arrangements that we have in labour markets, but I do not think that is beyond the bounds of smart legislators dealing with this as it goes through the process.
Greg Smith
Q
Luke Johnson: We are still grappling with the fallout from the Budget. There are millions of pounds of additional tax that some of my companies will have to pay, and a 6.7% increase in the national living wage, when average inflation is 2% or 3%. As for the idea that many businesses have already given deep thought to this new piece of 150-page legislation—when we already have such things as the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Equality Act 2010, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and many other pieces of legislation—I dare say that large companies have given it some thought, but most of the businesses I am involved with are not so big. I think they will wait and see what the final result is before trying to measure whether it leaves the business smaller.
With any piece of legislation like this, we have to remember that it is not just the current jobs affected, but the unseen jobs and opportunities that were never created. I urge you to look at the fact that, for the first time in many years, the number of businesses being created in this country has been falling or stagnant for five years. That is more or less the first time in decades. If we lose the full employment we have enjoyed and the enterprise economy that we have managed to create—I believe it to be much more fragile than some might believe—it will be incredibly hard to get back. Jobs do not just fall from the sky. They appear because companies are created by risk takers, and they take a risk with every job they create. Jobs only exist because they are helping that business to progress, and 80% of jobs are nothing to do with the Government—they are private sector. If you crush the private sector, you crush jobs. All the research shows that the single most important ingredient for a happy society is jobs. Without jobs, you do not have civilisation.
Michael Lorimer: Our turnover is in the public domain, so I can share it with you. We will probably turn over about £370 million this year. We are in a high-turnover, very tight-margin business, so if we make £10 million net, that is about the height of it. It is very difficult to estimate the increased cost of national insurance contributions and the national living wage, because not all the details are yet clear, but we think it will be somewhere between £1.5 million and £1.8 million. That is quite a big chunk out of our net profit.
We do not have a huge problem with it. We are a company that believes strongly in creating prosperity. The national living wage is something that our hearts have no problem with, because we would like to see people getting paid correctly, but we have to mitigate that. That is something that we just have to get on with. Our company has grown successively every year since it started 30 years ago, in top line, bottom line and people numbers.
I need to stress this again to you: the passion that we have is growth and job creation. When we see people coming into the business, working their way through it, earning more money, developing their career and prospering, that is what brings us the greatest joy of all. My concern, which I have to repeat, is that businesses smaller than ours—following on from Luke’s point, we were a small business at one stage—are going to find it very hard to get on that growth trajectory.
Justin Madders
Q
Michael Lorimer: From my perspective, there is a pretty good balance between employer and employee at the minute. I am sure you could unpick that, and there could be cases for either side, but as somebody who runs a business in, quote unquote, a “fast-moving environment”—in fact, Luke Johnson’s business is much faster-moving even than ours—where you are focusing on driving your business and trying to get results, I think that there is actually a good balance. I am not particularly in favour of tinkering too much with it. That is my personal view.
Luke Johnson: I would slightly differ, in that I think some areas are increasingly onerous for employers. Increasingly, when I talk to entrepreneurs, they are looking to outsource, offshore or automate rather than employ people. Not all of that is legislation and regulation; post furlough and lockdowns, there is a vast amount of talk among employers and owners of businesses about workforce motivation. That goes back to a point that Michael made earlier about the number of people not in work who are of working age and able-bodied. I think this is an issue for society as a whole, and I think a happy society is one in which people are productively occupied.
I am surprised that you say that many employers want greater protections for their staff. They are very entitled to give them to them if they want. They do not need to rely on the Government for that; they can just give them better contracts if they want.
There are a number of concerning aspects to the Bill, which could be counterproductive if the objective is higher living standards. As I understand it, this Government’s priority is wealth creation, prosperity and jobs. Ultimately, although I do not believe that this legislation will be devastating to employers, I think it will be damaging for job creation and therefore counterproductive to wealth creation and to achieving higher standards of living.
Sarah Gibson
Q
You mention that you are concerned about day one rights. I wonder about the changes in the probation period. We seem to be in agreement that it might affect where you draw your prospective employees from. Can you suggest any amendments to the Bill that might encourage the entrepreneurial small businesses we so rely on to continue to take on staff from areas of deprivation or the long-term unemployed—those who currently struggle to get work?
Michael Lorimer: I was at a breakfast yesterday morning for the launch the Jobs Foundation’s report, “Two Million Jobs”. A chap from Sheffield spoke who runs an organisation that gets young people into work. He gave the example of a kid—I cannot remember his name—who would not normally find it easy to get a job interview. They trained him and helped him to get the right attire to get him into a job. The point was that this guy looked very risky—he had not worked, and he came from a long line of people who had not really seen any value in work—but he got the job because the people interviewing him saw something that they thought was worth working with. They knew they were taking a risk; they did. He has turned out to be an absolutely superb kid and is now progressing well.
Equally, yesterday I spoke to a friend of mine, a CEO of a business, who had somebody who interviewed incredibly well, did very well for the first 12 months, got promoted and at month 13 or 14 became an absolute monster to manage. Under the two-year rights, they were able to sort that out.
As we all know, you can get the interview stage right or wrong with hires. For SMEs, you just need to give comfort and space that hopefully they will get the right hires, but that if they do get the wrong hires and it is not the right fit, there is an escape route. Personally, I do not want to put a time on that. Our system works well for us at the minute, but I am sure Luke might have an opinion.
Luke Johnson: I find this a big piece of legislation, by my standards: 150 pages is probably what you are used to, but as someone running a business who has 1,000 other things to do than read a 150-page piece of legislation about employment, I find the whole thing rather a surprise. The Prime Minister said that he wants to
“rip out the bureaucracy that blocks investment”.
If there is a genuine belief in the Government that this legislation will boost investment, I have a bridge to sell them.
Greg Smith
Q
John Kirkpatrick: The answer is that it is hard to tell. You have already heard evidence on that—I heard some of the evidence this afternoon and you have heard other evidence in other sessions—from others who are arguably better qualified to answer the question than I am. As I say, I encourage you as a Committee to encourage the Government to ensure that it thinks that point through carefully, as you consider the Bill, and to bear that advice in mind as you scrutinise it.
Margaret Beels: My office has not done that analysis and I would be guessing if I answered the question.
Justin Madders
Q
Margaret Beels: I took on this role in the expectation that there was going to be a single enforcement body, which the previous Government had referred to but did not bring about. I was strongly supportive of the creation of a single body and accordingly I am supportive of the creation of the fair work agency.
From my perspective, which involves looking at what has worked under the existing arrangements and what could work better, I went back and looked at the recommendations in the strategy that I most recently published, on 11 November, and it had 12 recommendations. I looked at them and considered how things are working out now under three bodies with different governance, different plans and different ways of doing things, and whether I think that under a fair work agency regime those things would be done better. A fairly quick assessment is that half of them would definitely be done better; the other things would probably be done much the same. The ones that relate to having a better joined-up approach, to greater efficiency and to better sharing of information among bodies are the things that I think the fair work agency will do a lot better.
Justin Madders
Q
Margaret Beels: One of the things I found it hard to do was to assess the impact of the different bodies, because they all have their own governance arrangements. I have a statutory responsibility to decide whether more should be spent in one body or in another. In practice, however, because they run under their own governance, it is really hard to do that and assess whether spending a bit more on national minimum wage enforcement or a bit less on employment agencies would be better value for money, because value for money for the public purse is really important. We are all public servants: we are all accountable to you as parliamentarians and to the public. I have found it really difficult to answer that question about the effectiveness of the different activities.
Justin Madders
Q
John Kirkpatrick: It is clear, Minister, that a number of people with protected characteristics are particularly vulnerable to the sorts of practice or exploitation that the fair work agency would devote itself to being concerned about. I would defer to Margaret on whether the unification of the existing authorities will make for improved enforcement. If it does, it will clearly be of benefit to those people.
I suppose the one thing I would add is that it is really important in this kind of area and these parts of the labour market that there is clarity on both employers’ obligations and employee’s rights, and what their sources of redress might be if those rights are breached. Real clarity and distinction of who enforces what seems to me very important. There is no difference between us on this, nor anything in the Bill that would confuse that. The maintenance of that clarity, so that people can understand what their rights are and how to exercise them, seems to us an important precondition to the Bill being successful in that aim.
Margaret Beels: The research I referred to, which is being published tomorrow, demonstrates that the workers more at risk of precarious work are female workers and younger workers, as well as workers from a lower-working-class background. The industries in which they work that are most at risk of being precarious are hospitality, retail, agriculture and construction. I think, to the extent that the Bill will address some of the issues affecting more precarious workers, that will be of benefit.
Sarah Gibson
Q
Are there any specific areas of the Bill that you think could be simplified? Obviously, we have been discussing other things outside the remit of the Bill, but within the Bill itself are there any specific areas that, if they were simplified, would make enforcement easier and more effective?
Margaret Beels: I have responsibility for the national minimum wage team, and when I talk to them about what they do, they often refer to the fact that the complaints that come to them are not valid. They are made without full understanding by the workers of their rights around the national minimum wage. The teams talk about training their inspectors for six months, and it troubles me that that is an area where it is difficult to know whether you are being paid correctly.
From my point of view, I would favour arrangements that are better at communicating with workers as to what their rights are. I know that ACAS does a brilliant job, and the national minimum wage team themselves and the other agencies all try to communicate better, but I think there is an issue with the national minimum wage. If you pay a worker the national minimum wage, the chances are that they are not being paid the national minimum wage. To play it safe, businesses should be paying comfortably above it to ensure that they are okay.
John Kirkpatrick: I do not have a huge amount to add to that. I recognise that most enforcement of the Equality Act 2010 comes through the tribunal system, which imposes a burden on the individual to understand their rights and have access to appropriate advice, redress and so on. We can do a certain amount of enforcement ourselves.
The other thing that we will do, as the enforcer of the Equality Act, is try to provide as much clarity of guidance as we can. In a sense, that is the first step in an enforcement process. The most recent example, I suppose, would be the guidance that we consulted on and published on the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023, which came into force only a few weeks ago. We felt it desirable and necessary to put quite a lot more guidance into the public domain to help both employers and employees to understand their rights.
In a sense, the lesson from that is that yes, that is something we can own the responsibility for doing in our area of work, as others do in other areas—ACAS does work on this, as do others. The important thing is that the initial law is as clear and straightforward as it can be. I urge the Committee to have that in mind as it thinks about the legislation before it. The clarity and simplicity of the underlying law is the thing that makes it easier to enforce.
Justin Madders
Q
Dr Stephenson: We have not done as much work in this area as organisations such as the Fawcett Society or some of the trade unions, but we are very conscious that for women working in the hospitality sector, for example, third-party harassment can be a really serious issue. We think it is important that women have those rights and protections, but beyond that it is more that we would support them than that we have done much detailed work.
Sarah Gibson
Q
Dr Stephenson: Obviously, the provisions about paternity and parental leave as a day one right will benefit those with caring responsibilities. We are pleased to see that there are plans to review carers’ entitlement. The problem with leave for carers is that it is one of the lowest-paid benefits that we have in the UK. Very many carers end up in poverty as a result. We know that there are higher rates of physical and mental health problems among carers because of the poverty, the strains caused by caring and the difficulties of balancing caring work with paid work. Obviously, the flexible work provisions will go a long way to helping people with caring responsibilities, and we think that is a very good thing.
Employment Rights Bill (Fifth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Justin Madders
Main Page: Justin Madders (Labour - Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)Department Debates - View all Justin Madders's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Fifth sitting)
Justin Madders ExcerptsTuesday 3rd December 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 December 2024 - (3 Dec 2024)
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.
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?
Laurence Turner
My personal view is that they should not be accepted, but the hon. Gentleman surely knows that he should not seek an opinion on the party position from a Back-Bench MP.
My second point is on the sectors that would be affected by the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester made an incredibly powerful contribution, which we all thank him for having the courage to make, about his experience in the hospitality industry. I want to talk about the social care sector, and it is important to remember that one in three workers on a zero-hours contract in England works in adult social care.
In a former life, I spent many hours going through the corporate structures of social care employers, and their accounts and other filings. It is commonplace for an individual care home to be constituted as an individual employer, even though they ultimately all share a common ownership structure, so what appears to be a small business is often not one. During the pandemic, there was a complex interaction between care workers on zero-hours contracts and a lack of access to statutory sick pay, and there was a direct link between SSP coverage and high rates of infection, and indeed deaths, in those homes among both workers and residents.
The measures in the Bill will make real progress. Going back to points that have been covered already, I fear that this group of amendments will have serious unintended and perverse consequences, and I encourage Members to vote against it.
Justin Madders
I congratulate the shadow Minister on tabling the amendments and on the measured way in which he presented them. However, it will not come as any surprise to him to hear that we will not be able to support any of them.
The intention of amendment 137—or amended amendment 137—is to exclude SMEs from the provisions in clauses 1, 2 and 3. As we understand it, the additional amendments would commit the Government to exempting employers with fewer than 500 employees from measures designed to improve access to flexible working, from their obligations not to permit the harassment of their employees by third parties, from unfair dismissal provisions and from the measure designed to stop unscrupulous fire and rehire practices.
I understand that the general thrust of the shadow Minister’s argument was about the impact on SMEs and the lack of an evidence base for some of the policies. The general response has to be that we will not accept a two-tier system of employment rights in this country. We believe that everyone should have the same rights and protections in the workplace, and that is fundamental to our principles.
I will address some of the specific points. The shadow Minister mentioned the RPC’s criticism of our proposals on zero-hours contracts. There is legion evidence about the impact of those contracts on individuals. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, who spoke movingly about his own personal experience, including of third-party harassment. His example of the individual who was, effectively, punished when they refused to take a bag of shopping upstairs was telling, and it showed the risks of the power balance in zero-hours relationships. I think that that individual, having already been punished for refusing to take shopping upstairs, would have received similar retribution had he raised a grievance. That goes to show some of the challenges of the power balance for people working on zero-hours contracts.
There is considerable evidence on the impact of the zero-hours contracts. According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 22% of workers on zero-hours contracts do not believe that their contractual arrangements suit their life, and the previous Government’s Taylor review in 2017 found that many workers on zero-hours contracts struggled with that one-sided flexibility and power imbalance, where employers often require employees to be available.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his speech so far. We heard a lot from the Opposition about the cumulative impact on business, and I wonder whether he might say something about the cumulative benefit for workers. We know that 2 million zero-hours workers may benefit from the changes in the Bill, and we also heard evidence last week from a number of small businesses, or those who work with them, that they do not want a two-tier system. They said there are benefits in these provisions that will lead to not only better quality rights for those currently on zero-hours contracts but happier businesses with a more productive workforce.
Justin Madders
On a very fundamental level, if an employee has less money coming than in the previous week, they face a challenge in paying their bills, whether that is their mortgage, their rent or whatever costs they face. That is a very clear challenge to individuals on zero-hours contracts. A great number of studies show that people in insecure work have lower levels of job satisfaction and poorer physical and mental health, and there are also issues linked to lower levels of work productivity. As my hon. Friend mentioned, there is evidence that proper workforce planning is good for businesses, as well as individual workers. I am afraid that any exceptions creating a two-tier labour market would just exacerbate some of the challenges we see in that area. That would create a downward pressure, distort competitiveness at the expense of larger businesses and, as we have heard, create a disincentive for smaller businesses to grow.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I have heard the Minister reference two-tier rights in employment law several times. I want to raise a fundamental issue in this Bill: zero-hours contracts and the different legal categories of a worker. It is a general principle that labour law should be universal in its application, and our labour rights should apply to everyone who works for others. I just wanted some clarification, as without clarification on the legal status of all those who work, the rights in the Bill are allocated piecemeal.
I will give some examples: some rights are given to employees with contracts of employment; some rights are given to limb (b) workers, such as Deliveroo riders in Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v. Central Arbitration Committee and Deliveroo last year, or gig workers who are denied the status of employees; and some rights are given to other new ad hoc definitions of workers, such as workers on non-contractual zero-hours arrangements. The situation of the false self-employed, including those employed by umbrella companies or personal service companies, as well as anomalous workers such as foster carers, is not otherwise dealt with, and their rights are left opaque. Fundamentally, I am asking whether a new clause is required to ensure that all rights contained within the Bill apply to workers defined as
“any individual who is engaged by another to provide labour and is not, in the provision of that labour, genuinely operating a business on his or her own account”.
Justin Madders
I understand the point that the hon. Member is making. I think it would not need a new clause but a new Bill, because there is a whole range of very complicated issues about worker status. It is something that we are committed to looking at in our “Next Steps” document, and there is a whole range of issues in that sector. The hon. Member referred to foster carers—I should clarify for the record that I am a foster carer. Personally, I would not consider that to be employment, but I know there are others who believe that it is. He also mentioned various arrangements within the gig economy, and the shadow Minister mentioned IR35. We can very quickly get into a very detailed argument about who would be classed as a worker and who would not, and that needs a much more considered and lengthy examination. That is why, as much as we would have liked to, we were not able to get it in the Bill in the time allowed, but I absolutely understand the point the hon. Member is making.
On the amendments before us, the disincentive for an employer to grow would, unfortunately, be an unintended consequence of their provisions. There could even be a scenario where there would be an argument in an employment tribunal about how big an employer actually was. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield talked about some of the complicated structures that we see, and we know that some employers deliberately structure themselves to avoid particular laws. That would go against the policy objectives, which are to create a level playing field across the board, avoid undercutting and ensure that best practice is spread throughout.
We must not create a two-tier system. That is not consistent with what we are trying to achieve. It would harm not just workers, but small businesses, and, as the hon. Member for Chippenham said, would create an incentive for workers at smaller employers to leave. If someone does not get any protection for two years working for one employer, they will go and work for someone who will give them that protection. That applies to lots of the other rights as well.
On the unfair dismissal amendment, there was a brief period in the 1980s where there was a slightly different employer size qualification for unfair dismissal. I think it was 21—some way below the number that the shadow Minister is proposing—but even the Thatcher Government decided that was not a tenable situation and removed that in the end. I gently point out to the shadow Minister that the amendment as drafted would not have the effect that he hopes. I hope he will not push it to a vote.
On the issues about the impact on small employers, that is why we have legislated to include a statutory probationary period to ensure that there is not an undue burden on businesses.
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.
Michael Wheeler
I would not agree, which will not surprise the hon. Member. I gently suggest that the number of Government amendments will possibly provide the clarity that he asks for—they will be baked in, and will provide that clarity. This is part of the process of getting the provisions right for all involved. I would suggest that it reflects exactly the opposite of what the hon. Member suggests.
I return to the point about stability and instability. If the basis of the provision is to have hours regularly worked included in contracts, having that contractual term would provide not only stability for the employee, but predictability and stability for the employer. I am sure we can agree that stability all round is beneficial.
However, I come on to possible unintended consequences. The term,
“not exceeding a specified number of hours”,
could do with some clarity, in order to provide that stability and to ensure that the measure applies to the widest number of people within our workforce, to fulfil the intended aim. There is also the phrase “regularity”. Will the Minister consider how to clarify that term to provide the clarity that we would all welcome? Finally, I come on to the term, “excluded worker”. As I have said, we want to see as many people as possible covered by the Bill, so that they feel the benefits of it. The provisions are measured, for both workers and employers. I would welcome the Minister’s commitment to consider those points, as well as his roundly rejecting the ridiculous premise on which the amendment is based.
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 shadow Minister tempts me to pre-empt what we will put in the consultation. I have had a number of conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles over many years, because he has great experience of the retail sector, where there is a great deal of insecurity of work. People who work in that sector can be on guaranteed hours of 16 hours a week but still face insecurity. Equally, a lot of the people that we are trying to help here have no guaranteed hours at all. There is an argument that anyone below full-time hours—again, there is a debate about what that means—could be within scope.
That is why we are holding a consultation, to enable us to understand exactly who will be affected—whether we are trying to catch everyone or target the people who suffer the greatest insecurity of work. That is the purpose of the consultation. I know the shadow Minister will probably want to get some figures out of me today, but I am afraid I will not be able to oblige.
Chris Law
I am sorry to stop the Minister in his tracks, but it is quite an important point. There is in the Bill what I would consider to be a loophole, which enables employers to offer a guaranteed-hours contract where there is work of a short-term nature. There are some issues with that. I would like to know the justifications for it, and whether it is going to consultation. Does it mean that people engaged on such terms will be engaged on a zero-hours basis, or will they be employed on a guaranteed-hours basis? It is not clear in the Bill. If the former, why is it not possible for such workers to have a guaranteed-hours contract if they otherwise meet the proposed statutory criteria? What safeguards will there be to ensure that the power is not abused, in order to avoid a guaranteed-hours contract? I am sure that, in the spirit of the Bill, we want to ensure that that is tightened. There is nothing in the Bill for that, either.
What is the difference between a short-term contract and a fixed-term contract? Will there be a legal status for someone engaged on a short-term contract? Are they an employee, a limb (b) worker, or neither? Lastly, will non-renewal of a short-term contract be a dismissal for the purposes of unfair dismissal in the case of workers who are employees? That is a lot of questions, but I want to know whether there will be further consultation that may result in amendments to the Bill.
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
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.
Sir Ashley Fox
What is more important in relation to this amendment is that the Government are granting themselves a Henry VIII power to amend their own Bill. The Minister really should say whether agency workers are intended be within its scope. He must not just say, “We will make this up at a later date.” We need clarity on that point. In previous Parliaments, the Labour party rightly criticised Conservative Governments for introducing Henry VIII clauses, but it is doing precisely the same thing because it has not actually made a decision. Will the Minister please answer this question: does he intend agency workers to be covered or not?
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question. It is our intention to include agency workers, which is why we have been consulting. The consultation finished yesterday on how best to apply the Bill to agency workers, because we understand it is a different relationship. There are a range of considerations, which is why the power has been taken in this way. I am sure that the hon. Member would criticise me if we had set out the scope of the Bill without having taken that consultation first. We are concerned about ensuring that there is a level playing field and not creating another loophole. We will now engage with the responses that we have had to the consultation.
Laurence Turner
The Minister spoke about the insecurity that can hang over agency workers, and said that their employment situation does not always represent genuine flexibility. As someone who has been an agency worker, I can certainly identify with what he says. On the point around regulations, does he agree that this is a long-standing precedent in employment law, dating all the way back to the Employment Agencies Act 1973, under which the current agency workers regulations are made? In terms of powers, this is nothing new.
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.
Sir Ashley Fox
I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point, but in Burnham-on-Sea in my constituency there are many very small businesses, with perhaps two or three employees, that take on an extra person or two during the summer season. This summer has been particularly bad because there has been an awful lot of rain. Business needs change. The danger is that if there were a short reference period and we were fortunate enough to have a very hot and sunny April, May and June but a very wet July, August and September, businesses would be employing more staff because they had to, rather than because it was justified by the business conditions.
This is just not necessary. It is Government regulation for the sake of it, and it will make life more difficult for small business owners. Every time Government Members have risen to speak, they have declared that they are a member of one union or another, but very few have actually run a small business. I did run a small business. I was self-employed before I came to this place. It is challenging, because you are on your own: you take the decision whether to employ someone or not. Dare I say it, there are too few Government Members who have set up small businesses and who have actually employed people and experienced that challenge. That is part of why they do not understand how difficult this regulation would make life for some very small businesses.
Justin Madders
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire seeks to amend clause 1 to specify in the Bill that the initial and subsequent reference periods for the right to guaranteed hours will be 18 months long. I do not think he is prepared to concede that it is a ridiculous amendment, but shall we say that it was ambitious? Can we agree on that?
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.)
Employment Rights Bill (Sixth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Justin Madders
Main Page: Justin Madders (Labour - Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)Department Debates - View all Justin Madders's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Sixth sitting)
Justin Madders ExcerptsTuesday 3rd December 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 December 2024 - (3 Dec 2024)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 1, page 7, line 7, leave out
“(or has most recently been working)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 10.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I apologise in advance to the Committee because amendment 10 is rather technical, as several amendments are this afternoon. The amendment is required to clarify wording and intent. It clarifies which worker’s contract or arrangement needs to be considered, in cases where a worker has worked under multiple contracts or arrangements during a relevant period, when determining whether there has been a relevant termination of a contract or arrangement such that the duty to make a guaranteed hours offer does not apply, or a guaranteed hours offer that has been made is to be treated as withdrawn.
Amendment 10 effectively means that once there is a relevant termination in such cases, the provision is not treated as meaning that the duty ceases to apply where the worker goes on to be offered further limited-term contracts from the employer. It is essentially a clarification and an anti-avoidance measure. Given that there are rather a lot of those today, I will not detain the Committee any longer.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendments made: 7, in clause 1, page 7, line 10, leave out
“(or has most recently been working)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 10.
Amendment 8, in clause 1, page 7, line 16, leave out
“(or has most recently been working)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 10.
Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 7, line 19, leave out
“(or has most recently been working)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 10.
Amendment 10, in clause 1, page 7, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) Where a qualifying worker works for an employer under more than one worker’s contract, or in accordance with the terms of more than one arrangement, during—
(a) the relevant reference period,
(b) the offer period, or
(c) the response period,
the references in subsections (1) and (2) to the worker’s contract or (as the case may be) the arrangement are to the worker’s contract under which, or (as the case may be) the arrangement in accordance with the terms of which, the qualifying worker last worked for the employer before the end of the period in question.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment clarifies which worker’s contract or arrangement needs to be considered, in multiple contract/arrangement cases, when determining whether there has been a relevant termination of a contract or arrangement such that the duty to make a guaranteed hours offer does not apply or a guaranteed hours offer that has been made is to be treated as withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 1, page 8, line 7, at end insert—
“(5A) Where, by virtue of subsection (2), a guaranteed hours offer made by an employer to a qualifying worker is treated as having been withdrawn, the employer must, by no later than the end of the response period, give a notice to the qualifying worker stating this to be the case.
(5B) Where, by virtue of regulations under subsection (5)—
(a) an employer who would otherwise have been subject to the duty imposed by section 27BA(1) in relation to a qualifying worker and a particular reference period is not required to make a guaranteed hours offer to the qualifying worker, or
(b) a guaranteed hours offer made by an employer to a qualifying worker is treated as having been withdrawn,
the employer must give a notice to the qualifying worker that states which provision of the regulations has produced the effect referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) (as the case may be).
(5C) A notice under subsection (5B) must be given by an employer to a qualifying worker—
(a) where it is required to be given by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, by no later than the end of the offer period;
(b) where it is required to be given by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, by no later than the end of the response period.
(5D) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—
(a) the form and manner in which a notice under subsection (5A) or (5B) must be given;
(b) when a notice under subsection (5A) or (5B) is to be treated as having been given.”
This amendment requires an employer to give a notice to a qualifying worker where the employer’s duty to make a guaranteed hours offer to the worker does not apply, or an offer already made is treated as having been withdrawn, as a result of proposed section 27BD(2), or regulations made under proposed section 27BD(5), of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 13 to 15, 19, 20, 23, 44 and 45.
Justin Madders
Amendment 11 will introduce a duty on employers to inform workers when an exemption applies and the employer is exempt from their obligation to offer a worker a guaranteed hours contract. Any exemptions to the duty to offer guaranteed hours will be defined in regulations.
Amendment 11 will also introduce a duty on employers to inform workers where an offer of guaranteed hours already given is to be treated as withdrawn because a relevant termination has taken place. That will ensure that workers are aware of when they are not receiving a guaranteed hours offer because an exemption applies. It will allow workers to check that the exemption is applicable to them, and then enable them to enforce their right to guaranteed hours where an exemption is not applicable.
Associated consequential amendments 14, 19 and 44 will ensure that workers will be able to take a complaint to an employment tribunal if the worker is not provided with a notice of exemption or a notice of the withdrawal of an offer already made. That will also be the case where a notice has been provided but should not have been, or where a notice has been provided but cites the wrong exemption.
Amendment 13 will introduce a new duty on employers that will ensure that workers who would likely qualify for a guaranteed hours offer are aware of certain information about the right to guaranteed hours. That will help to ensure that workers are informed about the new right and can therefore take decisions about their working hours during their reference period based on the information they receive about their possible right to a guaranteed hours offer.
Further consequential amendments 15, 23 and 45 have been made to ensure that a worker may enforce their right to be informed about the right to a guaranteed hours offer by taking a complaint to an employment tribunal. A consequential amendment 20 has been made to define the period within which a complaint of this nature may be taken to a tribunal. I think we might get to that later in relation to the general application of extended time limits.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. As a precursor to my comments on these specific amendments, I note that the sheer volume of Government amendments that we are considering really goes to show that the Bill might have met a political objective in being published in 100 days, but that it was not ready to be published in those 100 days. At worst, that is a discourtesy to the House and, at best, it shows that the legislation simply has not been drafted properly. These changes simply would not have been necessary had due diligence been done on the Bill before it was published.
I would like to focus on amendment 13 from this group of amendments. That amendment requires employers to give their employees access to certain information to be specified in regulations—we are back to our old friend of regulations to come. Let me ask the Minister the following: what information will amendment 13 require employers to make available? Why? And what further burden will be imposed later down the line by regulations, thanks to the power taken in the clauses? Employees will be able to take their employer to a tribunal for not providing this information, as provided for in amendment 15, so I suggest to the Committee and the Minister that it is vital that we can understand the requirements that the clause will place on employers.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s questions. No doubt during the passage of the Bill we will come back on several occasions to that point about the number of amendments. I just place on record my gratitude to the civil service and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for their work in getting the Bill published to the parliamentary deadline that was politically set. Of course, lots of Bills have amendments as they progress. As is consistent with our wish to engage thoughtfully, we may still have further amendments.
As for the shadow Minister’s questions, it is entirely usual to put that sort of detailed information in regulation, and we would not normally specify it in a Bill. We are trying to ensure that workers who are captured by the zero-hours legislation are aware that they are captured by it and are entitled to certain rights, such as the offer of a guaranteed hours contract. This is about making sure that some of the most vulnerable people in society, who are often exploited by zero-hours contracts, are at least given the information to ensure that their rights are enforced. We will work with businesses and employers, and representatives and trade unions on the precise detail of the information to be provided, but this is about making sure that all parties are aware of their legal obligations. I hope that the shadow Minister understands that this is an important part of the legislation.
Amendment 11 agreed to.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 1, page 8, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert—
“(6) For the purposes of subsection (3)(c) (and subsection (4)(b), which applies subsection (3)(c))—
(a) subsection (8) of section 27BB (when it is reasonable for a worker’s contract to be entered into as a limited-term contract) applies as it applies for the purposes of that section;
(b) it is to be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that it was not reasonable for the worker’s contract to have been entered into as a limited-term contract if the work done by the qualifying worker under the worker’s contract was of the same or a similar nature as the work done under another worker’s contract under which the qualifying worker worked for the employer—
(i) where the period in question is the relevant reference period, during that period;
(ii) where the period in question is the offer period, during that period or the relevant reference period;
(iii) where the period in question is the response period, during that period, the relevant reference period or the offer period.”
This amendment adds a rebuttable presumption to the existing provision made by proposed section 27BD(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The presumption will apply when determining whether there has been a relevant termination for the purposes of that section such that the duty to make a guaranteed hours offer does not apply or a guaranteed hours offer that has been made is to be treated as withdrawn.
The amendment will close a potential loophole that could mean that workers might not be entitled to a guaranteed hours offer if they are employed on a series of limited-term contracts to undertake the same or similar work. It will do that by adding a rebuttal presumption, that it will not be considered reasonable to have entered into a limited-term contract where a worker undertook work that was the same or similar in more than one contract during the relevant period. That means that the relevant termination provisions would not apply and the employer would not be excepted from its duty to offer guaranteed hours. An employer would have to offer guaranteed hours to the worker, even if that worker’s last contract was terminated at the end of the relevant period, unless it was reasonable for the employer to have entered into a limited-term contract with the worker and the presumption is rebutted, which could then lead to a relevant termination.
Under proposed new section 27BB(8) of the Employment Rights Act 1996—as referred to in the amendment—it is “reasonable” for an employer to enter into a limited-term contract with a worker if the worker is needed only to perform a specific task and the contract will end when it is performed; if the worker is needed only until some event occurs and the contract will then end; or if the worker is needed only for some other temporary need to be specified in regulations.
To be clear, whether it is “reasonable” for the employer to enter into a limited-term contract during the relevant periods affects only whether the right to guaranteed hours applies. If such a contract is not “reasonable”, it is still a lawful contract and may, of course, be an acceptable means of conducting business. As such, the presumption introduced by the amendment would apply only to determine whether there was a relevant termination of a limited-term contract, where a worker is engaged on a series of limited-term contracts doing the same or similar work. The presumption will not prevent an employer from engaging a worker on a series of fixed-term contracts, but it will act as an anti-avoidance measure to ensure that an employer cannot get around its duty to offer guaranteed hours by engaging the worker on a series of limited-term contracts even though they are actually doing the same work.
Greg Smith
Amendment 12 states that it is to be presumed by tribunals
“that it was not reasonable for the worker’s contract to have been entered into as a limited-term contract”
if the work done
“was of the same or a similar nature”
as the work undertaken by other employees, with the following conditions:
“(i) where the period in question is the relevant reference period, during that period;
(ii) where the period in question is the offer period, during that period or the relevant reference period;
(iii) where the period in question is the response period, during that period, the relevant reference period or the offer period.”
I have stressed the wording of the amendment because I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what protection the clause is designed to give employees. The vast majority of businesses reading that could easily be forgiven for getting slightly confused. Why is that wording necessary, particularly on this measure, to create the protections that I think I understand the Government want to achieve? The amendment might result in confusion from most businesses.
Justin Madders
We have had a good debate on this amendment. It is fair to say that my reaction when I first saw the amendment was similar—that it is quite wordy. However, that is the way our legislation is crafted in this country, and it is not unusual. We will make sure that when we drill down into the practical applicability of the Bill, we produce regulations. There will be guidance on gov.uk. ACAS will get involved.
The amendment is intended to deal with a particular situation. I do not believe most employers will behave in that way, but we know that some might, and that some will deliberately avoid their obligations to give a right to a guaranteed-hours contract. It may be, in the words of the hon. Member for Bridgwater, “gobbledegook”, but I can assure him that ACAS documents and Government guidance on employment rights are not gobbledegook; they are easily accessible. We are committed to making sure that when the Bill is passed, the legislation is easily accessible, because it will not work otherwise. That is clearly part of our aim.
It is pretty clear what section 27BB(8) actually means in terms of when it will be reasonable not to offer guaranteed hours, but I appreciate that that is very easy for us sat in this room to say, having indulged in the niceties of the legislation. It is not what will end up on businesses’ doorsteps. We will not give them a copy of the Bill through the post and say, “Knock yourselves out.” They will get proper support and guidance because that is how we want our employment relations to work. We want them to be practical; we want them to be effective; we want people to be able to understand what their rights and obligations are. On that note, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendments made: 13, in clause 1, page 10, line 11, at end insert—
“Information
27BEA Information about rights conferred by Chapter 2
(1) An employer who employs a worker who it is reasonable to consider might become a qualifying worker of the employer in relation to a reference period (whether the initial reference period, or a subsequent reference period, as defined in section 27BA) must take reasonable steps, within the initial information period, to ensure that the worker is aware of specified information relating to the rights conferred on workers by this Chapter.
(2) An employer who is subject to the duty in subsection (1) in relation to a worker must take reasonable steps to ensure that, after the end of the initial information period, the worker continues to have access to the specified information referred to in that subsection at all times when—
(a) the worker is employed by the employer, and
(b) it is reasonable to consider that the worker might become (or might again become) a qualifying worker of the employer in relation to a reference period.
(3) “The initial information period”, in relation to a worker and the worker’s employer, means the period of two weeks beginning with—
(a) where the worker is employed by the employer on the day on which section 27BA(1) comes into force (“the commencement day”), the commencement day, or
(b) where the worker is not so employed, the first day after the commencement day on which the worker is employed by the employer.
(4) But where, on the day referred to in subsection (3)(a) or (b), it was not reasonable to consider that the worker might become a qualifying worker of the employer in relation to any reference period, subsection (3) is to be read as if it provided for the “initial information period” to mean the period of two weeks beginning with the day on which it becomes reasonable so to consider.
Enforcement”.
