Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 General Committees

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the draft regulations. As he said, their purpose is to amend the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015 to increase the single main hourly rate of the national living wage, which applies to people aged 23 or over, and to increase the national minimum wage for those aged 21 or over, those aged 18 or over, those under 18, and apprentices who are under the age of 19 or in the first year of their apprenticeship. As the Minister said, the draft regulations also increase the maximum daily amount for living accommodation, known as the accommodation offset rate, which is counted towards pay for the purpose of calculating whether the minimum wage has been met.

The regulations are not contentious and we will not be opposing them today. Any rise in the minimum wage is welcome. That is not to say that there are not areas where we think more could be done and more progress made. It is also fair to say—this is not a criticism of the Minister—that the rates were set before the current inflationary pressures that we have been talking about over the last few weeks emerged.

We recognise that the regulations provide for different rates of national minimum wage for different age groups, at the recommendation of the Low Pay Commission. We note that there is an above-inflation rise for 21 and 22-year-olds and apprentices. However, conversely, the rise is below inflation for those aged 18 to 20 and those under the age of 18.

We also note the Government have retained the age limit, which we think fails to acknowledge that those under 23 face many of the same pressures as those over 23. Many have to pay rent and other bills, and buy food and fuel. Those costs are not cheaper just because a person is younger. Perhaps the Minister can set out why it is still the Government’s position that those between 18 and 20 should be paid a far lower rate than those aged 21 for exactly the same work, and even less than those aged 23 and over. The impact assessment for the regulations notes that the roll-out of the main rate for those aged between 23 and 25 has gone smoothly, so I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether he will consider extending that rate in the light of the progress made so far.

The Opposition value the contribution of people in work equally, regardless of their age. We believe their value to society and the economy is worth the full rate of the national minimum wage; it is time that everyone was paid the same rate for the same job. There are increases in the cost of living and the pressures faced by people in work. One in six working households are in poverty. Despite increases in the minimum wage, we have had a decade of stagnation—debts have been running up and savings have gone down. Millions of people are unable to deal with an unexpected loss of income or an unexpected one-off payment, and are in a very precarious economic situation.

Of course, none of this helps those who are self-employed—almost half of whom, according to the TUC, do not earn the minimum wage. There is an argument, for another time, about whether all those who are self-employed are genuinely self-employed or whether they should be classed in another category.

As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West noted, not everyone who is entitled to it receives the national minimum wage. Underpaying remains a serious problem, particularly in certain sectors of the economy such as the care sector. Employers continue to find ways to cheat their workers out of pay. The Government’s list of shame, which came out at the end of last year, of minimum wage transgressors showed the care sector along with hospitality and retail as the main sectors where transgressions took place.

I note the Government have finally appointed a new director of labour market enforcement, 10 months after the departure of her predecessor. The Government have said part of that role will be to oversee an annual assessment of the scale and nature of non-compliance in the labour market. I know the new postholder has only been in the job for three months, but I hope the Minister can set out in his reply what work has been done on that matter to date and what level of detail the assessment will entail.

As I have mentioned, in December last year the Government named and shamed 208 employers who were failing to pay their workers the national living wage or the national minimum wage. Those employers were found to have breached the law to the total of £1.2 million, leaving some 12,000 workers out of pocket. Of course, not all those underpayments will be intentional, but there can be no excuse for underpaying workers. Some of those employers included such well-known high street names as House of Fraser and Waterstones, and I am sorry to say that even Lancashire County Cricket Club appeared on the list. Those are not fledgling companies that can say that they were not aware of the legislation. There really can be no excuse for such long-established employers failing to pay the right amount to their staff.

I note that on the list there are some companies that are well known for contracting with the public sector, such as Mitie and Greencore. Those are not fledgling organisations either, and they really ought to know better. The question for the Minister is whether he thinks that Government ought to be doing better. Why should minimum wage transgressors be allowed to pick up contracts from the Government, the NHS or any other part of the public sector? Does he agree that we really ought not to be rewarding that type of behaviour?

I wonder whether the Minister has had any thoughts on the geographical spread of those found to have broken the regulations. The top regions on the list were the east midlands, London and the north-west, in that order. Does that mean there is a particular problem in those regions, or does it mean that people in those regions are more willing to report issues? I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s reflections on that. It is also worth noting that the investigations referred to in the report were concluded between 2014 and 2019, so some of the breaches that appeared on the list were up to eight years old. I wonder why it has taken so long to conclude the investigations.

It is right that we call out those who are in the wrong, but we need to go further. This would be an opportune point at which to hear from the Minister about the progress in the Government’s own consultation. The “Good Work Plan” established a new single enforcement body for employment rights. The Minister will know that three quarters of respondents to the consultation for that plan supported a balanced approach to enforcement, based on compliance and deterrence.

It was also noted in the consultation that there was support for a compliance notice system for less serious breaches, giving employers a fixed period of time to take corrective action before further measures, such as the issuing of a fixed notice, are taken. Even the TUC has agreed that there should be greater use of labour market enforcement orders and undertakings, recognising that they form an important bridge between informal action and official prosecutions.

When the Minister responds, can he tell us how many enforcement orders have been issued? If he cannot tell us that today, perhaps he can write to me with that information. Can he also tell us how many undertakings have been given by employers, how many undertakings have been breached subsequently, and how many prosecutions have followed when undertakings have failed? It is important that stronger sanctions are imposed as a deterrent. Some of these fines are for only a few thousand pounds, and it does not seem as though there are many prosecutions, either. Finally, when will the single enforcement body that has been promised so often end up on the Order Paper as part of some legislation?

