Employment Rights: Terminal Illness

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Edward. I start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including my membership of the Unite and GMB unions; obviously, there is a particular reference to the GMB from one of the leading proponents of the campaign.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) on securing this important debate. We have been talking about death recently: the Second Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was an important moment in its own right and clearly raised a lot of interest across the country. It was also a wider discussion about how we approach the end of life as a society and as individuals—and indeed as employers, who are the subject of today’s debate. Today we are continuing the discussion about how we handle this important issue.

The private Member’s Bill proposed that only those with a terminal diagnosis who were expected to live for six months or less could come under its auspices, but there can be a considerable time between diagnosis and death. It is important that that time, however long it is, is considered carefully when it comes to how we better support people to live with dignity and fulfilment. Today’s debate has raised interesting points about how we best do that. My hon. Friend was right to say that the vast majority of employers would not dream of dismissing a terminally ill member of staff, but of course the Dying to Work campaign is a much broader look at how employers can support employees in that situation; the issue is not just the prohibition on dismissal.

We had contributions from a number of Back Benchers. As always, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a thoughtful contribution. He paid tribute to Marie Curie’s work to provide wider support for individuals in this situation. I understand that colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions continue to engage with Marie Curie on the issue. He mentioned the “Dying in poverty” report, which I have not read, but will.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) highlighted a number of measures that are already available—I will talk about those shortly—such as reasonable adjustments and flexible working, which enable those who want to carry on working to do so in a way that suits them. She made the important point that continuing to work is particularly important for people on lower incomes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) paid tribute to the campaigner Jacci Woodcock; I echo her tribute, and those of all the other hon. Members who praised her work. Jacci Woodcock has brought the campaign to the attention of many parliamentarians over a number of years, and the fact that we are having this debate is a tribute to the work that she started all those years ago.

As I would have expected him to do, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) gave a thorough legal analysis of the protections available. He noted, as did a number of hon. Members, that there is a lack of direct protection for people with a terminal illness. Equally, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) gave a characteristically thorough analysis of the situation. He made the important point that employers want clear guidance, and mentioned a number of relevant codes that may need to be updated. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), also made the point that a number of employers do not have any policy at all; we can certainly take that away and look at it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) made an important point about St Andrew’s hospice in particular: both the people who work there and those they help in their last days of life have protection, should it be needed. That is a reassurance to those in the hospice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) spoke movingly about the awful moment when someone gets a diagnosis. He made the point, as did a number of hon. Members, that different people will react differently: some want to continue to work and carry on as best they can. He mentioned the potentially traumatic experience of having to notify one’s employer—seeing, in black and white, that there is a terminal illness. That is one of the challenges we would face if we were to legislate in this area.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), raised questions about statutory sick pay. He will be aware that the Employment Rights Bill will significantly increase the scope of those who are eligible for statutory sick pay by removing the lower earnings limit and the waiting days. I hope that his party will be able to support that Bill on Third Reading. He also mentioned raising benefits, and I will pass on his request to colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions who are responsible for the matter.

The hon. Member for Strangford, as well as a number of other Members, made the point that people with a terminal illness want the choice to work if they can. For some people, work forms a big part of their social group. Work is about dignity; it is about finding something that occupies a person’s mind other than thoughts about the terrible situation they are in. People should be able to continue to work if they want to. Of course, not everyone wants to, and not everyone can—this issue is not simple to characterise. Everyone reacts differently, and everyone is a different situation: their medical conditions and prognoses will all be very different. People will therefore need very different kinds of support, depending on their situation.

We must deal with this issue with sensitivity, but also with flexibility. We must not only make sure that protections are in place, but enable employers and employees to have the space and freedom to come to the arrangements that suit them best. A number of hon. Members referred to protections under the Equality Act. I remind hon. Members that anyone with a health condition that has a substantial and long-term effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities is classified as disabled and therefore has protection under that Act, whether as an employee or a job applicant. Certain chronic illnesses, such as cancer, entitle the employee to automatic protection under the Act.

The vast majority of people with a terminal illness should be covered by the Equality Act. However, I have heard what various Members have said—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire, who introduced the debate, mentioned people who may not fit within the protections of that Act, and I am happy to have a further conversation with him to understand where the gaps are. There are also more general protections relating to unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

As we know, terminal illness is a longer journey for some than for others. Some facing it may wish to carry on working; some may not. However, we need to think about what support is available for people. The individual placement and support in primary care programme provides support to unwell people who are out of work and to those who need support with their health to stay in work. The support available includes physical and psychological treatment, in recognition that illness, including terminal illness, can take many forms. Alongside that, the Government provide Access to Work grants to help with the extra costs of working beyond standard reasonable adjustments and tailored support for individuals through work coaching, among other support.