This amendment imposes a duty on employers to ensure workers who have the potential to qualify for a guaranteed hours offer are aware of, and continue to have access to, certain information (to be specified in regulations).
Amendment 14, in clause 1, page 11, line 11, at end insert—
“(4A) A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that the worker’s employer—
(a) has failed to give to the worker a notice under section 27BD(5A) or (5B);
(b) has given to the worker a notice under section 27BD(5A) or (5B)(b) in circumstances in which the employer should not have done so;
(c) has given to the worker a notice in purported compliance with section 27BD(5B) that does not refer to any provision of the regulations or refers to the wrong provision.”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 11.
Amendment 15, in clause 1, page 11, line 11, at end insert—
“(4B) A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that the worker’s employer has failed to comply with—
(a) the duty imposed by section 27BEA(1);
(b) the duty imposed by section 27BEA(2).”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 13.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 1, page 11, line 18, leave out “three” and insert “six”.
This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 27BF(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from three months to six months.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 17, 18, 21, 22, 28, 29, 33 to 36 and 83.
Government new clause 10—Increase in time limits for making claims.
Government new schedule 2—Increase in time limits for making claims.
Government amendments 108 and 109.
Justin Madders
This group of amendments is not quite as daunting as it sounds, because they all deal with the same point, which is the extension of time limits for making claims.
New schedule 2 amends time limits for making claims in employment tribunals from three months to six months. In recent years, as we know, demand has increased sharply. Increasing the time limit from three to six months will help to reduce pressure on the employment tribunal system, allowing parties to try to resolve their differences before resorting to formal litigation. The amendments apply to time limits for the majority of employment tribunal claims, including claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Equality Act 2010. If Members are interested, the full list of claims is set out in the new schedule.
Government amendments 16 to 18, 22, 28, 29, 33 to 36 and 83 ensure that the change is reflected for cases relating to rights that will be introduced by the Bill. Amendments 16 to 18 and 22 will increase the time limit for taking a claim to an employment tribunal that relates to the right to guaranteed hours from three months to six months. Amendments 28 and 29 will increase the time limit for taking a claim that relates to the right to reasonable notice of shifts from three months to six months. Amendments 33 to 36 will increase the time limit for taking a claim that relates to the right to payment for a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift from three months to six months. Amendment 83 will increase the time limit for taking a claim that relates to whether a worker, or a former worker, believes they have been subject to a detriment by an employer on grounds of industrial action.
Finally, Government amendment 21 is a small technical amendment, which will correct an incorrect section reference. The words “this section” currently refer to section 27BG, which relates to time limits for bringing a complaint, but they should—as I am sure everyone noticed—refer to section 27BF, the correct section under which a complaint may be brought to an employment tribunal.
On a more general note, Members may be aware that a number of years ago, the Law Commission recommended that the time limit for bringing employment tribunal claims should be increased from three months to six months. This set of amendments simply seeks to implement that recommendation.
Greg Smith
Quite a list of amendments and edits to the 100-day-old Bill.
I will start where the Minister left off. The amendments extend the time for employees to bring a case to the employment tribunal from three to six months if they believe their employer has breached the duties imposed by the Bill. That includes the provisions around zero-hours contracts and the right to reasonable notice. In that light, a reasonable question would be: why were the provisions not included in the Bill on introduction? What changed? Was that an oversight, or something never originally intended to be included in the Bill? What is the rationale? Furthermore, what is the rationale for increasing the period from three to six months? That is not a modest change—not a matter of a couple of days, a fortnight or something that most people might deem reasonable; that is a substantial shift. It is only right and proper that the Minister, when he responds, gives a full explanation for such a huge change from the original provisions in the Bill.
Data from His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service shows the backlog in employment tribunals, with outstanding cases increasing 18% on last year. To add in additional burdens will add to the overall burden on the service, so as part of the consideration of the Bill and of the amendments it is crucial to understand what the Government will do not just to clear that backlog, but to create the capacity in the service to deal with the increase in demand that the Bill will undoubtedly bring about. I shall be grateful if the Minister will comment on his discussions with the Ministry of Justice to deliver on that.
Businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, rely on the tribunals service being able to process claims quickly so, if the Government are to bring about such a huge and significant change to demand on the service, they should put in place the relevant steps. Have the Government undertaken any assessment of the impact that such an extension will have on employment tribunals, or the likely number of claims? It would help to know what, under the amendments, the Government’s assumptions are—will the level of increase that the Opposition fear come about?
Is there a model—I fully accept that such models are rarely 100% accurate, but they give the country and the service planners an important ballpark figure to be working around, going into the future—and, off the back of that, what is the impact on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises? If there is no such modelling—if there is no ballpark figure that the Government are working to—why not?
My final question on this group of amendments is: why does the Minister believe that it is proportionate or sensible to double the window in which an employee can bring a claim? Surely the three-month window is sufficient. As I said, the Opposition would like to understand why that doubling is so necessary.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I want to add a couple of thoughts, not so much about the principle of the amendments, but about what they say about the process. I note what the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield said about the history and about the Law Commission having made its proposals in 2020. That rather adds to our confusion about why the amendments are being introduced in Committee and why they were not part of the Bill on Second Reading. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us a little about the preparation of the Bill and what his officials said at the time of Second Reading about how many more amendments would be necessary in Committee and about its readiness. Will he also tell us more about the precise impact of the amendments, and what they mean for the Bill’s impact assessment?
Justin Madders
We have had a pretty wide-ranging debate. Generally, there has been support for the amendments. I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ support and hope they carry on in the same spirit for the rest of the Bill—we will see about that.
On the principle of what we are trying to achieve, let me take the Committee back to a time before the advent of the employment lawyer, when we had a thing called industrial tribunals. Industrial tribunals were about having a speedy and informal way to resolve industrial disputes where there was an individual issue. As time has passed, employment law has grown and industrial tribunals have become employment tribunals, and the original time limits have not been able to keep pace with the range of developments.
A number of examples have been given for why some people will not be able to enforce their rights, because of the strict time limits. Equally, there is evidence that enabling a longer period between a claim being discovered and a tribunal deadline being set means that there is more opportunity for parties to try to resolve their differences. On maternity leave in particular, I recall many occasions when a woman has returned to work and tried to crack on with things but been discriminated against all the time, yet because of the understandable pressures and her eagerness to try to get on, she has not acted as quickly as she should have done.
I will give a recent practical example of a constituent who came into my surgery. He had been involved in a road traffic accident while he was working, and he had been dismissed for that. He was not a member of a trade union and had taken no legal advice on his situation. Clearly, I am not in a position to give him legal advice, because I am not insured to do so, but I pointed out to him that he might want to think about talking to someone about his rights with respect to unfair dismissal. The point I am trying to make is that I was having that conversation two months after he was dismissed, which does not give him—or, indeed, the employer—much time to try to resolve things. It would be preferable for that individual to have the opportunity to have a dialogue with his employer, possibly get a process done correctly, and be reinstated. Because the time limits are so pressured, though, if he did go away and take legal advice, he will probably have been told that the only realistic avenue for him was to put a claim in as soon as possible.
There will be real benefits to the amendments, not just for making sure that people are able to enforce their rights, but in giving people more opportunity and time to resolve their differences before proceeding to litigation. For that reason, the impact assessment has not really been able to pin down a particular figure for the impact of these measures. It is probably fair to say that there are a number of other measures in the Bill that may impact tribunal claims, not least the introduction of the fair work agency. The possibility for that agency to enforce holiday pay claims and wages claims, for example, could take a significant burden off the tribunal.
Let me return to the original point of the amendments. They are about removing anomalies and giving people more time to resolve their differences. It has been an anomaly in the law for many years that equal pay claims and redundancy pay claims can be brought up to six months after the termination of employment, but most other claims cannot. Indeed, there are some claims that, depending on where they are progressed, can take even longer, such as certain types of employment-related claims that go through county court. This is about ensuring consistency.
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.
Justin Madders
Here we are, three and a bit hours in, and we are on the stand part debate for clause 1. I hope we can make swifter progress, but I am sure Members will appreciate that we have debated a number of amendments to this clause, from both sides of the Committee.
I will talk a little about clause 1, because it is central to our aim to improve working relations in this country. It introduces a new right to guaranteed hours, which, alongside some of the other measures in the Bill, will address the issue of one-sided flexibility by ensuring that those who are in scope of the Bill receive a baseline of security and predictability that has been sadly lacking to date.
Our ability to care for loved ones, provide essentials, look after our health and deal with life and its challenges all relies on an element of predictability in our circumstances and finances. We know that a stable base makes us more resilient and more able to deal with challenges that come our way. Raising children, supporting family and our communities, making mortgage and rent payments, effective budgeting, and regular exercise are all good for the individual and for our society, and none combines easily with the unpredictability that some people face in their working lives.
The proposed provisions on guaranteed hours and on notice regarding shifts, which we will come to in due course, will go some way to helping the many workers who work regularly—often for the same employer, and some of them for years—but who do not have the security of knowing there will be a pay packet next week or next month. These proposals, which are the result of engagement with employers and social partners, will introduce fair and proportionate duties. Many of these have already been adopted by our most forward-looking employers. The duties are rightly ambitious but also, if we continue to work collaboratively, workable and achievable.
I will now explain the effects of each new section inserted into the Employment Rights Act 1996 by clause 1—this is effectively a series of new clauses inserted into our favourite, the 1996 Act. The first is new section 27BA, which outlines a new duty that will be placed on employers to offer qualifying workers guaranteed hours based on those hours worked during the reference period. While I hear and am considering the calls for the reference period to be put on the face of the Bill, at the moment the intention is for it to be specified in regulations. It is expected to be 12 weeks. The reason why consideration is being given to putting the initial and subsequent reference periods in regulations rather than in the Bill is that that will allow changes to be made to those periods. This is a novel right and we want to consider the emerging evidence on how it works in practice and, indeed, how it is evaded. However, I hear the calls about the need for certainty, and I will continue to engage with all relevant parties on whether this is something that we should put on the face of the Bill.
New section 27BA outlines the qualifying criteria for this new right, which will be targeted at workers who are on zero-hours contracts or zero-hours arrangements, or have some guaranteed hours—up to a maximum number that will be defined in regulations—but work in excess of those hours, and whose hours over the reference period meet the conditions for regularity or number. Agency workers are not in the scope of the new section, but separate provisions may be made for them using the power in new section 27BV. We recently closed a consultation on applying the rights to guaranteed hours, notice of shifts and payment for cancelled shifts to agency workers. We will now analyse the responses to that consultation and consider whether to seek to amend the Bill later during its passage.
The conditions for regularity and number of hours worked that must be satisfied during the initial reference period, as well as conditions for subsequent reference periods, will be set out in regulations following consultation. That will enable us to ensure that the measure is appropriately targeted at those workers who work regularly and in excess of their contracted hours. Although our intention is to minimise exemptions, regulations may be made to exclude categories of workers from the provisions, providing us with the flexibility to adjust the scope of this new right over time to respond to emerging practices. I have to say that at this stage I am not able to conceive of any particular exemptions that would apply, but I think it is important that we keep that power in the Bill.
New section 27BB sets out the requirements that a guaranteed hours offer must meet. It allows a guaranteed hours offer to take the form of either a variation of terms and conditions or a new contract, depending on the circumstances. A guaranteed hours offer may take the form of an offer to vary terms and conditions only if the worker worked under a single worker’s contract from the beginning of the relevant reference period until the day after an offer is made or later. That would allow all other terms of the contract, other than hours and length of employment, to be kept the same.
Where a worker has been engaged on more than one worker’s contract between the beginning of the reference period and the making of a guaranteed hours offer, that offer should take the form of an offer to enter into a new worker’s contract. Where a new contract is proposed, it must propose terms and conditions that, taken as a whole, are no less favourable than the terms and conditions relating to matters other than working hours and length of employment that the qualifying worker had when working for the employer during the relevant reference period.
New section 27BB also allows regulations to set out details on how it is to be determined whether the hours offered in the guaranteed hours offer reflect those worked during a reference period. It also makes provisions around the use of limited-term contracts by employers offering guaranteed hours. “Limited-term contracts” means fixed-term contracts and those that are to end by virtue of a limiting event. That ensures that employers can continue to use limited-term contracts where it is reasonable to do so.
The new section provides that, where the guaranteed hours offer takes the form of an offer to vary terms and conditions, the contract should usually become permanent. That should be done by removing the provision stipulating the termination of the contract by virtue of a limiting event, unless it can be said on the day after the offer is made that it would be reasonable for that contract to be entered into for a limited term.
The use of a limited-term contract will be regarded as reasonable where the worker is needed only to perform a specific task and the contract ends after it is completed, or likewise for a particular event, or in other circumstances where the employer considers there is a temporary need, as set out in the regulations. For example, if would be reasonable for a contract to be of a limited term where a worker is providing cover for a colleague on parental leave.
New section 27BC sets out requirements for a guaranteed hours offer where that offer takes the form of an offer to enter into a new worker’s contract and a worker has had more than one set of terms and conditions during the reference period. Its provisions will protect workers from being moved on to the worst of all the terms and conditions that they worked under during the reference period. Where an employer makes an offer of guaranteed hours with less favourable terms than the best the worker worked under the during the reference period, new section 27BC introduces a duty on employers to give the worker a notice explaining how the proposed terms and conditions constitute a
“proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”
This will help to protect workers against being given less favourable terms and conditions in contravention of the aims of the Bill.
New section 27BD provides for exceptions to the duty to offer guaranteed hours, including circumstances in which an offer already made should be treated as having been withdrawn. Exceptions will apply if the worker’s contract or arrangement is terminated during the reference period or offer period and it is a “relevant termination”. Similarly, where an offer of guaranteed hours has been made and there is a relevant termination of that worker’s contract during the response period, the offer will be treated as having been withdrawn.
A relevant termination takes place where the worker decides to terminate the worker’s contract through no fault of the employer; the employer had a qualifying reason for terminating the contract and acted reasonably in treating that reason as sufficient to terminate the contract; or a worker’s limited-term contract ends by virtue of a limiting event and it was reasonable for that contract to have been entered into for a limited term. A qualifying reason is a reason that, when an employer is dismissing an employer, can be a fair reason for dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
New section 27BD also allows regulations to be made to specify circumstances in which the duty to offer guaranteed offers does not apply, and it is that section that sets out offer and response periods. The response period, during which a worker must respond to an offer, will begin on the day after an offer is made and its duration will be set out in regulations.
We have made amendments to new section 27BD that will require employers to inform a worker when circumstances exist that exempt them from their duty to offer guaranteed hours, and similarly where a guaranteed hours offer is treated as having been withdrawn as a result of an exemption applying. That will ensure that workers are aware of which exemption applies, and that their employer has not merely failed to offer guaranteed hours. Any exemptions will of course be defined in regulations. Similarly, a further amendment requires that a notice is given where a guaranteed hours offer is treated as having been withdrawn as a result of a relevant termination. We have made further amendments to the new section, designed to close a potential loophole.
As previously drafted, the provisions could have meant that in situations where an employer employs a worker on a series of short-term contracts and the last contract of the period terminates with a limiting event, that could have been treated as a relevant termination. As a result, an employer might not have been required to offer the worker guaranteed hours. The amendment has added a rebuttable presumption, which presumes that it is unreasonable for an employer to engage a worker on a series of limited-term contracts to undertake the same work, and that would therefore not be a relevant termination excepting the employer from their duty to offer guaranteed hours. If the employer fails to rebut that presumption, no exception will apply and the employer will still be required to offer guaranteed hours.
New section 27BE sets out how the worker accepts or rejects an offer, and when the new contract or varied terms and conditions are deemed to take effect. It provides that a worker who does not respond to an offer will be treated as having rejected it, because we would not wish workers to be moved on to guaranteed hours if they had not specifically agreed to them. It provides for regulations to set the form and manner in which the worker must respond to the employer’s offer, and when the response is taken as having been given.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
On new section 27BE, there is a lack of formality relating to the worker’s right to refuse an offer of a regular-hours contract. Indeed, the risk is that workers could be coerced into rejecting an offer if it is clear that the employer would prefer the existing arrangements to continue. There are similar arrangements in respect of the working time regulations on workers’ right to opt out of the 48-hour working week; by contrast with the Bill’s provisions on zero-hours contracts, the working time regulations do not apply to all workers, and those who opt-out may revoke their decision to do so, although there are arguably no adequate safeguards there either.
The Secretary of State will have the power to make regulations about the form and manner of the notice under proposed new section 27BE, and reference is made to a response time that is undefined, but the question is whether it would be appropriate for Parliament to give the Minister stronger guidance by requiring that the response period should be at least one week; that the worker has a right to seek advice from an independent trade union before making a decision; that the worker has a right to be accompanied by a trade union official under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 in any meeting to discuss an offer; and that the worker may revoke a rejection of an offer at any time on giving one week’s notice to the employer. Does the Minister agree that those safeguards need to be incorporated into the Bill so that an employee is not coerced by their employer into rejecting a contract that is not in their best interest?
Justin Madders
A lot of the questions the hon. Member asked will be dealt with by the regulations and by the anti-detriment provisions of the Bill. If he would like to see specific provisions in the Bill, he should have tabled amendments, but I believe we will address a lot of the detail he raised in due course. We are clear that this has to be a freely agreed contract between both parties. The employer should make the offer and the employee should be able to agree, of their own free will, on whether they wish to accept it. We will look closely at the coercion issue, because that has been raised with us.
Government amendment 13 introduces new section 27BEA of the 1996 Act. It will introduce a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to make a potentially qualifying worker aware of their right to guaranteed hours should they meet the required conditions—that is, to draw workers’ attention to the new right and to the fact that they may be eligible for it.
New section 27BF provides for workers to bring an employment tribunal claim to enforce their right to guaranteed hours. A worker may make a complaint if no guaranteed hours offer is made to a qualifying worker; if an offer is made but does not comply with the requirements relating to a guaranteed hours offer, such as offering work for a number of hours that reflects the hours worked during the reference period, or the offer does not comply with the regulations relating to such requirements; if the offer includes a prohibited variation to a worker’s terms and conditions; and if the offer does not comply with the requirements on the use of limited-term contracts, the prohibition on varying other terms, or the applicable requirements where the employer offers less favourable terms.
To ensure that all rights are supported by appropriate protections, the Government amendments have added further grounds. Thus, a worker may make a complaint to an employment tribunal if the employer fails to provide a notice stating that they are exempt from the duty to make a guaranteed hours offer and which exemption applies, or fails to provide a notice stating that a guaranteed hours offer is treated as having been withdrawn further to an exemption applying or to a relevant termination; if the employer gives a notice to the worker stating that they are exempt from the duty to offer guaranteed hours when they should not have done so; if the employer gives the worker a notice relating to an exemption that does not refer to any exemption as set out in the regulations, or that relates to the wrong exemption; and if the employer fails to comply with the duties to provide workers with information about the right to guaranteed hours.
New section 27BG outlines the time limit during which a worker may take their complaint to tribunal. Government amendments have been tabled to allow workers to take cases within six months, as opposed to three months, which is to align the Bill’s provisions with the changes we have talked about already. We have also tabled amendments that are consequential on the new rights included in the Bill, and also on the new grounds to make a complaint to the employment tribunal. Those relate to the additional requirements to serve a notice under new section 27BD, and to the claims related to the information rights.
Finally, new section 27BH provides for the remedies to a well-founded complaint. It provides that tribunals must make a declaration if there has been a breach and may award compensation to be paid from the employer to the worker. In common with other existing employment rights, the compensation must not exceed a permitted maximum, which will be set out in regulations as a multiple of a number of weeks’ pay. I commend clause 1 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive outline of clause 1 but, as I reflect on our debate over today’s two sittings on the amendments to clause 1—the Government amendments that now form part of clause 1 and the Opposition’s substantive amendments, which were not accepted, and our probing amendments, which did not produce the answers we were looking for—I remain concerned that, putting aside some of the noble intentions beneath the Bill, there is still the lack of clarity we have spoken about regarding so many areas of clause 1.
The Minister himself admitted earlier that some things are still to be consulted on and that others are yet to be brought forward through secondary legislation. I am afraid that just does not cut it for businesses up and down the country that are still struggling with the aftermath of covid, the invasion of Ukraine and so many other factors. They need certainty. They need to know, if the rules of the game are changing, exactly what they are changing to—not some ballpark or some in-principle movement towards, but precisely the rules that they are being asked to play by.
Businesses will, of course, comply with any legislation passed by this House and this Parliament, but this provision is an unreasonable ask of them, whether in respect of what would constitute a low-hours contract, fixed-term contracts for qualifying workers or agency workers, or the exact definition of the reference period. It is simply an unacceptable proposition to those who run businesses, particularly, as multiple parties have said today, small businesses, be they microbusinesses or medium-sized enterprises—I fully accept that we can debate the exact number of employees that constitutes a small or medium-sized enterprise.
I recognise many of the good points the Minister made in his speech, and there are many things that we in the Opposition can get behind—at least in principle, if not in the precise lettering of the detail—but the lack of clarity, the Henry VIII powers in some parts and the “still to consult” parts in others make it very difficult for the Opposition to support clause 1 as it currently stands.
As I said earlier, we want to be a constructive Opposition. We might not agree with the Government’s standpoint on many things, but it is important for the United Kingdom that they succeed in their endeavours and that they do not provide an environment in which there will be fewer jobs, not more, with businesses being more reticent to take on new members of staff. That goes particularly to the points around how people who are deserving of a second chance in life, no matter what has happened to them before, may not get that opportunity because it is too big a risk for small businesses that are struggling to get around all the new regulations, rules and laws.
I particularly highlight again the point about small businesses just not having the capacity to deal with new regulation. As has been said, they do not have HR departments or in-house legal services, and they cannot necessarily afford to hire them in if they are to continue producing their products or selling their services to the great British public, or wider than that. I urge the Minister to go back to the Department, focus on where the detail is lacking and put an offer to the House and the wider country. Our business community need not necessarily agree with it, but they should be comfortable that they can understand it and put in place the measures for their employees and businesses. To ensure their growth and success, they desperately require certainty.
Sarah Gibson
Despite some of my concerns, I would like to lend my support to the clause, because the guarantees for workers are important. I caveat that by saying that the guidance for SMEs must be clear and must come out soon, so that there is less concern in the business community about taking on staff. Currently, I see an unintended consequence in SMEs, certainly in the near future, not taking on staff because of the fear of additional costs.
While I am on my feet, I would like to make a correction for the record in respect of this morning’s debate. In the debate on amendment 137, although the shadow Minister made a comment about this in his closing speech, it was not my intention to suggest that the Liberal Democrats wish to alter the current definition of SMEs from being 249 employees. I want to make sure that is clear.
Justin Madders
To pick up on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, this is about who we are trying to help. This clause is primarily about low-income workers who do not currently have the security and certainty of regular hours. They are more likely to be young, female or from an ethnic minority background. We have heard about the real impact that can have and about the power imbalance when an employer holds all the cards. To use my hon. Friend’s imagery, it is effectively like pointing to people at the factory gate and deciding whether they get work that day or not. We must move on from the indignity of that arrangement.
I welcome the support from the Liberal Democrats. It is worth saying that there was general, albeit caveated, support from the witnesses we heard from in last week’s evidence sessions.
I will tackle head-on the shadow Minister’s criticism about the lack of clarity and the need for certainty. Of course we want to give business certainty. I am sure that after the last few years of Conservative Government, we are all crying out for certainty, and there will be certainty. We are at an early stage of the legislative process for this Bill. It will be taken through Committee and through the Lords, and then there will be further consultation, secondary regulations and codes of practices, after which the laws will be implemented. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chippenham, said, there is anxiety out there for businesses, but we are a long way off introducing this legislation, because there is so much more to do, and it is important that we do it. We want to get it right, we want to get clarity and certainty, and we want to ensure that this is an effective piece of legislation.
Greg Smith
I am grateful for the intervention. On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, yes, of course there are insurance policies that many businesses will take out. But the example I just gave is one I can see affecting many businesses in my own constituency; there is a strong furniture making heritage around Prince’s Risborough in Buckinghamshire. There are very small businesses that do an incredible job and make some fantastic furniture, but they are microbusinesses with only a couple of employees and they operate on tight margins. They would not necessarily be able to bake the additional cost of a very expensive insurance policy into their bottom line without significant pressure on their overall business.
I accept that I am not talking about every or possibly the majority of businesses; my point in the amendments is that some circumstances might need a more sympathetic ear. In such cases, it could be argued reasonably and sympathetically that businesses in such a sticky spot would be unable to meet the requirements that the Bill sets out. Supply chain problems are just one example.
I take on board the second point made by the hon. Member for Gloucester, although, as I said in one of the earlier debates, I was self-employed for 15 years before entering this place in 2019. Some clients varied every month their requirements of the services that I provided back then. It was frustrating: nobody wants to be in that position, but it is sometimes a business reality, particularly if the ultimate client is struggling for whatever reason—their supply chain or the fact that they are just not doing very well so they need to throttle service provision up and down. I know that my example is not the same as that of a direct employee, but sometimes business needs a sympathetic ear.
To come back to my earlier point, nobody wants people not to be in a secure employment environment. Sometimes, however, things happen in businesses. Businesses in the automotive sector have shed quite a lot of jobs in recent weeks—look at Stellantis and Ford. Sometimes these things happen. With greater flexibility, perhaps more jobs overall can be saved in the short, medium and long terms, rather than having in every circumstance rigid rules that do not allow businesses that flexibility. I suggest that most people would want jobs to be saved rather than lost through that level of rigidity.
I will continue with my questions to the Minister about these probing amendments. In the furniture company example that I gave, what notice would an employer have to give? What do the Government expect an employer in such circumstances to do? From the hefty number of amendments that the Government have tabled, it looks as though small businesses are going to have to pay those employees for hours not actually worked; and even this will be through no fault whatever of the actual business in question.
Given that the Regulatory Policy Committee has flagged the risk that employers, often in fluctuating demand sectors such as hospitality and retail, may respond by scheduling fewer shifts to avoid penalties for cancellations and the consequential lost output to the economy, I would be grateful for the Minister’s appraisal of whether the provisions on short notice cancellations will support or inhibit the Government’s aim of actually achieving economic growth.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s amendment. If it is a probing amendment, he has asked a lot of reasonable questions. There are, of course, things that we will be hoping to address today and during the passage of the Bill—and, indeed, the subsequent regulations.
The first thing to say is that we do not believe that it is right at this stage to put the time into the Bill; we want to give ourselves flexibility to respond to how the issue works in practice and to changing circumstances by doing that in secondary legislation. However, the hon. Gentleman has asked a perfectly reasonable question: who are we trying to help? What is our purpose?
Our purpose is to try to help those people who simply do not have that security in their lives at the moment. Research from the Living Wage Foundation suggests that 25% of insecure workers have had their shifts cancelled unexpectedly, with 88% receiving less than full shift compensation. Many workers receive their shift schedules without reasonable notice, and that prevents them from being able to effectively plan their work, social lives and other responsibilities.
Living Wage Foundation data found that in quarter 2 of 2023, 78% of workers received less than two weeks’ advance notice of shifts, with 5% of workers receiving less than one week. That can disadvantage workers’ ability to effectively plan their future income, particularly when that relates to budgeting for regular outgoings when shifts are cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice. The impact on workers can include an increased reliance on debt and an inability to forecast income or find substitute work, childcare expenses and, on some occasions, travel expenses. Such implications represent the sort of one-sided flexibility that we are trying to deal with.
Evidence suggests that the income insecurity premium could be worth as much as £160 million per year, but the issue is really going to be about that benefit targeting businesses in the right way. We believe that good management practice can deal with an awful lot of this without the need to resort to legislation.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Last week, we heard from companies that say they are good employers and offer security of shifts to their workers. Would the Minister agree that companies that offer their workers the right to payment for cancelled, moved or curtailed shifts are in fact good employers and therefore have nothing to fear from the Bill?
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is indeed the overall message from every provision in the Bill: that good employers are doing lots of these things already. Those things represent the kind of practice that we want to encourage and even to legislate for, because there is plenty of evidence that good workforce planning and valuing employees increases business efficiency and improves productivity; those are, of course, secondary to the individual benefits to the workers. However, the policy is specifically targeted to benefit low income workers in particular—people who are more likely to be younger, female or from ethnic minority backgrounds.
There is also a wellbeing background. Extensive research has reported that the impact of on-call contracts, with short or no-notice cancellation of shifts adding to insecurity, leads to considerable increases in anxiety. There have been quite a lot of representations to the Low Pay Commission about that, with concerns about workers on flexible or variable contracts not being able to suitably assert their rights due to fears of repercussions, being zeroed down or having no additional dialogue with the employer.
Justin Madders
As the hon. Member will know, the total cost to businesses from the Bill, as set out in the impact assessment, is about 0.4% of total employer costs. We absolutely acknowledge that there are many good employers out there who do this already, and we hope that there are many employers who do not who will feel that it is a positive once the legislation comes in. We want to take them on that journey and inform them why this is a positive thing and a benefit for their workforce. Importantly, they will see that the playing field is levelled and hopefully be able to compete more ably with others who might in the past have undercut them. But part of that will be making sure that they have access to good advice, good support and a guiding hand to make sure that the clear policy outcomes we want to see from the Bill are actually delivered. On that note, Mr Stringer, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Greg Smith
I remain very concerned about some of the real-world applications. I accept that it will have a negative impact in a minority of cases. The purpose of our amendment, as I said, was to probe the Government, so I am happy to confirm that we will withdraw it.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 2, page 13, line 42, leave out
“from what time on which day”
and insert
“when the shift is to start and end”.
This amendment requires notice of a shift to include when the shift is to end (as well as how many hours are to be worked and from when).
Justin Madders
I am afraid we are back into some of the more technical minor amendments, on which I will not detain the Committee too long.
Amendment 24 will ensure that employers have to give reasonable notice of not only when a shift starts and how many hours it will be worked, but also when it will end. The Government’s intention is to avoid a scenario whereby a worker is notified of the start time and total duration of a shift, but does not receive reasonable notice of whether those hours will be in a single block, or whether there may be a large break.
The current drafting would allow an employer to specify that a worker is required to work, for example, for three hours from 9 am on Friday, without specifying whether the shift will be from 9 to 12, or from 9 to 10 and then again from 12 to 2. In either scenario, the notice would meet the requirements to be a notice of the shift. The amendment closes this potential loophole. Some of my own children have gone into work and then been told to go and have a two-hour lunch break—unpaid. We clearly want to avoid that through this amendment.
I turn briefly to Government amendments 25 to 27, which will ensure that workers are entitled to reasonable notice where an employer cuts working hours from the middle of a shift as well as from the start or end. The current drafting would arguably allow employers to reduce the number of working hours in the middle of a shift without giving reasonable notice. The amendments close that loophole, ensuring that workers have to be given reasonable notice if an employer decides to change the hours of a shift by reducing the hours in the middle.
Greg Smith
I will be brief in my response to these Government amendments, which make the requirement for the right to reasonable notice of cancellation or changing of shifts more onerous. I spoke to these principles during our debate on the previous set of amendments in my name, but I ask the Minister gently now, why were these provisions not included in the Bill on introduction? Was it an oversight? Will there be a repeat of the line, “It was the intention but we just didn’t do it”, or is it something else? I would be grateful for clarification.
As I argued during the debate on the previous set of amendments—this point is relevant to this set too—why are these amendments so necessary? Does the Minister really think it a proportionate burden to place on businesses, particularly in those cases where there will be fair and reasonable grounds for a business not needing to provide notice of a change in shift to an employee? What assessment have the Government made of the cost to businesses, given that they will now essentially have to pay for work not done, without recourse to force majeure provisions or whatever it might be—where it is genuinely not their fault that they cannot provide the work to their workers for whatever reasons? Force majeure is a well-established principle in all sorts of sectors across the world.
I urge the Minister to consider carefully how he can ensure that out-of-control eventualities are looked after in the Bill; otherwise I fear it will create a scenario where particularly the smallest businesses—those one, two or three-employee businesses—are placed in a very difficult financial position. I cannot believe that the Government believe that is the just and right thing to do, and that they could not come up with some other safeguards to protect those microbusinesses—those small enterprises—that might find themselves in a sticky spot.
Anneliese Midgley
I am sorry for referring to the shadow Minister as “you” earlier, Mr Stringer; I was not suggesting that you needed to clarify whether you thought workers should shoulder all of the burden.
I want to remind hon. Members of some evidence that we were given last week in support of the right to reasonable notice of a shift. Matthew Percival from the CBI said that
“there are areas where the Bill can be a helpful step in the right direction. To give a few examples, we have previously supported the idea that it is wrong that you should turn up for work expecting an eight-hour shift, be sent home after two hours and only be paid for two hours. There should be a right for compensation there.”
Jane Gratton from the British Chambers of Commerce said:
“As Matthew said on the compensation of shifts, we certainly support that, and we would be very happy about the fair work agency to create a level playing field and measures around workplace equity.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 13, Q6.]
Allen Simpson from UKHospitality said:
“Again, reasonable notice is an important principle and there should be protections.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 43, Q39.]
Justin Madders
The way the shadow Minister was intervened on made it feel like this was an Opposition amendment, but it is actually a Government amendment to deal with the issue of split shifts and the anti-avoidance measures. This is about rebalancing the level of risk faced by a worker and an employer. At the moment, the balance is shifted too far one way. We estimate in the impact assessment that the cost to businesses of this policy could be up to £320 million a year. Clearly, a lot of that will end up being transferred directly into workers’ pockets. We hope that, through better workforce planning, that figure will go down and we will see improvements to the lives of those who will benefit from the Bill.
I will make one further point. The shadow Minister referred several times to force majeure situations. There is provision in a later clause, which we will not get to today, for us to set out in regulations when there might be exceptions to this provision. There are lots of potential arguments about whether the provision should apply, and we intend to consult further before the final regulations are published and debated.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee too long, because it feels like we have had the clause stand part debate already. I will briefly go through the provisions of clause 2, which creates the right to reasonable notice of shifts. As I set out when we discussed clause 1, we must tackle one-sided flexibility. Guaranteed hours is an important part of that, but we must also ensure that workers have reasonable notice of their shifts, so that they are enable to effectively plan their work and personal lives.
If someone’s shift is moved but their pay is less than the cost of the babysitter, that is obviously a negative. If someone is offered a last-minute shift but it is 60 minutes away by bus and they have no car, they should not be penalised or have a black mark put against them if they are not able to take it up. We can do better than this. We want to establish a more balanced partnership between workers and employers, and we hope to do that with clause 2. It will still allow employers to make changes to shifts, but it will also provide incentives for employers to meet the standard of the best employers, encouraging better planning and engagement with their workers. These provisions to introduce a right to reasonable notice of shifts and to changes in them are a small but important step towards making the lives of many shift workers and their families feel a little more secure.
Clause 2 creates several new sections in the Employment Rights Act 1996. New section 27BI outlines the duty that will be placed on employers to give reasonable notice of shifts. That duty will apply to workers on zero-hours contracts and arrangements, as well as workers on other contracts that will be specified in regulations but are likely to be low-hours contracts. New section 27BJ specifies that employers must also give reasonable notice of any moves or changes of shifts. New section 27BK notes that, as for other sections, agency workers are not covered by this measure—new section 27BV provides a delegated power to make corresponding or similar provision in relation to agency workers. In addition, section 27BK specifies that workers are not entitled to reasonable notice of shifts that they themselves suggested they work. For example, they would not be entitled to reasonable notice of overtime that they themselves had suggested. That right does, however, apply where the employer agrees to a suggested shift and then later changes or cancels the shift. Finally, the section contains a power to make regulations about how the notice should be given and when it is treated as being given.
New section 27BL explains that, where an employer is required to make a payment to a worker because the employer has cancelled, moved or curtailed a shift at short notice, the worker cannot get compensation for lack of reasonable notice for the same cancellation, movement or curtailment. New section 27BM enables workers to complain to employment tribunals that their employer has failed to comply with the duties to give reasonable notice. New section 27BN provides that tribunals must make a declaration where they find for a complainant and may award compensation they consider appropriate to compensate the worker for financial loss suffered as a result of the failure to give reasonable notice. This compensation will be capped in regulations and, in line with common law on recoverable damages, compensation will also take account of the duty on the claimant to mitigate their losses.