We want to build a Britain where everyone in every part of the country, regardless of their background, can get a good quality job that provides security, treats them fairly and pays them a proper wage to enable them to live a good life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

Thank you, Dr Huq, and I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. The national minimum wage and the national living wage will make, and do make, a real difference to millions of workers across the country. The increase will be welcomed, I am sure, by the people who see a real, tangible benefit. Undoubtedly, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West said, we have the ongoing cost of living issues, and we need to look at the measures in the round, but as you rightly say, Dr Huq, we do not want to go out of scope of the measure being debated. It is therefore important that in other debates we can look at support measures for everybody, but especially for the most vulnerable in our society. We can do that in other fiscal events and in other places, with other measures that we have. However, I am glad that there is agreement that the lowest-paid workers in this country deserve a pay rise, which will help to protect them from rising inflation and protect their standard of living.

This year’s change means that on 1 April, workers on the national living wage will be earning more than £5,000 more than they did in 2015, when the policy was first announced. Younger workers will also get more money through the increases to the other national minimum wage rates. There were a number of questions about the differentials between those. The apprenticeship figures were a lot higher because we are gradually aligning them with the under-18 rate, which was preannounced by the LPC back in 2020. It has given businesses the opportunity to become aware of that and to factor it into their cash flows, for the reasons that I have given.

Let me address the point about the differentials for people doing the same job—the example was flipping burgers. Young people have a competitive disadvantage when entering the labour market because of their lack of work experience, and because they have less knowledge of the area. They may have lower productivity while they are being trained and learning the job, and employers may need to provide additional training. Any minimum wage structure has to recognise and reflect that, because if we do not have that within the system, some employers may well be unwilling to give young people those critical first opportunities that are really important for them. None the less, we are starting to align more of the age group’s living wage to make sure that we can flatten it as much as possible, and we continue to monitor economic conditions.

We are indeed more cautious about increasing wages for younger people, but for the right reasons. We want to make sure that they get paid as much as possible, but we also want to make sure that they are in work. At the end of the day, the cost of living situation is far easier to face if people are in work in the first place, although it is still a challenge. What we do not want to do is to stifle our productivity. We do not want to stifle our recovery, which is one of the reasons why we have more people on payroll now than we did pre pandemic. That is a testament to our plan for jobs and growth.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston talked about enforcement and naming and shaming. Some cases can be incredibly complicated to go through and can involve quite technical breaches. None the less, it is right that we do not exclude companies from being named and shamed because of ignorance of the law, but it can sometimes take a while to enforce. Bear in mind that we paused the naming and shaming process throughout the early stages of the pandemic, and we are now effectively playing catch-up with some of those cases.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I appreciate that sometimes these things are quite technical, but it has been eight years. What is the reason why it has taken so long for some of the cases to be published?

[Paul Scully]

As I say, some of that was the pausing of the naming and shaming, and we are effectively playing catch-up on that.

On the percentage points that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West talked about, he asked whether I would write to him, but I recommend that he looks at the Low Pay Commission report, which details how the LPC came up with them. That content is already there. There are 400 full-time equivalents in the enforcement area of the national minimum wage under HMRC, but I will certainly look into the vacancies and fill in any more detail for the Committee in writing.

I think I have covered most of the points that have been raised.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her work in this and many other areas. I would happily meet her and that organisation to continue our conversation on NDAs.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I wonder if the Minister has done any stakeholder engagement with the new Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). I ask that question because in The Times at the weekend the new Minister said:

“Sometimes the employer would think they need more protection from the employee.”

That view is wrong. Too many people are in precarious employment and do not have strong workplace rights, and the Employment Bill is a chance to begin to address that. Does the Minister agree with us that it is employees who need more protection, or does he agree with his colleague that it is the employers who need more help?

Endometriosis Workplace Support

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Davies.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) on securing the debate and on the comprehensive and excellent way in which he introduced the subject. He has done much to highlight the condition, raising awareness in this place and across the country. I echo the tribute paid to the late Member for Southend West, who was a tireless campaigner on endometriosis, having chaired the APPG in 2018.

Every hon. Member who spoke today made an excellent speech, all making similar points and stressing the importance of the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) spoke with great sincerity and passion. She hit the nail on the head about the importance of education on not just this issue, but other women’s health issues. She gave a good example from Wales of how the Welsh Assembly has been working on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) spoke about her own experiences, as she has on previous occasions. Members who speak from their own experience send an important signal to those suffering out there that they are not alone and that there is help. It was good to hear about the positive experience that she had had with her employer. We should recognise and celebrate it when an employer does the right thing. As Members of Parliament, we should lead the way in ensuring that workplace rights are respected and upheld.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) was absolutely right: I agree that endometriosis is not only a mainstream health issue, but a workplace issue. I was pleased that she quoted extensively from the Labour party green paper on employment rights, which the Minister may have a copy of any time he wants, should he seek inspiration for the employment Bill, which—as has been mentioned—we are still waiting for.

As Members may know, I have spoken in the past about the challenges that my wife has as a fibromyalgia sufferer, with debilitating physical symptoms, unpredictability and delays in getting diagnosis, and the lack of understanding among the public and employers. For me, there are a great many parallels between the two conditions. However, today we are talking about endometriosis.