More generally, the Government provide employers with guidance on health disclosures and having conversations about health, as well as guidance on legal obligations. However, I take the point that that guidance is not well understood out there. We think our guidance is helpful for employers, but we need to make sure that they are aware of it and that it is as up-to-date as possible.

As we have already touched on, terminally ill people who wish to remain in work may need reasonable adjustments to do so. One of the options for people is to look at flexible working. Quite often, terminal illnesses have a debilitating effect on people’s energy levels, so being able to take time off flexibly is important. All employees have a statutory entitlement at the moment to request flexible working from day one of their employment. The new Employment Rights Bill will update that entitlement to introduce, among other changes, a requirement that any rejection of a flexible working request be a reasonable one. We hope that will make it more likely that any such request made by an individual with a terminal illness will be accepted.

If terminally ill people do fall out of work, they are eligible for enhanced access to a range of benefits under the special rules for end of life. Those rules allow for faster, easier access to certain benefits without needing to attend a medical assessment, and in most cases entitle the recipient to the highest rate of benefit. It is important to note that the rules apply to those who are unable to work and to those who wish to continue working, but require support to do so. The special rules for end of life aim to positively impact the quality of life of people with limited time left by ensuring that they can receive the financial support they are entitled to quickly and easily.

However, as hon. Members have already referred to, we are determined to go further. As we have heard, many employers have signed up to the Dying to Work charter, a TUC initiative that aims to unite employers under a standardised action plan to support employees as and when they are concerned. The charter represents a commitment from employers to ensure that all employees experiencing terminal illness have

“security of work, peace of mind and the right to choose the best course of action for themselves and their families which helps them through this challenging period with dignity and without undue financial loss”.

The Government have worked with ACAS to promote the charter and the TUC encourages union negotiators to seek clear agreement that their employer will abide by the charter’s principles. I am among 130 Members in this place who have already signed the charter as a commitment to my staff, because I believe that we should be setting an example as employers.

I understand that, as has been mentioned already, we are looking closely at being to implement the charter in full across Government. The Government People Group, which is in the Cabinet Office and responsible for civil service human resources, is currently working to develop a package of measures for all Departments as employers, including this Department, to introduce the Dying to Work charter. The Government People Group is due to meet the TUC in January to discuss that and a Minister will then be appointed to lead that work across Government. Once we are in a position to say that we have adopted the charter, we can hopefully be much more forward in encouraging others to sign up.

I conclude by thanking everyone for their contributions in the debate. It has been a very thoughtful and considered debate; we understand that there are concerns about how the law currently operates, but the employer needs space with the employee to agree arrangements appropriate to their own situations. We therefore believe that our current flexible approach is probably the right one and will deliver the best practical working arrangements, hopefully giving people not only the protection they need, but the flexibility and space to deal with this awful situation in the way that best suits them.

Employment Rights Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Justin Madders Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 168, in schedule 3, page 115, leave out from the beginning of line 15 to the end of line 31 and insert—

“(1) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(b) of section 148C, matters within the SSSNB’s remit are limited to the establishment of a framework to which employers of school support staff must have regard when discharging their functions.

(2) A framework under subsection (1) must include information on—

(a) the remuneration of school support staff;

(b) the terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;

(c) the training of school support staff;

(d) career progression for school support staff; and

(e) related matters.

(3) When taking any action related to the matters in subsection (2), an employer may disregard the framework only in exceptional circumstances.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the definition of ‘exceptional circumstances’ shall be set out in regulations.

(5) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(a) of section 148C, the matters within the SSSNB’s remit are matters relating to the following—

(a) the remuneration of school support staff;

(b) terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;

(c) the training of school support staff;

(d) career progression for school support staff.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, for the purposes of subsection 5—

(a) a payment or entitlement of a prescribed kind is, or is not, to be treated as remuneration;

(b) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;

(c) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to the training of school support staff;

(d) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to 30 career progression for school support staff.”

This amendment would change the matters within the SSSNB’s remit in relation to academy staff, limiting it to the creation of a framework to which academy employers must have regard in all but exceptional circumstances.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, at the Committee’s last sitting before Christmas—let us make it a memorable one. [Laughter.]

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

They are all memorable.

[Greg Smith]

They are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Gibson]

I appreciate the clarification. That makes perfect sense—it would be unlikely that a body representing employees would create a ceiling, so I cannot help feeling that that issue is not likely to come up. With that in mind, I am unable to support the amendment.

[Justin Madders]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz, and as always I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.