Greg Smith
I will not detain the Committee for much longer because, as the Minister said, it felt as though we had the debate on the whole clause during the debates on the amendments. I reiterate my concern about some of the provisions in the clause. Although I accept that the Minister said that, further on in the Bill, there is provision for force majeure measures to be introduced, there is a gaping hole for those emergency, unexpected, out-of-control circumstances, and this clause fails to fill it. However, we will almost certainly return to that on Report, so we will not press the clause to a Division.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Seventh sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Justin Madders
Main Page: Justin Madders (Labour - Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)Department Debates - View all Justin Madders's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Seventh sitting)
Justin Madders ExcerptsThursday 5th December 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 December 2024 - (5 Dec 2024)
The Chair
Will everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent? We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. We now move on to clause 3. I remind all Members of the rules about declaration of interests, as set out in the code of conduct.
Clause 3
Right to payment for cancelled, moved and curtailed shifts
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.
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
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 3, page 19, leave out lines 5 to 18 and insert—
“(a) where the shift is cancelled, the amount of remuneration to which the worker would have been entitled had they worked the hours that will not be worked because of the cancellation;
(b) where the shift is moved, or moved and curtailed (at the same time), and no part of the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed, corresponds to the time of the shift (“the original shift”) before it was moved, or moved and curtailed, the amount of remuneration to which the worker would have been entitled had they worked the original shift;
(c) where the shift is moved, or moved and curtailed (at the same time), and part of the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed, corresponds to the time of the original shift (but part does not), the amount of remuneration to which the worker would have been entitled had they worked the part of the original shift that does not correspond to the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed;
(d) where the shift is—
(i) curtailed but not moved, or
(ii) moved and curtailed (at the same time) and the shift as moved and curtailed is to start and end within the time of the original shift,
the amount of remuneration to which the worker would have been entitled had they worked the hours that will not be worked because of the curtailment, or the movement and curtailment.”
This amendment has the effect of clarifying the maximum amount of a payment that can be specified in regulations under proposed section 27BO(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in cases where there is a combined short notice movement and curtailment of a shift and makes associated drafting changes to the amended provision.
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
I will address that point, which I am sure we will hear on numerous occasions from the shadow Minister. He will be aware that it was a manifesto commitment to introduce the Bill within 100 days, which we are very pleased to have been able to adhere to, but that meant that not every element of policy was ready. As we have continued to consult, engage and develop our thoughts in this area, it has become apparent that it is possible to add to the Bill at this stage, to close some loopholes and provide some clarity. That is why the amendment was tabled.
Amendment 31 agreed to.
Amendments made: 32, in clause 3, page 21, leave out lines 3 to 13 and insert—
“(a) where a shift has been cancelled, the hours that would have been worked if the shift had not been cancelled;
(b) where a shift has been moved, or moved and curtailed (at the same time), and no part of the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed, corresponds to the time of the shift (“the original shift”) before it was moved, or moved and curtailed, the hours that would have been worked during the original shift;
(c) where a shift has been moved, or moved and curtailed (at the same time), and part of the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed, corresponds to the time of the original shift (but part does not), the hours that would have been worked during the part of the original shift that does not correspond to the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed;
(d) where a shift has been—
(i) curtailed but not moved, or
(ii) moved and curtailed (at the same time) and the shift as moved and curtailed is to start and end within the time of the original shift,
the hours that would have been worked if the shift had not been curtailed, or moved and curtailed.”
This amendment has the effect of clarifying the hours to which a payment under proposed section 27BO(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 relates in cases where there is a combined short notice movement and curtailment of a shift and makes associated drafting changes to the amended provision.
Amendment 33, in clause 3, page 21, line 26, leave out “three” and insert “six”.
This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 27BS(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from three months to six months.
Amendment 34, in clause 3, page 21, line 31, leave out “three” and insert “six”.
This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 27BS(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from three months to six months.
Amendment 35, in clause 3, page 21, line 36, leave out “three” and insert “six”.
This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 27BS(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from three months to six months.
Amendment 36, in clause 3, page 21, line 40, leave out “three” and insert “six”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment is consequential on amendments 33, 34 and 35.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 3, page 22, line 11, after “must” insert “—
(a) make a declaration to that effect, and.
(b) ”.
This amendment and amendment 38 require an employment tribunal that finds a complaint under proposed section 27BS of the Employment Rights Act 1996 well-founded to make a declaration to that effect.
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.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The one thing that businesses do not like is uncertainty. Unfortunately, there are so many gaps that need filling in the Bill that it makes it very difficult for businesses to plan for the future—for example, about how many people they will employ, what risks they will take on, and how to budget. Does the Minister accept that the Bill is so full of gaps that it causes more uncertainty for businesses and makes it harder for them to plan?
Justin Madders
The hon. Member is trying to have it both ways. If we had set out too much detail in the Bill, he would no doubt have criticised us for not engaging and consulting, and for being too dogmatic in our approach. That is why we have taken the approach that we have. We want to engage, consult and get the detail absolutely right, because we are clear that the Bill will be effective only if it has buy-in from all concerned. That is why the detail will follow.
Amendment 37 agreed to.
Amendments made: 38, in clause 3, page 22, line 15, after “tribunal” insert “—
(a) must make a declaration to that effect, and
(b) ”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 37.
Amendment 39, in clause 3, page 22, line 16, leave out
“of a specified amount to the worker”
and insert
“to the worker of such amount, not exceeding the specified amount, as the tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances”.
This amendment has the effect of providing an employment tribunal with discretion, up to an amount to be specified in regulations, as to the size of a monetary award in respect of a complaint under proposed section 27BS(1)(b) or (c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (rather than there only being discretion as to whether a monetary award is made, but not the amount).
Amendment 40, in clause 3, page 22, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert
“(2)(b) relating to a notice given in purported compliance with section 27BQ(2) if the tribunal makes an order under subsection (1)(b) relating to the same payment to which the notice related.”
This amendment has the effect of removing from proposed section 27BT(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 reference to a scenario that could not arise (because an employment tribunal could not make an order under both section 27BT(1) and (2) if no notice had been given).
Amendment 41, in clause 3, page 22, line 20, at end insert—
“(4) In determining—
(a) whether to make an order under subsection (2)(b), and
(b) if so, how much to order the employer to pay,
an employment tribunal must have regard, in particular, to the seriousness of the matter complained of.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment supplements amendment 39.
The Chair
I consider that the principles of the clause have been fully debated during discussion of the amendments, so if there is to be a clause stand part debate, it should be short.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Thank you, Mr Mundell. I am not sure whether that was directed at me, other members of the Committee, or maybe all of us.
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
I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 4, page 23, leave out lines 34 to 39.
This amendment is consequential on NC11.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 11—Orders and regulations under Employment Rights Act 1996: procedure.
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.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee too long on clause 4. It contains amendments to the Employment Rights Act 1996 related to clauses 1 to 3, which we have just debated.
Proposed new section 27BU defines various terms used in clauses 1 to 3, and the rest of part 2A of the 1996 Act, relating to zero-hours workers and other similar workers. In particular, it copies across the definition of “zero hours contract” from section 27A of the 1996 Act. A zero-hours contract exists where the worker undertakes to work for the employer when the employer makes work available to them but there is no obligation on the employer to make work available. While that might be quite a lengthy explanation, I think that we all understand what we mean by that. New section 27BU also defines “zero hours arrangement” as an arrangement under which an individual works when the work is provided but
“the employer is not required to make any work available to the individual, nor the individual required to accept it”.
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
I beg to move amendment 46, in schedule 1, page 107, line 16, at end insert—
“(4A) A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by the worker’s employer done on the ground that—
(a) the duty imposed by section 27BA(1) applies to the employer in relation to the worker and a particular reference period, or
(b) the employer believes that that duty so applies.”
This amendment ensures that a worker’s right not to be subjected to detriment includes a case of detriment on the ground that the worker is, or the employer believes the worker is, entitled to a guaranteed hours offer under proposed new section 27BA of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
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.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 48, in schedule 1, page 107, line 37, at end insert—
“(2A) In subsection (2), for ‘and (6)’ substitute ‘, (6), (7) and (7A)’.”
This amendment makes technical changes to section 49 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The reference to subsection (7A) is consequential on amendment 49.
Justin Madders
The amendments will ensure that the provisions on the maximum compensation awarded by a tribunal for detriment cases will be workable for cases involving the termination of an arrangement that is not a worker’s contract. Where there is no worker’s contract in place, it may be very difficult to determine the individual’s termination date. Let me clarify what I mean by that, if I can do so in such a technical area.
A zero-hours contract is a contract in which the worker undertakes to work for the employer when the employer makes work available to them, but there is no obligation on the employer to make work available. It is a worker’s contract because it involves obligations on the worker to undertake work. A zero-hours arrangement is an arrangement under which the employer is not obliged to make work available, and the worker is under no obligation to accept work when offered. Zero-hours contracts are workers’ contracts because there is an undertaking to work, whereas zero-hours arrangements are not workers’ contracts because there is insufficient mutuality of obligation.
There are particular complexities in applying legislation that involves a particular effective date of termination to those on zero-hours arrangements. The worker’s exact termination date may be difficult to determine and the calculation of compensation will therefore be circumstance-specific, meaning that it is more appropriate for the employment tribunal to use its discretion in arriving at such sums.
The amendment will ensure that in such cases, the amount that a tribunal awards will be left to its discretion. While there will not be a set maximum compensation for an individual on a zero-hours arrangement, as opposed to an employee on a zero-hours or low-hours contract, that maximum will be left to the discretion of the employment tribunal, which has the expertise to draw from the existing thresholds in compensation and apply them specifically to these types of cases.
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.
Laurence Turner
Does the Minister agree that if a cap of some sort were introduced, there would be a risk that, as we have seen in other cases, people who have been subject to a detriment may seek other routes, particularly under equalities legislation where damages are uncapped? That is an existing problem that has added to the strain in that part of the employment tribunal system.
Justin Madders
There is a danger that we will get too prescriptive about this. There will be a relatively small number of cases in which there is detriment, but they are all going to be very fact-sensitive. That is why we have framed the amendment in this way.
Mr Bedford
The hon. Member for Dundee Central referred to how a lot of businesses will have insurance for various eventualities. As a maximum is not specified, have the Government considered the unintended consequences of such provisions on businesses’ ability to insure against such instances?
Justin Madders
We are not talking about the general running of a business, with reference to shift notice and cancellations; we are talking about a very specific set of circumstances in which an employer’s act is considered to be detrimental to the employee and gives rise to an employment tribunal claim. I am sure that there are insurance products that cover all employment tribunal claims, but this is about individual acts of penalisation against employees or workers. This is not a departure from existing legal principles; it is well set out and understood by lawyers and HR practitioners. I do not envisage that this is a provision that will be greatly used, but it is an important principle to have in the Bill.
Amendment 48 agreed to.
Amendment made: 49, in schedule 1, page 107, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 108 and insert—
“(7A) Where—
(a) the complaint is made under section 48(1BA),
(b) the detriment to which the worker is subjected is the termination of the worker’s contract, and
(c) that contract is not a contract of employment,
any compensation must not exceed the compensation that would be payable under Chapter 2 of Part 10 if the worker had been an employee and had been dismissed for a reason specified in section 104BA.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment relates to the maximum award of compensation by an employment tribunal in a detriment claim under section 48(1BA) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The change achieved by the amendment is that the maximum award in cases involving the termination of an arrangement that is not a worker’s contract is at the tribunal’s discretion.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Justin Madders
Main Page: Justin Madders (Labour - Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)Department Debates - View all Justin Madders's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting)
Justin Madders ExcerptsThursday 5th December 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 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 50, in schedule 1, page 108, line 34, at end insert—
“or the employer believes that that duty so applies, and”.
This amendment extends proposed section 104BA(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (dismissal is unfair if done to avoid giving a worker a guaranteed hours offer to which the worker is entitled under proposed section 27BA of that Act) to a case where an employer believes a worker is entitled to such an offer.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. As is now our custom, I will start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
Government amendment 50 will expand the existing protections for employees who are dismissed as a result of employers seeking to avoid the new duty to offer guaranteed hours. It will ensure that an employee who is dismissed because their employer believes that the right to guaranteed hours applies will benefit from unfair dismissal protections. As drafted, the provisions apply only if the duty to offer guaranteed hours actually applies. That could leave a loophole whereby an employee who is dismissed because their employer mistakenly believes that the obligation applies would have no protection from unfair dismissal. All employees deserve protection from unfair dismissal, whether or not they are eligible for guaranteed hours. The amendment will ensure that equal protection is in place.
Government amendment 51 is a small amendment that will remove wording in the Bill about when the termination of a worker must take effect in order for them to be regarded as unfairly dismissed for the purpose of proposed new section 104BA(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Government have concluded that there is no need to set out when the termination occurred. The amendment will make the Bill’s meaning clearer, as it is logical from its provisions that that would be during a reference period or the corresponding offer period. Remaining silent on the effective date of termination also follows the precedent set for other rights under the 1996 Act.
Government amendment 52 is consequential on Government amendment 51.
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
I beg to move amendment 53, in schedule 1, page 109, line 30, leave out “last” and insert “latest”.
This amendment and amendment 54 concern the calculation of a week’s pay for the purposes of an award of compensation by an employment tribunal following a complaint under proposed section 27BF of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The amendments ensure that the rules work for all such complaints.
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.
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.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
On the point about process: at the point at which the Bill came before the House for a Second Reading, how many of its clauses were already subject to revision within the Department?
Justin Madders
I was not privy to the drafting of individual clauses—the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel does that, and it is a separate organisation from the Department—but I can certainly write to the hon. Gentleman with details on which clauses we expected to be amended. It is fair to say that we expected a number of clauses to be amended when the Bill was published.
It is important that we get this right. The Bill is a Bill, not an Act, so it will continue to evolve; there will then be further detailed consultation on implementation and the regulations. That is why I believe that the shadow Minister’s concerns are ill-founded.
Question put, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.
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
I think it is fair to say that we signalled our intention to repeal the 2023 Act shortly after taking office. It had not actually been implemented, so it is not a case of creating additional burdens. I am sure the shadow Minister will concede that if we had allowed it to take its course, it would have created a set of regulations, involving time and expense, that would only have been replaced in short order with another set of rules. The problem with the 2023 Act is that it would still create a huge power imbalance for the employer, as the Low Pay Commission recognised when it expressed its concerns.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Exclusivity terms in zero hours arrangements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
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.
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.
Justin Madders
Clause 8 provides for the removal of the waiting period from the statutory sick pay system, meaning that all eligible employees are able to access statutory sick pay from the first day of sickness absence. The current system of waiting until the fourth day of sickness before SSP is paid means that many people are forced to make the difficult choice between going into work when they are unwell or receiving no income. That is bad for individuals but also bad for business.
Removing the waiting period will support employees in taking the time off they need to recover from illness and reduce the spread of infection. Under the current rules, the system encourages workers to drag themselves into work when they are unwell. The TUC gave an example of workers in a mental health hospital in Blackpool who had to go on strike because they did not have access to day one sick pay and could not afford to take the day off. Those NHS workers felt that they were being forced to go into work. Obviously, they work in a clinical environment, so they were also putting patients at risk.
Uma Kumaran
I would like to highlight a few examples in addition to those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield.
According to the Nuffield Trust, these changes will greatly benefit social care workers and workers on zero-hours contracts who, as has been highlighted, have inconsistent access to statutory sick pay, let alone occupational sick pay schemes, to cover costs such as rent and bills. As we have heard, and we have seen in our constituencies, many of those workers worked through the pandemic, risking their own lives and risking infection, putting themselves in harm’s way, because they did not have a fallback—they did not have statutory sick pay.
A more generous system of statutory sick pay should be seen not only as a right for workers, but as part of our national defences, including against pandemics. In particular, the changes will benefit low and outsourced workers such as porters, cleaners and housekeepers. I recently visited Newham General hospital in my constituency, where I saw at first hand the impact that porters and cleaning staff are having. I heard from the hospital’s chief executive officer how the hospital is unable to function without those essential staff.
Health Equals found that 28% of employees are reliant on statutory sick pay, one in 10 workers get nothing at all if they are sick and 82% of workers reported that flexible working arrangements allowed them to maintain a good level of personal health and wellbeing. I spoke earlier about mental health provisions. Evidence from Mind has shown us that employees with mental health issues are reliant on SSP. Without access to it, they are forced into debt, increasing the strain on their mental health.
The Centre for Progressive Change highlighted a recent study that shows that the cost of presenteeism for the private sector for mental health alone is around £23 billion a year to our economy, which is more than the cost of absenteeism, which is around £5 billion a year. The Institute of Public Policy Research has shown that workers in the UK are among the least likely to take sick days and that the presenteeism culture costs our economy £25 billion annually, due to the impact on productivity. We are speaking about workers today, but highlighting the impact on business and our economy helps to demonstrate why these measures are so important.
I will finish with one final statistic. The Centre for Progressive Change highlighted modelling by WPI Economics that shows that the implementation of an increased SSP rate, alongside other changes put forward in the Bill, such as the removal of waiting days and lower earnings limits, would deliver substantial economic benefits to the UK, including net gains of up to £800 million for businesses. That is £1.7 billion for the Treasury and £2.1 billion for the wider economy. Those are not small sums of money. Those would have a huge impact on our economy, through measures that put workers at the heart.
Justin Madders
We have had a good debate. Most Members have spoken positively about the need for this change. Obviously, this was a measure brought in temporarily by the previous Government, during covid. They recognised the particular issue at the time.
Before I turn to the shadow Minister’s comments, I wish him the best of luck in the Mid-Buckinghamshire pantomime. I hope he does not become the George Lazenby of the Conservative party as a result. He raised two perfectly reasonable questions. The first was on Northern Ireland. I can assure him that it was not an oversight. It has been introduced as an amendment because, as this is a transferred power to Northern Ireland, we need their consent before it can be included. I think he will understand that putting it in without getting that agreement might have been counterproductive.
On the second point that the shadow Minister made, about abuse of the provision, of course employers already have the power to deal with employees whom they feel are falsely taking time off sick. Whether that is day four or day one, those powers are already there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby made a very powerful speech to highlight the impact on particular groups. The evidence we heard from the Women’s Budget Group last week was particularly important in that respect. Other Members who spoke, my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Northfield and for Stratford and Bow, raised a whole plethora of examples with pieces of evidence in support of the policy. I think it is one that is generally supported.
To deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee Central about the level of statutory sick pay, he may not have seen my opining on SSP at the evidence session last week, or the famous comments from the former Health Secretary about it not being enough to live on. I recognise that. Unfortunately, however, I have to give him the stock answer, which is that the actual level is set by the Department for Work and Pensions. He made a fair point about people on long-term sick, because there is a huge interplay between people on long-term sick and the benefits system, but it is in the Department’s gift to set the rate and to look at how it interplays with accessibility to other benefits, which of course depends on people’s individual circumstances.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Statutory sick pay: lower earnings limit etc
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that helpful run-through of some of the issues that we are actively considering. He will be aware that a consultation on the issue closed only yesterday, so I would not want to pre-empt the outcome by accepting the amendment today. We understand the various arguments he has advanced that the level should be higher. He will not be surprised to hear that contrary arguments are put forward by some groups around having an incentive to take sick days when they are not needed.
Some of the modelling figures that the hon. Gentleman has come up with do not quite fit with the ones we have on where people would lose out at certain rates, but that will be considered in the round when we formally respond to the consultation. We hope to do so early in the new year, because we wish to put this into the Bill before it finishes its progress. It is something we are actively considering at the moment. I should be grateful if he would withdraw the amendment, so that we can take full account of the consultation that we have just completed.
Chris Law
I have listened with great interest to the Minister. I thank him for his comments and for the consultation that concluded yesterday. It would be helpful to hear today what the conclusion of the consultation is. I have made it crystal clear that none of us present want to see those at the lowest end of earnings worse off than they currently are. The Bill has been brought forward in good faith and good will, I am sure, by the new incoming Government to improve the lives of everyone, most of all those at the most vulnerable end. I have spoken to employers and employees quite widely about this, and the feeling I hear constantly is that this is a no-brainer. Delaying would be very difficult.
Justin Madders
I understand the point the hon. Member is making, but he will understand that when a Government Department—in this case the Department for Work and Pensions—undertakes a formal consultation, it is obliged to consider all responses before coming to a conclusion. That is why it is premature to agree to his amendment.
Chris Law
I thank the Minister for his intervention, but this is not a DWP issue. We are not talking about the level of SSP. We are talking about a sentence in the Bill that puts in a threshold that will make people on the lowest incomes worse off. That is an issue for the Minister for Employment to address rather than DWP. The level of SSP more widely has been discussed, and that may be an issue for DWP to consider. I think there will be disagreement over what that level should be. I have already quoted the TUC’s £320 a week, and I have suggested the national living wage. I look forward to that consultation, but this amendment seeks to strike a sentence out, nothing more.
Justin Madders
The very issue that the hon. Member is putting forward in his amendment is the issue that the Department for Work and Pensions is consulting on at the moment, which is why it would be premature to make a decision at this stage.
Chris Law
I need to ask for your advice, Sir Christopher, because at this point I would press the amendment to a vote but I want to be charitable and open to understanding what we are expecting from this consultation and when we would be able to bring this issue back—perhaps even during this Committee.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 6—Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: lower earnings limit etc.
Government amendment 107.
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 (Ninth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Wales Office
Justin Madders
Main Page: Justin Madders (Labour - Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)Department Debates - View all Justin Madders's debates with the Wales Office
Employment Rights Bill (Ninth sitting)
Justin Madders ExcerptsTuesday 10th December 2024
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 December 2024 - (10 Dec 2024)
The Chair
Would everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on the declaration of interests, as set out in the code of conduct.
Clause 10
Policy about allocating tips etc: consultation and review
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Mundell. As is customary, I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
As Members will be aware, clause 10 introduces new requirements on tipping, namely the requirements for employers to consult workers about the allocation of the tips they have earned, and to review their tipping policy. These new requirements will build on the measures introduced by the previous Government in the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023. The Act came fully into effect on 1 October this year and ensured that an estimated £200 million-worth of tips each year are no longer retained by employers.
The Act is accompanied by a statutory code of practice on the fair and transparent distribution of tips. Although the Act requires employers to allocate tips fairly to workers, the existing statutory code of practice only encourages consultation with workers in deciding that allocation. The Government were clear in their commitment to going further—indeed, I took part in a debate earlier this year in which I said that the legislation did not go far enough. We will therefore make it mandatory for employers to consult workers in developing or updating their tipping policies, including how tips are allocated.
The clause will support worker participation in the allocation and distribution of tips that they have earned, by mandating that employers consult workers during the development or revision of their written tipping policies. It will also mandate that employers review their tipping policy and maintain records of the consultation they have carried out, as well as giving workers the right to request and review records related to the tipping policy consultation. The consultation will be required to take place at the formative stage, before the policy is finalised or updated, and should be carried out, where possible, by engaging with representatives of recognised trade unions or other chosen representatives. If neither are available, the consultation will be required to be with workers likely to be affected.
We will continue to engage with unions and worker representatives in hospitality and other impacted industries to ensure that the measures in the Bill and in the statutory guidance deliver fully on our aims. Following Royal Assent, we will consult widely and properly with stakeholders to determine what changes should be made to the existing statutory code of practice. We are determined to ensure that guidance is as helpful as possible, ensuring that tips are allocated fairly and that worker consultation is carried out properly.
These measures will be enforced via the employment tribunal system. If an employer fails to consult their workers properly or to distribute tips in a fair and transparent manner, workers will be able to bring a claim to an employment tribunal. The tribunal will be able to order an employer to compensate workers up to £5,000 for financial loss. I think that Members can see what we are trying to achieve with the clause, and I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once more, Mr Mundell. The Minister mentioned that the clause builds on private Member’s legislation passed in the last Parliament, and it would be remiss of me not to put on record that the transformation in some employers’ attitudes to their employees and to the retention and fair distribution of tips was in large part down to the former Conservative Member for Watford, Dean Russell, who piloted the original legislation through the House. There were one or two little bumps along the road as he came into ministerial office and then out again in—what was the number?—43 days, but many Conservative colleagues really pushed for the legislation. It is one of those great unfairnesses that, for years, incredibly hard-working people in the hospitality sector and others had an expectation that they would receive the generosity of their customers’ tips at the end of the meal, the round of drinks or whatever but, for various reasons, did not get their fair share. The legislation the Minister referred to righted that historic wrong, and clause 10, which seeks to strengthen that, is very welcome.
Where I gently suggest to the Minister that there needs to be a little more thought and clarity is settings where there is no union to consult. That might be a small business such as a restaurant or pub, where the people who work there are not affiliated with any union or body that could be consulted on their behalf. Will he say something about how those smaller businesses—smaller restaurant or pub settings—will get dialogue going with their employees so that the business has a fair and equitable, and clear and unambiguous policy to ensure that the tips reach those workers?
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions. I noticed last week that the Prime Minister made a James Bond joke, and I wondered whether he was following the Committee’s proceedings in real time. There is a valid question here: when James Bond buys a vodka martini, what happens to the tips? Hopefully, thanks to this Bill and the legislation passed last year, we will have a more equitable solution.
I want quickly to raise two issues. The “Make Work Pay” document published earlier this year stated:
“Labour will strengthen the law to ensure hospitality workers receive their tips in full and workers decide how tips are allocated.”
I would be interested in the Minister’s views on whether this measure meets that very welcome commitment. Whether tips that would have been received during shifts that are cancelled fall under the definition of reasonable compensation is presumably a question to be addressed in the future.
In respect of the points raised by the hon. Members for Torbay and for Mid Buckinghamshire about consultation with groups of workers who are not represented by a trade union, I suggest that the kinds of businesses they mentioned should have at least a degree of familiarity with the principles of that, since they are established and well understood in the context of redundancy situations and in other areas.
Justin Madders
First, I will acknowledge, as did the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, the work in this area by previous Members of this place, including the former Member for Ynys Môn. I think it was seven years after the announcement that there was to be legislation that we finally got action, but it is welcome. I note the shadow Minister’s comment that the legislation has transformed attitudes, and that is what we are trying to do with this Bill in general: transform the workplace so that workers have better security and a better voice.
The shadow Minister raised some important questions, as did the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, about what this measure means for smaller businesses where there may not be a trade union. Of course, that is an argument for greater organisation in the workplace so that employers can consult collectively with the workforce. Those smaller employers—the Great British café, for example—would not always have an easy route to consult with their workforce, but in that kind of informal setting, where there is only a handful of employees, it should be fairly straightforward. Everyone will know their role and what goes on, and the existing code of practice deals with the guidance for smaller employers in that sense.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield asked whether this measure meets our commitments under “Make Work Pay”, and I believe it does. It is a significant step in continuing the welcome, transformational moves that we have seen on tips, and it gives workers an absolute right to be consulted, which I think is important. There is evidence, such as the research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, that certain sections of the workforce, including agency workers and people working in certain parts of a business, feel that they do not have a voice. This provision will give them that voice and the real teeth they need to ensure that tips are fairly distributed. As the shadow Minister said, this is all about them. It is about ensuring that everyone who contributes to the service that we all enjoy gets those tips, which the customer clearly wants to ensure are spread among the workforce. On that note, I commend the clause to the Committee.
The Chair
It is good to hear the Great British café will be covered by these provisions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Parental leave: removal of qualifying period of employment
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes. I am the last person to want to put a greater burden or unnecessary burden on any form of business. All I gently suggest is that this probably is not that great a burden on a business, on the grounds that it will already know what it is going to do when an employee comes and asks for paternity leave, maternity leave or whatever. That is particularly the case given that much of the rules and regulations is already set in statute and, when this Bill undoubtedly achieves Royal Assent at some point, will be further enshrined in statute. There are many other regulations that businesses have to comply with when publishing on their website—I am thinking of privacy notices and various GDPR regulations and so on—just as all the members of this Committee and Members of this House have to do on our own websites. I do not think anyone would try to define any of us as large businesses or huge employers, and I do not think that there are any hon. or right hon. Members left who do not have a website. Perhaps one or two do not—
Greg Smith
He is a fine television superstar these days.
All of us will have published these statements on our websites, because that is straightforwardly set out in statute—straightforwardly set out in law. I am at a loss to understand why it would be a burden for a business of any size to do that, but I am mindful that we do not want to overburden businesses. I accept the explanation given by the hon. Member for Chippenham.
Turning to new clause 17, I would have loved to have six weeks of paternity leave when my three children were born. When my first child was born, I was still self-employed. It was before my election to this place, so the time I took off in 2016 was entirely unpaid because I just had to forgo client work, but it was important to do that.
I am slightly concerned that, as desirable as six weeks would be, it is too great a burden for businesses automatically to have to shoulder. Some good and generous employers may well find a way of offering it in one way or another, paid or otherwise. However, to go beyond the current entitlement of two weeks, which can be split up, as the Minister mentioned, seems to be too big an ask for some businesses, desirable though it may be for fathers to be able be there with their new child in the most precious early days of life to support the mother and the child. I gently invite Liberal Democrat Members to reflect on whether six weeks is realistic for every business.
Employment Rights Bill (Tenth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Wales Office
Justin Madders
Main Page: Justin Madders (Labour - Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)Department Debates - View all Justin Madders's debates with the Wales Office
Employment Rights Bill (Tenth sitting)
Justin Madders ExcerptsTuesday 10th December 2024
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 December 2024 - (10 Dec 2024)
Sarah Gibson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Before I make my case, I must make a small correction: the reference to section 14K in the text of amendment 163 should be to section 43K. My apologies for the error.
The Liberal Democrats tabled amendment 163 because although we strongly welcome the Bill’s proposals on whistleblowing, we do not feel that it goes far enough to support all workers: it is not extended to additional workers. We feel that whistleblowing protections should be extended to all those in the workplace who may see wrongdoing and may suffer for raising public interests and concerns. After our long debate about harassment, we must all agree that harassment can often be brought to light only by whistleblowers, so this part of the legislation is incredibly important. As the definition of “worker” in section 43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is already slightly different for whistleblowers than for other areas of employment law, there is a sound public policy reason to extend it even further.
In our diverse and complex labour market, many people who wish to blow the whistle do not necessarily qualify as a worker and are therefore not protected either by the existing legislation or under the Bill. The Secretary of State already has the power to make these changes through secondary legislation, but until the Government act on that, we are pushing for Parliament to extend protections to workers such as contractors.
In the modern economy, the boundaries between a self-employed contractor and a worker have never been more blurred. Many people classified as self-employed workers are inside a company, yet do not enjoy whistleblowing rights. That is true in my constituency of Chippenham, where a large number of people working in the care industry are technically subcontracted to the employer for whom they are working. In a large part of Corsham, many people work for the Government in one form or another, through the military or Ministry of Defence, but they are often either self-employed or subcontracted and therefore not entitled to these protections.
This issue is part of a wider problem with our modern economy, particularly the gig economy. It is welcome that the Government have made fighting the insecurities created by bogus self-employment a core plank of their employment reforms, but adopting this amendment would immediately plug the gap in workplace rights and protections for those who are self-employed.
I want to highlight a few cases. If the sub-postmasters, who were effectively contractors, had been afforded whistleblower rights, they might have been able to raise their concerns about the Horizon IT system much faster, and some of the issues would have been resolved faster.
Non-executives and trustees are subject to duties and liabilities under laws such as the Companies Act 2006 and the Trustee Act 2000, but they are not covered by whistleblower legal protections. Not only is blowing the whistle without protection a risk to someone’s employment, but for trustees of charities it could cause reputational damage, yet the law on that is currently unclear.
I do not need to remind Labour Members that the role of trade unions in the workplace is recognised in the Bill. A whistleblower is likely to go to their trade union representative for advice on whistleblowing, but if I have understood correctly, when representatives raise that concern to the employer on behalf of a colleague, there is currently no protection. The amendment would be an important extension to the clause.
If someone is rejected for a job because they blew the whistle in a previous role, they are unlikely to have a remedy in an employment tribunal against a prospective employer for the loss of that job opportunity. That puts them at a significant disadvantage. It leads to whistleblowers being blacklisted and unable to work in the sector in which they have raised concerns. The law is inconsistent; job applicants must not be discriminated against under equality law, and job applicants in the NHS do have whistleblowing protections.
The amendment would ensure that job applicants receive the whistleblowing protections that they deserve, and that extend whistleblowing rights to people working in various other forms who are not strictly considered to be workers. I ask the Committee to support our amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. As always, I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
I thank the hon. Member for Chippenham for raising these important issues, which we need to explore. She is coming from a good place. We all know that whistleblowers play an important role in shining a light on wrongdoing. The fear, and often the reality, of retaliation is a barrier to people coming forward with concerns.
Before I turn to the substance of amendment 163, I will recap the existing protections for whistleblowers. Workers have the right not to be subject to detriment on the grounds of making a protected disclosure and not to be dismissed for making a protected disclosure: that would be treated as an automatically unfair reason for dismissal. These are day one rights for workers and employees who have recourse to an employment tribunal. The standard employment law definition of “worker” has been extended in recent years to whistleblowing protections. It includes a range of employment relationships, such as agency workers, individuals undertaking training or work experience, certain self-employed staff in the NHS, police officers and student nurses and midwives.
Amendment 163, as the hon. Lady says, would extend the scope of whistleblowing protections to a huge range of other groups, including the self-employed, contractors, office holders including members of the judiciary, non-executive directors, trustees—including personal trustees—and trade union representatives and job applicants, as well as those who acquire information during a recruitment process.
I can see the hon. Lady’s intentions and what she is trying to achieve. However, there are questions that the amendment does not address, particularly given how our current employment law framework is structured, because a lot of the people it covers are not in an employment relationship or a worker relationship. The remedies are based on detrimental treatment and on dismissal, but a lot of those to whom she seeks to extend protection are people who by definition cannot be dismissed, because they are not employees or workers.
It is quite a job to understand exactly where to take the issue of people who acquire information during a recruitment process, which is the final limb of the amendment, paragraph (cg). That is potentially extremely broad in application. In legislation like this, it would be difficult to pin down exactly who it would apply to. Would it apply to someone casually undertaking a job search on the internet? Where do we draw the line?
On the point about job applicants, I take the point that blowing the whistle can have a huge impact on a person’s career prospects. I have represented many people who have found that to be an issue, and there are already blacklisting laws for certain types of protection. However, the tribunal can award compensation and take into account the difficulty that an individual might have in finding suitable employment at a similar level as a result of having blown the whistle. There is a wider question about how we treat people who blow the whistle, which is not necessarily going to be resolved by the amendment.
I agree that we should protect those who speak up and that we should ensure that our legal framework takes account of modern working relationships. I recognise that, particularly for trade unions, there is a benefit to having these groups within scope, and there are issues here that I think bear further scrutiny. Because of the plethora of unintended consequences and knock-on effects, some of which I have touched on, we cannot accept the amendment as drafted, but I assure the hon. Lady that I intend to meet Protect next month to discuss the issues on which it is campaigning. We are aware of the long-overdue requirement to look at whistleblowing law. The previous Government undertook a small exercise and we need to understand its findings, but we will be taking into account some of the issues that the hon. Lady has raised.
We cannot pretend that such an amendment would not bring very large numbers of additional people into scope, so we would want to work with stakeholders to understand what that would mean for them. It is also possible to imagine people becoming professional whistleblowers by having something that they could rely on in perpetuity; again, we have to balance that against the need to ensure that people are properly protected. I am happy to work with colleagues across the House to ensure that if we introduce any legislation in this area, we get it right and recognise modern relationships. The hon. Lady is also right to refer to worker status: we are keen to look at that in our “Next Steps” document, because we know that a whole range of issues arise.
Justin Madders
I will not speak for long on clause 19, because it is a fairly straightforward clause and there are more detailed clauses and amendments that may generate further debate. Clause 19 introduces schedule 2, which will repeal section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, thereby removing the two-year qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal.
An estimated 9 million employees have been working for their employer for less than two years and therefore have very limited protection against unfair dismissal. By removing the qualifying period, the Government will make basic protection against unfair dismissal a day one right for all employees, ensuring a baseline of security and predictability. It is about tackling insecurity. Unless there are automatically unfair grounds, an employer can lawfully sack a worker just by giving them their statutory or contractual notice pay and telling them not to come back to work. There is no entitlement to a fair process, nor even a right to a written statement explaining why they have been sacked.