We know from BBC research in 2019 that many sufferers reported a negative impact on their work, in particular when their symptoms were debilitating, to the extent that some were unable to work on a regular basis, and had no choice but to give up their job and seek benefits such as the employment and support allowance or personal independence payments, which I will come back to later.

As we have heard, the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis conducted a much-needed inquiry, which found that more than half of women affected had taken time off work as a direct result of their condition, and more than a third were afraid of losing their job due to their condition or reported reduced income as a result. Those are significant numbers, but of course, we are not just talking about numbers: we are talking about real people’s lives and the concerns and anxieties they face on a daily basis.

One respondent to the inquiry said:

“It’s been terrifying worrying about losing my only income. I’ve barely managed to keep my job, but I’ve lost opportunities as a consequence and it’s held my career back. I’ve been too unwell to do any training. Being so unwell has cost me lots financially.”

Another said:

“I feel pressured not to take any other time off and work through pain frequently. It has a negative impact on my mental health and general well-being.”

I am sure Members will agree that those examples, and the many others we have heard about today, are simply unacceptable. People should not be put in the invidious position of having to decide between their work and their health. Much more needs to be done to ensure that workplace support is available for all.

[Hannah Bardell]

Just on the point about workplace support, one of the things that I did not get a chance to mention is that there are some great examples out there. BBC Scotland has become an endo-friendly workplace, and Fiona Stalker, the journalist and presenter, has done a huge amount of work on this. She is herself a supporter, and she gave evidence to our Scottish evidence session and spoke passionately about the work she was doing. It is important that we recognise that there are some good examples out there, and that those employers can share their experience and what they are doing with others across the UK.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention: she did very well to get in that important reference to the good work that is happening up in Scotland. The relevant Government Departments can take a lead from examples such as those.

People have told us that employers lack understanding about this condition. They sometimes do not realise that it is an ongoing condition that requires ongoing treatment and multiple surgeries and, of course, involves debilitating pain. We really should not have to highlight those facts when we are talking about a recognised medical condition that affects 1.5 million people and certainly meets the definition of a disability under the Equality Act 2010. We need to make it easier for employers to feel comfortable talking about this condition with their staff, who will then in turn hopefully feel more supported in opening dialogue. Endometriosis UK provides much-needed support for employers in the form of information and guidance, but it is frustrating that workplace guidance from the Government themselves is still lacking. Given that we have an average diagnosis time of eight years, we could be doing so much more to tackle this problem.

Endometriosis meets the Equality Act’s definition of a disability and, therefore, the reasonable adjustments requirement. There are many ways that that requirement can be met, including through flexible working, reduced hours, reassigned work or duties, and time off for medical appointments. All those things can be done by most employers, but as we have heard, that does not always happen. That is why there is a call for endometriosis to be specifically referred to in the Equality Act as an example of a fluctuating and recurring condition that falls under the definition of a disability. When the Minister responds, I would be grateful if he could indicate whether that is something the Government intend to pursue.

As was mentioned earlier, there are areas in which statutory sick pay can be improved for sufferers of this condition. Outside the pandemic, SSP only applies after four days of sick leave, so somebody needing only two or three days of sick leave would not qualify. Of course, it is also the case that periods of the same cause of sick leave must be eight weeks apart or fewer to count as linked, which can exclude those with fluctuating endometriosis symptoms. It has also been noted that SSP is only available to an employee for a period of sickness for a maximum of three years, which, again, penalises people with chronic long-term conditions such as this. As we have said many times over the past few years, there are millions of people—in particular, many women in low-paid work—who do not qualify for SSP at all. More than two years ago, in the last debate, there was a commitment to engage fully with the APPG’s review, and a promise to improve how we handle benefits. Can the Minister update us on whether there has been any movement in that area, and what plans there are to review SSP for fluctuating conditions such as this?

On access to benefits, which I touched on earlier, respondents to the APPG inquiry reported being assessed by someone who did not understand the condition. Several respondents reported being told by DWP staff or contractors that endometriosis was not even considered a disability, which demonstrates a complete lack of understanding, as well as showing that endometriosis needs some strengthening of protection under the Equality Act 2010.

Those with endometriosis should not be told that they do not qualify for any support and have to appeal many times to get the support they are eligible for. One respondent, who had to go to tribunal to claim PIP, described the situation as “stressful and upsetting”. I am sure we all have constituents who have had to go through that rigmarole many times. Although I know it is not his Department, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us anything about how disability employment advisers are being supported to ensure that the right recognition is given.

As we have touched on already, some employers have not waited for the Government to bring forward guidance and have shown leadership and support by bringing in their own endometriosis-friendly employer schemes, which aim to provide support to organisations to make simple adjustments to help those with endometriosis to work effectively. It is very encouraging to hear that more than 80 employers have joined the scheme so far. They represent a wide range of organisations from financial services companies to medical technology companies, to police forces and NHS organisations.

We want all employers to provide their employees with the right support. There should be no excuse for any Department, or Parliament, not to be part of that scheme. I hope the Minister can tell us whether there have been any attempts to get a standard across the entire public sector. We have had a good debate today, but it is clear that we need to do more to encourage women to feel supported and to deal with this condition in the workplace.

Covid-19: Requirements for Employees to be Vaccinated

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on his introduction to the debate. As he set out, the petition calls on the Government to make it illegal for any employer to mandate vaccination for its employers, including those in the public sector, the third sector and indeed the private sector.