The shadow Minister will not be surprised to hear that we are not going to accept the amendment, as it would drive a coach and horses through what we are trying to achieve. The remit in the Bill gives the negotiating body the scope necessary to negotiate and reach agreements on pay and conditions, and advise on training and career progression for all school support staff. The Secretary of State may then incorporate agreements reached in support staff contracts through secondary legislation. As has been pointed out, that would be a floor. It will be possible for schools to innovate above that, and the detail will be worked out in due course. This is about creating a baseline for terms and conditions, not a ceiling.

As the shadow Minister knows, as roughly half of the 24,000 state-funded schools are academies the amendment would seriously undermine the policy intention of the SSSNB. We believe that about 800,000 employees would be positively impacted by the Bill, but the amendment would mean that school support staff in academies would have no voice, and no opportunity to raise their concerns about pay, career progression and training prospects, which we know are real issues, particularly in the SEN sectors. There would no vehicle for them, because they would not be part of this body. Of course their employers would have to have regard to what the SSSNB decided, but there would be no legal requirement for those terms to be incorporated into individual contracts. I think that misses the point of what we are trying to achieve here. I do not accept that there is a connection between good educational outcomes and low pay for teaching assistants, which seems to be the thrust of the argument from the Opposition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, the references in the amendment to a framework are not particularly helpful, as it is not defined and would create more confusion. We should say that it is not just academies that can demonstrate excellence in innovation. All schools have the ability to do that, and there will be room for all schools to continue to innovate under the legislation and meet their local recruitment needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I listened very carefully to what the Minister and the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield said about amendment 168. I was open to dialogue on it to see if we can make it stronger and improved. Its proposed new subsection (2) sets out all the information we would expect to see in such a framework. There are five parts including the remuneration of school support staff; the terms and conditions of employment of school support staff; the training of school support staff; career progression for school support staff; and—the lovely catch-all phrase that drafters love to put in—all related matters. I would say that it is pretty clear what we have laid out.

To get to the nub of the argument, this is not about some sort of race to the bottom. It is not about, as the Minister asserted, arguing for low pay. That is not what we are doing at all. This is a point of principle about support for the academy system, which was brought in by a former Labour Government, and support for free schools, which was brought in by a coalition of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The three main parties in this House on that basis are broadly aligned, unless anyone has radically changed their mind—perhaps they have, and 2015 probably did focus some minds.

This is a point of principle of diversity in the education system, and central to the diversification of offer is that those establishments, in this case academies, have the freedoms to decide things themselves, locally. In this case, it is on pay and terms and conditions but, wary of the fact that I do not want to go out of scope, it can be on other things as well. To take that away would be the retrograde step that I spoke about. It would undermine academies, and it would undermine the very point of having choice and the diversity of offer in the education system for parents.

[Justin Madders]

The shadow Minister is talking about choice, but the Bill does not remove any academies from the current system. Will he confirm that?

[Greg Smith]

No, of course it does not remove academies from the system, but it does take away a freedom and power that all those wonderful academies, many in my own constituency and I am sure some in the Minister’s, currently enjoy to be able to set their educational offer, including the power of who they recruit and on what basis they recruit them. I come back to the point I made when I intervened on the hon. Member for Chippenham; if we are going to just make everything the same again, there needs to be an honesty about actually advocating that from the Government, from the Liberal Democrats or from whoever it might be. I value and welcome the choice that we have in our education system, and this is one of those freedoms that makes that choice possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is always reassuring. He raised an important point. Given that, as he highlighted, free schools enjoy the same freedoms —they are specifically referred to in amendment 168—as academies, I am worried that the Government’s attitude to free schools indicates that they are rowing back on support for them.

[Justin Madders]

The shadow Minister keeps referring to freedoms, but does he accept that the only freedom that would be given to academies by virtue of this amendment would be the freedom to pay their staff—I am not saying that they would—lower than the national terms and conditions?

[Greg Smith]

I come back to this point of principle: either we have autonomous bodies that can make their own decisions or we do not. If the Government’s answer is that we do not, I certainly understand why they do not want this amendment, but I do not understand why they persist with their support for that which they created in the first place—the academisation of so many schools—and resist making the more straightforward argument for a one-size-fits-all education policy. I hope they do not adopt such a policy, because of the progress that the Labour party made through academisation in the first place. However, that is the natural conclusion of what the Minister is saying.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 7

Ayes: 3

Noes: 12

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 65, in schedule 3, page 116, line 6, leave out “education”.

This amendment, and amendments 66, 67, 69, 70 and 71, make a minor drafting correction.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 66 to 71.

[Justin Madders]

Amendments 66 and 67, and 69 to 71, make minor drafting corrections to the clauses to remove the word “education” when referring to local authorities. This is necessary because of an error in terminology used in the Bill on introduction.