Think about what you can do with two years in your life, Mr Stringer—well, maybe we should not think too much about it. Someone can make an awful lot of commitments, including financial commitments. They can get married, buy a house, start a family and take out loans of all descriptions, but they have no protection at work and nothing to stop them being arbitrarily dismissed in that two-year period. We think that that is wrong: it creates a great deal of insecurity in the workplace, and it has to change.
Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. We will ensure that businesses can hire with confidence. We will ensure that employers can operate contractual probation periods, which are separate from the new statutory probationary periods. During the statutory probationary periods, employers will have a lighter-touch standard to meet when they need to dismiss an employee who is not suitable for the job.
Our changes will ensure that newly hired workers are not arbitrarily dismissed. We believe that that will help to drive up standards in the workplace. It will ensure that there is greater fairness and greater understanding between employees and businesses. It will drive up standards, quality and security—all things that we believe will improve our economy. We do not intend to bring in these measures in until autumn 2026 at the earliest. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I accept the Minister’s point that clause 19 essentially just introduces schedule 2. Several amendments in my name and in the name of my hon. Friends will explore schedule 2 in detail over the coming days and potentially even weeks.
However, as we discuss clause 19, I think it is important gently to challenge what is actually quite a big leap, from two years down to day one. It is incumbent on the Government to come up with a rationale and a reason for such a considerable change. This is not a taper or a gradual decrease from two years to a year or six months; we can have a debate about what the right number is.
It is clear that the Government wish to move down from two years, but what we heard in our public evidence sessions shows the very real risk that introducing these day one rights for all employees will mean that employers are reticent, are more risk-averse and do not hire as readily, freely or easily as we might want in order to create jobs in our economy. I remind the Minister what Jane Gratton of the British Chambers of Commerce said about her members:
“Members say that there would be a reduced hiring appetite were this legislation to come in, and that they 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.]
She went on to argue for a nine-month probationary period—a period to which it would potentially be feasible to reduce this timeframe.
Whenever a new law comes in and makes a significant change, be it to business, regulation or whatever sector, I gently ask the Minister to reflect on the time period. Is it really necessary to make such a giant leap in one go? Even if in years to come the Government get what they want in terms of day one rights, would it not be better to face this now, listen to industry, listen to the evidence that this very Committee heard a couple of weeks ago and be more measured, proportionate and risk-averse as to what these measures might end up doing to the overall jobs market in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? If the Government did that, it would help with some of the stark and staggering business confidence numbers in the economy at the moment. Businesses are worried about where the future lies, and real people out there looking for work are worried that jobs might not be as readily available after the Bill comes into effect.
Justin Madders
We seem to have lost a few colleagues during the votes; hopefully, they are coming back. It seems a while since they were made, but I will pick up on comments and questions of—[Interruption.]
Justin Madders
Let me sum up the debate. The shadow Minister asked some questions, and there were other contributions to the debate, which I hope to come on to. I think that the shadow Minister’s general position was that he accepted that there should be a reduction in the qualifying period. I am not entirely clear whether that was the case, but certainly his colleague, the hon. Member for Bridgwater, threw out a number of proposals. The question that the shadow Minister asked was, “Why day one?” I will come to that shortly, but I think the other main thrust of his argument was that we are not listening to businesses. Of course we are, and that is why we came up with the concept of a statutory probationary period.
For the information of the Committee, about 140 stakeholders have engaged with us about the Bill since we came into office in July. One of the many issues that have come up is the question of day one rights, and how we balance the risk for employers—giving them the confidence to hire but ensuring that we deliver our policy aim of giving people more certainty and security at work. That is where the statutory probationary period comes in. We believe that that will help businesses focus on their hiring practices, but it should also increase the dialogue between employer and employee in those early days of the employment relationship.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said that an employer can work out pretty quickly whether someone will be suitable for the workplace. At this point, I quote Professor Dominic Regan, an eminent professor of employment law, who used to quip somewhat tongue in cheek that he could decide whether he liked someone within 10 minutes of meeting them on a train. That was his way of arguing that the two-year time limit for unfair dismissal was set far too high. It is certainly a sentiment that I agree with, although we will not be going as far as to introduce a 10-minutes-on-a-train test.
We are seeking to give employees the security of knowing that they will not be arbitrarily dismissed in the early days of their employment, but to give employers the confidence to hire and the opportunity to use a light-touch process to deal with issues of performance and capability. We believe that will be a positive for employees. Research quoted in the impact assessment suggests that having a job is significant to physical health and personal relationships, as a determinant of one’s wellbeing. The quality of that job and how secure it is are clearly a key part of that.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, and by my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak and for Gloucester, about employees who get dismissed before the qualifying period sometimes looking for a protected characteristic to base a claim on is an interesting one. I do not think that is something that we can model, because we do not know exactly how many claims would have continued anyway, but it is a fair point that when people are dismissed before two years, without any discussion or explanation, they seek answers, and sometimes they might seek those answers by hanging their hat on a statutory peg that may not always fit the case. My hon. Friends all spoke eloquently about how that can be counterproductive not just for the businesses, but for the employees’ general wellbeing.
Business in the Community surveyed 4,000 employees, of whom 66% said that their mental health and wellbeing was affected by their personal job insecurity. In written evidence presented to the Committee, USDAW noted that
“Being dismissed on spurious…grounds, without a fair investigation can have devastating consequences for an employee”
in terms of morale, confidence and living standards. Having worked for employers that had quite a gung-ho approach to employment rights, I welcomed the security of a qualifying period for unfair dismissal. Before that, it really did feel that you were one wrong conversation away from seeing your job go.
Of course, there is significant evidence to suggest that there are advantages for the wider economy. I think there is an acceptance that job insecurity can have a cooling effect on job mobility. The Resolution Foundation noted that the job mobility rate in 2019 was 25% lower than in 2000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, there is an international context to this: the UK is the fifth least regulated of the 38 OECD countries in terms of the dismissal of individual workers. We should look to correct that, and the Bill will go a long way towards doing so.
The shadow Minister asked about the risk to jobs. The impact assessment states:
“There is limited evidence to suggest that protecting employees from unfair dismissal is associated with lower employment rates.”
Evidence from our OECD counterparts across Europe supports that. The Resolution Foundation gave evidence to the effect that the measure is unlikely to have an impact on employment rates. Professor Deakin’s historical context was important. He said that, over the sweep of history in the past 50 years, increased employment protections have not led to increased unemployment. Of course, all Members will be aware of the messages of doom that we heard during the national minimum wage debate about what implementing that measure would mean for employment rates.
History demonstrates that there is nothing to fear in this legislation, and nothing to fear in giving people greater job security from day one. By providing for a statutory probationary period, we are getting the balance right between security at work and giving employers the opportunity to take a chance on new hires. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Justin Madders
Main Page: Justin Madders (Labour - Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)Department Debates - View all Justin Madders's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Justin Madders ExcerptsThursday 12th December 2024
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2024 - (12 Dec 2024)
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.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Can the Minister give me an assurance on how microbusinesses will be affected by the change? A very small business might choose to take on one person, and there might be nothing wrong with that person, but within a couple of months the business might realise that it is not working from an economic point of view. The employee would then be effectively redundant, because that small business cannot sustain their employment. Can the Minister assure me that if that small business cannot dismiss that person for the reason of redundancy during the probationary period, there will not be a separate, complex redundancy process to follow?
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.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I want to unpick another issue on which I would welcome some reassurances from the Minister.
I have spoken to a gentleman from the Torbay Business Forum who supports a charity that works across Devon, particularly by supporting people with learning disabilities into employment. One often finds that it can take a bit longer for people with learning disabilities to find the right place and get a firm contract. What safeguards are there for charitable organisations and not-for-profit companies working in that sector to prevent them from ending up in the difficult position of having people on their books who, sadly, over an extended period of time, they realise are not fit for purpose because of challenges in their lives? There will no longer be the opportunity to offer extended flexibility.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham, I broadly welcome the Bill’s direction of travel, but I would like to see some of the rough edges knocked into shape for Torbay residents.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to Opposition Members for tabling their amendments and asking a series of questions.
The hon. Member for Chippenham seeks to set the boundaries for the statutory probation period at three and nine months. The hon. Member for Torbay seemed to argue for a lengthier period; I do not know whether he was asking for nine months or beyond, but I take his point. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked us to put six months on the face of the Bill, so there is quite a range of options. We have decided that the best thing to do is work with businesses and consult with them on the detail of the proposal as we move forward. We have expressed a preference for nine months as a result of the engagement that we have undertaken.
As the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire indicated, businesses have said that generally six months is about the right period, but in some circumstances they may need a bit longer to ensure that the person is the right fit. That is why we alighted on the proposal for nine months, but we do not want to tie our hands by putting it on the face of the Bill; we want to continue to work with businesses and trade unions to understand whether that is the right figure. Putting a number in the Bill would be premature, because we will have further conversations. As we develop the light-touch process in our deliberations, that may help people to firm up their views about whether nine months is indeed the right amount of time.
The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire questioned the evidence base. Of course there can be no evidence base for people being unfairly dismissed under two years’ employment, because there is no right protecting them from unfair dismissal before then, except for those who may seek to hang their hat on an automatically unfair dismissal. As we have discussed at length, people sometimes do that because they have a sense of grievance about the way they have been treated, and they may well have a legitimate claim.
Hon. Members generally accepted that the labour force survey statistics are not particularly helpful, but there is quite a lot of evidence about the impact of job insecurity more generally and the fact that the two-year qualification period creates uncertainty for individuals. Business in the Community surveyed 4,000 employees, of whom 66% say that their mental health and wellbeing is affected by their personal job insecurity. In written evidence to this Committee, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers notes:
“Being dismissed on spurious conduct or capability grounds, without a fair investigation”—
as can happen at the moment under two years of employment—
“can have devastating consequences for an employee. It can destroy the individual’s morale and confidence and…living standards”.
This is happening to people already, and it is having an impact.
There is also evidence to suggest that there are further advantages for the wider economy. The Resolution Foundation has done some research on the cooling effect of people not moving jobs because they do not have job security. Someone who is considering moving from one job to another may be more likely to take the leap if they have that window of protection, so it is important for individuals as well.
Justin Madders
I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. Those are exactly the same arguments that we had about the minimum wage, and they did not bear examination in the end. Indeed, the Conservative party eventually decided to support the minimum wage too.
The shadow Minister quoted from the evidence of Jane Gratton of the British Chamber of Commerce. She has actually said that she would favour a nine-month probationary period being set out in regulations, which I think is reflective of comments that I have made. It seems a little odd for her evidence to be used in support of an amendment that seeks a six-month period.
We are committed to working with businesses and trade unions to finalise the period in regulations. Setting it out in the Bill would tie our hands somewhat. It would also go against the spirit of what we are trying to achieve, which is working in a tripartite manner. The shadow Minister has sometimes criticised me for rushing a little bit, so he will appreciate that we are taking our time with this measure because we want to get it right. I urge him and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson not to press their amendments.
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.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 28—Unfair dismissal: impact assessment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of section 19 and Schedule 2 of this Act on—
(a) employers, and
(b) the economy.
(2) The assessment must –
(a) include labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis,
(b) examine the impact of the measures in section 19 and Schedule 2 of this Act on employment, wages and economic output,
(c) consider the likelihood the dismissal measures leading to lower employment, and greater use of temporary contracts, and
(d) examine the likely effect of section 19 and Schedule 2 of this Act on—
(i) productivity,
(ii) wage growth,
(iii) equality of opportunity,
(iv) job security,
(v) economic activity, and
(vi) employment.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clause 19 and Schedule 2.
Amendment 134, 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 19 or Schedule 2 of this Act until the findings set out in the report under section [unfair dismissal: impact assessment] 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 NC28.
Justin Madders
Schedule 2 amends the Employment Rights Act 1996, including the introduction of a statutory probation period. It also removes the qualifying period for the right to written reasons, replacing it with a requirement for the dismissal to have occurred after the statutory probation period ends. By removing the qualifying period, schedule 2 makes basic protection against unfair dismissal a day one right for all employees, ensuring that employees receive a baseline of security and predictability.
By introducing a statutory probation period in legislation, the schedule ensures that employers can continue to assess new hires. It allows the duration of the statutory probation period to be set out in regulation by the Secretary of State, which will follow public consultation.
I will take Members briefly through the elements of schedule 2. Paragraph 1 repeals the two-year qualifying period. Paragraph 2 makes it clear that the right to be unfairly dismissed does not apply to those who have not yet started employment. Paragraph 3 makes provision about dismissal during the initial period of employment, which we have already discussed. It will ensure that the “potentially fair” reasons in section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 will be subject to the light-touch regime where they relate to the employee with the exception of redundancy.
As we have already discussed, the Government intend to consult on the standards, and the schedule repeals the two-year qualifying period. A Government amendment has been made to schedule 2 to include a delegated power to change the maximum compensatory award available during the statutory probation period where the lighter-touch standards apply, as we have just discussed. We will consult on that.
Justin Madders
I will try to put the shadow Minister’s mind at ease. I point out that not just is there an overall impact assessment for the Bill, but there are 24 separate impact assessments for different measures. That shows the amount of work that has been put in. The RPC has approved two thirds of those assessments, and it was looking only at the evidence base, not the policies themselves.
The impact assessment for day one rights covers everything we would expect an impact assessment to look at: the business environment, the wider economic impact, trade implications, wages, labour mobility, productivity, and sectoral and regional impacts. As the evidence base is firmed up, we will continue to refine and develop it. It deals comprehensively with many of the shadow Minister’s concerns, and I invite him not to press his amendments to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 20
Dismissal during pregnancy
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Gibson
I thank the hon. Member for Dundee Central for tabling the amendment, which has drawn out a potential loophole that I hope the Government will look at carefully. We so often see legislation introduced with good intentions, and then 90% of businesses—especially smaller businesses—comply with it to the letter, because they think that is the right thing to do, but the larger corporations find a way around it.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the contributions in this debate, which deals with one of the central issues we have been grappling with. On this side of the Committee we certainly want to see fire and rehire consigned to the history books. Equally, we do not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles said, want to see businesses feel they have no option but to make people redundant because they do not feel they can take any other course of action. It is about trying to ensure that that is still available without opening a loophole, as it has been described, for abusive fire and rehire tactics to continue. There is an awful lot in the Bill as it stands that will make it a very high threshold indeed for any employer to want to take that step. There will, of course, be further guidance in regulations, where we will home in on the kinds of concerns that have been raised.
Chris Law
I appreciate that there is a lot in the Bill, and I appreciate that some Government Members on the Committee think this is a nut to crack. I have asked questions—I hope to hear some of the answers to them—and I want to add another. I raised the issue of “likely”, which is the language used. Will the Minister remark on whether the Department intends to advise on how the word “likely” should be determined? Will he consider whether that will reflect what was set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and a subsequent tribunal judgment, which came to define “likely” as a need to show
“a significantly higher degree of likelihood than just more likely than not”?
Justin Madders
I am not familiar with the particular case law the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I will take that away.
It is fair to say that employment tribunals currently do not have the kind of inquiries into a business’s finances and general condition that we are trying to achieve with this legislation. At the moment, there is a fairly broadbrush approach, particularly in terms of redundancies, to inquiries about the business reasons. It is important to draw the hon. Member for Dundee Central’s attention to the words after “likely” in the Bill. It is about an
“employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern”.
That means the alternative is insolvency or redundancies, which is the eventuality that I am sure we all want to avoid. It will ultimately be a question of fact for an employment tribunal to determine whether it genuinely was the only option available to the employer, which is what the Bill will require the employer to demonstrate.
There are a legion of examples of trade unions working constructively with businesses to avoid those kinds of insolvency situations, as a result of which terms and conditions have changed. The hon. Member for Dundee Central quoted Andy Prendergast who, in respect of what happened in the 2008 financial crisis, said in an evidence session:
“It was heartbreaking, but we had to do it because it was the right thing to do.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 131, Q135.]
He was talking about changing terms and conditions in agreement with employers to avoid redundancies and potential insolvencies.
The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would take out all of subsection (5) of proposed new section 104I, which is the requirement for the employer to engage with trade unions and have the dialogue that we think is so important in industrial relations. It would say, “That does not matter any more.” The dialogue we are seeking to develop—the tripartite approach—and the move to make the arbitrary take-it-or-leave-it approach that some employers have adopted in fire and rehire a thing of the past, would not matter.
The hon. Gentleman has asked some important questions about what we would expect of employers; I think subsection (5) answers many of them. Further regulations and codes of practice will also deal with them, because we want to make sure we have a situation in which the bar for passing this test is extremely high, but in addition to that—in addition to there being no alternative but insolvency—the employer has to then demonstrate that they have carried out a full consultation with the trade union. That will involve a full explanation of the financial situation. As we develop the regulations and codes of practice, we will flesh that out in some more detail.
Chris Law
I am listening carefully to the words the Minister is using. When does the employer carry out that process? Ultimately, they have two options. They can carry it out well in advance to ensure that employees are kept up to speed early on. Some employees may wish to leave under those circumstances and find employment elsewhere. But often, in past cases of fire and rehire, employees have heard at a very late stage or not at all. There is currently no provision in the Bill to say what the timetable should be. I would like to get an indication of the Minister’s thoughts about potential future amendments relating to that subject.
Justin Madders
I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but subsection (5) does set out the requirements on an employer to consult. It would be normal for further detail about consultation to be considered to be in good time when proposals are at a formative stage, as has traditionally always been the case. I see no reason why it would not also take the same form in that instance.
What we are really talking about is a situation in which there is a sudden change in a company’s financial circumstances and it has to act quickly. In that situation, we do not want to force it to go insolvent or make people redundant, if there is an opportunity to save jobs. That is why subsection (5) is so important: because it will encourage and compel the dialogue that we are seeking to achieve. I accept that there is more to be done in terms of honing some of the detail, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment because it would, I am afraid, have unintended consequences.
Chris Law
I thank the Minister for his comments. It is helpful to know that there will be further consultation and, potentially, amendments—which may even come from his own side—to tighten up this bit of the legislation. It is critical to the wider Bill and the SNP understands its importance; we just want to see it made tighter—not to put employers in impossible situations in which they cannot negotiate, but so that it is not exploited as a loophole. As it currently stands, employers are already discussing that.
I appreciate the Minister’s response. In that context, so long as it is something that can be further considered and, particularly, brought forward on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Twelfth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Justin Madders
Main Page: Justin Madders (Labour - Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)Department Debates - View all Justin Madders's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Justin Madders ExcerptsThursday 12th December 2024
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2024 - (12 Dec 2024)
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Ms Vaz. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has explained that this is a probing amendment to find out the Government’s intentions, but I put it to the Minister and Labour Members that each of the Government’s proposals seems to be based on the premise that we need to legislate against the worst possible outcome.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles referred to P&O, and that was in fact a scandal. But the problem with this approach, of course, is that a regulatory burden is imposed on each and every other employer, and the labour market is made less flexible and employing people is made more expensive. Therefore, every time the Government see a problem with one employer and say, “We have to regulate for everyone,” the whole labour market is made more expensive and less attractive to foreign investors—less like Britain and more like France. As we look across the channel, we see a country with a similar-sized economy, but an unemployment rate approximately double our own.
Combine that, for example, with the proposal on unfair dismissal, and employers could be less likely to employ that marginal worker. In this case, as Matthew Percival from the CBI said, it becomes more attractive, perhaps, for employers to make their workers redundant than to try to renegotiate terms and conditions.
I ask the Minister to consider the cumulative effect of each and every one of his proposals. It is easy for him to stand up and say, “This proposal on its own is modest and reasonable and good,” but the whole Bill will add £5 billion of costs to industry, and the majority of that falls on small and medium-sized enterprises. My fear is that the Minister, through the very best of intentions, will end up with unemployment higher at the end of this Parliament than when he started.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz. For the benefit of the Committee, I again refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions.
It has been an interesting debate. I think we are on the opposite end of the spectrum from where we were in the earlier debate about where the balance lies with our measures to end fire and rehire. I think that the fact that we have two arguments from other ends of the spectrum suggests that we are in about the right place—but if the shadow Minister expects us to believe that cows queue up to be milked in the morning, I just say to him: pull the other one!
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.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Fire and rehire is an absolute scourge to those people who are impacted by it. Whether in significant numbers or a minority, it is utterly shameful. My Liberal Democrat colleagues broadly welcome the amendments, and we look forward to supporting the clause.
Justin Madders
It is good to hear that we have the support of the Liberal Democrats. Most of the country supports this measure; fire and rehire is rightly seen as a practice that should see its end. I quote the former right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield, Grant Shapps, who said at the time, when P&O first started on that course, that
“we will not allow this to happen again: that where new laws are needed, we will create them, that where legal loopholes are cynically exploited, we will close them, and that where employment rights are too weak, we will strengthen them.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 840.]
I have news for the Committee: I am afraid that only this week several Members of this place have told me about fire and rehire tactics going on in their constituency. A fire and rehire situation is taking place right now in Wrexham. The loopholes have not been closed. That is why we need to act.
To put the shadow Minister’s mind at rest, I believe that proposed new subsection (5) gives employers a real guideline as to how they need to deal with this. Furthermore, as was common to much of the evidence we heard, responsible and good employers do all those things anyway, so they will not be penalised or face any additional burdens, but rather will be able to operate on a level playing field.
To refer to the evidence given by DFDS about this particular matter, or to someone working in an area very relevant to it, they said that they were pleased that fire and rehire was going to be dealt with, because as an operator, they are
“simply looking for a fair and level playing field.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 56, Q54.]
That is why we need to act today.
I also refer to the support of the Institute of Directors; approximately two thirds of its members who were polled supported this action, too. I think it will come to be seen as a watershed moment in industrial relations in this country, where we finally got rid of one of the most obnoxious and outdated practices that this country has ever seen.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Collective redundancy: extended application of requirements
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.
Justin Madders
Employers are currently obliged to collectively consult when they propose to make 20 or more employees redundant at one establishment. Collective consultations are an important part of ensuring fairness and transparency between employers and employees.
In the year to November 2024, approximately 3,500 employers in Great Britain gave notification that they were initiating a collective redundancy process at a single establishment. The benefits of consultation are felt by both employees and employers. Consultation ensures that affected employees can input into the process with a view to avoiding or mitigating redundancies wherever possible, and it helps employers to retain skilled workers and reduce the risk of disputes.
That is why the Government intend to strengthen the collective redundancy framework. The clause will amend the framework to ensure that employers must fulfil collective consultation obligations whenever they are proposing 20 or more redundancies, regardless of whether the redundancies take place at one establishment or not. This will ensure that more employees—many of them in vulnerable positions—will now benefit from redundancy consultation, and that affected employees can participate meaningfully in the redundancy process, regardless of how they might be dispersed across an employer’s business. The clause will also make it easier for employers to understand when they have to comply with these obligations.
I know that businesses have raised some concerns about the practical implications of the clause and I will take this opportunity to clarify its scope. First, the clause does not mean that employers will need to consult with the entire workforce in their organisation whenever they propose 20 or more redundancies. As is currently the case, they must consult only the relevant trade union or employee representatives of employees being proposed to be made redundant, or those who may be affected by measures implemented as a result of the proposed redundancies, such as relevant line managers.
Secondly, when an employer is required to undertake collective consultation with employees across different establishments, they have the flexibility to tailor the process to suit each location. For example, they are not required to undertake a single, uniform consultation across affected locations, but can hold separate consultation activities with each group of affected employees to ensure that discussions are both localised and meaningful.
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
I am pleased to see that we have support all round.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Public sector outsourcing: protection of workers
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 59, in clause 25, page 36, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) After Part 5 insert—
‘Part 5A
Outsourcing: protection of workers
83A Application of this Part
(1) This Part provides for a Minister of the Crown, the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers to make provision for the protection of workers in relation to relevant outsourcing contracts (see section 83B).
(2) Accordingly, in this Part, “appropriate authority”—
(a) means—
(i) a Minister of the Crown,
(ii) the Scottish Ministers, or
(iii) the Welsh Ministers, and
(b) does not include a Northern Ireland department.
(3) In addition to the restrictions in section 113, a Minister of the Crown—
(a) may exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating devolved Scottish authorities only in relation to joint or centralised procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement;
(b) may not exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement.
(4) The Scottish Ministers—
(a) may only exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating—
(i) devolved Scottish authorities, or
(ii) procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement;
(b) may not exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating—
(i) joint or centralised procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement, or
(ii) joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement.
(5) In addition to the restrictions in section 111, the Welsh Ministers—
(a) may exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating devolved Scottish authorities only in relation to joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement;
(b) may not exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement.
(6) This Part does not apply in relation to—
(a) a private utility;
(b) a person referred to in regulation 4(1)(b) of the Utilities Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2016 (S.S.I. 2016/49);
(c) a devolved Welsh authority listed in Schedule 1 of the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023 (asc 1);
(d) procurement under a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement, except to the extent that the procurement—
(i) is carried out by a devolved Scottish authority, and
(ii) is not joint or centralised;
(e) a transferred Northern Ireland authority, except in relation to—
(i) procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement,
(ii) procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement, or
(iii) procurement under a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement.
(7) For the purposes of this section, procurement under a procurement arrangement is “joint or centralised” if as part of that procurement arrangement a contract is to be awarded following a procedure or other selection process carried out—
(a) jointly by a devolved Scottish authority and another contracting authority which is not a devolved Scottish authority, or
(b) by a centralised procurement authority or equivalent body.
83B Relevant outsourcing contracts
(1) In this Part, “relevant outsourcing contract” means a contract in relation to which conditions A to C are met.
(2) Condition A is met where the contract—
(a) is a public contract under this Act, or
(b) is a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation.
(3) Condition B is met where the contract—
(a) is a contract for the supply of services that include the performance of functions that are or have previously been performed by the contracting authority, or
(b) is—
(i) in the case of a public contract, a framework for the future award of a contract referred to in paragraph (a), or
(ii) in the case of a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation, a framework agreement the purpose of which is to establish the terms governing a contract referred to in paragraph (a).
(4) Condition C is met where the functions referred to in subsection (3)(a) are, or are expected to be, performed by individuals (“transferring workers”) who—
(a) in performing the functions, are employed by the supplier or a sub-contractor under a worker’s contract, and
(b) were employed by the contracting authority under a worker’s contract in performing functions of the same kind.
(5) For the purposes of this Part—
(a) “contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation” means a contract the procurement of which by a devolved Scottish authority is regulated by Scottish procurement legislation;
(b) in relation to a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation—
(i) “contracting authority” means a devolved Scottish authority that is a contracting authority within the meaning of the relevant Scottish procurement legislation;
(ii) “framework agreement” has the same meaning as in the relevant Scottish procurement legislation;
(iii) “supplier” means an economic operator within the meaning of the relevant Scottish procurement legislation;
(iv) “the relevant Scottish procurement legislation” means the Scottish procurement legislation regulating the procurement of the contract.
83C Power to specify provision for inclusion in relevant outsourcing contracts
(1) An appropriate authority may by regulations specify provision to be included in a relevant outsourcing contract for the purpose of ensuring that—
(a) transferring workers of a specified description are treated no less favourably as workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor than they were as workers of the contracting authority, and
(b) workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor who are not transferring workers and are of a specified description are treated no less favourably than those transferring workers.
(2) In carrying out the procurement of a relevant outsourcing contract, the contracting authority must—
(a) take all reasonable steps to ensure that provision specified under subsection (1) is included in the contract;
(b) where provision specified under subsection (1) is included in the contract, take all reasonable steps to secure that such provision is complied with.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply—
(a) where the contracting authority or the relevant outsourcing contract is of a specified description, or
(b) in specified circumstances.
(4) In this section, “specified” means specified in regulations made by an appropriate authority.
83D Code of practice on relevant outsourcing contracts
(1) An appropriate authority must prepare and publish a code of practice containing guidance to contracting authorities for the purpose of ensuring that, where a contracting authority carries out the procurement of a relevant outsourcing contract—
(a) transferring workers of a description specified in the code are treated no less favourably as workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor than they were as workers of the contracting authority, and
(b) workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor who are not transferring workers and are of a description specified in the code are treated no less favourably than those transferring workers.
(2) An appropriate authority—
(a) may amend or replace a code published by it under subsection (1), and
(b) must publish any amended or replacement code.
(3) A code published under subsection (1) or (2) must—
(a) in the case of a code published by a Minister of the Crown, be laid before Parliament;
(b) in the case of a code published by the Scottish Ministers, be laid before the Scottish Parliament;
(c) in the case of a code published by the Welsh Ministers, be laid before Senedd Cymru.
(4) In carrying out the procurement of a relevant outsourcing contract, the contracting authority must have regard to the code of practice for the time being published under subsection (1) or (2).
(5) This section does not require an appropriate authority to do anything which the authority does not have power to do (see section 83A and Part 11).
83E Interpretation of this Part
(1) In this Part—
“appropriate authority” has the meaning given in section 83A(2);
“contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation” has the meaning given in section 83B(5)(a);
“relevant outsourcing contract” has the meaning given in section 83B;
“transferring worker”, in relation to a relevant outsourcing contract, has the meaning given in section 83B(4);
“worker” and “worker’s contract” have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (see section 230 of that Act).
(2) For the purposes of this Part, in relation to a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation, “contracting authority”, “framework agreement”, “supplier” and “the relevant Scottish procurement legislation” have the meaning given in section 83B(5)(b).
83F Power of Scottish Ministers to amend this Part
The Scottish Ministers may by regulations modify section 83A, 83B or 83E in consequence of a modification of Scottish procurement legislation.’”
This amendment would restructure the new provisions to be inserted into the Procurement Act 2023 so that the powers and duties extend to the Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers and devolved Scottish and Welsh authorities. The amendment also clarifies that the duty to publish a code of practice does not depend on the making of the regulations.
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.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that this is actually an example of the Government keeping not only their manifesto promise to deliver a new deal for working people, but the manifesto promise that I certainly made many times during the election campaign, which was that the new Government would show the utmost respect for the Scottish Parliament and Government, and for all the devolved institutions? I reassure the Minister that the Scottish Parliament was not forgotten during the drafting of the Bill, because there was extensive engagement with the Scottish Government, some of which I saw myself.
Justin Madders
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. On that note, I commend the amendments to the Committee. “appropriate authority (except in Part 5A) section 123 appropriate authority (in Part 5A) section 83A”
Amendment 59 agreed to.
Amendments made: 60, in clause 25, page 37, line 33, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 2 (contracting authorities), after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) But see also section 83B(5)(b)(i) (which provides for “contracting authority” to have an extended meaning in relation to certain contracts regulated under Part 5A (outsourcing: protection of workers)).’”
See the explanatory statement to amendment 59.
Amendment 61, in clause 25, page 37, line 34, leave out subsection (3).
See the explanatory statement to amendment 59 - because the new provisions are now being inserted as a new Part of the Procurement Act 2023, there is no longer any need to amend section 100 of that Act.
Amendment 62, in clause 25, page 38, line 3, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) In section 122 (regulations)—
(a) in subsection (4) (regulations by Ministers of the Crown subject to affirmative procedure), after paragraph (i) insert—
‘(ia) section 83C (provision for inclusion in relevant outsourcing contracts);’
(b) in subsection (10) (regulations by Welsh Ministers subject to affirmative procedure), after paragraph (g) insert—
‘(ga) section 83C (provision for inclusion in relevant outsourcing contracts);’
(c) in subsection (14) (regulations by Scottish Ministers subject to affirmative procedure), before paragraph (a) insert—
‘(za) section 83C (provision to be included in relevant outsourcing contracts);
(zb) section 83F (power to amend section 83A, 83B or 83E);’”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 59.
Amendment 63, in clause 25, page 38, line 6, at end insert—
“(4A) In section 123 (interpretation), in subsection (1), in the definition of ‘appropriate authority’, at the end insert—
‘(but see section 83A(2) for a different meaning of “appropriate authority” in Part 5A (outsourcing: protection of workers));’.
(4B) In section 124 (index of defined expressions), for the entry for ‘appropriate authority’ substitute—
See the explanatory statement to amendment 59.
Amendment 64, in clause 25, page 38, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert—
“Part 5A (outsourcing: protection of workers)”.—(Justin Madders.)
See the explanatory statement to amendment 59.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Justin Madders
Main Page: Justin Madders (Labour - Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)Department Debates - View all Justin Madders's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Justin Madders ExcerptsTuesday 17th December 2024
(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 December 2024 - (17 Dec 2024)
The Chair
Will everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will now 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.
Clause 25
Public sector outsourcing: protection of workers
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
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.
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—
Laurence Turner
I thank the Minister for giving way at the death. Does he also recognise that one example of a council that tried to go down the wholesale outsourcing route was Northamptonshire? We all know how that story ended, and Eddie Martin, the Conservative former leader of Cumbria county council, stated that the then Government
“says that outsourcing is everything, but while it might get you an initial cheaper price, that price simply doesn’t last, you lose flexibility, and it causes a great deal of unrest.”
Justin Madders
I think that is the kindest thing that has been said about me this year, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I think we can all see the difficulties. I know, from dealing with public bodies in my area, that sometimes when there is more than one person responsible for a service—the public body and then the contracting body—we find duplication, differing priorities and often a poorer service as a result, because there are competing ambitions in those bodies. That is one of the main reasons why we want to see a much more holistic approach to our public services. I commend clause 25 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Equality action plans
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.
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.
Sir Ashley Fox
I am trying to think of how clause 28 and schedule 3 relate to SEND education, and I am struggling. I do not believe that the SEND system is a success, and I do not think that more central control is the way to solve that. In fact, one of the problems is that every time there is a problem, we in Parliament and Whitehall think, “The solution is a directive from above. That will sort out the problem.” That is precisely the model that the Government are adopting in clause 28 and schedule 3: “There’s a problem with low pay, so we will set up a process in London that will help matters.” That is not true at all.
I hope we can all agree that the purpose of spending money on education is to improve the life chances of our children. How are resources allocated? Are they best managed on a school basis or an academy basis? Or are they best decided in London? I argue that they are best decided on a school or an academy level. As I say, I fear that clause 28 and schedule 3 are the beginning of a process in which we will see more and more central control exerted over schools, and that that will lead to worse outcomes for our children.
Justin Madders
I will respond in the strict terms that you have directed, Mr Mundell. I also point out to Members that an education Bill will be presented today. So there will be an opportunity for the wider debate that Members are keen to have, when that Bill gets its Second Reading in due course.
Nick Timothy
I will avoid the temptation to start to read out the PISA statistics. It is important that the Bill that is published today is seen alongside this Bill, because together they chip away quite substantially at the academy freedoms that have been behind school reform. It would be good to hear the Minister acknowledge that fact.
Justin Madders
Of course, the Bill has not been published yet, so we cannot stray into that. We may be able to get on to it this afternoon, but we are trying to help some of the most poorly paid people in our society, who do such an important job. My hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge, for Birmingham Northfield and for Stratford and Bow all talked about how important teaching assistants are, particularly in supporting those with special educational needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield was right that it is shameful that the Low Pay Commission has now deemed teaching assistants to be part of the low pay environment. We are determined to address that, which is why the reinstatement of the SSSNB is an important step.
Let us reflect on some of the evidence that we have had—for example, the GMB evidence. Andy Prendergast said:
“we see increasingly more pupils with special educational needs go into mainstream education, and they need that additional support.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 132, Q136.]
Some of those staff do detailed things such as phonics, supporting pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, and help to deliver classes.
I take the point that has been made about the NJC being an inappropriate way of evaluating and assessing job value. It is clear—indeed a number of other pieces of written evidence have supported our assertion—that the NJC is not the right vehicle for assessing teaching assistants’ pay. We believe that the SSSNB is the way ahead.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater talked about this being a centralising move. Of course, the SSSNB will comprise mainly employers and employee representatives. It will not be a Whitehall-dominated machine.
Sir Ashley Fox
But to the extent that the SSSNB will decide the terms and conditions of assistants in Bridgwater, Mid Buckinghamshire and Birmingham Northfield, and those conditions will apply to all teaching assistants, regardless of the school’s or academy’s view on the subject, it is a centralising measure, does the Minister not agree?