This is a timely debate, coming at the start of the week when the current coronavirus restrictions will be reduced and many people who have been working from home will be planning to return to the office. Employers will also be contemplating how some of the changes, including the removal of the requirement to wear masks, will affect their employees. It will be a period of uncertainty and anxiety for people who are vulnerable. Although we see the number of daily infections falling from its peak earlier in the month, it is still at a higher level than we have seen throughout most of the pandemic. Sadly, the number of daily deaths also remains extremely high. This reminds us that the pandemic is not over yet, and it is likely that there will continue to be pressure on the NHS, as well as some level of disruption, due to high levels of staff absences across both the NHS and the wider economy.

As we know from the Confederation of British Industry, companies have been struggling with staffing issues for several months, even before the rise in covid cases and the increased levels of absence that that has produced as a result of labour shortages across the economy. As has been reported over the weekend, businesses of all sizes are debating the vaccine question, and whether to distinguish between vaccinated and unvaccinated members of their workforce. As has been mentioned, some well-known high street names, such as Morrisons, Next, IKEA and Ocado, have already changed their company’s sickness policies, and will be treating vaccinated and unvaccinated workers differently. That may well be because the rules surrounding isolation for vaccinated and unvaccinated people are different, but there is no general law requiring employees to be vaccinated, nor any law requiring employers to mandate vaccination of their staff.

Regardless of whether staff are vaccinated, supporting them to self-isolate is entirely the right approach. It is consistent with the prioritisation of public health, as has been the case throughout the pandemic. I therefore agree with the approach that John Lewis has taken, which is to treat all its staff the same, regardless of vaccination status. However, the issues play into wider concerns about the totally unacceptable level of support for many of those who have had to self-isolate. From the shockingly low levels of statutory sick pay to the fact that millions of people do not even qualify for it, this is an area where much more could have been done from an early stage of the pandemic.

On vaccines, let us be clear that, as many Members have said, having the vaccine is the right thing to do—not just for oneself, but for other people. We thank the NHS staff and the many volunteers who have rolled out the vaccine and the booster jabs. It has been clear in recent weeks that the booster uptake has slowed. Areas such as Birmingham, Manchester and Northampton have had relatively low booster uptake in recent weeks. I know that the Minister is not the Health Minister, but if he can set out anything about how the Government intend to improve uptake levels, that would be appreciated.

The real substance of this debate is about the impact on the NHS workforce. Every Member has talked about their concerns in that regard. In particular, there was strong representation from hon. Members from my part of the world, who showed their commitment to and concern for the NHS. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) said, we entered the pandemic with a staffing crisis in the NHS already. She highlighted the contribution that NHS staff have made over the last two years, and brought home very well the anxiety that many of them feel about the position that they are in.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) rightly paid tribute to his local vaccination team, who have done an excellent job. He raised the fact that people have different reasons for declining to have the jab; it may be a lack of trust, a conspiracy theory they have read on the internet, or health concerns. Those are all legitimate concerns in the minds of those individuals, and the best way to deal with them is through engagement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead showed commitment to his principles by resigning from the Front Bench because of this issue, as did my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who has huge experience in the NHS and has a long-standing commitment to the workforce. She laid out in startling detail the impact on services that the removal of so many staff will have, and described how the royal colleges and trade unions are resolute in their position on this. She also raised the important point that there is no long-term plan on vaccinations from the Government. If we are required to have another vaccine or a booster every three to six months, and the mandatory proposal continues, that will leave a lot of NHS staff on a knife edge. We certainly need greater clarity from the Government on what their strategy on vaccinations more generally is going to be.

The hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) spoke about the impact from a local authority perspective. He raised an interesting question about how the Government are going to meet their pledge to have 50,000 more nurses in post. It is important to mention that, because over half of that pledge is generated through greater retention levels. Clearly, as Members have expressed, the ability to retain staff is going to be severely compromised by this proposal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) gave a passionate speech about the issue, saying that we are sleepwalking into a crisis, and rightly describing the debate as polarising. Sadly, many issues today are polarising. She also described how so many health workers were failed by the Government, with their failure to provide PPE in the first place, and was right to point out that the timing of this proposal sets out a confusing and conflicting message about the importance of getting vaccinated.

As Members have said, in recent days more bodies have joined the call for there to be a delay to the compulsory vaccination of NHS staff, with the Royal College of General Practitioners being the latest to add its voice. I accept that the Department of Health and Social Care is not the Minister’s Department, but it has said that its view is that the policy continues. The Prime Minister said last week that it is the right thing to do to protect patients and that there is a professional responsibility to get vaccinated. That seems clear enough, but he also said:

“We will reflect on the way ahead.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 340.]

That led to various reports that a U-turn is in the pipeline. I know the Prime Minister is rather preoccupied with his own job at the moment, but it is no understatement to say that thousands of people’s jobs are dependent on his reflections. Those comments should not be ignored, because they have been seized upon by many who do not wish to be vaccinated as a reason not to go ahead with a vaccination.

Those who are resistant to a compulsory vaccination have noted that the restrictions that were voted on by this House last month have been dropped, with the exception of the compulsory vaccination. They are questioning why this requirement is still in place if the worst is now over. I accept that the Minister here today is not the correct Minister to address this point to, but there needs to be clarity and a definitive statement one way or the other; that statement needs to be made this week. There are 10 days to go until the first deadline for vaccination. We do not want another inquiry, or a kicking of the can down the road. We need a clear common position, agreed with as many of the stakeholders, the royal colleges and the trade unions as possible, so that they can all have certainty.