I will also speak to amendment 68. We know that academy trusts use a range of innovative practices to support staff in a range of roles. The sector and the workforce have evolved since the previous negotiating body for school support staff existed in 2009. That is why we intend to consult on the definition of support staff in scope and appropriate protections for staff in transitioning to the new arrangements. The consultation may bring to our attention staff in academy trusts who are not captured by the existing definition of support staff, working wholly at one or more academies, but who we think should be. Having the ability to broaden the scope, as well as to exclude staff types in secondary legislation, would give us more flexibility to respond to the consultation.

[Greg Smith]

As the Minister said, amendment 68 extends the definition of school support staff in the Bill to include people who do not work in an academy, but who are employed by the proprietor of an academy to carry out particular kinds of work, to be specified in regulations—it is our old friend, waiting for future regulations to be laid before the House—for the purposes of one or more academies. The other amendments in this grouping are minor drafting corrections, and we accept that. I merely want to put on record once more that had this Bill not been so rushed to meet the arbitrary political 100-day deadline, we might not be in this place, and we might have had greater clarity from the get-go. We accept, however, that these are fundamentally minor amendments that really should have been included at introduction.

[Justin Madders]

The shadow Minister’s comments are noted, and I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Amendment 65 agreed to.

Amendments made: 66, in schedule 3, page 116, line 8, leave out “education”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 65.

Amendment 67, in schedule 3, page 116, line 10, leave out “education”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 65.

Amendment 68, in schedule 3, page 116, line 13, leave out from “employment” to end of line 14 and insert “which—

(i) provides for the person to work wholly at one or more Academies, or

(ii) provides for the person to carry out work of a prescribed description for the purposes of one or more Academies.”

This amendment extends the definition of “school support staff” in new Part 8A of the Education Act 2002 to include people who do not work at an Academy but are employed by the proprietor of an Academy to carry out particular kinds of work (to be specified in regulations) for the purposes of one or more Academies.

Amendment 69, in schedule 3, page 123, line 31, leave out “education”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 65.

Amendment 70, in schedule 3, page 123, line 33, leave out “education”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 65.

Amendment 71, in schedule 3, page 124, line 13, leave out “education”.—(Justin Madders.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 65.

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move amendment 123, in schedule 3, page 124, line 39, at end insert—

“(2A) Before making or revising arrangements under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an impact assessment of the costs on the education sector of any proposed arrangements.”

This amendment makes a requirement from the Secretary of State to undertake an impact assessment of the costs on the education sector before making or changing arrangements related to the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Gibson]

For similar reasons as I was concerned about previous amendments, I feel that I cannot support this amendment. I think it is unnecessary to add more complications to the system on things that are probably already covered in other areas.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the shadow Minister for tabling amendment 123 and 124 and for raising these issues. The Department will assess the cost implications of the constitutional arrangements of the SSSNB prior to constituting it, but it would be disproportionate to require an impact assessment. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield referred to some costs; those costs have not necessarily been pinned down at this stage, but they are clearly below the level at which a formal impact assessment would normally be required. It is envisaged that the costs of the body will be limited to administrative expenses and fees, so we do not think that amendment 124 is necessary.

The Bill requires the constitutional arrangements for the SSSNB to provide for it to prepare annual reports; it allows the Secretary of State to specify the manner in which reports are published. Assessing the impact on the education sector of agreements reached will be important, prior to the Secretary of State’s ratification of any agreements. We anticipate that the Department for Education will undertake an assessment of affordability and impact, as it will be better placed to do so than the SSSNB itself. It is important to note that there will be employers on the SSSNB who will be part of the body making those recommendations, so they will have those considerations at the forefront of their mind.

Considerations of cost and affordability will be an important part of any discussions and negotiations that take place in the SSSNB. Annual reports are likely to set out the work undertaken by the body, but the exact detail of what will be in the annual reports will be agreed at a later date; I do not think that it would be appropriate to specify that in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I cannot remember a single time in the last Parliament when the then Opposition would have made the case that there was no need for an impact assessment. I put that to the Minister very gently as a point of principle that is specific to amendments 123 and 124. However, I understand the argument that he is making.

The Opposition still think that the Bill’s approach is flawed as to diversity across our educational establishments. We will not press our amendments to a Division now, but we reserve the right to revisit the matter when we come up for air on Report, once the Minister has had time to reflect on the implications of his policy. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Third schedule to the Bill.

[Justin Madders]

As the Committee has discussed, clause 28 introduces schedule 3, which provides for the establishment, remit and functioning of the school support staff negotiating body. Paragraph 1 of schedule 3 will insert into the Education Act 2002 a new part 8A, which contains proposed new sections 148A to 148R.