Justin Madders
It is a necessary measure because, as we have seen, teaching assistants and school support staff have suffered in recent years. The point that the hon. Member for Chippenham and several other Members made about funding is correct. It will, of course, be incumbent on future Governments to ensure that any proposals that come forward are affordable. It should be noted that the recent Budget put some additional funds into special educational needs.
Let us look at why this measure is needed. We know that there is a chronic issue of low pay, a lack of career progression and damaged recruitment and retention among school support staff. A survey of teaching assistants found that 27% were considering leaving education altogether—surely we need them to stay—while 60% cited low pay as a reason for leaving, and 40% said that lack of opportunities for progression was. Eighty-nine per cent of schools said they found recruitment difficult, particularly in respect of teaching assistants, and 78% said they found that group hard to retain. There were similar figures in terms of the difficulties with the recruitment and retention of teaching assistants with SEND specialisms.
We are setting up this body to recognise that these people do a critical job in our education system and that they are not properly represented at the moment. They do not have a proper voice, and they do not have a proper mechanism to ensure that the valuable work they do is properly measured, remunerated and recognised. That is why the SSSNB is so important.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Employment Rights Bill (Fourteenth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Justin Madders
Main Page: Justin Madders (Labour - Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)Department Debates - View all Justin Madders's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Justin Madders ExcerptsTuesday 17th December 2024
(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 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.
Sarah Gibson
I appreciate the clarification. That makes perfect sense—it would be unlikely that a body representing employees would create a ceiling, so I cannot help feeling that that issue is not likely to come up. With that in mind, I am unable to support the amendment.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz, and as always 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 will not be surprised to hear that we are not going to accept the amendment, as it would drive a coach and horses through what we are trying to achieve. The remit in the Bill gives the negotiating body the scope necessary to negotiate and reach agreements on pay and conditions, and advise on training and career progression for all school support staff. The Secretary of State may then incorporate agreements reached in support staff contracts through secondary legislation. As has been pointed out, that would be a floor. It will be possible for schools to innovate above that, and the detail will be worked out in due course. This is about creating a baseline for terms and conditions, not a ceiling.
As the shadow Minister knows, as roughly half of the 24,000 state-funded schools are academies the amendment would seriously undermine the policy intention of the SSSNB. We believe that about 800,000 employees would be positively impacted by the Bill, but the amendment would mean that school support staff in academies would have no voice, and no opportunity to raise their concerns about pay, career progression and training prospects, which we know are real issues, particularly in the SEN sectors. There would no vehicle for them, because they would not be part of this body. Of course their employers would have to have regard to what the SSSNB decided, but there would be no legal requirement for those terms to be incorporated into individual contracts. I think that misses the point of what we are trying to achieve here. I do not accept that there is a connection between good educational outcomes and low pay for teaching assistants, which seems to be the thrust of the argument from the Opposition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, the references in the amendment to a framework are not particularly helpful, as it is not defined and would create more confusion. We should say that it is not just academies that can demonstrate excellence in innovation. All schools have the ability to do that, and there will be room for all schools to continue to innovate under the legislation and meet their local recruitment needs.
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.
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.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 65, in schedule 3, page 116, line 6, leave out “education”.
This amendment, and amendments 66, 67, 69, 70 and 71, make a minor drafting correction.
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.
Sarah Gibson
For similar reasons as I was concerned about previous amendments, I feel that I cannot support this amendment. I think it is unnecessary to add more complications to the system on things that are probably already covered in other areas.
Justin Madders
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling amendment 123 and 124 and for raising these issues. The Department will assess the cost implications of the constitutional arrangements of the SSSNB prior to constituting it, but it would be disproportionate to require an impact assessment. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield referred to some costs; those costs have not necessarily been pinned down at this stage, but they are clearly below the level at which a formal impact assessment would normally be required. It is envisaged that the costs of the body will be limited to administrative expenses and fees, so we do not think that amendment 124 is necessary.
The Bill requires the constitutional arrangements for the SSSNB to provide for it to prepare annual reports; it allows the Secretary of State to specify the manner in which reports are published. Assessing the impact on the education sector of agreements reached will be important, prior to the Secretary of State’s ratification of any agreements. We anticipate that the Department for Education will undertake an assessment of affordability and impact, as it will be better placed to do so than the SSSNB itself. It is important to note that there will be employers on the SSSNB who will be part of the body making those recommendations, so they will have those considerations at the forefront of their mind.
Considerations of cost and affordability will be an important part of any discussions and negotiations that take place in the SSSNB. Annual reports are likely to set out the work undertaken by the body, but the exact detail of what will be in the annual reports will be agreed at a later date; I do not think that it would be appropriate to specify that in the Bill.
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.
Laurence Turner
We have covered a huge amount of ground in this debate, so I will restrict my remarks to a few matters that have been raised. I say to the shadow Minister that if he thought that the Minister’s summary was bureaucratic and difficult to follow, he should sit through some meetings of the National Joint Council for Local Government Services, which is the dominant mode through which pay and terms and conditions are set.
It is worth reflecting briefly on some of the practical issues in schools that can be remedied through this new approach. It is a well-known problem that schoolteachers’ and school support staff’s pay award dates are misaligned. For schoolteachers, it is September; for school support staff, it is April, with the financial year. That can be a nightmare for bursars, school business managers and large employers, who have to plan their budgets with that significant difference.
In a previous life, I sat through a working group convened by the Local Government Association through the NJC on a vexed issue: how can school support staff’s work out of term-time be calculated on a term-time-only contract, because they are accumulating annual leave but cannot take all of it during term? It was a bit like a version of this Committee that reached no conclusions and never ended. These are real problems that result from the ossification of the NJC system. It is not appropriate for school support staff workers. As we all know, when a pay and grading system becomes ossified, legal danger lurks for employers in the inconsistencies that emerge.
There is no justification for saying that TA level 2 means something completely different in neighbouring authorities. That can become a block on people’s progression and ambitions to relocate. Multi-academy trusts and other academy employers overwhelmingly remain subscribed to the NJC, because this system of pay and grading, which has grown up over decades, is labyrinthine and difficult to follow, and most academy trusts do not have the HR and payroll functions to put something new in place.
We can put some figures on this. The school workforce census carried out by the Department for Education collects data on NJC coverage compared with other pay gradings. For local authority maintained schools, 80% of school support staff are paid on NJC grades, when non-responses are excluded. For academies, the figure is 77%, so there is no huge difference between the two sectors. Even among the remainder, some staff are employed under separate agreements with Soulbury terms, so are quite separate, and a high proportion—possibly even the majority—are paid on NJC-like terms and conditions, although there might be some local improvements to those pay gradings. That is the issue that the Confederation of School Trusts raised in its written evidence, and I think it has been addressed through this Committee. We are seeking to establish a floor, not a ceiling, so local improvements can still be made where employers and trade unions agree them.
The clause takes a lot from the lessons that were learned from the previous iteration of the SSSNB, which is welcome. The clauses on the adult social care negotiating body contain a general provision that any specified matter relating to employment could be referred to that body. Proposed new section 148J is drafted a bit more tightly for the SSSNB—at least, that is my reading of it—so I wonder whether there is a case for aligning the wording for the two bodies.
Let me go back to why we are doing this. School support staff are the hidden professionals in the education system. I did not just represent school support staff; I was once a school governor in a specialist SEND setting, and there were school support staff and teaching assistants. It is important to remember that the term covers site staff, cleaners, caterers and all sorts of other workers, who often do not get talked about. Those workers make lifesaving interventions—they may have to administer medicine or perform a medical intervention that literally keeps a child alive—but they are paid about £14,000 a year. That represents a failure of central Government to account for the pay, conditions and wellbeing of all the people who work in schools. The measures we are discussing are hugely important and welcome, and it is very welcome that the Bill has been brought forward this early in the Parliament.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for Members’ contributions. The shadow Minister gently joshed me about the technical detail but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield pointed out, that is the nature of the beast: it is important that all eventualities are covered. We have not reinvented the wheel here; we have lifted much of what was already in place for the previous iteration of this body, and we have taken some further learnings from that.
On my hon. Friend’s points, we have not needed to take the broader powers of the adult social care body, which we will discuss shortly, because the clauses relating to the SSSNB give it a remit to negotiate terms and conditions, as well as advise on training and career progression. That is broader than its 2009 remit, and we think it covers the areas that are recognised as those that need to be included, in addition to the powers the body had in 2009. Of course, the Bill has to be detailed—it has to be right—because it will affect 800,000 people, and a lot of people in that workforce are on low pay, have poor career prospects and are frustrated at the lack of progression in their job. When setting up such a body, it is important to cover all eventualities.
This is not a novel concept, but it is an important step forward in our industrial relations in this country, and in tackling low pay and insecurity. I am proud that we are able to discuss it today.
Question put, That the schedule, as amended, be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Sarah Gibson
I rise to speak to the amendment, but I note that the whole clause is relevant. As the shadow Minister stated, this debate is fairly similar to the discussion we had about the SSSNB. Our hope for the adult social care negotiating body, similar to that for the SSSNB, is that having a uniform body can help to negotiate and address some of the issues that he highlighted, such as the poor pay and terms and conditions that a lot of adult social care workers suffer.
Social care providers in my constituency, many of which are not for profit, have welcomed the fact that the adult social care negotiating body will include providers, and that they will be able to discuss this issue together. I feel that that is an important point when discussing some of the issues that hon. Members might be concerned about. There is a suggestion that the Government might consider that some of those not-for-profit providers should be included in the negotiating body so that they have a voice.
However, several of the providers in my constituency that I have spoken to have said that, as employers who take their employees seriously and pay them properly throughout the day, they welcome the body on the grounds that it will give them a level playing field against the many employers who do not do that, since they feel that they are commercially disadvantaged against those employers. That is the predominant response that I have heard from employers in my constituency. With that in mind, I will not support the amendment and I do support the clause.
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.
Justin Madders
As Committee members will have noticed, this is a significant group of clauses, which relate to the establishment of a negotiating body for the adult social care sector, a key element of the Government’s plan to make work pay. The body aims to address the long-term issues of low pay and poor retention in the adult social care sector.
The adult social care sector is large, with 1.59 million people working for it in England in 2023-24, which as I have already said is equivalent to 5% of all adults in employment. Poor terms and conditions are associated with higher staff turnover. For example, the Skills for Care annual report states that care workers were less likely to leave their posts if their employers paid above the 3% auto-enrolment rate for pensions, or paid more than statutory sick pay if care workers could not work due to illness. This is a key element of the Bill.
I will speak to each clause in turn. Clause 29 gives the Secretary of State the power to create the adult social care negotiating body by regulations, with the aim of negotiating a fair pay agreement within the adult social care sector. Giving specific powers to the Secretary of State in relation to the body is key to ensuring that the Government have the necessary powers to set up and design this body, and that will take place after engagement with the sector.
The clause ensures that the Secretary of State has the power to create a body that is appropriately made up of members including representatives from relevant trade unions and employers. It also enables regulations to provide for the smooth and efficient running of the body, and for it to be subject to reporting requirements. The Secretary of State will have the power to set out the body’s decision-making process and to make provision for any staff and facilities and for payment of fees and expenses.
Clause 30 defines the matters within the negotiating body’s remit—namely, the remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment of social care workers. The clause enables the body to cover not only pay, but wider terms and conditions of employment of adult social care workers.
We know that the adult social care sector is diverse, so the clause also allows the Secretary of State to add further matters to the remit of the body, provided they relate to a social care worker’s employment. The remit of the body can also be narrowed by the Secretary of State, who has the power to specify in regulations the types of social care worker that fall within the remit of the body.
Members will see that clause 31 defines “social care worker” as including those who work in, or are employed in connection with the provision of, adult social care. The clause specifically excludes from the definition of adult social care anything provided by an establishment or agency regulated by His Majesty’s chief inspector of education, children’s services and skills, to ensure that children’s services are not captured. The clause provides an essential definition of adult social care worker, which the other clauses refer to throughout. Without it, the remit of the body and the scope of the clauses would not be sufficiently defined.
Clause 32 sets out the power of the Secretary of State to make provision in regulations about the consideration by the negotiating body of matters within its remit. In accordance with regulations made under the clause, the Secretary of State will be able to specify conditions that any agreement must meet, such as on funding. It also allows regulations to provide that the body may consider only matters referred to it by the Secretary of State, such as specific terms and conditions for certain types of social care worker, and must take into account specified factors when coming to an agreement.
The regulations that can be made under clause 32 can impose information-sharing duties on the body’s members to enable efficient negotiation and require the body to submit any agreement to the Secretary of State for consideration. They also allow for the body to be allocated clear deadlines for discussion, so as not to delay this important process.
Clause 33 enables regulations to provide that the Secretary of State can refer agreements back to the negotiating body for reconsideration. Making provision for reconsideration of an agreement ensures that any agreement can be refined following review by the Secretary of State and that the Government are not forced to reject an agreement they are unable to implement. It also provides the Secretary of State with an appropriate safeguard to ensure that further work can be done, where necessary, to ensure that a suitable agreement is reached. The Secretary of State can also make regulations that provide for the same matters listed in clause 32.
Clause 34 allows the Secretary of State to make provision in regulations for circumstances where the negotiating body is unable to reach an agreement. Providing a clear process for the body to resolve roadblocks in reaching an agreement is key to ensuring that the body arrives at a conclusion that is agreeable to all parties. In regulations made under this clause, the Secretary of State will have the power to appoint someone to resolve the barriers to an agreement and confer the relevant dispute resolution powers on them.
Clause 35 allows the Secretary of State to ratify an agreement made by the negotiating body and thereby give it legal effect. That is essential to successful implementation and ensures that any agreement provides the maximum protection for affected workers. It allows for sufficient flexibility, because the Secretary of State can ratify part of an agreement, such as implementing some aspects through employment contracts, while leaving others that would be more appropriately implemented through codes of practice.
The regulations may have a retrospective effect, as outlined under clause 41. That is necessary to enable regulations to appropriately fill any gap between, for example, the body reaching an agreement and the subsequent regulations ratifying that agreement, and could be used to backdate a pay rise to the date previously agreed by the body. However, the retrospective effect is limited by appropriate safeguards: regulations cannot make provision that reduces remuneration or alters conditions of employment to a person’s detriment, in respect of a period before the date on which regulations are made.
Clause 36 explains that the effect of ratifying an agreement under clause 35 is to change the employment contracts of adult social care workers included in the scope of the agreement. The ratification regulations can change both the remuneration and the terms and conditions of employment contracts, depending on the content of the fair pay agreement. They also give precedence to the terms in ratified agreements over inconsistent terms in existing employment contracts. For example, if an agreement sets a new minimum hourly rate, that will take precedence over employment contracts that set out a lower rate, and so ensure that the employee enjoys the rate set out in the ratified agreement. The clause is essential to ensuring that any ratified agreement will be on a statutory footing and therefore legally implemented.
Clause 37 gives the Secretary of State the power to make provision in regulations when the body has notified the Secretary of State that it has been unable to reach an agreement. The Secretary of State’s powers under this clause are limited to those matters on which the body has failed to reach an agreement. The powers under the clause are similar to those in clause 35, and enable regulations to override the pay and other terms and conditions set out in social care workers’ contracts.
As under clause 35, the regulations may have a retrospective effect, as outlined under clause 41. That is necessary to enable regulations to appropriately fill any gap between, for example, the body reaching an agreement and the subsequent regulations ratifying that agreement, and could be used to backdate a pay rise to the date previously agreed by the body. However, the retrospective effect is limited by appropriate safeguards: regulations cannot make provision that reduces remuneration or alters conditions of employment to a person’s detriment, in respect of a period before the day on which regulations are made.
Clause 38 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations about the creation of guidance or codes of practice in relation to the agreements reached by the body. The clause also enables regulations to impose duties on specific persons in relation to provision in guidance or a code of practice, and makes provision around the consequences of failing to comply with those duties, including increased financial awards in any later court or tribunal proceedings. That will ensure that any pieces of guidance or codes of practice are appropriately followed, with appropriate consequences for parties that fail to comply.
Clause 39 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations imposing record-keeping obligations on employers. Similar provisions already exist for enforcing other aspects of employment law, such as the national minimum wage and the working time regulations. The clause therefore gives the power to apply the provisions under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, to give social care workers a right of access to records. There may be new requirements under a ratified agreement that are not covered by existing record-keeping obligations, and without this clause the employer may not be able to provide evidence to enforcement authorities that the new requirements are being followed. We expect the fair work agency, upon its creation, to take on responsibility for the enforcement of the national minimum wage, including those record-keeping requirements.
Clause 40 will give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations about the enforcement of remuneration terms in ratified fair pay agreements. These regulations can apply enforcement mechanisms used under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, notably the notices of underpayment regime, and the clause lists specific sections of that Act in relation to enforcement. We do not intend to introduce any criminal sanctions to enforce the fair pay agreement framework. That will ensure that any pay terms can be appropriately enforced by the state, ensuring that employees are effectively paid under the conditions of a ratified agreement. The clause also prevents double recovery of remuneration, ensuring that enforcement cannot take place twice—once for the national minimum wage and again for a ratified fair pay agreement—in respect of the same work.
Clause 41 gives the Secretary of State the power to create regulations under clauses 35 and 37 that have retrospective effect. As we have set out previously, that is to ensure that provision in terms of pay and conditions that falls after an agreement is reached and before the day on which regulations are made can have retrospective effect. That is necessary to enable regulations to appropriately fill any gap between the body reaching agreement and subsequent regulations being passed to ratify that agreement. Subsections (3) and (4) ensure transparency, creating an obligation to publish documents, such as the ratified agreement, that are referred to in the regulations.
Clause 42 makes further provision about the regulations that can be made under the powers in this chapter. These provisions are non-controversial, and they include the option for regulations to confer discretion on a person. That may be needed, for example, to give the chair of the body discretion to deal with a matter during the negotiation process or to give a third party discretion to resolve a dispute in accordance with the regulations under clause 34. Subsections (2) and (3) provide that ratification regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure, and any other regulations made under this chapter will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is because ratification relates to an agreement that has been reached by the negotiating body and assessed by the Secretary of State as being appropriate for ratification, and it would not be necessary to subject the ratification regulations to detailed parliamentary scrutiny.
Clause 43 simply allows regulations to provide that any actions or agreement by the body would not constitute collective bargaining or a collective agreement as defined in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Government have taken that approach because these clauses, and the regulations made under them, will create a new, separate legal framework under which fair pay agreements in the adult social care sector will be negotiated. For example, the clauses provide for a fair pay agreement to apply across the entire sector and to be legally binding when it is ratified in regulations.
That goes further than the 1992 Act, which sets different requirements for collective agreements to be legally binding and envisages that collective bargaining will be on a much smaller scale between one or more recognised trade unions and one or more employers or employer associations. The Government’s intention is very much for the negotiating body’s activities to be a form of collective bargaining, as a concept. It is simply that we cannot have two different legal frameworks to the same process.
Clause 44 is uncontroversial. It simply provides definitions for the terms used in this chapter and ensures that the definition of worker’s contract can cover agency workers who might not have a contract with their agent or the person they have been supplied to work for. That ensures that an agreement can be ratified for agency workers who do not have a contract with the agent or principal. The clause clarifies that references to a ratified agreement may also include references to parts of an agreement that have been ratified.
I am confident of the Government’s ability to deliver this flagship policy, supported by the Health Foundation, which indicated the strong case for improving pay and conditions in the social care sector in its written evidence to the Committee. Indeed, the same thing was noted in much of the evidence that we have heard in support of these measures. I commend clauses 29 to 44 to the Committee.
Sarah Gibson
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby for that very personal story. I imagine it has been extremely difficult. She must be very relieved to have finally found somewhere where her son is happy. I have several friends with children in similar situations. I know that it can be extremely stressful.
We are all in agreement that people working in social care have been undervalued for a long time. These provisions are incredibly helpful in bringing them to the fore and in trying to make their conditions of work considerably better. Members on both sides of the Committee have made that point very clearly.
I have one specific concern, which is on clause 41, where it talks about
“provision that has retrospective effect.”
Like the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, I find the word retrospective in any legislation extremely worrying. My background is in the building industry, and that retrospective element has been introduced many times in the 20 years that I have been in the building industry, to the detriment of many of the hard-working professionals involved.
This clause concerns me because many of our care-provider employers are small businesses, and they are also not-for-profit small businesses. Those small businesses will be in no position whatsoever to provide any retrospective increase in salary if they are asked to do so, because they simply do not have any profits—because they are not for profit—to draw on to pay any increase. I am very concerned that if subsequent legislation were to introduce a retrospective pay increase that these firms do not have provision for, that would detrimentally affect some of these hard-working and useful not-for-profit care providers. As it stands, I will not be able to support that clause.
Justin Madders
I will deal with the point raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson and the shadow Minister first. This measure is about the practicality of negotiations. Clause 41 is not trying to say that the body will reach back in time to change workers’ terms and conditions; it is about the fair pay body agreeing terms and conditions, and the period between that agreement being reached and it then being ratified and passed in regulations by the Secretary of State.
For example, if the body said that from 1 April 2028, for argument’s sake, there would be an uplift of whatever pence or pounds an hour to everyone’s pay, and if the regulations enacting that were not passed until July of that year, the retrospectivity would be from July 2028 back to 1 April, so that pay can be included. That is normal in pay negotiations. That is all it is; it is not about trying to unpick previous agreements; it is about the way that anything agreed is implemented.
The shadow Minister said that we legislate first and consult second. As he will be aware, introducing a fair pay agreement in such a huge area of employment in this country is a novel and groundbreaking introduction to our legal system, so we need to put the legislative framework in place, which is what the Bill does. The detail and how it will work in practice is what the consultation and the secondary legislation will deal with. That is the proper way to do this, and that is how we will get this right. The Government are absolutely committed to getting this right. We absolutely recognise the terrible pay and conditions that lots of people in the adult social care sector face and the need for this kind of body to try and drive out those poor practices.
The shadow Minister asked about clause 33 and the ability of the Secretary of State to refer matters back to the negotiating body. He will of course understand that as the Bill is currently drafted the Secretary of State will need to pass regulations in order to enact many of the recommendations from the body. Some will be guidance, but that will still need the Secretary of State’s involvement. It simply would not be tenable for the Secretary of State to be compelled to pass legislation with which they did not agree, so I am sure that the shadow Minister will appreciate why that is in the Bill. We hope that that does not come to pass—it would clearly not be in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve—but we have no way of knowing what the future holds in that respect. It is therefore important for the Secretary of State, who is the person responsible for this system, to have the final say on such matters.
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.
The Chair
Before I call the Whip to move the Adjournment, I wish everybody a very happy Christmas and a happy new year.
Justin Madders
On a point of order, Ms Vaz. I thank all those who have worked behind the scenes—the Clerks and other staff—to ensure that the Committee has run smoothly. We have had some very interesting debates and made good progress with the Bill. I wish everyone involved a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. No doubt we will see many of them in January.
Employment Rights Bill (Fifteenth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Justin Madders
Main Page: Justin Madders (Labour - Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)Department Debates - View all Justin Madders's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Justin Madders ExcerptsTuesday 7th January 2025
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 January 2025 - (7 Jan 2025)
The Chair
May I begin by wishing everyone a happy new year? Will everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will now 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 declaration of interests, as set out in the code of conduct.
Clause 45
Right to statement of trade union rights
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
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. Happy new year to you and to all members of the Committee. I start by making my customary reference to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This, I hope, is a fairly straightforward and uncontroversial clause; it does exactly what it says on the tin. Currently, there is no general requirement for employers to let their staff know of their right to join a trade union. The clause introduces a legal duty for employers to inform all new employees of their right to join a union and to remind all staff of that right at prescribed intervals. Employers must provide this information alongside the written statement of particulars that they are already required to produce under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Specific details, including the frequency and manner of notification, will be set out in secondary legislation following consultation.
A lack of awareness of the right to join a trade union may be contributing to declining union membership and reduced worker engagement in collective bargaining. The clause will help empower workers to become active in protecting their rights. This is a step forward in strengthening worker representation and the collective voice in the workplace, ultimately supporting more effective collective bargaining. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and I too wish you and all members of the Committee a very happy, prosperous and healthy new year. If only the optimism of that statement were matched by business confidence around the country as we start this new year.
I understand why the Government want to take this measure, and it is pretty clear that it will happen as part of the Bill. As the Minister prepares for the consultation that he spoke about, I ask him to reflect on how quickly we can give businesses certainty on the frequency with which they will have to remind their employees of their right to join a trade union. Of course everyone has a right to join a trade union—there is no issue with that—but this is yet another thing that HR departments of bigger businesses, and individual owners of smaller businesses, who have to do everything from the HR function down to replacing the loo roll in the toilets, will have to remember to do on a regular basis, and presumably they will face consequences if they do not. It might not seem onerous as we talk about it at half-past 9 on a Tuesday morning in Westminster, but once we start ratcheting up all these different things for businesses—particularly those very small businesses—to do, it will become a burden.
The other thing that I gently ask the Minister to consider as part of his consultation is this. Would it not be a fairer, more balanced and better way of doing things to have in the proposed statement, as well as a reminder to employees of their right to join a trade union, a reminder that they do not have to do so—that there is equally a right not to join a trade union if they do not wish to? It would be much more fair and balanced if the consultation focused on ensuring that both sides are equally reflected—yes, a reminder that there is a right to join a trade union, but equally, a reminder that there is no compulsion and no absolute, set-in-stone requirement to do so. If we could have that, the clause would be much more balanced.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and I wish you and other colleagues a happy new year.
I want to follow on from the comments made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, and emphasise that the clause is completely pointless. Of course all workers have the right to join a trade union and the right not to join a trade union. Will the Minister outline the consequences for a small employer of not complying with the clause? Will there be a penalty? Will the employer be taken to a tribunal that can make a protective award? If there will not be a penalty, surely the clause is only performative, and just more evidence that the Government are doing what their trade union masters are telling them to.
Time and again in the Bill, we see measures that are small and inconsequential individually, but in total mount up to £5 billion of additional costs, most of them on small and medium-sized businesses. We see from surveys of business confidence that businesses are reeling under the imposition of additional taxes and of these rights, and the Government’s business-unfriendly stance. While the Minister talks about growth, the actions of his Government point to the very opposite. They believe that somehow they can regulate their way to growth. We start this new year with more regulation from the Government, none of which will contribute to the wealth and prosperity of our citizens.
Justin Madders
There was a mix of responses there. We heard from the hon. Member for Torbay that the Liberal Democrats welcome the clause, I think the shadow Minister was generally supportive, albeit not explicitly, and then the hon. Member for Bridgwater was fairly critical. I will address the points made by all three individuals.
The shadow Minister made a fair point that the frequency with which employees will have to be notified is important. That will be determined by the responses that we get to the consultation. Clearly, we do not want to make this measure too onerous, but we believe that it is important as a matter of principle that employees are aware of their right to join a trade union, for all the reasons that have been amply set out over many months and years.
On making it clear within a notification that the employee is not obliged to join a trade union, I am sure the shadow Minister is aware that the closed shop principle was abolished quite some time ago—possibly not even in his lifetime. [Interruption.] Well, possibly not; perhaps his rest over the Christmas period has made him look more youthful than he is. The precise wording of the notification will be set out in secondary legislation. I am sure it will not be worded in a way that indicates that there is a compulsion on individuals to join a trade union, but it is important that people know of the right.
In reference to the comments from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, I too have had many conversations with constituents who have notified me of issues with their workplace. I hope most Members respond with the question, “What has your trade union said about this?” When I ask that, quite often I get the response, “My employer doesn’t allow us to join a trade union.” That response is far too common for my liking. Evidence has been submitted to the Committee, particularly by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, about the lack of awareness of employees’ right to join a trade union. In a free society, we should be ensuring that people are aware of their rights.
On the points made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater, the consequences for not notifying an individual of this right will be the same as they currently are for failure to provide a statement of terms and conditions under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. It is not a free- standing claim on its own; it can be put on top of another employment tribunal claim, and the penalty can be between two and four weeks’ pay.
On the administrative burden, there is already prescribed in legislation a long list of matters about which the employer must notify the employee when they join in a statement of terms and conditions. Really, we are just adding this to that list. We think this is an important measure.
Sir Ashley Fox
I think this comes together with day one employment rights. Take the example of a very small businessman or woman who takes someone on with no written contract, and within a week or two the employment does not work out and the employee is fired. They might be within a—what is the word for the period of time in the first few weeks of employment?
Sir Ashley Fox
Probation period—thank you. It is early in the new year, Mr Mundell. That member of staff might be within their probation period, but if that is not specified in a written contract, that dismissal would be procedurally unfair, according to the Bill. If that same small businessman or woman has not notified the employee of their right to join a trade union, the Minister seems to be saying that the employee will get a protective award of another two to four weeks’ salary on top of that. Can he not see that for microbusinesses, the array of sanctions becomes threatening—many weeks’ wages, for a very short contract that did not work out—and that he threatens to make it very difficult and onerous for them to take on new employees?
Justin Madders
I understand the point the hon. Member makes. I do not think it is helpful to get into hypotheticals about what might or might not happen under the statutory probation system, given that we have not really fleshed out the details. That will happen in due course, but it is already the law that statements of terms and conditions are required to be presented to employees, I think within the first month. There is not an additional burden of extra paperwork that has to be delivered; this is already built into the system, in terms of ensuring that employees receive their statement of terms and conditions when they start employment.
On that note, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Right of trade unions to access workplaces
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 46, page 50, line 30, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.
This amendment and other amendments to this clause would require a trade union to have a certificate of independence in order to have the rights provided for in the clause.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments 73 and 75 to 79.
Justin Madders
The clause makes provision for trade unions and employers to negotiate access agreements, under which employers will be required to permit trade union officials to enter workplaces for various purposes, such as recruitment, organising, and meeting and providing support to existing members. This is particularly significant for unrecognised unions. Access to a workplace can provide an opportunity to recruit and organise with the aim of gaining formal recognition.
The Bill currently provides that any listed trade unions can apply for access to a workplace. Under the current definition, it is possible that employers could use staff associations and non-independent bodies to frustrate independent trade unions’ access to the workplace. Therefore, proposed amendments 72, 73 and 75 to 79 require trade unions to have a certificate of independence issued by the Certification Officer to qualify for access.
The amendments will ensure that clause 46 is used as intended. The clause will ensure that independent unions can initiate and agree access agreements with an employer, while not affecting the existing ability of non-independent bodies to negotiate voluntary access agreements. Amendment 73 inserts the defined term “qualifying trade union” and defines it as a union that has a certificate of independence issued by the Certification Officer. That will apply to proposed new chapter 5ZA of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 only, and amendments 72 and 75 to 79 update other provisions that refer to “listed” trade unions accordingly.
Greg Smith
As the Minister clearly outlined, the requirement for a trade union to have a certificate of independence to have the rights provided for in clause 46 is a tidying up of the Bill. The Opposition are not entirely on board with the spirit of the Bill in this regard, but we welcome its being tidied up and the clarity that the amendments bring to what the Government are trying to do to prevent even more of a free-for-all in terms of access to workplaces.
I have said many times that it is a shame and regrettable that so many of these tidying-up amendments have had to be tabled. Welcome though they are in bringing certainty to businesses about the Bill’s core provisions, if we had not had that arbitrary 100-day deadline, we probably would not be spending our time going through these sorts of amendments, and could instead be debating much more of the substance of the Bill. As I say, the Opposition are not convinced about some of the core provisions of the Bill, but these particular amendments do at least tidy it up to some extent.
Justin Madders
Just that I welcome the support from the shadow Minister, albeit for the wording rather than the spirit of the amendment.
Amendment 72 agreed to.
Amendment made: 73, in clause 46, page 51, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
“(3) A ‘qualifying trade union’ is a trade union that has a certificate of independence.”—(Justin Madders.)
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 74, in clause 46, page 51, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) ‘Workplace’ does not include any part of a workplace used as a dwelling.”.
This amendment would ensure that the right of access does not include access to dwellings.
This important amendment adds some clarity about the right of access to a workplace, providing an exemption so that the right of physical access does not apply to private dwellings such as the private homes of workers who are working either fully from their home or in a hybrid manner between their workplace and their home. Most exemptions will be provided for and set out in detail in secondary legislation, but we think it is important to set out this principle in the Bill.
We will provide in secondary legislation and guidance more detail on how complex physical access cases, such as care homes, where premises are a mix of residential and a workplace, will be negotiated. To protect the privacy of people living in the premises, that could, for example, set out the terms that it is reasonable for the trade union to comply with when exercising access, for example limiting access to parts of the premises that are used by workers only, and specifying that unions should take a specific route to the particular room where access activities are due to take place. That sort of detail will be set out in secondary legislation following consultation.
Greg Smith
As the Minister says, the amendment ensures that the right of unions to access workplaces does not extend to dwellings. Of course the Opposition welcome that the Government have acknowledged that trade unions should not be able to access private dwellings. The fact that the Bill was introduced in such a manner that would have permitted trade unions to do so begs a number of worrying questions about the speed with which the Bill was drafted. The fact that we are debating whether a trade union should have access to someone’s private dwelling is deeply regrettable. I would have hoped that the Government, from first principles, would acknowledge that it was never an acceptable outcome for anyone to have their own home invaded by a trade union or otherwise.
The way people set up their homeworking arrangements within their own dwelling is very much a matter for them. Balancing what they do in their own home with their family life and perhaps their children’s needs or the needs of someone they are caring for, and the way they structure that should, of course, remain entirely private. This is just another example of the damage that can inadvertently be done when legislation that is not ready is introduced to this House. It makes us question what other mistakes, if I may call them that, are lurking in the Bill that are still yet to be spotted by the Bill Committee.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I understand his fundamental point, but before the Government tabled the amendment a feasible interpretation of the rules would have allowed access to a private dwelling. We can all stand or sit here in Committee Room 10 of the House of Commons and think how preposterous that would be and how that it never actually happen, but there are plenty of examples in history where the preposterous has come to be—where someone’s interpretation of legislation or rules or regulations or whatever it may be has brought about perverse outcomes.
We would have been in a much more satisfactory position had the Government, from first principles and at the very start, laid out in the Bill that someone’s private dwelling is just that: private. Although there has been an explosion in working from home and a fundamental shift, particularly in the post-pandemic world, of people actively choosing to work from home, either all the time where they can, or in a hybrid arrangement where they work from home for a couple of days a week and in the office, factory, warehouse or wherever it might be for the other days, it should be an enshrined principle in this country—the free society the Minister spoke of—that a private dwelling should from absolute, unquestionable first principle remain private, and not be an area to which a trade union or otherwise can freely demand access. It is important that private dwellings remain accessible only by warrant, which has to be granted by a magistrate, for clear purposes, such as where criminality or some such activity is suspected.
The Opposition welcome the core text of the amendment, but we want it firmly on the record that such an amendment should never have been required in the first place.
Justin Madders
I feel that we are going to have a few of these conversations again this year. Heaven forbid the previous Government ever amended anything in Committee! We knew the Bill was issued at a challenging pace and that it was large, so there were always going to be elements that needed clarification at this stage. It is right to do that now before it becomes law and well in advance of any practical application. Like amendment 72, this amendment is an example of us responding to concerns raised when the Bill was published. It is probably fair to say that no one actually envisaged trade unions marching into people’s homes, so it was not something we thought it necessary to spell out in the Bill, but that concern has been raised in feedback, and we are able to provide clarification and reassurance. I therefore commend the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment 74 agreed to.
Amendments made: 75, in clause 46, page 51, line 18, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Amendment 76, in clause 46, page 52, line 13, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Amendment 77, in clause 46, page 52, line 26, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Amendment 78, in clause 46, page 53, line 36, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Amendment 79, in clause 46, page 53, line 40, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.—(Justin Madders.)
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 46, page 54, line 11, leave out from “circumstances” to “a determination” in line 13 and insert—
“in which it is to be regarded as reasonable for the Central Arbitration Committee to make”.
This amendment would clarify that, if circumstances are specified under subsection (4)(a), the effect of specifying those circumstances is that it is to be regarded as reasonable for the CAC to make a determination that officials of a union are not to have access (but without requiring the CAC to make such a determination).