If the decision is to press ahead, that needs to be accompanied by a credible plan for engagement with staff that also sets out how the inevitable staffing shortfall that we have heard about tonight will be dealt with. If the decision is to halt or pause, that needs to be accompanied by clear assurances that patients and service users will not be at any greater risk from unvaccinated staff. In either scenario, the scientific advice and professional opinions must be released simultaneously, so that there is no room for doubt that the decision has been taken for the right reasons, based on the most up-to-date advice available, and not for short-term political considerations. I accept that the Minister may not be able to answer all those points, but that is a very clear message that we would send to those who will make the decisions. We need clarity and we need it now.

I have spoken to a number of constituents who are currently unvaccinated and are required to receive a vaccination as part of their job. Regretfully, I have been unable to persuade them so far that it is the right thing for them to do. They are often young and may already have had a mild covid infection. They are well versed in the need for PPE when dealing with vulnerable people, but see little benefit for themselves individually, or collectively, in taking the vaccine. They are also well versed in the principles of informed consent, which we have touched on. Most are not covid deniers and do not dispute the importance of vaccines more generally, but they simply do not believe that there will be a reduction in risk for anyone by vaccination, and see this as an issue to take a stand on to the extent that they are prepared to lose their jobs over it.

Frankly, I find those conversations troubling. Those people have had 12-plus months of information fed to them that has been allowed to go unchallenged. To expect stretched employers to turn that around in a week or two in a meeting with the human resources manager, who may not have the same level of knowledge that these people have, will be a tall order, particularly when there is evidence, as we have heard, that persuasion is usually a much more effective tool than coercion. More support should be given to employers to deal with the very tricky situation in which they find themselves.

Many in the care home sector, when provided with information of this nature, chose to be vaccinated. That was certainly a reason for some support on this matter, but, as has been alluded to, the mood music is different now. Restrictions are coming off. The worst of the predictions for omicron did not come to pass, so the task to persuade people is that little bit harder. I urge the Government to put on a united front with employers, the unions and the royal colleges, to persuade people that this is the right thing to do.

Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mrs Cummins. I start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding trade union membership. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for securing today’s debate and for his brilliant introduction. He quoted the TUC saying that Taylor was not the game changer it wanted, and we certainly agree with that. It goes nowhere near enough to tackle the workplace injustices that we have talked about today, but at least it was a step in the right direction. For it to be left on the shelf is simply not good enough.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the quality of work is as important as the quantity. That we have millions of people trapped in low-paid and insecure work, living in poverty, is not something the Government should be proud of. He was also right to raise the scandal of SSP being at one of the lowest levels in Europe. People should not be forced to choose between going in to work and financial hardship as a result of health conditions. He said that work should be fulfilling, paid fairly and with adequate benefits. Those are all things that we would like to see in any Bill or Green Paper that comes forward from the Government.

We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum). She made the important point that black, Asian and minority ethnic workers are often in these insecure jobs. Has the Minister undertaken any assessments of the impact of gig-economy working on those groups?

My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) spoke very well. He knows more about this than most. I completely agree with him that trade union membership has been shown, time and again, to improve pay and working conditions. I know many of my constituents still benefit from good pay and working conditions as a result of his work as a trade union leader.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) for the fantastic work he has done on our Green Paper. It is a real pleasure to be able to take over a brief and have such a great set of policies already in place. He was right to mention the single status of workers as being a key part of that. That will transform the lives of millions of people. If the Minister wants to work with us to try to get that on the statute book as soon as possible, we are more than willing to discuss that because it is a game changer, far more than anything in the Taylor review.

My hon. Friend was right when he said that the pandemic shows the Government’s central role in improving workplace conditions. He was also right to mention the cuts to the Health and Safety Executive over the past decade, during austerity, and how the conviction rate for workplace infractions has gone down by 66%. Workplaces have certainly not become 66% safer in the last five years, so that shows where this Government’s priorities lie.

We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who again knows more about this than many. He made an important point about the human side of this, and the dehumanising experience of people waiting for a text in the morning to know whether they are actually going to be in work, get paid and be able to put food on the table. Imagine how anxious people must be living with that uncertainty every single day, because of that working arrangement.

I want to pick up on what the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) said. I thank her for being the one Conservative Back Bencher here today. She obviously has an interest in this area, and we welcome that. She was right to say that the pandemic has preoccupied much of the Government’s time, which might be a reason why we have not had legislation. However, in the last two years 64 Acts of Parliament have been put on the statute book, as well as over 2,300 statutory instruments, so it is a question of priority. I agree with her that workplace discrimination, which was not covered by the Taylor review, needs an awful lot more attention.

As various Members mentioned, the 2019 Queen’s Speech had the promise of an employment Bill, which we would have expected to deal with many of the remaining recommendations in the Taylor review. As has been mentioned several times, there was no such promise in the 2021 Queen’s Speech. Does that represent a downgrading of the Government’s commitment to tackle the issue? Why go to all the trouble of commissioning the review and then not doing anything about it? Surely, a Government committed to improving rights at work want to do that at the earliest opportunity.

Sadly, this is yet more evidence, if we needed it, that improving workers’ rights has never been, and will never be, a priority for a Conservative Government. The rise of the gig economy has been one of hallmarks of the era of austerity. At the heart of the Government response has been a false understanding that there must always be a trade-off between security and flexibility. Many self-employed people enjoy that flexibility, although those who proclaim the virtue of the arrangement are often directly employed themselves, usually at a senior level.