New section 148A will reinstate the SSSNB as an unincorporated body. Reinstating the SSSNB will give school support staff the voice and recognition that they deserve as a crucial part of the school workforce. It will help to address the recruitment and retention challenges facing schools and will drive standards in schools to ensure that we give every child the best possible chance in life.

New section 148B sets out the remit of the SSSNB for remuneration, terms and conditions of employment, training and career progression of school support staff, and the powers of the Secretary of State to define what is or is not to be treated as falling within those categories within the regulations. This ensures clarity over the remit of the SSSNB and what can and cannot be referred to it by the Secretary of State. The remit will lead to a national terms and conditions handbook, fair pay rates and clearer training and career progression routes for school support staff in England.

New section 148C defines school support staff in relation to who they are employed by and their role. Support staff are defined as all staff, other than qualified teachers, who are employed by local authorities, governing bodies and academy trusts to work wholly at schools in England. The 2009 SSSNB included only those support staff employed by local authorities and governing bodies to work in maintained schools within its scope. Support staff employed by academy trusts are now included in the SSSNB’s remit, despite the shadow Minister’s attempts to persuade us otherwise.

It is crucial that the body have a remit for all state-funded schools in England to achieve greater national consistency, irrespective of the type of school in which support staff work. Roughly half of the 24,453 schools in England are now academies, compared with approximately 200 in 2009 when the body was previously established. New section 148B gives the Secretary of State a power to prescribe in regulations those who will not fall within the SSSNB’s remit.

Amendment 68 will allow the Secretary of State to include, through secondary legislation, those who do not work wholly at academies within the SSSNB’s remit, by reference to the type of work that they do. The Department currently holds limited information about the roles in which support staff are employed in academies or the terms and conditions under which they work. It intends to consult on which roles should and should not be within scope of these provisions. These powers will provide the necessary flexibility to respond to that consultation and amend the remit of the SSSNB as necessary.

New section 148D sets out the power of the Secretary of State to refer matters to the SSSNB that are within its remit, namely those matters relating to remuneration, terms and conditions of employment and training and career progression of school support staff. Referrals by the Secretary of State to the negotiating body will mean that those representing employers and employees can agree and advise on suitable outcomes for school support staff within the parameters set out by the Secretary of State in relation to wider Government priorities and context.

New sections 148E and 148F set out the powers of the Secretary of State when referring matters relating to remuneration, terms and conditions of employment and training and career progression to the SSSNB. The Secretary of State may specify factors that the SSSNB must consider and a timescale for their consideration. The new sections set out the steps that the SSSNB must take, depending on whether it has or has not reached agreement on matters relating to terms and conditions. Where the Secretary of State refers a matter relating to the training and career progression of school support staff to the SSSNB, the SSSNB is required to provide a report on the matter to the Secretary of State, rather than reaching agreement.

New section 148G will give the SSSNB the power to consider matters within its remit that have not been referred to it, with the Secretary of State’s agreement. This will give the SSSNB the ability to raise alternative matters that it wishes to negotiate or advise on. Agreement from the Secretary of State is required from the outset to ensure that no work is undertaken on a matter that could be considered to be outside the SSSNB’s remit. It will also ensure that the body has sufficient capacity to consider referred matters within the required timescale, alongside any additional matters that the SSSNB wishes to consider.

New section 148H sets out the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to agreements submitted by the SSSNB. The Secretary of State may ratify an agreement in secondary legislation in full or in part—if in part, the part not ratified falls away—or refer the agreement back to the SSSNB to reconsider it under new section 148I. This power is necessary to ensure that any agreements are practicable—for example, that they are affordable—before being incorporated into contracts. The ability for the Secretary of State to ratify agreements in part is a pragmatic approach to allow matters with agreement to progress and to avoid delays if there is an element of an agreement that the Secretary of State is not content to agree.

New section 148I sets out what happens where the Secretary of State refers a matter back to the body for reconsideration. The Secretary of State may specify factors to which the body must have regard in reconsidering the agreement and by when it must revert.

New section 148J will apply where the SSSNB has submitted an agreement to the Secretary of State after reconsideration. The Secretary of State has powers to ratify the agreement in full or in part in regulations; to refer the agreement back to the SSSNB for reconsideration; to make regulations requiring prescribed people to have regard to the agreement in exercising prescribed functions; or to make regulations that make alternative provision in relation to the same matter. The new section gives the Secretary of State a range of powers to determine the best course of action based on the agreements from the SSSNB to ensure that the desired outcomes for school support staff are met and are practicable.