Justin Madders
Proposed new section 70ZF(4)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 allows the Secretary of State to prescribe circumstances in which it would be reasonable for the Central Arbitration Committee to determine that a trade union is not to have access to a workplace. Amendment 80 is a minor technical amendment to clarify that, if circumstances are specified under proposed new section 70ZF(4)(a) of the Act, the effect of specifying those circumstances is that it is reasonable to make a determination that officials of a union are not to have access, but it does not require the CAC to make such a determination.
Amendment 81 allows the Secretary of State to prescribe in secondary legislation the matters to which the CAC must have regard when determining whether access is to be granted to a trade union. As an example, that would usefully allow the Secretary of State to prescribe that the CAC must, when making determinations about access, have regard to the presence of a trade union with existing access to the workplace to which another union is seeking access. In that scenario, the amendment provides reassurances that an access request will not be rejected by default if there is an existing arrangement with another trade union. The Government have consulted on the exact details of what the CAC is required to consider when making determinations about access, and secondary legislation will follow Royal Assent to the Bill. With that in mind, I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Greg Smith
As the Minister said, Government amendment 80 clarifies that if circumstances are specified under new section 70ZF(4)(a), the effect of specifying those circumstances is that it is to be regarded as reasonable of the CAC to make a determination that officials of a union are not to have access, but does not require the CAC to make such a determination. Government amendment 81 would allow the Secretary of State to prescribe matters to which the CAC must have regard when considering an application for a determination about access. Therefore, these amendments set out that if the Secretary of State has specified circumstances in which it would be reasonable to decline union access to a workplace, the CAC must accept those circumstances.
That is all well and good, but the access principles, as they are set out, are incredibly broad and make it very difficult for an employer to refuse access. For example, subsection (2)(a) of new section 70ZF specifies that
“officials of a listed trade union should be able to access a workplace for any of the access purposes in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the employer’s business”.
That accepts that access can and should be allowed to cause interference, but what would count as unreasonable interference? Can the Minister give any concrete examples? How will businesses know what they are or are not expected to put up with in terms of inconvenience and disruption to their operations? This all seems to be still particularly woolly and ill-defined. It will cause a lot of headaches and a lot of businesses to scratch their heads to work out what they have to put up with, bear the burden of, or lose profit to in order to enable some of the access that the Bill determines will take place.
The circumstances in which it would be reasonable for officials of a union not to have access will be specified in future regulations, but this is an area where it is incumbent on the Government to be very clear—indeed, crystal clear—about where the Minister or the Department feels these regulations should sit, or the operating window in which they should sit, moving away from woolly language and into real practical detail to allow businesses to begin to prepare. Can the Minister give any examples of matters that might be specified by the Secretary of State to set some constraints on the access principles envisaged by the amendments? I know he will say that he wishes to consult, which is all very well and good, but as I said a moment ago, this is an area where I do not think businesses will simply accept the offer of future consultation; they will instead want an operating window with practical examples and very clear language about what the amendments envisage will happen in the future. It is just not good enough for us to be left in this position of trying to second-guess and wonder what things will be like when the consultation finally happens.
Steve Darling
I will be concise and echo the shadow Minister’s call for clarity.
Justin Madders
I acknowledge the points made by the shadow Minister, but of course, as he has already anticipated, my response is that all of that will be determined in secondary legislation following a consultation. That is the right approach. The sort of detailed questions he is rightly posing are best dealt with in secondary legislation and probably in codes of practice as well. That is the kind of detail that would not normally find its way into a Bill. Of course, for me to prejudge any consultation on the circumstances in which it may or may not be appropriate for unions to gain access would of course, be to predetermine the outcome of the consultation.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister tempts me to set out the kind of detail that I really cannot supply at this stage. Clearly, a consultation document will ask a series of fairly broad questions. Given that we will deal with pretty much every workplace in the country, the consultation will cover a range of different set-ups, businesses, places of work and working arrangements. The question at the start will necessarily be fairly broad, so we can understand the kinds of effects on their ability to carry on their business that firms are concerned about.
Equally, we want to hear from trade unions about their experiences of where they feel that they have unreasonably been refused access or perceived that that might be a risk. The shadow Minister is trying to get me to draw up a consultation document in the Bill Committee, but I am afraid I will have to decline to do so. Clearly, we will come back to this and talk about it in further detail at a later date.
Amendment 80 agreed to.
Amendment made: 81, in clause 46, page 54, line 27, at end insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State may prescribe matters to which the Central Arbitration Committee must have regard in considering an application for a determination under section 70ZE.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to prescribe matters to which the CAC must have regard in considering an application for a determination about access.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 46, page 57, line 37, at end insert—
“(c) dismiss the appeal.”
This amendment would clarify that the Employment Appeal Tribunal may dismiss an appeal under new section 70ZK(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The amendment is straightforward, providing clarity that an Employment Appeal Tribunal can dismiss an appeal under the new section 70ZK(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It is a fairly straightforward and self-explanatory amendment.
Greg Smith
As the Minister said, the amendment clarifies that the Employment Appeal Tribunal may dismiss an appeal under new section 70ZK(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Of course the Opposition agree that this amendment should be accepted and put into the Bill, but it beggars belief that the amendment was necessary in the first place. Of course the Employment Appeal Tribunal should be allowed to dismiss an appeal if it finds that to be necessary, but how on earth was a Bill put before this House of Commons—this Parliament—that only envisaged that the tribunal might quash the order or make an order requiring the person to pay a reduced amount to the CAC? How was this Bill introduced in a form in which the dismissal of an appeal was not even an option?
It is extraordinary that a Bill could have been allowed through the write-around process—the various processes that Government have—without this anomaly being spotted and rectified before the Bill was presented and had its Second Reading debate. I gently ask the Minister to reflect on that and go back through the Bill’s provisions to double-check for any other glaring omissions, which I am sure he never wished to see in the first place and is now correcting by the amendment in his name. Could he ensure that the Bill contains no more of these, frankly, howling errors that could cause so much damage?
Steve Darling
Bill Committees are here to check for snags in the final construction of legislation. I am pleased that this snag has been picked up and will be sorted out by this amendment.
Justin Madders
I am not sure that the shadow Minister wants me to check everything again, because it might lead to further amendments and we may have this debate repeatedly. I would gently push back on the suggestion that this is a “howling error”, as he described it. Of course, the Employment Appeal Tribunal already has the jurisdiction of the CAC to hear appeals. It is probably more a case of making sure it is clear that that applies to this particular provision rather than its being an oversight in the first place.
Amendment 82 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 46 formally provides trade unions with the right of access to workplaces where an access agreement is reached between a trade union and an employer following negotiation. This will make it easier for union representatives to recruit and organise and potentially secure a collective bargaining agreement with an employer. It will not impact existing voluntary access agreements between a union and an employer. For unrecognised unions, access to a workplace is an opportunity to recruit and organise with the aim of gaining formal recognition.
In this framework a union can provide an employer with a request for access, to which the employer can either agree or object within a set timeframe. If both parties agree on the access terms, the Central Arbitration Committee is notified to record the agreement and proceed. In the instance that a union and employer cannot agree on access terms, the CAC can impose an agreement. The decision will be guided by prescribed terms which will be set out in secondary legislation. The CAC will have some discretion when making a determination on whether access should occur, and the decision will be subject to principles set out in the Bill that consider both union and employer interests.
The clause also establishes an enforcement mechanism whereby complaints of breaches of an access agreement can be raised with the CAC. The CAC can then vary the agreement, make a declaration that the complaint is well-founded or not, and issue an order requiring specified steps to be taken to ensure that the agreement is complied with. We recently consulted on some specifics of the enforcement mechanism, which various unions and employers contributed to and which we are now carefully considering. Regulations relating to a union’s right of access, such as notice periods for employers and the terms of reasonable access, will be prescribed in secondary legislation after consultation.
Amendments 72, 73 and 75 to 79 require trade unions applying for access to be certified as independent instead of being only listed as a trade union. This will help independent unions initiate and agree access agreements with an employer. Non-independent bodies’ existing ability to negotiate voluntary access agreements will remain unaffected. Amendment 81 will amend this clause to allow for the Secretary of State to set specific matters that the CAC must consider and have regard to. Amendment 74 will ensure that private dwellings are exempt, as we have discussed. Through the provision of a formal right of access, the Government are delivering on our commitment to modernise outdated and ad hoc access arrangements and align them with the 21st century. I commend clause 46 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
We have covered the bulk of the commentary that the Opposition want to make in the debate that we have had on the amendments. All I will say on clause 46 is that there is still so much left for secondary legislation, and I do not think businesses can have any certainty as to what is truly coming down the line until there have been the consultations we have spoken about and the secondary legislation has been laid, debated and, let’s face it, probably passed given the parliamentary arithmetic we have at the moment. While clause 46 as amended is better than what was first presented to the House, there are still many open-ended questions that businesses and trade unions alike will want to know the answers to. I urge the Minister to ensure that his Department moves at pace to get those consultations out there, so that he and the Department can hear from real businesses, trade unions and workers when it comes to the provisions that they are proposing. Then the questions of uncertainty can be ironed out as quickly as possible and nobody is left in the position of not knowing where this is going.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister is of course right—we do need to get this right and engage with businesses and trade unions about the detail. That is what we intend to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Conditions for trade union recognition
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
The clause makes amendments to the statutory trade unions recognition process, which is administered by the Central Arbitration Committee. Hon. Members will possibly not all be aware of the current statutory recognition process, so I will just take a moment to detail that. Where an employer refuses to recognise a trade union voluntarily, that union can apply to the CAC to obtain statutory union recognition. On application, unions have to show the CAC that, first, they have 10% membership of the proposed bargaining unit and secondly, that they are likely to have a majority in the subsequent trade union ballot. Where the majority of workers in the bargaining unit are members of the unions, the CAC can decide to automatically recognise the union without holding a recognition ballot. However, the CAC must still hold a ballot if it receives credible evidence from a significant number of union members that they do not want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf, or membership evidence is produced that leads the CAC to doubt whether a significant number of union members want recognition, or if the CAC believes that holding a ballot would help further industrial relations. For the union to win, it must then obtain a majority in a recognition ballot and also in that ballot, at least 40% of the workforce in the proposed bargaining unit must support union recognition.
We are committed to strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition. We believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. Our view is that the existing legal framework needs to be simplified so that workers have a more meaningful right to organise through their trade unions. To achieve that, the clause therefore removes the current requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the proposed bargaining unit supporting union recognition. In future, unions will only need a simple majority in a recognition ballot to win.
The current requirement for a union to demonstrate, at the application stage, that it is likely that there will be a majority for the recognition process is a significant hurdle in modern workplaces, which are increasingly fragmented. That is why the clause deletes the requirement for a union to demonstrate on application to the CAC that they are likely to win a future recognition ballot. Now unions will only need to show that they have 10% membership of the proposed bargaining unit for their application form recognition to be accepted by the CAC. We are also considering whether the current 10% membership requirement upon application should be lowered in future. The clause therefore provides a power to enable the Secretary of State to make affirmative regulations, which we will of course consult on, to amend the 10% membership requirement in future within parameters of 2% to 10% as set out in subsection (10) of the clause.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed explanation. I will focus my remarks predominantly around the proposed new range of 2% to 10%. I would think, to most reasonable people, 10% is already a relatively low number: 10% is, generally speaking and in most walks of life, not a difficult proportion for anybody to reach if they truly believe that right is on their side, and they have wider support, with wider mandates to get on and negotiate within those bargaining units, to deliver a better outcome. I would argue that any union that cannot be kept to 10% really is not clearing the first hurdle and is certainly not passing “Go” or collecting the metaphorical £200. I question why it is in any way, shape or form necessary to lower that.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my membership of Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.
I am pleased that the Bill will take significant steps to simplify the union recognition process by removing unnecessary barriers that unions currently face. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield mentioned, recent events at Amazon’s Coventry distribution site, where the unionisation effort was defeated by 28 votes, serve as a reminder of the challenges that workers encounter.
I particularly welcome the flexibility in the Bill to lower the membership threshold required to begin the recognition process from the current 10% to potentially as low as 2%. That will give workers the opportunity to organise effectively from the outset. Ensuring that unions need only a simple majority in favour of recognition will mean that the will of the workers is fairly and clearly reflected without being stifled by unnecessary procedural hurdles.
Justin Madders
We have had a good debate. The main focus of the shadow Minister’s questioning was the 2% issue. The first thing to say is that, as it stands, the 10% figure will remain. We are simply giving ourselves the power to reduce it to 2% following consultation, although as various Committee members have powerfully set out, including my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles and for Birmingham Northfield, there is a strong case for it to be reduced from the current 10%. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield pointed out, the previous Government set a precedent in this area with the reduction to 2% in the Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019, which were introduced not long ago.
The shadow Minister must understand that these measures are about the very worst employers that are actively hostile to trade unions. Most employers recognise the value of a trade union and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles pointed out, enter into voluntary arrangements, but there are examples, such as the GMB-Amazon dispute, of unwillingness to engage. I remember the example of an employer not far from where I live who sacked all the people who joined the trade union. It will not surprise the shadow Minister that no one wanted to join a trade union after that. That is a clear example of why, in the most extreme situations with hostile employers, it is difficult to increase trade union membership. Of course, we also now have workplaces that are much more fragmented, because there is more homeworking and hybrid working, and people are often out in the field.
Michael Wheeler
It could be dangerous for me to admit that sometimes I might have wished to instruct a member, but I can reassure everyone here that the instructions flow the other way when someone is a trade union official acting at the behest of members at all times.
I was one sentence from the end before the interventions. I have been thoroughly derailed by people in this room, so I will wrap up and say that I do not agree with the amendment. I disagree with a lot of what was raised in the debate and the false analogy around subscription models versus membership of a democratic organisation. I will obviously not support the amendment.
Justin Madders
We have had a good debate on the amendment. It is fair to say there is a deep divide in our positions. I will address the amendment and the clause stand part debate.
Amendment 126 would make two changes to clause 48. First, it seeks to retain the requirement on trade unions to provide their members with an annual notice of their right to opt out of contributions to the political fund. Secondly, it seeks to require trade union members to opt in to contributions to the political fund annually. As we have heard, that would place substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic requirements both on trade unions and on their members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles said, this is one of those rare occasions when the Conservative party seems to be in favour of more red tape, which is clearly something that we want to see reduced.
I will start with the change that would retain the requirement for trade unions to send an annual notice to members reminding them that they can opt out of contributing to a political fund. The amendment targets the wrong section. It would amend section 86 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which relates to ensuring that employers do not deduct contributions through check-off from the member where the union member has opted out of the political fund or where the opt-out notice has been given but is not yet in force.
However, I will respond in terms of the spirit of the amendment tabled by the shadow Minister. The Government have been clear in our intention to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, which was a clear manifesto commitment. We have a mandate to deliver on that. The amendment seeks to frustrate that clear intention by retaining the substantive effect of section 84A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as amended by the Trade Union Act 2016.
We should be clear that members are, of course, free to opt out of contributing to a political fund whenever they wish. Clause 48, which I will come to, sets out how that is possible. Currently, alongside the requirement to ballot members on the maintenance of a political fund every 10 years, trade unions must also remind their members of their right to opt out of a political fund. The Government are proposing to remove the ballot requirements. We have consulted on whether to retain a requirement for trade union members to be reminded on a 10-year basis that they can opt out of the political fund.
Greg Smith
I understand the point the Minister is making. On the one hand, he wants everyone to be reminded annually of their right to join a trade union, but he wants them to be reminded of their ability to opt out of the political fund only every 10 years. Surely he can see the inconsistency in that approach. Even though I am sure that he wants the political funds to be as bulging as possible, certainly for those unions that donate to the Labour party, surely he must see that there is an inconsistency between reminding people of their right to join a trade union annually but reminding them of their right to withdraw their support for the political fund on a less frequent basis.
Justin Madders
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. I have not actually said that we will require members to be informed of their right to join a trade union annually—we are simply consulting about the frequency of a reminder. That is the point the hon. Member for Bridgwater raised earlier. We are consulting on that point, and we are consulting on the 10-year reminder about being able to opt out of the political fund. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the shadow Minister thinks we should not inform people annually of their right to join a trade union, presumably he would also agree that they should not be reminded annually of their right to opt out. The arguments work both ways.
Greg Smith
In the spirit of following that debate through to its natural conclusion, no matter where we stand on the politics, surely the happy medium would be to marry up whatever the consultation ends up concluding for the reminder of the right to join a trade union in the first place with the reminder of the right to opt out of the political fund. Surely that would be the fair and equitable way through this—to simply say that the answer is to marry up the reminder of the right to join a trade union with the reminder to opt out of the political fund, with whatever frequency the consultation says.
Justin Madders
Those are of course two entirely separate requirements. At the moment, trade union members can choose to opt out of contributing to the political fund at any time. Clause 48 sets out clearly how they can do that by post, email or other electronic means. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles so eloquently said, most trade union members will be aware of their rights in this area should they wish to exercise them. The comparisons between trade union membership and political funds and Netflix subscriptions and insurance contracts are bogus, because they are not the same thing at all. Membership of a trade union and a political fund is membership of a democratically organised society and independent trade union. The members have control of the organisation because it is democratically organised, so it is not the same thing at all.
Greg Smith
I do not think I need to correct the record, in that I made a statement of the obvious, which is that Conservatives wish to beat Labour in elections, but equally I went on to say that, with the right consent, it is perfectly fair, democratic and legitimate for the Labour party to receive funding from those trade unions that wish it to do so. I went even further by saying that that is perfectly fine; so long as it is done transparently and stated on the record—as Labour Members have assiduously done every time they have stood up to speak during this Bill Committee and, indeed, in other debates—there is nothing wrong with it.
This is about the process for members, whether they are contributing to political funds where the unions do donate to Labour, or to any other cause, be it party political or a campaign on this side or the other— the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield himself recognised and spoke earlier about the very good campaign in relation to attacks on emergency workers. That is a perfectly good, legitimate and worthwhile use of that money, to which I would anticipate—although presumption is a dangerous thing—that most, if not all, contributors to the political fund that supported the campaign would happily continue to contribute. However, there are circumstances and times when trade union members contributing to political funds may not see that money being spent as they would like it to be. It is the ease of being able to opt out, not just having the right to opt out, that the amendment gets to the heart of.
Before the Committee divides on amendment 126, I urge Committee members to reflect on whether they really want to say to the outside world that, while consumers have the right to be reminded on a monthly or annual basis of how to opt out of their mobile phone contract, magazine subscription or whatever else, such a reminder of how to opt out of political funds—not the right to opt out but how—should be denied to trade union members.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister talks about this being a rule that applies to every other section of society. Is he saying that the principle should apply to every membership organisation, be it the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution or any of the many other membership organisations that exist in the country? There will be millions of members of those organisations, so should the principle apply equally to them all? Is he aware that it applies at the moment?
Greg Smith
For the most part, I would say that it does exist. I am thinking of membership organisations outside the world of politics that I have subscriptions to: at the annual point of renewal—most of the ones I have are annual—I do get either an email or a letter saying, “Your direct debit for the next year is going to be £2 higher a month. It will automatically renew unless you do x, y and z.” The x, y and z to opt out, stop or unsubscribe is always very clear.
Greg Smith
The Minister is going to tempt me to say which memberships, isn’t he?
Justin Madders
I am not sure that we need to know about the shadow Minister’s memberships. I have two points: there is not legislation requiring this, and when trade unions raise subscriptions they will send a similarly worded letter out. The analogy the shadow Minister has drawn already takes place.
Greg Smith
I am grateful for that, but there is not an increase every year.
Justin Madders
The clause is relatively simple in that it seeks to repeal section 15 of the Trade Union Act 2016 by amending the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to remove section 116B. Section 15 of the 2016 Act required trade unions to pay public sector employers where they administered payroll deductions for trade union subscriptions—known as check-off. Section 15 further mandated that the service be made available only where workers had the option to pay their union subscriptions by other means.
The check-off regulations were apparently introduced as a cost-saving measure, with estimated annual savings of £1.6 million, totalling £12 million over the next 10 years. However, as last year’s check-off impact assessment acknowledged, the Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2024 brought a cumulative cost of £17 million to public sector employers and trade unions over that period, which is far higher than the estimated cost savings.
In the spirit of wanting to save businesses and the public sector from burdens, we think that this is an entirely sensible move. I urge members of the Committee to support the clause.
Greg Smith
Of course we wish to save taxpayers money, particularly when it comes to the public sector, but likewise we do not see why businesses should bear the cost of trade union subscription collections. That should be a cost entirely for the trade unions to bear, just as we would never tolerate—on the Opposition Benches for sure—the public purse or the taxpayer’s pound having to subsidise any other body that should be funding itself.
I understand where the Minister is coming from. As he looks across other parts of the Bill, I urge him to have a similar approach to saving businesses and taxpayers money across the piece.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Sixteenth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Justin Madders
Main Page: Justin Madders (Labour - Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)Department Debates - View all Justin Madders's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
Justin Madders ExcerptsTuesday 7th January 2025
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 January 2025 - (7 Jan 2025)
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 114, in clause 51, page 64, line 9, after “employer”, insert—
“(aa) in relation to a public sector employer, the performance condition is met.”
This amendment paves the way for Amendment 115.
Amendment 115, in clause 51, page 64, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) The performance condition is met if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the public sector employer is meeting any performance standards set out in a relevant enactment.”
This amendment, together with Amendment 114, prevents facility time for equality representatives being provided unless the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory targets for performance.
Clauses 51 and 52 stand part.
New clause 18—Facility time: cost assessment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must commission an assessment of the cost and prospective cost of—
(a) time off and associated payments under sections 168 to 170 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and
(b) implementing section 168B of that Act,
in relation to each sector of the economy.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a sector of the economy means—
(a) an area of the economy in which businesses share the same or related business activity, product, or service, or
(b) in relation to the public sector, a sector which provides similar or related services.
(3) The Secretary must lay a report of the assessment commissioned under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to undertake a sectoral cost assessment of trade union facility time, and see also Amendment 113.
Amendment 113, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) But the provisions of section 51(2) to (12) may not be brought into force before the report of the cost assessment referred to in section [Facility time: cost assessment] has been laid before each House of Parliament.”
This amendment provides that the amendments made in Clause 51 cannot come into force until after the completion of the review referred to in NC18.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I wish you a happy new year. As always, I will start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I shall attempt to navigate this mega-grouping of clauses, amendments and new clauses. Clause 50 will amend section 168 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to provide that an employer that permits an employee to take time off for carrying out trade union duties, including as a learning representative, must, where requested by the employee, provide the employee with accommodation and other facilities for carrying out their duties or undergoing training related to their trade union duties, as is reasonable in all the circumstances. “Facilities” could include office and meeting space and access to the internet or intranet. In providing the employee with facilities, the employer should have regard to a relevant code of practice issued by ACAS.
The clause will also strengthen the existing right to reasonable paid facility time for union representatives, including union learning representatives, by establishing a presumption that the employee’s view on what is considered reasonable time off is reasonable in all the circumstances, having regard to any relevant provisions of a code of practice issued by ACAS. The clause will require that the employer show that it was not a reasonable amount of time off at an employment tribunal, in the event of legal proceedings.
Despite the fact that most union representatives receive paid time off, it is often insufficient to allow them to carry out all their trade union duties, and many union representatives use significant amounts of their own time to do so. This Government want to ensure that union workplace representatives can take sufficient paid facility time and have sufficient access to facilities to enable them to fulfil their union representative duties. That will lead to improved worker representation and industrial relations by giving trade unions and workplace representatives the freedom to organise, represent and negotiate on behalf of their workers and to increase co-operation between employers and unionised workers, leading to beneficial outcomes for the economy.
The Government will not support the shadow Minister’s amendments 114 and 115, which would place an unnecessary restriction on trade union equality representatives’ ability to take time off during working hours to carry out their role as equality representatives. Equality representatives have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer. Placing a performance condition on the right to paid time off for equality representatives is at odds with existing rights and protections for other trade union representatives, such as union learning representatives.
In addition, the Bill is clear that the amount of time off that an employee is permitted to take, the purposes and occasions for which it is taken and any conditions subject to which it may be so taken are those that are reasonable in all the circumstances, having regard to any relevant provision of a code of practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State. The existing code of practice on time off for trade union representatives will be updated in due course to cover equality representatives. The Government would therefore strongly argue that the additional condition is not required for equality representatives.
Clause 51 will insert new section 168B into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The proposed new section requires that an employer must permit an employee who is a member of an independent trade union recognised by the employer and an equality representative of the trade union to take paid time off during the employee’s working hours for the following purposes: carrying out activities for the purpose of promoting the value of equality in the workplace; arranging learning or training on matters relating to equality in the workplace; providing information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace; consulting with the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace; obtaining and analysing information on the state of equality in the workplace; and preparing for any of the things mentioned previously.
The above applies only if the trade union has given the employer notice in writing that the employee is an equality representative of the union and has undergone sufficient training to enable them to carry out the activities listed above, or if the trade union has in the past six months given the employer notice in writing that the employee will be undergoing such training—this can be done only once in relation to any one employee—or within six months of the trade union giving the employer notice in writing that the employee will be undergoing such training, the employee has done so and the trade union has given the employer notice of that. “Sufficient training” is that which is sufficient for fulfilling the purposes of an equality representative, having regard to any relevant code of practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State.
Clause 51 will also require an employer to permit an employee to take paid time off during working hours to undergo training relevant to their role as an equality representative and, where requested, provide the employee with accommodation and other facilities to enable them to fulfil their role, having regard to a relevant code of practice issued by ACAS. Should an employer fail to permit the employee to take time off or provide the employee with facilities as required, the employee may present a complaint to an employment tribunal, at which it will be for the employer to show that the amount of time off that the employee proposed was not reasonable.
Trade unions have long fought for equality. Equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer. Clause 51 therefore recognises in statute the role of trade union equality representative, which is defined in proposed new section 168B(12) as a person appointed or elected in accordance with the trade union rules and defined by reference to, and in a manner consistent with, the Equality Act 2010.
I turn to the shadow Minister’s amendments 113 and new clause 18. I should start by stating that sections 168 to 170 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 are long-standing provisions that require employers to provide facility time for union representatives and union learning representatives of a recognised trade union.
Our legislation also requires employers to make payments to union representatives for time off for carrying out their union duties. Despite the fact that most union representatives receive paid time off, it is often insufficient to allow them to carry out all of their trade union duties, and many union representatives use significant amounts of their own time to do so. We want to ensure that union workplace representatives can take sufficient paid facility time and have sufficient access to facilities to enable them to fulfil their union representative duties. That is why we are strengthening the rights of trade union representatives in the Bill. As part of that, we are also providing—in clause 51, which will insert new section 168B into the 1992 Act—new rights for time off for union equality representatives. Equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer.
The shadow Minister’s new clause 18 would require Ministers to commission a cost assessment of facility time for trade union representatives and for union learning representatives and the prospective costs of time off for equality representatives across all sectors of the economy. It would also require Ministers to lay a report before both Houses of Parliament once the assessment has been made. Amendment 113 would further require that the provisions of clause 51 could not come into force until after completion of the assessment referred to in new clause 18.
New clause 18 is not necessary. We do not need such a time-consuming assessment across all sectors of the UK economy. Also, union representatives under our legislation are already entitled to reasonable paid facility time to enable them to carry out their duties. As I have said already, we know that many union representatives do not have sufficient time; the Bill is intended to rectify that. I also note that no such assessment of facility time, sector by sector, for the entire UK economy was ever carried out by the previous Government.
Clause 52 will repeal sections 13 and 14 of the Trade Union Act 2016 by removing sections 172A and 172B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Regulations made under section 172A, inserted by section 13, require relevant public sector employers to publish information relating to facility time for relevant union officials. Section 172B, inserted by section 14, provided a power—although I do not think that it was ever implemented—to impose a cap on public sector facility time. Repealing these sections will help to ensure that trade union representatives have sufficient time to represent workers, negotiate with employers and conduct training.
The removal of the reporting requirements represents a significant step in resetting the relationship between public sector employers and trade unions by recognising the importance of union representatives and the time needed for them to fulfil their duties effectively. The removal of the regulations will reduce the annual administrative burden on many public sector employers, freeing up more time to focus on delivery for the public.
This Government believe that it is for each employer to work in partnership with their own recognised trade unions to determine the facility time needed to ensure that their trade union representatives can properly represent their members and the workforces within which they operate. It is unnecessary to require annual reporting or to introduce an arbitrary cap on facility time. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire not to press amendments 113 to 115 and new clause 18. I commend clauses 50 to 52 to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I, too, wish you a very happy new year.
I will start with amendments 114 and 115, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends on the Committee. The amendments would prevent facility time from being provided for equality representatives unless—this is the important bit—the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory performance targets.
In workplaces in which a trade union is recognised, trade union workplace representatives have a right to paid time off for the purpose of carrying out their trade union duties or to take part in union training. That right currently applies to workplace representatives, health and safety representatives, union learning representatives, and information and consultation representatives. The Bill will extend that right to equality representatives, who will now be allowed paid time off to carry out
“activities for the purpose of promoting the value of equality in the workplace”;
to arrange
“learning or training on matters relating to equality in the workplace”;
to provide
“information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace”;
to consult
“the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace”;
and to obtain and analyse
“information relating to equality in the workplace.”
I make no criticism or comment about the value of those activities, but what I would say is that they are straightforwardly set out in the law already, and employers already have a duty to consider them. Creating a duty to allow more facility time for this purpose seems to be at cross-purposes with what employers are already, rightly, under an obligation to consider.
The amendments are an attempt to ensure that the taxpayer gets something out of this latest concession from the Labour Government to the trade unions. We would like to make sure that equalities representatives working for public sector employers are entitled to facility time only if that employer is meeting any statutory targets that it has. We suggest that if the employer is not meeting those targets, that is more important to taxpayers than facility time.
New clause 18 and amendment 113 also stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends on the Committee. As the Minister says, new clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to undertake a sectoral cost assessment of trade union facility time. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the cost, and prospective cost, by sector of that facility time. Amendment 113 would provide that clause 51, which will introduce facility time for trade union equalities representatives, could not come into force until after the completion of the review referred to in new clause 18.
That is an eminently sensible step. I cannot see how anyone could object to a cost analysis and assessment being done before provisions come into effect. People need to know what they are dealing with and how much it will cost them, whether that is in the public sector or the private sector, a Government Department or a Government quango, a council, an NHS trust or a private business. It is not reasonable for these things to be asked for without a true assessment and understanding of the cost.
The Opposition are concerned about the increased impetus that the Bill places behind facility time and about extending it to equalities representatives. We would therefore like to make sure that the Government have done their homework and understood the cost to business of these changes before they implement them.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher.
I rise to speak in support of Opposition amendments 113 to 115 and new clause 18. These are modest proposals to ameliorate the additional costs and burdens that the Bill is will place on employers and the public sector. It seems extraordinary that the Government want to introduce this new facility time without any thought about what the cost will be. It strikes me that the measures the Government are bringing forward are simply a bung to their trade union friends to provide extra money to employ extra trade union officials to do work that genuinely does not need doing.
The law is clear and should be enforced. We do not need the state to impose further burdens by employing trade union officials to effectively double up as Government inspectors. I shall therefore support the amendments and vote against the Government’s new clauses. A pattern is being followed through this Bill, whereby Ministers rise and say that each individual proposal is reasonable and modest, yet each one is an additional burden on the taxpayer and/or employers. The net result is £5 billion in additional costs, which will make this country less competitive, efficient, and effective.
Justin Madders
I will respond briefly to some of the points that have been made. I was asked why we need to put equality representatives on statutory footing. I think the hon. Member for Torbay gave just one example of the ongoing issues of discrimination in many workplaces up and down the country but, of course, this Bill also seeks to expand family friendly rights. Anyone who takes cognisance of local authority matters—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield does so more than most—will be aware that equal pay is still a huge issue in many local authorities. This is over 50 years since the Equal Pay Act 1970 was brought into force, so there is a strong case for allowing equality reps to bring their value to the workplace.
The amendment on performance targets is particularly unfair. In effect, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire is seeking to punish trade union members for the failings of their employer if they do not hit performance targets. None of those targets have been specified in the legislation. Perhaps it is a reflection of the fact that under his party’s Administration, most public services did not meet performance targets, and he was hoping that if they got back into power he would be able to use that to deny facility time to all trade union representatives.
Sir Ashley Fox
Does the Minister really expect us to believe that his Government has not costed these proposals? Does he believe that providing additional facility time to trade unions will improve public sector performance? What we have said is that in cases where Departments are not meeting their targets, the Department should use taxpayer money to meet those targets before granting additional facility time to trade union officials.
Justin Madders
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point but I refer him to the impact assessment, which sets out the cost of these individual measures and their cumulative impact. For facility time, the amount is very small indeed. It has been green-rated by the Regulatory Policy Committee, and studies by the predecessor Department of the Department of Business and Trade showed that facilities time did lead to significant savings and reduced dismissals, reduced employment tribunals, reduced voluntary exits and enhanced productivity. We are talking about figures in the region of hundreds of millions of pounds here. I accept that it is an old study, but the principle remains the same. We heard repeatedly during evidence that strong engagement from trade unions is a good thing for employers, because it helps to engage the workforce and improve productivity. Therefore, I do not accept the premise of his argument.
Regarding the general thrust of what is coming from the Opposition about the use of facilities, the Trade Union Act 2016 was designed to make it more difficult for trade unions to perform their duties by increasing the amount of investigation and focus on their time, but the reported figures in terms of the percentage of the public sector pay bill were the same at the start of the reporting requirements as they were at the end, which was 0.07%—007; we are back to James Bond again. That shows that the requirements of the 2016 Act were simply burdens that added nothing. I therefore urge hon. Members to reject the Opposition amendments and to support the clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 51 and 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53
Blacklists: additional powers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
The clause will enable us to strengthen the protections against blacklisting. The Consulting Association scandal, in which thousands of union workers were blacklisted, underscored the need for strong anti-blacklisting laws. Blacklisting persists, yet the rules have not been updated for over a decade. That is why we are taking steps to modernise them.
The clause amends section 3 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. It will enable regulations to be made that extend prohibitions to lists that are not prepared for the purpose of discrimination, but are subsequently used for that purpose. Secondary legislation and guidance can then make clear that blacklisting prohibitions extend to lists created by predictive technology.
The clause also extends the scope of the powers, so that prohibitions no longer have to be limited to employers or employment agencies. First, the reference to employers or employment agencies is removed from section 3(1)(b) of the 1999 Act. Secondly, an amendment to section 3 adds a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to third party use of blacklists. It is important that the Government continue to make it clear that blacklisting is unacceptable, and updating the law supports that.
Greg Smith
This is one of the less contentious clauses in the Bill. The Minister is right to say that something that has not been updated for a decade probably should be looked at again, especially in the light of some of the technology that we see emerging. We will not oppose clause 53 standing part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 55 and 56 stand part.
New clause 32—Workplace intimidation in regard to balloting—
“(1) The Employment Relations Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 54 (12) (c) insert—
‘(d) measures are in place to prevent workplace intimidation.’”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to consider whether there are sufficient measures to be in place to prevent workplace intimidation before they make any order to allow balloting to take place by a means other than by postal ballot.
New clause 33—Balloting in the workplace—
“(1) The Employment Relations Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 54 (12) insert at end—
‘(12A) No order may be made under this section that would permit balloting to take place in the workplace.’”
This new clause would prohibit the Secretary of State from making an order to extend the means of voting in trade union ballots and elections that would allow the ballot to be held in the workplace.
New clause 43—Industrial action: impact assessments and family tests—
“In Part V of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, before section 234A (and the italic heading before it), insert—
‘Industrial Action: impact assessments and family tests
234ZA Impact assessments and family tests
(1) No ballot for industrial action may take place unless the trade union has taken the following steps—
(a) published a report containing an economic impact assessment of the industrial action;
(b) published a report containing a family test on the impact of the industrial action; and
(c) informed members of the trade union of the publication of reports required under paragraphs (a) and (b).
(2) For the purposes of this section, a “family test” is defined as an assessment on the impact of industrial action on family relationships.’”