For many, flexibility comes at the cost of security. It cannot be right that in 2022 people are worried about the consequences of falling ill and whether they should go into work if they are unwell. The truth is that the Government have allowed the exploitative work model to grow unchecked. The Government’s own data demonstrates the scale of the problem.

The hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) spoke about zero-hours contracts. Recent data from the Office for National Statistics shows that approximately one million workers are on zero-hours contracts. It also revealed that workers feel underemployed, often have to work more than one job and are constantly searching for new work, with over a third of zero-hours workers having been in their current jobs for less than 12 months. The cycle of perpetual insecurity is bad not only for workers, but for the wider economy.

Let us consider what the Government’ s former employment tsar, Matthew Taylor, said about the Government’s progress, which is pretty damning. Last February, nearly a year ago now, he said:

“We have seen a gradual but unmistakable deceleration of the government reform agenda in relation to good work. There was an initial enthusiasm but that has waned, and waned, and waned.”

He said that nearly a year ago, and not a lot has happened since then, so it is hardly a glowing recommendation. Perhaps that is why the Government dragged their feet for nearly a year to appoint a replacement. Can the Minister explain why it took so long to replace him?

What about fire and rehire? How on earth can we still be talking about that now? The fact that the Government blocked the private Member’s Bill on that was an absolute disgrace and sums up a wider attitude to workplace justice. It will need, as it always does, a Labour Government to introduce the real reform that is needed to undo the damage of years of inaction that has allowed exploitative work models to go unchecked. How can people plan for the future if the labour market is so parasitic that it takes everything just to keep their heads above water, and if they are always fearful of what the day will bring because they are just one mishap away from disaster?

“Rights” is not a dirty word. Rights are about individual dignity and respect in the workplace. They bring important social and economic benefits for the whole country, as well as for the individual. They give people a stake in society, knowing that if they do a good job, and if their employer runs the business well, they will be rewarded with a good wage, decent working conditions and job security. Labour’s vision is of a country where everyone has security, prosperity and respect, especially in the workplace.

A Labour Government would tackle the problems that we have talked about through our Green Paper, which explains a fantastic vision of how we would create protection, stability and fairness, and would legally redefine the work relationship by getting rid of qualifying periods before rights kick in. A Labour Government would give all workers equal rights on day one and ban zero-hours contracts so that every worker gets a guaranteed number of hours each week with an on-call payment for the hours the employer might want the employee to work.

A Labour Government would create a presumption, as we have heard, that everyone will be a worker unless they are clearly self-employed. We would see an end to the gaming of the system by tech-savvy companies who have exploitation baked into their business models, which have grown and grown. Are the Government content for this scandal to continue? If they are, they should step aside and let a Government in that will actually do something about it.

In conclusion, I hope that when the Minister responds he can tell us whether the Government have any intention of implementing the 40-odd outstanding recommendations from Taylor. Will he also tell us whether we should take the removal of the employment Bill from the Queen’s Speech as an indication that the Government have downgraded the importance of workers’ rights? If he disagrees with that analysis, can he at least give us a date by which he expects all the outstanding recommendations from Taylor to be implemented? We have had enough of the rhetoric. It is time for some action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

Actually, what we are saying about flexible working is not about blaming the pandemic. Work has changed. The hon. Gentleman talks about zero-hours contracts—they have changed somewhat as well. The flexibility of the workforce—the people who have been feeding us, caring for us and moving us around—has really shone a light on that.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is getting intervened on a lot this morning, which shows the level of interest. His comments on how work has changed during the pandemic are interesting. It is true that people have been working from home for years and years—it is just that there has been a lot more of it. What we want from the Minister is a date by which the rest of the recommendations will be implemented.

[Paul Scully]

I will come to that.

Another core part of the Taylor review was to find new ways of opening up the labour market, so that more people can enter it and then remain in work. That is exactly what our vision is: to continue to level up across the country and allow more individuals to participate in work than ever before.

That is why we committed in our manifesto to bring forward new rights for parents of babies who require neonatal care and new rights for carers’ leave for the 5 million people across the UK who provide unpaid care by looking after an elderly or disabled family member, relative or friend.

However, as the review itself notes, the themes it covers are complex and the regulatory framework is based on decades of case law. Its recommendations therefore cover a wide range of proposals, from relatively small changes that can be made immediately, such as the key facts page for agency workers, to recognising longer-term strategic shifts in the labour market, for example by establishing the single enforcement body. We have always made it clear that it is important to consult as widely as possible and to take time to consider how best to achieve the change that works for everyone in the labour market, including employers. But clearly we want employees to be in good work; that is at the heart of that process.

We have consulted on a number of proposals for reform and on themes raised in the review. Wherever possible, we have worked closely with stakeholders so that they have an opportunity to share their views. I am proud to say that we have continued to take decisive action since the publication of the review, in order to implement many important changes to the labour market.

Our record speaks for itself. We have closed the loophole whereby agency workers were employed on cheaper rates than permanent workers. We have quadrupled the maximum fine for employers who treat their workers badly. We gave all workers the right to receive a statement of their rights from day one. We have increased pay for around 2 million workers. We have introduced key information documents to ensure that those seeking temporary work have all the facts that they need up front. We also brought into force Jack’s law, a world-first piece of legislation that provides statutory leave for parents who suffer the devastating loss of a child.

Those actions have made a real difference to the lives of workers up and down this country. We have benefited from expert input from stakeholders, and great consideration was given to ensure that those actions work for employers and workers across all sectors in our economy. Those actions have also given individuals and employers the freedom to agree the terms and conditions that suit them best, while also enabling businesses to respond to changing market conditions.