New section 148K sets out the process if an agreement cannot be reached by the SSSNB on a matter relating to school support staff remuneration and terms and conditions referred to it by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may specify a later date by which agreement must be reached or may make regulations in relation to the matter referred to the SSSNB if there is an urgent need to do so, but the Secretary of State must consult the SSSNB before making those regulations. This will ensure that the Secretary of State is able to regulate as necessary in the event that agreement cannot be reached, for instance on a pay award for school support staff.

New section 148L sets out the Secretary of State’s powers if the SSSNB fails to submit a report on a matter relating to the training and career progression of school support staff by the deadline set by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can specify a later date for the SSSNB to report or issue guidance on the matter. This ensures that the Secretary of State can still issue guidance on training and career progression to support recruitment and retention in the absence of a report from the body.

New section 148M sets out the effect of regulations made by the Secretary of State that ratify agreements reached by the SSSNB in full or in part. The terms of the agreement are imposed in a person’s contract of employment so that a member of school support staff must be paid and treated in accordance with those conditions. Any inconsistent terms in contracts of employment or academy funding agreements have no effect. That allows the Secretary of State to make changes to the pay and terms and conditions of school support staff as agreed by the SSSNB, in order to ensure fairer pay rates and greater national consistency, boost recruitment and retention in those roles, and drive improved standards in schools.

New section 148N sets out the effect of regulations made by the Secretary of State where she decides not to ratify agreements reached by the SSSNB or where the SSSNB fails to reach agreement on a matter. Where the Secretary of State decides to make regulations imposing terms and conditions into school support staff contracts, for example because there is an urgent need to make changes to terms and conditions and the SSSNB has failed to reach agreement on them, school support staff must be paid and treated in accordance with those terms and conditions. It is important that the Secretary of State has the ability to legislate to provide fair terms and conditions for school support staff in the event that the SSSNB fails to reach an agreement.

New section 148O will allow regulations made under part 8A to have retrospective effect, subject to their not subjecting anyone to a detriment in respect of a period that falls before the date on which the regulations are made. This will allow the Secretary of State to backdate pay awards agreed after the start of an annual pay period to ensure that school support staff may benefit from them for the entirety of the period.

New section 148P sets out how and when the Secretary of State and the SSSNB can issue guidance on matters within the SSSNB’s remit. The SSSNB, with the Secretary of State’s approval, can issue guidance on pay and terms and conditions, as can the Secretary of State. Only the Secretary of State can issue guidance on training and career progression. Local authorities, governing bodies and academy trusts are required to have regard to guidance issued. This will allow the Secretary of State and the SSSNB to support employers in the implementation of new terms and conditions and the promotion of training and career progression opportunities for school support staff.

New section 148Q will provide a carve-out for the SSSNB framework from the collective bargaining provisions in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The new section is necessary to ensure that agreements reached by the SSSNB can be imposed in contracts only through ratification by the Secretary of State.

Paragraph 2 of schedule 3 will insert a new schedule 12A into the Education Act 2002. New schedule 12A includes provision for the SSSNB to be constituted in accordance with arrangements made by the Secretary of State. School support staff and employer representative organisations on the SSSNB will be set out in secondary legislation; the Secretary of State will be required to consult the TUC before prescribing which organisations represent school support staff.

The membership of the SSSNB will include support staff, employee and employer representatives, an independent chair and a representative of the Secretary of State. It may also include members who do not represent school support staff or their employers. However, only school support staff and employer representatives will have voting rights. The new schedule also provides for administrative support to be provided to the SSSNB, including for the Secretary of State to pay expenses for the chair and for administrative costs incurred by the SSSNB. The SSSNB is required to provide a report for each 12-month period.

I commend schedule 3, as amended, to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

After that lengthy oration from the Minister, I can only conclude that when it takes that long to explain something, a bureaucracy is coming that probably nobody wants. As we rehearsed during our debates on amendments to the schedule, it challenges in many respects the freedoms that some of our education establishments enjoy.

As the Bill leaves Committee at some point in January and heads back to the main Chamber for Report, I urge the Minister to reach out to educational establishments—and perhaps to the Department for Education, but real-world schools are probably better—and reflect on the impact that this new bureaucracy will have on them. Is it as streamlined as it can humanly be? The Minister was on his feet for seven or eight minutes trying to explain that bureaucracy. In fairness, he did a commendable job of it, but that does not necessarily make it right. Whether we are in opposition or in government proposing things, we too rarely ask ourselves in the House: have we collectively got this right?

