Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting)

Justin Madders Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 51 and 52.

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 54.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of 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.

From the broad thrust of the Minister’s comments, I understand the direction that he is taking, but I say so with the same caveats that I have raised in previous debates. If certainty is to mean anything, it has to come with the detail. I think clause 5 is pretty clear, but if further changes or consultations are to come, they will not do anything positive for business confidence. They will only cause greater uncertainty.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Justin Madders]

I am sure that was in “GoldenEye”!

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

[Chris Law]

I beg to move amendment 158, in clause 9, page 26, line 17, leave out “the prescribed percentage of”.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.)