The results speak for themselves. We have seen high employment rates, reaching a record high of 76.6% in February 2020, and workers enjoying real pay increases month after month. We have seen a wealth of job opportunities, which is a testament to the excellence of UK businesses’ ability to grow, innovate and create jobs. We have also increased participation across groups who had typically been under-represented in the labour market, with women and workers from ethnic minority backgrounds now making up a larger proportion of the workforce than ever before.

However, as I have said already, we need to take stock of how the pandemic has affected businesses and workers up and down the country before continuing to build on that record, because the past two years has seen a level of disruption to the economy that the Taylor review just could not have predicted. However, we have acted decisively to provide an unprecedented package of support to protect people’s livelihoods.

The coronavirus job retention scheme has helped 1.3 million employers across the UK to furlough 11.6 million jobs, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke highlighted, and more than £27 billion has been spent on helping the self-employed through five self-employment income support scheme grants, supporting nearly 3 million self-employed individuals.

I absolutely take the point that we have not been able to protect every business and every job or livelihood. There are certainly people—including some who I have spoken to and heard from, and who I continue to listen to—who have not been able to be supported throughout the pandemic as they would have liked to have been.

However, as I have said, in April last year we again raised the national minimum wage and the national living wage, giving around 2 million people a pay rise. We have also lowered the age threshold for the national living wage to 23, ensuring that even more people have the security of a decent wage, and we plan to reduce it further to 21, in order to tackle the barrier that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North talked about, by 2024 to support younger workers.

We continue to adapt our employment framework to keep pace with the needs of today. We legislated so that parents benefiting from the job retention scheme do not lose out on statutory maternity pay or other forms of parental pay. That has meant that new parents could take time off to spend with their babies without losing out financially just because they had been furloughed.

We have enabled workers to carry over more annual leave during the pandemic and we conducted a review of how victims of domestic abuse can be supported in the workplace, setting out the impact that domestic abuse has on victims, the challenges that it raises for employers, and what best practice to deal with domestic abuse looks like. At every step of the pandemic, the Government’s aim has been to protect jobs and livelihoods and to support workers’ rights.

Fireworks: Sale and Use

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I should say at the outset that I do not object to fireworks per se. They are a great tradition in our country, and I have many memories from my childhood of attending bonfire displays.

Even allowing for my memory, however, the fireworks then were less powerful and less noisy. Some of the rockets available now are not far off what the likes of Richard Branson and Elon Musk have been spending their money on to send people into space. That is part of the problem; there has been greater awareness of mental health issues and the impact of fireworks on people suffering from PTSD in recent years, but the power and volume of fireworks has also increased. A firework can sound like it has landed in our living room, even though it might actually be hundreds of yards away, so the impact on people’s wellbeing can be the same. My simple question is this: what is stopping the manufacturers limiting the noise of fireworks, and what is stopping the Government legislating for that? That would be a straightforward way to deal with some of the worst effects of fireworks and to strike the right balance between allowing people to enjoy themselves and reducing the impact on others.

A number of constituents have contacted me with their comments. A common theme is that the days and times that fireworks are set off seem to have increased. Others have talked about the personal impact that fireworks have on them, with some unable to leave their homes during these events. I also have one very distressing story from a constituent called Katherine, who contacted me yesterday about what happened to her dog, Lara-Beau, who was killed on Friday. Katherine’s dog jumped out of a first-floor window in response to a firework, then ran several miles down the road on to a motorway, where she was killed. Katherine has our utmost sympathy. As a dog lover myself, I know how tough it must be for her to lose her dog in such horrific circumstances. Even though Katherine put many precautions in place, the fact that the dog reacted as she did shows just how distressed she must have been. That starkly illustrates how fireworks cause unnecessary distress to animals and supports the argument for legislating for the use of fireworks for public displays only, which would help pet owners put in place the right precautions at the right time. Anyone hearing about Katherine’s experience must surely consider that that is the right thing to do.

In conclusion, I do not believe that the status quo is acceptable. Each year, there are thousands of hospital admissions for physical injuries due to fireworks and an as yet unquantified number of individuals whose mental health is impacted as well. We should look at ways to reduce the massive demands on the NHS that we hear about and at the impact on individual animals. We can make life better for everyone by seriously looking at some of the measures we have discussed. A proper licensing regime and reducing the noise that fireworks make would be relatively easy steps that would make a difference. Even if the Government do not enact them, we can all make a difference ourselves by ensuring that if we do set off fireworks, we do so responsibly and with due consideration for others.

UK Gas Market

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My right hon. Friend spoke about three distinct categories. I can assure him that on all three we have a degree of robustness. On the spread of the gas supply, I said that we have a wide range of sources for gas. On electricity generation, I can reassure him that with our work on renewables—onshore wind, offshore wind and solar—there is a much wider range of electricity generation supply in the UK than in practically any other country. On geographical spread, he will notice that a lot of installations and a lot of that capacity are spread very evenly across the United Kingdom. I happen to know that because I spent a large part of the past two years visiting those sites.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

CF Fertilisers, based in my constituency, is one of the plants that has had to close down in the light of cost pressures. There are obviously many impacts on consumers as a result of this decision, but the employment prospects of my constituents are at the forefront of my mind at the moment. I am pleased to hear that the Secretary of State met the company yesterday. I wrote to the Department over a month ago pointing out the need for urgent action on the cost pressures the company was facing, not just in terms of global gas prices but a number of other factors. I hope that discussions prove fruitful, and not just for my constituents’ jobs. We do not want to get into a situation where we are relying on importing carbon dioxide from other sources, because that will not help us to reach net zero and will put us risk of other fluctuations in world prices.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his ongoing interest in and passionate support for employment in his constituency. I spoke to him considerably about Stellantis over the last few months. I am very focused on the two CFF plants, one of which is very near or in his constituency. The other, of course, is in Billingham on Teesside. We are looking at both sites and trying to do what we can to support ongoing production in both those places.