The Opposition believe that this new body—which we in government, along with the Liberal Democrats, removed—should not be brought back in. There is a better way of achieving some of the noble aims that the Government have in this regard and avoiding some of the potential catastrophes that we spoke about earlier. We therefore cannot support the schedule remaining in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

We have covered a huge amount of ground in this debate, so I will restrict my remarks to a few matters that have been raised. I say to the shadow Minister that if he thought that the Minister’s summary was bureaucratic and difficult to follow, he should sit through some meetings of the National Joint Council for Local Government Services, which is the dominant mode through which pay and terms and conditions are set.

It is worth reflecting briefly on some of the practical issues in schools that can be remedied through this new approach. It is a well-known problem that schoolteachers’ and school support staff’s pay award dates are misaligned. For schoolteachers, it is September; for school support staff, it is April, with the financial year. That can be a nightmare for bursars, school business managers and large employers, who have to plan their budgets with that significant difference.

In a previous life, I sat through a working group convened by the Local Government Association through the NJC on a vexed issue: how can school support staff’s work out of term-time be calculated on a term-time-only contract, because they are accumulating annual leave but cannot take all of it during term? It was a bit like a version of this Committee that reached no conclusions and never ended. These are real problems that result from the ossification of the NJC system. It is not appropriate for school support staff workers. As we all know, when a pay and grading system becomes ossified, legal danger lurks for employers in the inconsistencies that emerge.

There is no justification for saying that TA level 2 means something completely different in neighbouring authorities. That can become a block on people’s progression and ambitions to relocate. Multi-academy trusts and other academy employers overwhelmingly remain subscribed to the NJC, because this system of pay and grading, which has grown up over decades, is labyrinthine and difficult to follow, and most academy trusts do not have the HR and payroll functions to put something new in place.

We can put some figures on this. The school workforce census carried out by the Department for Education collects data on NJC coverage compared with other pay gradings. For local authority maintained schools, 80% of school support staff are paid on NJC grades, when non-responses are excluded. For academies, the figure is 77%, so there is no huge difference between the two sectors. Even among the remainder, some staff are employed under separate agreements with Soulbury terms, so are quite separate, and a high proportion—possibly even the majority—are paid on NJC-like terms and conditions, although there might be some local improvements to those pay gradings. That is the issue that the Confederation of School Trusts raised in its written evidence, and I think it has been addressed through this Committee. We are seeking to establish a floor, not a ceiling, so local improvements can still be made where employers and trade unions agree them.

The clause takes a lot from the lessons that were learned from the previous iteration of the SSSNB, which is welcome. The clauses on the adult social care negotiating body contain a general provision that any specified matter relating to employment could be referred to that body. Proposed new section 148J is drafted a bit more tightly for the SSSNB—at least, that is my reading of it—so I wonder whether there is a case for aligning the wording for the two bodies.

Let me go back to why we are doing this. School support staff are the hidden professionals in the education system. I did not just represent school support staff; I was once a school governor in a specialist SEND setting, and there were school support staff and teaching assistants. It is important to remember that the term covers site staff, cleaners, caterers and all sorts of other workers, who often do not get talked about. Those workers make lifesaving interventions—they may have to administer medicine or perform a medical intervention that literally keeps a child alive—but they are paid about £14,000 a year. That represents a failure of central Government to account for the pay, conditions and wellbeing of all the people who work in schools. The measures we are discussing are hugely important and welcome, and it is very welcome that the Bill has been brought forward this early in the Parliament.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for Members’ contributions. The shadow Minister gently joshed me about the technical detail but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield pointed out, that is the nature of the beast: it is important that all eventualities are covered. We have not reinvented the wheel here; we have lifted much of what was already in place for the previous iteration of this body, and we have taken some further learnings from that.

On my hon. Friend’s points, we have not needed to take the broader powers of the adult social care body, which we will discuss shortly, because the clauses relating to the SSSNB give it a remit to negotiate terms and conditions, as well as advise on training and career progression. That is broader than its 2009 remit, and we think it covers the areas that are recognised as those that need to be included, in addition to the powers the body had in 2009. Of course, the Bill has to be detailed—it has to be right—because it will affect 800,000 people, and a lot of people in that workforce are on low pay, have poor career prospects and are frustrated at the lack of progression in their job. When setting up such a body, it is important to cover all eventualities.

This is not a novel concept, but it is an important step forward in our industrial relations in this country, and in tackling low pay and insecurity. I am proud that we are able to discuss it today.

Question put, That the schedule, as amended, be the Third schedule to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Gibson]

I rise to speak to the amendment, but I note that the whole clause is relevant. As the shadow Minister stated, this debate is fairly similar to the discussion we had about the SSSNB. Our hope for the adult social care negotiating body, similar to that for the SSSNB, is that having a uniform body can help to negotiate and address some of the issues that he highlighted, such as the poor pay and terms and conditions that a lot of adult social care workers suffer.