This new clause would require trade unions to carry out an impact assessment and a family test, for the reports of these to have published, and trade union members informed of their publication, before a ballot for industrial action can take place.
Justin Madders
This is a large group of measures, comprising clauses 54, 55 and 56 and new clauses 32, 33 and 43. Clause 54 seeks to repeal sections 2 and 3 of the Trade Union Act 2016 by amending section 226 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to reverse the changes made by sections 2 and 3 of the 2016 Act. This will mean that trade unions will no longer have to meet a minimum turnout or support threshold for a ballot for industrial action to be successful. The trade union will only need a simple majority of those voting in the ballot to vote in favour of industrial action, as was the case prior to the 2016 Act being passed.
Steve Darling
I have some sympathy with the desire to understand the cost, but to me, the vast majority of the Government proposals before us today are about modernising the system appropriately. I am concerned that this afternoon we have seen the official Opposition one minute say that all in the garden is rosy and there is no need for equality, and the next flip over and catastrophise about the Government’s proposals. We need to get a firm hand on the tiller and see that the vast majority of these proposals simply entail modernisation. I welcome them.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister asked why we cannot support new clauses 32 and 33. The simple answer is that there are already legislative protections in section 54(12) of the Employment Relations Act 2004, which sets out the conditions that must be adhered to in order to ensure that balloting is done in a secure and safe manner. He made some interesting points about people peering over others’ shoulders when votes are taking place. Clearly, his colleagues in the parliamentary Conservative party cannot be trusted to behave themselves when electronic voting takes place. That is something he will no doubt address with his colleagues in private.
If the shadow Minister is concerned about the impact of electronic balloting in all spheres—I am sure there are sometimes reasons in his own party to question the outcome of the electronic ballot—we can look at that, but there is already clear provision in law about how any trade union ballot is to be conducted. The working group will be considering that. If the Conservative party thought there were concerns about the use of electronic ballots for industrial disputes, they might not have commissioned the Knight review back in 2017 to consider the matter. That they did so suggests that they considered that it is right and appropriate that we modernise trade union practices to allow for electronic balloting for industrial action.
Moving on to the assessments the shadow Minister is requesting, the Government are pretty clear that, through new clause 43, the Opposition seek to add another administrative hurdle for a trade union that wants to take industrial action. There is no doubt that any such tests or assessments that were undertaken would lead to a multitude of satellite litigation, delay resolution of disputes, and divert both parties’ focus from resolving the disputes to arguing about impact assessments. I am not quite sure what the family test is. I think there is a family and friends test that some organisations use. It is a little vague. It is also unclear who would be the arbiter of whether these tests and assessments were being done sufficiently accurately. It is also fair to say that trade union members know, when they take industrial action, that there will be consequences. They are well aware. They do the job every day, they know the impact, and that is why they always take these matters very seriously.
The central point that the Bill will lead to more industrial action is counterintuitive, given that we are, in the main, reversing provisions of the 2016 Act. As we know, there has been more industrial action in recent years than there has been for decades. Perhaps there is not a cause and effect relationship between that and the 2016 Act, but I would suggest that the evidence points to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 55 and 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57
Industrial action: provision of information to employer
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 167, in clause 57, page 69, line 16, leave out “seventh” and insert “twenty-first”.
This amendment would increase, from seven to 21 days, the notice period that trade unions are required to adhere to when notifying employers that they plan to take industrial action.
The amendment would increase from seven to 21 days the notice period that trade unions are required to adhere to when notifying employers that they plan to take industrial action. As we noted in the debate on the previous group, the Bill liberalises trade union law and repeals legislation passed by the last Conservative Government that brought some balance to the relationship between employers, the British public and trade unions. We think it is fair to require trade unions to provide 21 rather than seven days’ notice to employers that they plan to take industrial action, particularly given that the Bill repeals the minimum service levels legislation passed by the last Conservative Government to ensure sufficient levels of critical public services during strike action.
Given that the British public no longer have that protection, we think it is only fair that employers should have more time to prepare to mitigate some of the damage that occurs during strike action, particularly in vital public services such as ambulance and rail services. When strike action takes place, while of course employers have to prepare to mitigate its effect and put in place other steps to ensure that people still get their healthcare, education or critical services such as transport, the general public also need to make considerable preparations. Preparing properly and putting in place other ways of doing things often cannot be done at the last minute.
I would rather the minimum service levels legislation remained in place and, indeed, was strengthened, but when there is strike action on the railway, for example, it takes place at the drop of a hat—I consider seven days’ notice as at the drop of a hat. I think of the number of children in my constituency who get on at Wendover and Stoke Mandeville stations to travel to Dr Challoner’s grammar school in Amersham, and the number of my constituents who rely on the railway to get to hospital appointments, often in London. Some 7% of Buckinghamshire cancer referrals are to Mount Vernon, which is within London, and most of my constituents who go there for chemotherapy try to travel by train. To put in place a different route to that key chemotherapy appointment, or for parents to mitigate against or make different arrangements for their child to get to school, takes more than a handful of days.
I appeal to the Government to listen to us on what I argue is a moderate and reasonable amendment. Increasing the time limit would give people a fighting chance to put in place different ways of getting to their hospital appointment and getting their kids to school.
Justin Madders
As the shadow Minister eloquently set out, amendment 167 seeks to increase from seven to 21 days the notice that a trade union must give an employer of industrial action after it has secured a ballot mandate and before any such action is taken. As we know, the Trade Union Act 2016 brought in a requirement for unions to provide 14 days’ notice to employers. As we are committing to repealing the 2016 Act through this Bill, it stands to reason that if the clauses are agreed to, the seven-day notice period that was required prior to the 2016 Act will apply in its place.
We want to reset the relationship with both employers and unions to resolve disputes through meaningful negotiations. Far from supporting the economy, the effect of the legislation in recent years has been an increase in strikes. In 2023, close to 2.7 million working days were lost to strikes, up from 2.5 million in 2022. Both those figures were the highest since the 1980s.
However, we recognise the importance of striking a balance between allowing for effective strike action and ensuring that employers can reasonably prepare. That is especially important in public services such as the NHS, as the shadow Minister has mentioned, where managers need adequate time to plan for periods of industrial action, and that includes adequate time to agree patient safety mitigations with unions. That is why we have given employers, workers, and trade unions the opportunity, through a consultation, to comment on what notice of industrial action should be provided to employers. That consultation closed on 2 December 2024 and our response will be published in due course.
It seems to me that the shadow Minister’s proposal of a 21-day period is effectively a finger-in-the-air job rather than something considered. If he had tabled an amendment to keep it at 14 days, that would at least have been consistent with his party’s previous position. His statement that it is important to change this in the light of the repeal of the minimum service levels legislation is slightly erroneous given that, to our knowledge, no one has ever actually used the provisions of that Act. When we consider the consultation responses, we will look at whether there is a case for changing the length of the notice period from seven days. I therefore suggest that the amendment is unnecessary, and I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw it.
Greg Smith
I accept the Minister’s point about where precisely the number of days should sit. I slightly take issue with him when he says that the 21-day proposal was a finger-in-the-air job. Most people would describe that three-week window as a reasonable notice period to enable people in many walks of life to make plans, such as alternative provision for childcare.
If the Minister is offering up 14 days, we might well take him up on that, but I suspect he is teasing us rather than making a firm offer. Therefore, we stick with our belief that all our constituents deserve fair and reasonable time to plan and make provision in their daily lives to mitigate against strike action and industrial action, which have such a devastating impact on our economy and on people’s healthcare and their children’s education. We wish to see amendment 167 in the Bill, and we will press it to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee long, because we have kind of had the debate already. Clause 57 seeks to repeal section 8 of the Trade Union Act 2016 by amending section 234A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. This will revert the notice period that trade unions need to provide, after securing a successful mandate, from 14 days to seven days.
As I have said, the Government are committed to modernising employment laws, striking a balance between enabling effective industrial action and ensuring that employers can reasonably prepare for such action. We have sought views on what notice period is suitable for modern working patterns and practices through a formal consultation, which closed last month, and we will be reporting on its outcome in due course. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
The bulk of the argument to be had on the clause was made in the debate on amendment 167. The Opposition still believe that the time period stated in this clause is insufficient to enable real people to plan. I therefore urge the Government to go back and consider this, and to see what more reasonable compromise they might be willing to offer our Great British public on Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Union supervision of picketing
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
The clause seeks to reverse the effect of section 10 of the Trade Union Act 2016, thereby removing the requirement under section 220A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for trade unions to appoint a picket supervisor and to meet other bureaucratic and administrative burdens in relation to the supervisor, such as taking reasonable steps to provide their name to the police. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, administrative requirements and bureaucratic hurdles do not prevent strikes; they only make it more difficult for trade unions to engage in good faith negotiations with employers. These changes will bring trade union law into the 21st century and fix the foundations for industrial relations that have not delivered for workers, employers or unions in decades, costing the economy £3.3 billion in lost productivity in the last two years alone.
The Government recognise that regulations governing picketing lines are important, however. That is why the Bill repeals only those measures introduced by the Trade Union Act 2016 in relation to the role of the picket supervisor. Other legislation and an amended code of practice on picketing will remain in place. We are returning the law on picketing to what it was prior to 2016, when I believe that it was working well and was clearly understood by all parties. I therefore commend clause 58 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I will not take much of the Committee’s time on this. The Opposition do not understand why the Government wish to remove perfectly sensible measures from the statute book, other than that the trade unions have clearly demanded that the change be made. It does not seem proportionate or reasonable to us, and we think that those picket supervisors should instead remain on the statute book, as they are the status quo.
Justin Madders
Our view was that the legislation was not required when it was introduced in 2016. There was no evidence at the time that there were issues with picketing, and there was already a code of practice in place to deal with abuse and intimidation on picket lines. Therefore, we believe that reverting to the pre-2016 position, when in most people’s opinion everything was working as it should, is an entirely reasonable move.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59
Protection against detriment for taking industrial action
Amendment made: 83, in clause 59, page 71, line 4, leave out “three” and insert “six”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 236A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 from three months to six months.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 166, in clause 59, page 72, line 21, at end insert—
“236E Actions short of a strike: exemption
(1) The right of a worker not to be subjected to detriment under section 236A does not apply in cases where the worker is involved in one or more of the following activities—
(a) intimidation at picket lines;
(b) protests organised by trade unions in furtherance of a dispute—
(i) at the premises of a company;
(ii) at the private residences of senior managers; or
(iii) at the premises of other organisations that are connected with the dispute;
(c) harassment or bullying of non-striking workers, or those who are covering for striking workers;
(d) victimisation or harassment of senior managers; or
(e) action aimed at damaging property or disrupting business contingency planning.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that the circumstances under subsection (1), in which the right of a worker not to be subjected to detriment do not apply, are set out in a code of practice.”
This amendment would disapply the right not to suffer detriment as a result of industrial action in certain circumstances.
Amendment 166, which was tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk, for Bridgwater and for Mid Leicestershire, would disapply the right not to suffer detriment as a result of industrial action in certain circumstances. This amendment is designed to target what has become known as leverage, which is action taken by a trade union other than traditional industrial action to put pressure on an employer to settle a dispute or meet various demands. When describing leverage in the context of the Grangemouth dispute, Unite said:
“Leverage targets all areas of weakness of an employer, group of employers or sector—both direct and indirect. Leverage is an extension of the understanding that ‘weight of argument’ does not change the position of an employer. Leverage analyses what will change the position of the employer. Leverage is the translation of an organising mind-set into the planning and implementation of a campaign strategy, underpinned by the escalation of pressure to create uncertainty.”
Those are not my words, but the words of a spokesperson for Unite the union. Unite was also of the view that in a leverage campaign
“the employer is routinely treated as a target to be defeated not a friend to be convinced.”
I am not sure that is the good faith relationship between trade union and employer that Labour Members have tried to paint as the normal back and forth between the two. I would certainly condemn as unacceptable any relationship between a trade union and an employer in which
“the employer is routinely treated as a target to be defeated not a friend to be convinced”.
That is not good faith.
Greg Smith
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s constructive approach. If he accepts the principle of what we are saying, we will work with the Government to polish it, and to ensure the amendment gives the maximum protection and protects junior managers as well as senior managers, and land adjacent to a premise that may not be owned or leased by the company. I will happily work with him and the Minister in a constructive tone to ensure the protections against leverage are as strong as possible. I will happily withdraw the amendment if the Minister commits the Government to working with us and coming up with a stronger amendment on Report that will stamp out the practices I have outlined. I dare say that we will see in a few moments whether he does so.
Justin Madders
I think it would be helpful if I set out why we are seeking to address the issue of detriment within the Bill. The reason is that new section 236A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is required because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in April 2024 that section 146 of the 1992 Act is incompatible with article 11 of the European convention on human rights, because it fails to provide any protection against detriments intended to deter or penalise trade union members from taking part in lawful strike action organised by their union. Hopefully, Members will accept as a starting proposition that we cannot continue to be in breach of our international obligations under the ECHR.
The intention is to rectify that situation by inserting new section 236A into part V of the 1992 Act. This will provide that a worker has the right not to be subject as an individual to detriment of a prescribed description by an act, or any deliberate failure to act, by their employer, if the act or failure to act takes place for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from taking protected industrial action, or penalising the worker for doing so. The prescribed detriments will be set out in secondary legislation following consultation, which will take place after the Bill gains Royal Assent.
The shadow Minister made some interesting points in his speech. However, his amendment seeks to prejudge the consultation on this issue. He made some valid points and I am sure that we will discuss this issue again in future, because there is a need for us to clarify what is considered a detriment, for the reasons that I have outlined.
Some of the examples that the shadow Minister gave are of things that are already catered for in the law. The protection from prescribed detriment only applies where the sole or main purpose of an act or a failure to act is to subject the worker to detriment, to prevent them from or penalise them for taking protective industrial action. For example, if a worker is subjected to detriment solely because, for example, they have damaged property, the protection would not apply. That is the existing position.
Of course the criminal law would still apply to pickets, just as it applies to everyone else, so no person involved in activities associated with pickets or organising pickets has any exemption from the provisions of the criminal law as it applies, for example, to prevent obstruction and preserve public order, or to regulate assemblies or demonstrations. There is already a relevant code of practice in place for that. Consequently, although I understand the points that the shadow Minister is making, I say to him that this issue will be dealt with in detail in a forthcoming consultation. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Laurence Turner
The Minister raised the Fiona Mercer case, which was brought by Unison. As he said, the final judgment in that case found that new protections are needed to prevent the victimisation of workers who undertake lawful industrial action. Can he confirm that, as a result of the changes that we are making here today, the UK should now be compliant with international law?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is correct. That is indeed the purpose of the—well, we will get to the clause stand part debate shortly, when we will hopefully deal with that issue. However, this measure is about dealing with a particular ECHR judgment. Therefore, as I say, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the Minister makes about prejudging any consultation, notwithstanding the points he makes about international obligations, but this is one of those areas where we have a particular identified problem in leverage that is not being challenged. I should be grateful if the Minister would provide further detail, not in Committee this afternoon but perhaps in writing, on where he thinks that protections exist around this.
From our perspective, it looks very much like this practice is happening and there are no protections against it. If there are protections against it, they are not being enforced. If they are not being enforced, there needs to be a mechanism to enable and allow that enforcement to take place. In good faith, I will withdraw the amendment for now and reserve the right to bring it back on Report, but notwithstanding some of the legitimate points made by the Minister, it is incumbent on us to properly stamp down on this practice and see it as very separate and distinct from the more traditional form of industrial action—strike action. The public understand that in a way that means that there would be even less sympathy when it comes to leverage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
We touched on this in our debate on the shadow Minister’s amendment. Clause 60 addresses the Supreme Court ruling made in April 2024 that section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is incompatible with article 11 of the European convention on human rights, in so far as it fails to provide any protection against detriments intended to deter trade union members from or penalise them for taking part in lawful strike action organised by their union. Clause 59 therefore amends the 1992 Act by inserting new section 236A into part V of the Act.
New section 236A provides that a worker has the right not to be subject as an individual to detriment of a prescribed description by an act, or any deliberate failure to act, by the worker’s employer if the act or failure takes place for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from taking protected industrial action or penalising the worker for doing so. The prescribed detriments will be set out in secondary legislation following consultation, which will take place after Royal Assent of the Bill. I will write to the shadow Minister with further detail on that in due course. However, the power in the Bill enables the Secretary of State to prohibit all detriments in secondary legislation should that be the preferred approach following consultation. Employers will continue to be able to deduct pay from workers in proportion to hours taken by strike action.
If a worker or former worker believes that they have been subject to a detriment by an employer in contravention of new section 236A, they may present a complaint to an employment tribunal within six months of the detriment occurring, or later if the tribunal is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented within that time period. On complaint to the employment tribunal, it is for the employer to show what was the sole or main purpose for which the employer acted or failed to act. If the tribunal finds that the complaint is well-founded, it must make a declaration to that effect and may make an award of compensation to be paid by the employer. The approach taken in the Bill addresses the ruling by the Supreme Court and, once the relevant secondary legislation has been made, will ensure that our legislation is compatible with the ECHR and ensure that protections against some forms of detriment for trade union representatives and members extend to industrial action.
Section 238A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act currently provides that workers can claim unfair dismissal if they are dismissed for taking protected industrial action and the dismissal takes place within 12 weeks of the worker starting the industrial action. The strike action could be intermittent rather than continuous. The worker will also be automatically regarded as unfairly dismissed if they are dismissed after the 12-week period but had stopped taking action before the end of that period or the employer had not taken reasonable steps to resolve the dispute. Industrial action is protected if it is official action for which the union has immunity under section 219 of the 1992 Act.
Clause 60 amends section 238A of the 1992 Act so that protection against dismissal will apply whatever the length of the strike action. Should the employer wish to dismiss an employee as a result of a long-running protected industrial action, the dismissal would have to be for reasons other than participating in industrial action. The clause also makes consequential amendments to sections 229 and 238B of the 1992 Act and sections 26 to 28 of and schedule 1 to the Employment Relations Act 2004. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Christopher. I know that the shadow Minister likes us to draw attention to our union membership, so I again draw attention to my membership of Unison.
I welcome clause 59 because it addresses the critical issue of protecting workers taking part in industrial action, ensuring that they are safeguarded not just against dismissal but against other forms of detriment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield has previously mentioned, the case of Fiona Mercer, a care worker suspended after participating in legal industrial action, highlights why the reforms are needed. Like so many care workers, Fiona dedicated her career to supporting some of the most vulnerable in our society—in Fiona’s case, adults with learning difficulties. Yet she faced suspension for standing up for fair pay and better conditions. Her case is a pertinent reminder of the vulnerabilities faced by workers in critical sectors such as social care when their legal rights are not adequately protected.
Therefore, I welcome the clause’s introduction of protections against detriment, ensuring that employers cannot punish workers like Fiona for exercising their right to strike. This provision is essential to safeguard the ability of care workers and others to advocate for fair treatment without fear of suspension, demotion or other retaliatory measures. The removal of the arbitrary 12-week protected period for unfair dismissal means that workers like Fiona can continue to fight for justice without compromising on protections.
Justin Madders
I will start by recognising the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby; the reason we are debating this clause is the case of Fiona Mercer and the quest for justice that my hon. Friend highlights. I will try to put the shadow Minister’s mind at ease about lawyers’ charters. As a former employment lawyer, I stand in the peculiar position of not wanting to see matters go to tribunal if we can avoid it. If we can resolve things before they get to that stage, it is always better. His fears are misplaced about the likelihood of creative lawyers going back many months or even years to link a particular dismissal to a period of industrial action.
There are many other potential claims that people can bring that relate to an act or something they may have done; whistleblowing is a very good example of that. Clearly, the further it is from the protected act and the dismissal, the harder it is to show that there is a connection, particularly, as will probably be the case for most dismissals that take place many months or years after the initial action, if there is an intervening event that causes the dismissal to take place. We do not want to get into the details of what those may be, but there are many intervening reasons why a dismissal might take place that have nothing to do with industrial action, but these are matters of law and fact for a tribunal to determine. We need to move away from a situation where we could have a particularly unscrupulous employer who wished to take advantage of the current law and seek to dismiss those who took part in industrial action 12 weeks and one day after that action had finished. That is not a state of affairs we want to defend.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61
Repeal of provision about minimum service levels
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 27—Section 61: impact assessment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of section 61 of this Act on the ability of the services listed in section 234B(4) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992 to provide minimum service levels during strike action.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before each House of Parliament.”
This New Clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clause 61.
Amendment 133, 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 61 of this Act until the findings set out in the report under section [section 61: impact assessment] 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 NC27.
Justin Madders
The clause seeks to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which provides powers for the Government to make regulations to set minimum service levels during strike action in some essential services. The previous Government introduced regulations to implement minimum service levels in rail, border security, fire and rescue, and ambulance services. No work notice, however, has ever been issued by an employer to require individuals to work to meet the minimum service level during strike action. This demonstrates the futility and misguided approach of the Act and I urge Members to support its repeal. Minimum service levels unduly restrict the right to strike and undermine good industrial relations. As a result, our plan—it is a clear manifesto commitment—pledged to repeal the Act to give trade unions the freedom to organise, represent and negotiate on behalf of their workers.
The clause amends the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Subsection (1) repeals provisions of the 1992 Act as inserted by section 1 of the Strikes Act, with sections 234B to 234G falling away. A number of further amendments are made by the clause to the 1992 Act to reverse other changes made by the Strikes Act. As a result, all associated powers, regulations, provisions and defined terms related to minimum service levels will also fall away. We want to reset the relationship with both employers and trade unions to resolve disputes through meaningful negotiations, and repealing the Strikes Act will help us to achieve that.
I will now turn to new clause 27 and amendment 133, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Buckingham- shire. The Government will not support his proposals, which unnecessarily ask for an assessment of the ability of essential public services to provide minimum service levels during industrial action, and to lay a report containing the findings before the House. The Government have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments, including an assessment covering the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. This was published alongside the Bill at Second Reading and is based on the best available evidence about the potential impact on business, workers and the wider economy. The assessment is hamstrung by the fact that the Act has never been implemented, so we are in some difficulty in seeing whether there was an impact from it.
The analysis we undertook, however, included labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis, including sectoral analysis on industries providing essential services, potential influence on collective bargaining and dispute resolution processes, while also addressing the balance between employer needs and union representation. We want to reset the relationship with both employers and trade unions to resolve disputes through meaningful negotiations, and believe that the Act was a hindrance to doing so. I therefore ask the shadow Minister not to move his new clause or amendment.
Greg Smith
I will focus my remarks predominantly on new clause 27 and amendment 133, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. New clause 27 would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of clause 61, which, as the Minister outlined, repeals legislation passed by the last Conservative Government that implemented minimum service levels in vital public services during periods of strike action. Amendment 133 would specify that regulations could not be laid to repeal minimum service levels legislation until the reports required by new clause 27 had been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.
We think that is fundamentally right because, with no justification or explanation, the Government will repeal legislation designed to ensure that, during a strike, levels of service are maintained to ensure public safety. We consulted on minimum levels of service for the ambulance service, fire and rescue services and passenger rail services during the last Parliament. It is an important principle that members of the public, who pay through their taxes for lifesaving public services such as ambulance and fire services, should be able to rely on those services at all times, including when members of those services choose to take strike action. Equally, members of the public depend on rail services and in many cases will have already paid for them through season tickets. They have a right to an acceptable level of service, even when members of unions decide to take strike action.
Therefore, before the Government can commence the repeal of the minimum service levels legislation, we think it is only right that the Secretary of State should demonstrate and reassure the House that, in the sectors that the Conservatives specified as suitable for requiring minimum service levels during strike action—to recap, because I think it is important that we get this back on the record, those are health services, fire and rescue services, education services, transport services, services involved in the decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel, and border security—minimum levels of acceptable service can be provided to the public. I make that point not on a whim, but as a matter of public safety and public convenience, and I would be grateful for reassurance from the Minister on it.
If I may humanise it for a moment, this is not about simply saying that people should not be allowed to strike, or taking away rights or anything, although I am sure it will be painted as that; it is about expanding an established custom and precedent in this country about certain sectors, such as the police, being unable to strike. My father was a police officer for 31 years before he retired. We have always accepted as a country that the police should not be able to strike, because they are there for the fundamental purpose of public safety. We know that when we need them, they will be there and available. The same core public service, which we all pay for through our taxes, is provided by the other professions I outlined, not least fire and rescue services, border security and the niche but important services involved in the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, and there absolutely must be minimum service levels there too. Any one of us could need an ambulance at any point at no notice. Whether or not that minimum service level is in place is quite literally the difference between life and death. This is a serious issue.
The Labour party has always been opposed to minimum service levels. It opposed the legislation in the previous Parliament, and through this clause it is taking the quickest action possible to repeal it. I urge Labour Members to consider the practical, life-and-death consequences of not ensuring minimum service levels for fire, ambulance and border security services. If they have issues with some of the detail of the minimum service levels legislation, they should by all means strengthen it, but it would be simply negligent to allow the minimum service levels to drop and to leave any of our constituents—even just one—in a position of potentially life-and-death danger by repealing the legislation.
Justin Madders
I understand the points that the shadow Minister has made, but they would carry rather more weight if we had seen the minimum service levels Act operate in practice. The reality is that not a single day of industrial action has been prevented as a result of that legislation. The Government’s own impact assessment at the time indicated that it would have a detrimental impact on industrial relations, and the increase in strike days in the past couple of years has proved that to be the case.
It is also true that all the public sector bodies the shadow Minister referred to that are covered by the Act had voluntary arrangements in place to ensure that there was no endangerment to life. Trade unions and their members have and always will work with employers during periods of industrial action to ensure that life is not endangered. That is absolutely right. Indeed, there is potential criminal liability for those who do not. The evidence given by all at the time—including employers, who saw that the legislation was designed to drive a wedge between employers and trade unions—was that the existing voluntary arrangements worked and ensured that vital services were able to continue during periods of industrial action.
The minimum service levels Act drove a coach and horses through decades of agreement and understanding about how sensitive issues were dealt with during periods of industrial action. The proof is in the pudding: the fact that the Act was never used by any of the organisations that were empowered to use it shows that it was simply a bad piece of legislation, done purely for cosmetic political purposes, and had no meaningful impact. Therefore, its repeal will have no impact on the issues the shadow Minister has raised. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62
Annual returns: removal of provision about industrial action
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 63 to 69 stand part.
New clause 44—Certification Officer: growth duty—
“When discharging its general functions, the Certification Officer must, so far as reasonably possible, act in such a way as to advance the following objectives—
(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom; and
(b) its growth in the medium to long term.”
This new clause would require the Certification Officer to advance the objectives of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.
Justin Madders
Clause 62 seeks to reverse the effect of section 7 of the Trade Union Act 2016. It will remove the additional reporting requirements imposed on trade unions for their annual returns to the Certification Officer regarding details of industrial action taken during the reporting period. Specifically, trade unions will no longer be required to include information on any industrial action taken during the reporting period, the nature of the trade dispute relating to the industrial action, the type of industrial action taken or when it was taken, or confirmation that the relevant thresholds covering industrial action ballots have been met. Additionally, trade unions will no longer be required to include information regarding the results of industrial action ballots—for example, the number of votes cast and the number of those who voted yes or no.
Subsection (1) removes section 32ZA from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which sets out the additional reporting requirements on trade unions. Trade unions will still be required to submit an annual return to the Certification Officer. However, the amount of information they will be required to include will be reduced. By removing these additional administrative burdens on trade unions, we are freeing up their time to engage in bargaining and negotiation with employers and allowing them to devote more time to representing their members’ interests.
Clause 63 seeks to repeal amendments made to the 1992 Act by section 12 of the Trade Union Act 2016 and thereby remove the requirement for trade unions to include political fund expenditure in their annual return to the Certification Officer. Currently, this information must be provided where a union spends more than £2,000 per annum from its political fund. Subsection (2) removes section 32ZB from the 1992 Act, which sets out the information to be included in a union’s annual return on political expenditure.
Other subsections of clause 63 make other amendments to the 1992 Act that are consequential on the removal of section 32ZB, including as to its enforcement and its application to employers’ associations. Section 12 of the 2016 Act itself is repealed by subsection (7). Trade unions will still have to report to the Certification Officer on their income and expenditure. That includes reporting on the income and expenditure of the political fund. Moreover, all political parties will still be subject to the reporting requirements in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which requires certain donations and loans to be recorded and reported to the Electoral Commission.
Clause 64 seeks to repeal the remainder of the effect of section 18 of the 2016 Act. It removes the power of the Certification Officer to publicise a trade union’s failure to include the required industrial action data in its annual return. Clauses 62 and 63 remove the requirement for trade unions to include details of industrial action and political expenditure in their annual returns, so there is clearly no need for the Certification Officer to retain powers to enforce such a requirement.
Enforcement relating to details of political expenditure is addressed in clause 63, and enforcement relating to details of industrial action in clause 64. Therefore, clause 64(2) removes section 32ZC of the 1992 Act, thereby removing the powers of the Certification Officer to enforce the additional annual return requirements relating to industrial action. The Certification Officer will retain the powers to enforce the remaining annual return requirements in relation to a union’s financial affairs and governance.
Clause 65 seeks to reverse the effect of section 17(1) and (2) of the 2016 Act, which inserted schedule A3 to the 1992 Act. It will repeal the enhanced investigatory powers of the Certification Officer, including the power to launch investigations by inspectors, the ability to compel trade unions to produce documents, and the related powers of enforcement. Schedule A3 to the 1992 Act sets out the details of the Certification Officer’s investigatory powers as introduced by the 2016 Act.
Clause 65(5) removes section 256C of the 1992 Act and subsection (6) removes schedule A3 from the 1992 Act. Subsections (2), (3) and (4) make more minor amendments that relate to the removal of schedule A3. Consequentially, subsection (7) removes section 17(1) and (2) of the 2016 Act, and schedule 1 to that Act, and makes further minor amendments to schedule 4 to that Act and to section 43 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014.
The enhanced powers created by the 2016 Act were unnecessary. There was no evidence of regulatory failure, and unions have consistently complied with their statutory obligations in relation to their finances, governance and reporting requirements. Since their introduction, the Certification Officer has never used those additional powers. Removing onerous regulatory burdens from trade unions is part of the Government’s commitment to bringing in a new era of partnership that sees employers, unions and Government work together in co-operation and through negotiation.
Clause 66 seeks to remove the powers of the Certification Officer to investigate trade unions proactively without first having received a complaint from a member of that trade union. Those powers were added to various provisions of the 1992 Act by schedule 2 to the 2016 Act. The enhanced investigatory powers created by the 2016 Act were unnecessary. There was no evidence of regulatory failure, and unions have consistently complied with their statutory obligations in relation to their finances, governance and reporting requirements. In fact, since their introduction, the Certification Officer has never used those additional investigatory powers either.
Subsections (2) to (9) of clause 66 remove the ability for the Certification Officer to proactively investigate a range of issues, reverting to the position pre-2016, when the Certification Officer could only consider and act upon a complaint from a member. Trade unions are voluntary associations, run by and for their members. We are returning the Certification Officer’s role to one of adjudicating when it receives members’ complaints in relation to a union.
Clause 67 seeks to reverse the effect of section 19 of the 2016 Act to remove the ability of the Certification Officer to impose financial penalties on trade unions. The previous Government presented no evidence as to why the Certification Officer needed those additional powers. Since they have come into force, no financial penalties have been imposed on any trade union.
Schedule A4 to the 1992 Act sets out the detail of the power to impose financial penalties. Clause 67(2) removes section 256D of the 1992 Act, which gave effect to the schedule, and subsection (3) removes the schedule. As a result, the clause removes subsections (1) to (3) of section 19 of the 2016 Act and schedule 3 to that Act. The Certification Officer will retain the power to issue enforcement orders, and if those orders are not complied with, the union may be found in contempt of court.
Clause 68 will repeal sections 257A and 258(1A) of the 1992 Act, as inserted by section 20 of the 2016 Act. That will remove the levy charged by the Certification Officer on employers’ associations and trade unions. Furthermore, the Certification Officer will no longer be required to report on the levy as part of its annual report to Parliament. The levy is an impediment to the rights of voluntary associations, and it attracted criticism from international bodies, including the International Labour Organisation.
Clause 68(2) removes section 257A of the 1992 Act, which sets out the requirements for a levy to be paid to the Certification Officer by trade unions and employers’ associations. Subsection (3) removes the requirement in section 258(1A) of the 1992 Act for the Certification Officer to report on the levy. The Government believe that we should interfere as little as possible in the activities of social partners, which are voluntary associations.
Clause 69 seeks to reverse the changes made by section 21 of the 2016 Act to the 1992 Act so that the right of appeal against decisions of the Certification Officer to the Employment Appeal Tribunal is on questions of law only, rather than on questions of law and fact. That brings the appeals process back in line with the position before the 2016 Act and with many other enforcement bodies of employment law. For example, appeals against the decisions of employment tribunals are considered only on points of law, not points of fact. I hope hon. Members were keeping up with that; I shall be asking questions later.
New clause 44 would place a new duty on the Certification Officer, the regulator of trade unions and employers’ associations, by requiring it to advance the objectives of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth over the medium to long term when carrying out its statutory functions.
It is helpful at this stage to set out the role of the Certification Officer. It has been the regulator of trade unions and employers’ associations since 1975 and not only carries out regulatory functions, but has administrative and supervisory functions and a significant quasi-judicial function, where it adjudicates on complaints raised by trade union members and other parties. As part of our repeal of the provisions of the Trade Union Act, we will be repealing the Certification Officer’s enhanced investigatory and enforcement powers and the levy imposed on trade unions and employers’ associations. As such, we will be returning the role much to what it was before the Trade Union Act was implemented.
The Certification Officer’s primary role is to ensure that both unions and employers’ associations adhere to the statutory requirements in relation to their finances and governance that Parliament has decided they are required to observe. Its statutory functions are to maintain lists of trade unions and employers’ associations; determine complaints from union members against their unions relating to alleged breaches of statutory duties and some other types of union rules; determine union independence; ensure that annual returns are made; supervise mergers, political fund ballots and members’ superannuation schemes; and investigate alleged financial irregularities and breaches in relation to trade union membership. The Certification Officer therefore has no locus in relation to industrial action and no role in making assessments of how unions and employers’ associations impact the economy. It has no economists or statisticians on its payroll.
In view of the Certification Officer’s functions and role, the new clause is not appropriate. It is not clear how the Certification Officer, in making decisions on whether a union or employer association has breached its statutory obligations, will act to advance the objectives of international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term. Hopefully the shadow Minister will set out how that would work in practice, because it is not obvious to me how the Certification Officer could take those factors into account when determining the statutory obligations that unions and employers’ associations have to observe under Acts of Parliament. For that reason, I ask him not to press his new clause, and I commend clauses 62 to 69 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I congratulate the Minister on his marathon run through clauses 62 to 69. I will focus my comments particularly on new clause 44, which, as the Minister has outlined, would require the Certification Officer to advance the objectives of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for taking slightly less time than I did on this grouping. For the record, I am fully supportive of the Prime Minister’s action plans, milestones, missions and all other types.
Justin Madders
I am afraid that would be out of scope of the Bill Committee. I hear what the shadow Minister says. His essential argument is that we should be able to judge the actions of trade unions in terms of the damage or disruption they cause to the UK economy. Of course, we want to see growth and we want to see industrial action minimised. We believe that by having a more harmonious set of industrial relations, we will see that.