Green Energy in the North-west

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for securing this debate and for the excellent points in his introductory comments. As he said, he has a long, proud association with Ellesmere Port through his time at Vauxhall Motors; that company, with many others, is synonymous with my town. It is vital for their future prosperity that we get this right. They all impact the local economy and they also use huge amounts of energy, contributing about 5% of total energy usage in the UK. Faced with that fact, companies are not oblivious to the need to change and have been working together on a whole series of projects that will contribute to reaching net zero and enhance our local economy at the same time. [Interruption.]

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Order. The Division bell is ringing again. I think we will do the same thing as before and stop until it finishes.

[Justin Madders]

Several Members have talked already about the HyNet North West project, which is vital for the future of industry, not just in my constituency but in the whole sub-region, if it is to meet the challenges of decarbonisation and increased energy costs.

In our area, we are fortunate enough to have an unbeatable combination of industry and geology, which means we can transition to a hydrogen-based economy faster than anyone else. Our current infrastructure can be easily converted to operate with hydrogen. HyNet believes that, as a result, it can capture up to 800,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. As we have heard from various Members already, there is cross-party and indeed cross-border support for HyNet; I refer not just to the border between England and Scotland, but to the equally important border between Cheshire and Merseyside.

It is vital that we get this transition right. Let me give one example of what that can mean. In my constituency, CF Fertilisers employs hundreds of people and supplies about 40% of the UK fertiliser market. It is also the front end of key supply chains for the production of products such as building insulation, Perspex products for car manufacturing, and key bathroom products such as sinks and baths, as well as respiratory medications, so moving to hydrogen will play a huge role in greening large parts of other sectors, too. There is a brighter future down the road, but to get to that point gas prices and emission costs need to remain affordable for companies such as CF Fertilisers over the next five years. They need as much certainty as can be offered by Government. We do not want winners and losers in different parts of the country to be played off against one another. We need to recognise the particular challenges that ammonia producers have. If the Minister needs further details, I am happy to provide them after the debate.

To reiterate a point made by several Members, it is critical to our part of the world that we get the green light to go ahead in phase 1. CF Fertilisers is just one of many businesses where lots of jobs are at risk if we do not get a sustained and consistent approach from Government. There is no doubt that the ambition in my area is there. The question is: will it be matched by Government? Germany is investing 10 times the amount that we are in its quest to deliver the same amount of hydrogen by 2030 that we hope to produce, so we really cannot afford to effect this transition by half-measures. For people’s livelihoods, for the thousands of jobs that it would create and for the future of the planet, we need this transition to be full steam ahead, if colleagues will pardon the pun.

The concept of a just transition is not only realistic but essential if we are to achieve the aims that I think we all want to achieve. When I walk around my constituency in 10 years’ time, I want to see people going about their daily business in electric vehicles that have been manufactured in Ellesmere Port, powered by batteries that have been made locally, driving into secure, well-paid jobs that they can raise a family on in a manufacturing industry that is enjoying a renaissance thanks to the advances we have made in carbon capture and hydrogen. I want us to be living in a time when emissions have gone down but wealth has gone up. That is the future I want. I hope that the Government share our vision and will work with us to make it a reality.

10-point Plan: Six Months On

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

That begs the question, when will Southend become a city? Leaving that to one side, of course I will help my hon. Friend achieve those goals. The electric charging point roll-out is perhaps the most important metric—the most important thing to do— in order to achieve our goals with respect to electric vehicles.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Following on from the question of the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), there were some positive comments from the chief executive of Stellantis yesterday to the effect that things were moving in the right direction but we were not quite there yet. May I take this opportunity to remind the Secretary of State that Cheshire West and Chester Council and the local enterprise partnership have been working very closely with the civil servants over the past few months to make sure that the right deal is in place. They stand ready to do anything else they can to get this thing over the line, which is what we all want to see.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am conscious of the work that the hon. Gentleman has done, as he put it, to get this over the line. I was gratified to see Mr Tavares’ comments yesterday and I think that we are in a reasonable place. We obviously need to work very hard together to get it over the line, but the situation in Ellesmere Port is moving in a positive direction.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to Greater Manchester and his constituency. We are committed to building back better and creating those green jobs, which will help to accelerate our world-leading path to net zero. The package of measures set out in the industrial decarbonisation strategy is part of this complex and critical path to success.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Ellesmere Port is home to the HyNet North West project, and we were absolutely delighted to secure funding in the first round of Government support. However, there is concern that different levels of priority will be applied to the various hydrogen projects around the country when future funding is determined, so there is a risk of losing momentum. Will the Department look again at that proposal and ensure that in future funding rounds no project is held back?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have considerable plans for hydrogen production. We have a hydrogen strategy coming forward, and we have consulted on business models. I am sure that people in Ellesmere Port, and the HyNet cluster generally, will have a big part to play in the development of hydrogen production in this country.