Unfortunately, the shadow Minister’s new clause really mischaracterises the Certification Officer’s role. He is not, as the hon. Gentleman said, there to preside over strikes; he is there to preside over the governance, finances, reporting requirements and statutory obligations of trade unions and employers’ associations—I noted that the hon. Gentleman did not mention employers’ associations. The Certification Officer is not there to preside over industrial disputes and strikes. There are courts to intervene if a party feels aggrieved about the way industrial action has been observed, whether lawfully or not. I can see the intention of the new clause: the shadow Minister wants the Government to succeed in their growth mission. We all do, but I do not think the Certification Officer is the right or appropriate vehicle for that to take place.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 62 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 63 to 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70
Regulations subject to affirmative resolution procedure
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
The clause amends section 293 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, with which I am sure all Members are now very familiar, to require that regulations made under the following new sections of the 1992 Act are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This therefore will apply to the following regulations: section 70ZC, on access agreements, response period and negotiation period; section 70ZE, on access agreements and the period to make an application to Central Arbitration Committee; section 70ZF, on access agreements and determinations by the Central Arbitration Committee; section 70ZI, on the enforcement of access agreements and the maximum penalty; and section 236A, on detriment for taking industrial action. Any other regulations made under section 293 will continue to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. I therefore commend clause 70 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I will not detain the Committee with a commentary on this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71
Devolved Welsh authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Employment Rights Bill (Seventeenth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Business and Trade
Justin Madders
Main Page: Justin Madders (Labour - Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)Department Debates - View all Justin Madders's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
Employment Rights Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
Justin Madders ExcerptsThursday 9th January 2025
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 January 2025 - (9 Jan 2025)
The Chair
Thank you, Sir Ashley, for giving notice of that point of order. The issue you have raised is obviously on the record. It will be raised with the Scrutiny Unit and there will be a report back to the Committee on the outcome of that inquiry.
Clause 72
Enforcement of labour market legislation by Secretary of State
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 72, page 79, line 15, at end insert—
“(4A) Accordingly, in the case of the exercise by an enforcement officer of an enforcement function of the Secretary of State, any reference in an enactment to the Secretary of State in connection with that function is to be read as, or as including, a reference to that officer or any other enforcement officer.”
This amendment ensures that, where an enforcement officer is exercising an enforcement function of the Secretary of State by virtue of clause 72(4), references in legislation to the Secretary of State in connection with that function will include references to enforcement officers, so that the legislation will apply in relation to the enforcement officer as it would apply to the Secretary of State if the Secretary of State were exercising the function.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Mundell. I start by making the customary reference to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Clause 72 is the first in relation to the fair work agency, and it is one of the building blocks of the agency. I will explain the main elements of the clause, as that will help us to understand the amendment. The clause confers an overarching function on the Secretary of State to enforce certain legislation set out in part 1 of schedule 4, which the clause introduces. The clause provides flexibility for the Secretary of State in how to deliver that overarching enforcement function. It enables them to appoint enforcement officers to carry out the function on their behalf, and it provides that enforcement officers will be able to exercise any of the enforcement functions of the Secretary of State and will have the enforcement powers conferred on them as set out in the terms of their appointment by the Secretary of State.
As I said, the Secretary of State has the function of enforcing the legislation set out in part 1 of schedule 4. The legislation contains references to the Secretary of State having functions and powers in connection with the enforcement of the rights set out in that legislation. It is important that those references can be read as references to the enforcement officers the Secretary of State appoints to act on their behalf; otherwise, enforcement officers may not be able to properly exercise the enforcement functions of the Secretary of State. That would make their appointment, and potentially their enforcement activity, less effective.
Government amendment 84 inserts a new subsection after clause 72(4) to ensure that references to the Secretary of State are read as references to enforcement officers where necessary. The practical effect is that the legislation will apply to enforcement officers as it would to the Secretary of State. This is a technical change, but I hope that Members will see that it is necessary.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once more, Mr Mundell.
Government amendment 84 looks to us like a drafting correction. We will not rehearse the arguments we have had so many times in the Committee about drafting corrections, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the powers in the Bill, which are directly related to the amendment, for enforcement officers to enter and search business premises are any wider in scope than current enforcement powers and, if so, how and why.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for not rehearsing the arguments, as we may end up having them every five minutes, given the number of technical amendments we will deal with today. He raises an important question about the enforcement powers and powers of entry. There are a number of clauses that deal with that. My initial understanding is that, generally speaking, we are not seeking to widen the remit of current enforcement powers. I will endeavour to write to him if there are any changes or exceptions to that. It may be something that becomes apparent when we debate the clauses in question.
Amendment 84 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 72 is important, as it sets out the principles of a major part of the Bill. The UK’s labour market enforcement system is fragmented. The enforcement of core rights such as the minimum wage, domestic agency regulations and the gangmasters licensing scheme is split between three different agencies. That often means that workers do not know where to go when they think they might not have received what they are due. That makes enforcement ineffective. It is not fair for workers or businesses.
Clause 72 is a vital building block in the creation of the fair work agency. It is worth noting from the outset that the FWA will be established as an executive agency of the Department for Business and Trade, which means that it will not have its own distinct identity in legislation. The Bill therefore vests responsibility for enforcement of labour market legislation in the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State intends to discharge those responsibilities through the fair work agency, which will be created in administrative documents.
Clause 72(1) places responsibility for enforcing a set list of labour market legislation on the Secretary of State and introduces part 1 of schedule 4, which sets out the list of relevant labour market legislation that the Secretary of State will be responsible for enforcing. There is a general power in clause 118(3) to make regulations that commence different aspects of the Bill at different points. Exactly when the Secretary of State will take on responsibility for enforcement will depend on the detail of those commencement regulations. However, creating the fair work agency is about more than simply moving things around; the agency will also take on the ability to enforce workers’ right to paid holiday and their entitlement to statutory sick pay.
Clause 72(2) explains that part 5 of the Bill confers powers on the Secretary of State and enforcement officers to carry out the purpose of enforcing the labour market legislation in schedule 4. Clause 72(3) makes it clear that an enforcement officer includes anyone whom the Secretary of State has appointed to carry out enforcement of that legislation on his behalf, and clause 72(5) clarifies that enforcement officers appointed by the Secretary of State have only the powers conferred on them when they are appointed. Practically speaking, that means that whether the Secretary of State or an enforcement officer is carrying out this work, they will have the enforcement and investigatory powers they need to do the job effectively. Those powers are set out in later clauses.
Clause 72(5) is also a particularly important safeguard. As I have already said, the responsibility for enforcing legislation and the powers to carry it out will be vested in the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State will then confer them on the enforcement officers he appoints. However, the FWA’s remit will also include the serious issue of modern slavery and labour abuse, for which certain specially trained enforcement officers will have extensive police-style powers, as set out in section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Certain officers in the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority are trained to use those powers, which are subject to additional oversight, including by the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The powers should continue to be reserved for tackling the most serious issues handled by the FWA. That is why we have included clause 72(5), through which the Secretary of State will specify what powers enforcement officers will have access to when appointing them. We will ensure that powers are conferred only on officers who are sufficiently qualified to use them and who genuinely need them to do their job.
Sir Ashley Fox
The Minister is talking about granting officials of the state extensive powers currently reserved to police officers. Can he tell us how many additional officials will be granted those additional powers?
Justin Madders
What we are doing is transferring existing powers and responsibilities from the existing agency. There are no new police-style powers being created for these officers; it is simply a transfer over to the fair work agency.
Clause 72 is key to delivering the much-needed upgrade to the enforcement of workers’ rights so that it is more effective and fair for workers and businesses. It brings together enforcement functions currently split between several different enforcement agencies and gives the fair work agency the flexibility to respond to a rapidly changing labour market. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
A lot of the detail is in the clauses that follow this one; as the Minister said, this is very much a building-block clause. Although I totally understand and appreciate the rationale for taking enforcement powers that are currently fragmented across multiple different agencies and consolidating them into one, the devil is always in the detail.
Although it might seem sensible to consolidate the powers that are currently so spread out into one agency, this is very much a centralisation of power. The crux of clause 72 is about directly providing the Secretary of State with the overall function of enforcing labour market legislation. Whenever I see such provisions in any legislation, I cannot help but be reminded of the late, great President Reagan’s famous quote about the nine most terrifying words in the English language:
“I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater suggested in his intervention on the Minister, the serious detail is about the practical workings of the fair work agency as it is set up. What will be the total number of enforcement officers, employees and ancillary staff required—admittedly, some will be brought across from other agencies—to form it? What will be the cost to the taxpayer of putting that together? How many people are we actually talking about? I think that, as opposed to the powers that they will hold, was the crux of my hon. Friend’s intervention.
As I said, we accept the rationale for bringing these powers together under one agency, but whenever such powers are granted to a Secretary of State, no matter what the field, there is always uncertainty and scope for never-ending expansion of the new agency, and of the size of the state, to do what is, in many cases, important enforcement work—I do not doubt that. Given the presumption that the Bill will become an Act of Parliament and that the agency will be set up in the way envisaged in clause 72, it would be good to have clarity about the plan for just how big the agency will be and whether the Secretary of State will put any cap on that from the get-go. How far does the Minister envisage the agency going?
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I want to add my support in principle for the idea of a single labour market regulator. I have written about that in the past in different ways and can claim a small amount of credit for the commissioning of the Taylor review into the gig economy when I was working in 10 Downing Street. These issues are very important to me. Hopefully that will reassure the Minister and Labour Members of my cross-party credentials when that might be necessary.
We can all think of ways in which different kinds of labour market exploitation—non-payment of the national minimum wage or living wage; breaches of terms and conditions, health and safety or holiday rights; and illegal working, among many other examples—can be difficult to address if the laws are tough but the enforcement is poor. Those on both sides of the Committee can agree on that.
I want to add to the questions that have already been raised. I think the Minister said that the idea is that no additional powers will be granted and that this is just a consolidation. My understanding is that the fair work agency will not be a single monolithic agency; it is more about different strands of work being brought under a single leadership. If that is the case, presumably the different agencies that exist will do so until this legal change comes into effect. Presumably, the powers of the officers in each of those agencies differ in certain ways. Will that remain the case under the one body, or will there be interoperability and transfer of officers within the different sections under the single regulator? Or is the idea that the officers across those different entities will all assume the maximum powers that exist at the moment so that they can operate across all the different responsibilities of the new agency? I think that would still mean a net increase in powers across those people. What work has been done in the Department to give us an idea of the numbers we are talking about? If the Minister could answer that and then write to us with some more detail and statistics, I would be grateful.
Justin Madders
It is pleasing to hear generally broad support for this measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield pointed out, and as the hon. Member for West Suffolk will know better than most, this was previously a Conservative party manifesto commitment, and we are pleased to be able to move it forward.
Some detailed operational questions were asked. At this stage, how the agency will work in practice is still being fleshed out. The current understanding in the impact assessment is that this is about the consolidation of existing resources and having a single point of leadership. Members will recall that, in her evidence to the Committee, Margaret Beels, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, talked about how her role would be much easier if she were able to combine the powers of different agencies.
The shadow Minister asked whether we will require extra staff. That will be part of discussions with the Treasury. As he will know, there is a spending review on the horizon and Departments have been asked to look at savings. Clearly, we hope that the combining of resources will lead to some efficiencies, but there is certainly a view from a number of stakeholders that enforcement is not at the level it ought to be—
Greg Smith
I fully acknowledge and appreciate the Minister’s point about negotiation with the Treasury, but even if we take it as read that it is right to bring powers into a single enforcement agency, there is always a cost to creating anything new, even if it is a consolidation. Surely, the Department for Business and Trade has a cost for that. There is legislation live, in front of us right now, that seeks to create the agency, so surely he must know the broad cost of setting it up and consolidating those powers.
Justin Madders
Yes, the impact assessment sets out the one-off set-up costs. I am sure the shadow Minister can spend the lunch break looking at the detail. In terms of the current enforcement framework, as I say, there is a view that more needs to be done. Of course, we will be adding holiday pay and social security to that, and there is a power to add further areas. We know that generally, when resources are combined, we can deliver more—the sum is greater than the parts.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, asked about the critical friend. This Government are always ready to have critical friends—more on the “friend” side than the “critical” side. We will come shortly to a clause about an advisory board, which will have a broad range of stakeholders able to take that role.
Greg Smith
Does the Minister not agree that for any power held by any Secretary of State in any Department, the critical friend is a very simple concept? It is called Parliament—it is all of us.
Justin Madders
Indeed it is, and the usual parliamentary scrutiny will apply, but I was talking specifically about the role of the fair work agency. There will be that role, and no doubt as more detail emerges there will be more parliamentary opportunities to talk about the role and functions of the agency.
My hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles and for Birmingham Northfield talked about the broad support for the agency’s establishment, as indeed did the hon. Member for West Suffolk. I have a list of all the supportive witnesses at the oral evidence sessions, and it is a broad and impressive cast. It includes the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the British Retail Consortium, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, the Food and Drink Federation, the Co-op, Margaret Beels, and of course all the trade unions. There is support across the board for this single enforcement body.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. There are a few points about the creation of the agency that I would like the Minister to address. I am broadly supportive of synergies and of the rationalisation of public bodies, particularly to ensure that the taxpayer is getting value for money, but have the Government considered the cost of this new body and whether it will result in savings for the taxpayer? Will they consider locating it outside London so that it is more broadly reflective of the country at large?
Justin Madders
As a regional MP—a north-west Member—I am always looking to see where we can get more Government agencies out into the rest of the country. It is probably too early to say, but those kinds of decisions are being looked at.
At the moment, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs deals with minimum wage enforcement. Moving such a specific task across to another body will take some time, so there may well be a period during which HMRC continues to undertake that work, albeit that it is within the remit of the fair work agency. Such operational details will be discussed and dealt with in due course.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk made a point about the powers of individual officers. Initially, we envisage that officers will move into, effectively, their existing roles. It will be a matter for operational consideration in due course whether it is beneficial to extend people’s remits. It will not be required of anyone without sufficient training and safeguards in place, but as the agency develops, it may well be considered advantageous to broaden the role of enforcement officers. One of the rationales for the body is that there are often several aspects to an employer’s breach of obligations, so we want the fair work agency to be able to tackle these things as a whole. However, that is an operational matter that will be dealt with in due course. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 72, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Legislation subject to enforcement under part 5
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 169, in schedule 4, page 127, line 29, leave out paragraph 3 and insert—
“3 Section 151(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (employer’s liability to pay statutory sick pay).
3A Regulations under section 153(5)(b) of that Act (requirement to provide statement about entitlement).”
This amendment clarifies the specific obligations relating to the payment of statutory sick pay which will be enforceable under Part 5 of the Bill.
Justin Madders
As we have discussed, the current enforcement system for workers’ rights is fragmented. By creating the fair work agency, we intend to bring enforcement into one place. We have been clear that we also want the fair work agency to enforce individual rights to statutory sick pay, because we want to upgrade the enforcement of workers’ rights and stand up for the most vulnerable in our workforce, including those who are unable to work owing to sickness. That is why part 1 of schedule 4 to the Bill, as introduced on 10 October 2024, includes part 11 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992—one of the main pieces of legislation setting out the statutory sick pay regime—in the body of relevant labour market legislation. Government amendment 169 further clarifies the obligations concerning the payment of statutory sick pay under the Act and regulations made under it, which will be enforceable under part 5 of the Bill.
However, there is a wider body of statutory sick pay legislation containing details about the entitlements bestowed on workers and the duties of employers. After further work, we noted that some of those provisions needed to be included under the fair work agency. That led us to amendment 170, which will add the following legislation to part 1 of schedule 4: regulations made under section 5 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, in so far as they relate to statutory sick pay, which deal with claims for, and payment of, benefits; section 14(3) of the Act, which establishes the duty on employers to provide employees with certain information about their sick pay entitlement; and regulations made under section 130 of the Act, in so far as they relate to statutory sick pay. Those provisions will be considered relevant labour market legislation, which makes them part of the Secretary State’s enforcement function. We will proceed with them once the fair work agency is ready to enforce them effectively. Amendments 169 and 170 are therefore necessary for the fair work agency to deliver its remit on statutory sick pay.
Greg Smith
Amendment 169 clarifies the specific obligations relating to the payment of statutory sick pay that are enforceable under part 5. Similarly, amendment 170 will ensure that those additional obligations relating to statutory sick pay that are imposed on employers by the Social Security Administration Act 1992 are enforceable under part 5. This goes back to our old friend, drafting errors being corrected that should really have been sorted out before the Bill was presented to Parliament in the first place.
Justin Madders
We will probably have this conversation a number of times. It is probably a little harsh to say that this was an error, but it would be fair to say that, given the complexity of social security legislation, not every provision was identified when the Bill was first introduced.
Amendment 169 agreed to.
Amendment made: 170, in schedule 4, page 127, line 30, at end insert—
“Social Security Administration Act 1992
3B Regulations under section 5 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (regulations about claims for and payments of benefit), so far as relating to statutory sick pay.
3C Section 14(3) of that Act (duty of employers to provide certain information to employees in relation to statutory sick pay).
3D Regulations under section 130 of that Act (duties of employers), so far as relating to statutory sick pay.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment ensures that additional obligations relating to statutory sick pay that are imposed on employers by the Social Security Administration Act 1992 are enforceable under Part 5 of the Bill.
Greg Smith
I rise to speak to amendments 117, 118 and 119 and new clause 20, which stand in my name and in the name of my hon. Friends on the Committee. I make it clear that they are probing amendments; it will become clear over the next couple of minutes why we seek to probe the Government on the issue.
The amendments would repeal the working time directive within one year of the Bill’s coming into force. Our reason for tabling them is not that we intend to abolish entitlement to holidays, lunch breaks and so on—far from it, and nobody is suggesting that. However, the working time directive has had a troubled history. One example is the difficulties that occurred between the Commission and member states when the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that employers—all of them public health and emergency services—did not calculate time spent on call as working time, when they should have done. The CJEU consistently declared that practice incompatible with the directive, arguing that inactive time spent at the disposal of the employer must be counted in its entirety as working time. Then, in 2019, the Court ruled:
“Member States must require employers to set up an objective, reliable and accessible system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured.”
The result of that judgment was never formally brought into British law, but as a result of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, it became part of retained EU law.
Last year, the Conservative Government legislated to clarify that businesses do not have to keep a record of the daily working hours of their workers if they are able to demonstrate compliance without doing so; to amend the WTR so that irregular hours and part-year workers’ annual leave entitlement is pro-rated to the hours that they work; to introduce an accrual method for calculating holiday entitlement for certain workers; to revoke the covid regulations—it seems odd that we are still saying that—and to introduce rolled-up holiday pay for irregular hours and part-year workers. Consultation requirements under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 to allow smaller businesses to consult directly with employees would be another measure. That is just the start of how it might be possible to simplify the working time directive. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how well the working time regulations are working, and on whether any further changes might be made for the benefit of businesses to enable growth in this country.
Justin Madders
The working time regulations have had a relatively long history in our legal framework. They provide vital rights: a maximum working week of 48 hours, rest breaks of 20 minutes every six hours, rest periods of 11 hours each day and at least 24 hours each week, and 28 days of annual leave each year. The regulations implement the EU working time directive; the then Government deliberately designed them to provide maximum flexibility for both employers and workers. For example, workers can choose to opt out in writing from the 48-hour week maximum. We believe that the regulations have benefited millions of workers and their families over the years. They afford workers a better balance between work and other responsibilities, as well as improvements in health and wellbeing.
A 2014 review by the previous Government of the impact of the working time regulations on the UK labour market found that since 1998 there had been a decline in long-hours working in the UK and a general trend towards shorter working hours, which is probably not a surprise. The findings also suggested that the impact of the regulations was mainly through increased employment of workers doing shorter working weeks, rather than through a reduction in total hours worked. Annual leave entitlements have increased since the introduction of the working time regulations; many workers now enjoy a more generous leave entitlement than is prescribed by law.
Limitations on working hours and entitlement to a minimum number of days’ holiday can contribute to improvements in health and safety. Most employers accept that a minimum holiday entitlement contributes to physical and psychological wellbeing. Reductions in stress and fatigue caused by excess hours can provide many benefits, including less pressure on health services and better performance at work, with fewer accidents. By establishing minimum standards, the working time regulations also support a level playing field that discourages competition that relies on poor working conditions and a race to the bottom.
New clause 20 would revoke the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018, which provide for adequate rest for seafarers and support the management of onboard fatigue and the wellbeing of seafarers. Revoking the regulations would negatively affect the ability of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to enforce safe and healthy working conditions for seafarers.
The new clause would also revoke the Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea-fishermen) Regulations 2004, which require the UK to implement the International Labour Organisation’s work in fishing convention, which underpins the safe operation of vessels. Fishing is one of the most dangerous sectors in the UK, with 50 injuries per 100,000 workers compared with a UK average of 0.4. We believe that the 2004 regulations are critical to ensuring that workers take the appropriate hours of rest to prevent fatigue-related incidents.
The new clause would also revoke the Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is in the process of conducting a post-implementation review of those regulations. The initial responses to the consultation have indicated a generally positive view from stakeholders.
The new clause would also revoke the Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008, which provide enhanced rights and worker protections for those engaged in cross-border rail services, such as train crew for Eurostar services through the channel tunnel. The revocation of the regulations would erode those enhanced protections.
The Government believe that the minimum standards in the Working Time Regulations 1998 and other sector-specific working time regulations have supported millions of workers and their families by enabling them to better balance work and other responsibilities. The Government have no plans to revoke the working time regulations or any of the other sector-specific regulations.
I understand what the shadow Minister says about whether we consider the regulations to be beneficial to businesses, but he will know that there was ample time under his Government to undertake those reviews. Indeed, one was undertaken just over a decade ago, as I said. We have no plans to erode workers’ rights in this area; indeed, one of the fair work agency’s main functions will be to enforce rights to holiday pay, which evidence to the Committee suggests are not being enforced properly.
The shadow Minister says that he has no intention of revoking the working time regulations and that his amendment is probing, but I can only speak to what is before the Committee. If he had tabled an amendment seeking a review of the operation of the working time regulations, that might have been more appropriate in the circumstances. This feels to me like a dog-whistle amendment, so I am pleased to hear that he will not be pressing it.
Greg Smith
I am always pleased to delight the Minister in these debates. It was a probing amendment, and I can confirm that we will not be pressing amendments 117 to 119 or new clause 20 to a Division. However, I will briefly comment on the Minister’s response. I entirely respect him for it, but it was a full-throated defence of the status quo.
Something that goes deep within my view of politics, of government and of public administration is there is always room for improvement in pretty much everything. I say that as much about measures passed by previous Conservative Governments as about those passed by current or past Labour Governments. I refuse to accept that something is as good as it possibly can be and is working as well as it possibly can in the interests of businesses and workers alike. There is some disappointment from the official Opposition that the Government do not seem to want to look again.
Justin Madders
Does the shadow Minister not accept that his party undertook this exercise, which is why regulations were introduced last year to amend the working time regulations?
Greg Smith
I fully and totally accept that, but it is our job as the official Opposition, here and now in January 2025, to press the current Government on further measures that could be taken to work in the interests of everybody in our country—workers and businesses alike. Perhaps I accept the Minister’s point; perhaps we could have tabled an amendment to call for a review. Who knows? Perhaps on Report we might. But the fundamental position that I come back to is one that does not just accept the status quo, but is always challenging, always reviewing and always seeking to make things better in the interests of everyone.
When the Minister goes back to the Department and prepares for the remaining stages of the Bill in the main Chamber and in the other place, may I gently urge him to consider in the round, with the Opposition’s support, whether there are tyres to be kicked and measures to be improved in the operation of the working time directive? May I also urge him to ensure—now that we are a sovereign country once more, having left the European Union—that this Parliament can make improvements should it so wish? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 85, in schedule 4, page 128, line 13, at end insert—
“( ) regulations 13 to 15E (entitlement to annual leave, etc);”
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to enforce the entitlements to annual leave conferred by the Working Time Regulations 1998.
Government amendment 85 will add to schedule 4 the additional holiday pay and entitlement regulations: regulations 13, 13A, 14, 15, 15A, 15B, 15C, 15D and 15E of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It will enable the fair work agency to take enforcement action in relation to incorrect payment or non-payment of a worker’s holiday pay and incorrect payment or non-payment in lieu of annual leave entitlement, ensuring that a wider range of complaints can be dealt with more effectively. I commend it to the Committee.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 23—Review of the effectiveness of enforcement of labour market legislation—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish an independent review providing for—
(a) an assessment of the effectiveness of enforcement of, and compliance with, relevant labour market legislation requirements as specified in Part 1 of Schedule 4 of this Act;
(b) an assessment of the performance and effectiveness of following bodies in enforcing labour market legislation—
(i) Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority;
(ii) Employment Agencies Standards Inspectorate;
(iii) His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; and
(iv) Health and Safety Executive; and
(c) recommendations on strengthening labour market legislation enforcement.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of the review in subsection (1) not more than 18 months after the day on which this Act is passed and before a new single labour market enforcement body is established.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a review of enforcement of labour market legislation and to report findings to Parliament before a new labour market enforcement body is established.
Justin Madders
The UK’s labour market enforcement system is fragmented, as we know. The enforcement of core rights such as the minimum wage, the domestic agency regulations and the gangmaster licensing scheme is split between three different agencies, so workers often do not know where to go when they think they might not have received what they are due. That makes enforcement ineffective.
Clause 72 is a vital building block of the fair work agency. Clause 72(1) will place on the Secretary of State a responsibility to enforce a set list of labour market legislation. It introduces part 1 of schedule 4, which sets out the list of relevant labour market legislation that the Secretary of State will be responsible for enforcing— the national minimum wage, domestic agency regulations, the gangmasters licensing scheme, parts 1 and 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the administration of the unpaid employment tribunal award penalty scheme.
Creating the fair work agency is about more than simply moving things around. That is why we have also taken steps to enforce workers’ rights to paid holiday and statutory sick pay. We tabled two sets of amendments to part 1 of schedule 4 to ensure that the fair work agency delivers the policy intent in relation to enforcing holiday pay and statutory sick pay. As we have discussed, our amendment on holiday pay will ensure that the FWA can take action in relation to incorrect payment or non-payment of a worker’s holiday pay and incorrect payment or non-payment in lieu of annual leave entitlement; our amendment on statutory sick pay will ensure that all relevant statutory sick pay provisions that contain entitlements for workers or impose duties on employers are in scope of enforcement.
Part 2 of schedule 4 grants the Secretary of State a delegated power to make affirmative regulations to add new legislation to part 1 of the schedule. The Secretary of State can use the power to bring in scope legislation that relates to the rights of employees and workers, the treatment of employees and workers and requirements on employers, and legislation on trade unions and labour relations. It is a broad power but a necessary one: if we are to deliver the policy intent of genuinely upgrading enforcement, the fair work agency needs to be able to respond to changes in the labour market. We believe that a power to make affirmative regulations, which Parliament will of course have to approve, will ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny for any further changes.
New clause 23 is well intentioned, but it is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. It would impose a lengthy and redundant review process that largely duplicated the statutory duties that are already undertaken by the director of labour market enforcement. She already oversees the enforcement landscape and provides an annual strategy and annual report on the effectiveness of the activities of the bodies that will make up the fair work agency. New clause 23 would do nothing to add to those mechanisms. In fact, it would slow down the creation of the fair work agency.
I turn to clause 75—
Justin Madders
Okay. I have nothing further to say, except that the shadow Minister’s new clause 23 is a duplication of existing requirements that would add nothing to the process.
Greg Smith
I hear what the Minister says about slowing things down, but it would be remiss of me not to comment that if the Government had perhaps taken their time a bit on the drafting of the Bill, we would not be spending so much time in this Committee considering the absolute deluge of Government amendments that tidy things up that should have been right in the first place. Sometimes it is best not to rush things. Sometimes it is better not to dive in head first and just go for the first thing available, but to be cautious, to review and to fully understand all the implications that new legislation such as this will have in the real world.
That is what new clause 23, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, seeks to double-check. It seeks to ensure that the Government are getting this right—not in our interests or those of anyone in the House of Commons, but in the interests of businesses and workers in the real world, trying to get on with their daily lives, get their jobs done and get their businesses growing and providing the growth and prosperity that we all want to see in the country.
As I have said previously, we do not have a problem in principle with the establishment of a new body to oversee the enforcement of labour market legislation. I have made that clear, and hon. Friends who have spoken have made it crystal clear. But we also made a challenge in the previous debate, and that is what new clause 23 is all about. It is about ensuring that we fully understand the scope, cost and effectiveness of this new body.
Any new body, be it a Government body or in the private sector—although the creation of new bodies in the public sector tends to be slower and often cost more than the private sector would manage—will take time and resources, and we would like to be reassured that this is a good use of time and resources. I repeat that our instinct is that it probably is. Our instinct is that it does seem to make sense, but we can never rely on instinct or on that which might look good on paper as the absolute cast-iron test. It is about the real evidence.
Sir Ashley Fox
I want to speak in support of new clause 23 and to ask the Minister whether he is familiar with Parkinson’s law. It states that the number of workers in any public administration will tend to grow over time, regardless of the quantity of work done. The corollary is that work expands to fill the time available for its completion.
Although Conservative Members are in favour of the creation of the fair work agency, there is a risk that, over time, it will seek to have more staff and more power, will consume a great deal more of taxpayers’ money and resources, and will impose more on employers’ time, without great result. That is why a review is necessary. We want to ensure that any new authority is lean and efficient. We also want the Government to take the same approach to regulations.
Unfortunately, the Bill is a hefty document. It will impose £5 billion-worth of costs on employers, which will probably result in fewer people being employed, higher inflation and lower growth. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for the Opposition to ask the Government to reflect after 18 months and ascertain whether they can find anything in this weighty tome that they could do better or more efficiently.
The working time directive is immensely complicated and imposes burdensome record keeping on employers. In the past, it has resulted in retained firefighters in rural areas having to count the time when they sit at home, not doing anything, as working time. It has been a difficult and troublesome measure, and perhaps my party should have done more to simplify it when we were in office, but that is not an excuse for the Government to say, “Because you didn’t do enough, we intend to do nothing.” It is reasonable for us to ask the Government, at the end of 18 months, to take another look and see whether they can do anything to reduce the burden on businesses.
Justin Madders
I am beginning to wonder whether the Opposition’s support for the fair work agency is as strong as I thought. They now appear to want to make sure that creating it is the right thing do, despite its featuring regularly in Conservative manifestos and despite the support of the breadth of stakeholders who gave evidence to the Committee. The current Director of Labour Market Enforcement made it clear in her evidence to the Committee that the creation of the fair work agency would make her role much easier and more effective. She spoke about the recommendations in her most recent report:
“The ones that relate to having a better joined-up approach, to greater efficiency and to better sharing of information among bodies are the things that I think the fair work agency will do a lot better.” ––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 153, Q159.]
I think that almost half of the recommendations from her most recent report contained an element of that.
Justin Madders
Clause 73 specifies which functions are considered enforcement functions of the Secretary of State for the purposes of part 5 of the Bill. It defines enforcement functions widely and then carves out certain functions that are not enforcement functions.
Clause 73(1) specifies that the enforcement functions of the Secretary of State include the following: any functions granted under part 5 of the Bill; functions in the relevant labour market legislation that they are responsible for enforcing; and any other functions that they perform to support enforcing labour market legislation.
Clause 73(2) goes on to set out exceptions. It lists specific functions that are not enforcement functions for the purposes of part 5 of the Bill. These are generally functions that relate to the arrangements for state enforcement of labour market legislation, and the overall governance of the fair work agency. These overarching governance functions include: appointing officers under clause 72; delegating functions under clause 74; setting up the advisory board under clause 75; publishing the annual reports and enforcement strategies under clauses 76 and 77; providing for transfer schemes to move staff into the Department under part 1 of schedule 7; and powers to make subordinate legislation.
The effect of clause 73 becomes clear when it is read in conjunction with clause 72. First, the enforcement functions that are listed in clause 73(1) can be performed by enforcement officers appointed under clause 72. Under clause 72(4), the powers of an enforcement officer include the power to exercise any enforcement function. Those powers can be limited further by the terms of the appointment of those officers.
Clause 74 gives the Secretary of State flexibility about how they carry out the functions of labour market enforcement. It provides the option to delegate functions to another public authority. Clause 74(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to make arrangements with the public authority so that it can exercise the delegable function. It also enables the Secretary of State to make arrangements to appoint a public authority’s staff as enforcement officers. The Secretary of State can delegate the enforcement functions listed in clause 73(1), all of which have been highlighted already. Those functions relate to arrangements for state enforcement of labour market legislation or the overall governance of the fair work agency. The Secretary State can also delegate powers relating to the licensing of gangmasters under sections 7 or 11 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. The arrangements the Secretary of State makes with public authorities can also include an agreement to make payments in respect of the performance of any function by either the public authority or their staff.
Clause 74(5) means that delegating an enforcement function does not strip the Secretary of State of responsibility or control in enforcing labour market legislation. The Secretary of State can still carry out functions even when they have arranged for another public authority to do that on their behalf.
The Bill is about bringing enforcement and employment legislation into one place in order to make enforcement more effective and efficient by ensuring the better use of resources. It is about creating the right powers to carry out investigations and take enforcement action where necessary. However, it does not set out a specific approach to implementing that more joined-up enforcement, because operational flexibility will be the key to the success of the fair work agency. The clause helps to provide that flexibility by enabling the Secretary of State to delegate certain functions to other public authorities or to make arrangements for staff of other bodies to be appointed as enforcement officers. Both clauses are integral to the effective functioning of the fair work agency in the future.
Greg Smith
On the face of it, the clauses are not problematic: they are quite clear, and it is important that those things that are considered as enforcement functions are clearly defined. That is all well and good—until we get to clause 74(5), which states:
“Arrangements under this section do not prevent the Secretary of State from performing a function to which the arrangements relate.”
Therefore, a body with certain powers—admittedly in the Secretary of State’s name—is created; essentially, a quango is put in place, and people are given the clear job of carrying out the enforcement functions in the Bill. However, if the Secretary of State is not prevented from performing one of those functions, what is the mechanism by which they can overrule the quango they themselves set up to perform them? Of course, the ultimate buck must stop with the Secretary of State, but it is a pretty established convention that where a quango is set up and has powers delegated to it—I think of Natural England within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and many other quangos—it is very rare for a Secretary of State to intervene, overrule and perhaps come to a different conclusion from that quango.
We will not oppose the clauses, but I would be grateful if the Minister could reflect on the circumstances in which he believes clause 74(5) would come into effect, to make clear the procedures a Secretary of State would need to follow to bring that subsection into effect.
Justin Madders
I hear what the shadow Minister says. He is possibly over-egging the pudding or taking us on a ride on the ghost train in terms of what clause 74(5) means. It simply means that if the Secretary of State delegates powers to another body, they are still the responsible person for the overall operation. This is not about overruling different bodies; it is about where the final responsibility lies. I hope I have put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest to some extent.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 73 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 75
Advisory Board
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
I know you have been eagerly awaiting this clause, Mr Mundell. It concerns an important part of the fair work agency, and something that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson touched on earlier. The agency has a big job on its hands to restore trust among workers that they will get the rights that they are entitled to and that Parliament has laid down. It also important that the agency is trusted by businesses, and that they know they will be treated fairly and that if they follow the law, they will not be undercut by those who seek to avoid it. That is an important job for the fair work agency and it is important that we get it right. It must reflect the concerns of businesses and workers.
The Low Pay Commission has served the country well since the last Labour Government created it to advise on the national minimum wage. That is because it is a social partnership, comprising equal voices of workers, businesses and independent experts, and can reflect the perspectives of all those bodies when making recommendations. We want the FWA to replicate that success.
The clause requires the Secretary of State to create an advisory board for the fair work agency. Subsection (2) specifies that the board must consist of at least nine members appointed by the Secretary of State. Subsection (3) provides that board members must hold and vacate their position in accordance with the terms and conditions of their appointment. Subsection (4) provides for the advisory board to have a social partnership model, requiring equal representation of businesses, trade unions and independent experts.
We know this is a complex area that is constantly changing, but we believe that the model and approach that has proved so successful with the Low Pay Commission should be replicated here. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I hear what the Minister says in his explanation of the clause. Often, advisory boards are perfectly good and useful bodies, but I return to my earlier point that where a power rests with a Secretary of State, the accountable body to which any Secretary of State must submit themselves is the House of Commons, where they are a Member, or the House of Lords, in the rare case that they sit in the other place. Parliament is the advisory body—the critical friend—that the Secretary of State should submit themselves to.
However, accepting that an advisory board is going to be established, I want to ask the Minister about its make-up. While the Bill seems to be quite clear, there are some gaps, and some unanswered questions that the public, businesses, employees and the trade union movement will no doubt wish to have answered.
Probably the clearest definition in clause 75(4) is that in paragraph (a):
“persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of trade unions”.
I think we can all understand that that means representatives of the trade union movement.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for what appears to be his support for the British egg industry. I encourage him to eat as many British eggs as possible and to support our farmers.