Social care providers in my constituency, many of which are not for profit, have welcomed the fact that the adult social care negotiating body will include providers, and that they will be able to discuss this issue together. I feel that that is an important point when discussing some of the issues that hon. Members might be concerned about. There is a suggestion that the Government might consider that some of those not-for-profit providers should be included in the negotiating body so that they have a voice.

However, several of the providers in my constituency that I have spoken to have said that, as employers who take their employees seriously and pay them properly throughout the day, they welcome the body on the grounds that it will give them a level playing field against the many employers who do not do that, since they feel that they are commercially disadvantaged against those employers. That is the predominant response that I have heard from employers in my constituency. With that in mind, I will not support the amendment and I do support the clause.

[Justin Madders]

The shadow Minister will not be surprised to learn that we do not support his amendments. Amendment 121 seeks to require an assessment of the impact of the new negotiating body on the adult social care sector. The Government have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments for the Bill, including one on the fair pay agreement for adult social care. That was published on Second Reading and was based on the best available evidence regarding the potential impact on businesses, workers and the wider economy.

The adult social care fair pay agreement will be subject to sector-wide collective bargaining and negotiation. At this stage, our impact assessment provides an illustrative analysis of its potential impact, including the magnitude of the cost to businesses, as well as the benefits for up to 1.6 million social care workers. We intend to refine that analysis over time, working closely with businesses, trade unions, academics and, of course, the Department of Health and Social Care.

As is standard practice, we will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill reaches Royal Assent, in line with the better regulation framework requirements. That will account for where the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament in such a way as to significantly change its impacts on business. That impact assessment will be published alongside the enacted legislation. In addition, the Government will produce an impact assessment to accompany regulations connected to the establishment of the negotiating body.

The Minister asked why the body is needed—what is the evidence base? He will be aware of the evidence given to the Committee, both orally and in writing, about its importance. The hon. Member for Chippenham spoke of the need for a level playing field, which is certainly a big part of what we are looking at here, because many of us will know from our experiences in our constituencies—never mind the evidence before the Committee—that, fundamentally, the adult social care sector is in desperate need of help. We have known that for a very long time, and if Members care to look at the Low Pay Commission’s recent reports, they will see that it has dedicated a considerable amount of space in them to the challenges in the sector. Trade unions, of course, have also been calling for action in this area for many years.

It is also well known that there are huge recruitment and retention challenges in the adult social care workforce. It is a very large sector, employing about 1.6 million workers, which is about 5% of all people in adult employment, and it plays an important role. The people in those roles are predominantly women and, as was noted during the evidence sessions—and backed up by the analysis in the impact assessment—there are about 130,000 vacancies at the moment. It was also noted that filled posts have reduced by 4% recently, and that the shortfall since 2022 has been plugged primarily by overseas workers, which we know is a topic of great interest.

The turnover rate in the sector is incredibly high: it has been higher than 25% since 2016 and was consistently over 30% between 2017-18 and 2022-23. There were some improvements last year, but that was largely driven by international recruitment, and the turnover rate is generally much higher than the UK average. The impact assessment notes that, while some movement is healthy, the higher rates witnessed can be disruptive and impact not only productivity, but the quality of service, with recipients of care not getting continuity. I think we can all recognise the situation in which a person in receipt of care has a different person turning up every day and how disruptive that can be. It is important to note that recipients of care, and not just the workers, will benefit from the Bill.

We know that low pay is rife, as has been identified by the Low Pay Commission. In December 2023, the average wage was £11, and nearly 70% of workers were paid within £1 of the minimum wage. In the last two reports by the Low Pay Commission, space has been dedicated to underpayment in the sector. In its latest report, the Low Pay Commission said:

“In the social care sector, non-compliance appears persistent”.

The shadow Minister asked a wider point about travel costs. He will no doubt welcome the announcement in the Budget that we are freezing fuel duty, but the cost of travel is a much broader issue than the point he raised. Clause 30 will allow broader questions of terms and conditions to be considered. Clause 39 is also important, because it deals with record keeping. We know from research by Unison that about one quarter of domiciliary care workers are repaid only for travel time, and only 18% of them have the travel time listed on their payslips. Given that these people often earn close to the minimum wage, this is an absolute scandal that needs to be addressed. The shadow Minister made an important point about travel, but we hope that the fundamentals of ensuring that people are paid for that travel time will be addressed by the negotiating body.

Let me turn to amendment 122. The Government are committed to engaging with the adult social care sector on the design of a fair pay agreement, including how the negotiating body will be set up, how it should operate and how negotiations will run. The powers under clause 29 allow for the Secretary of State to create the adult social care negotiating body by regulations and to provide for the smooth and efficient running of that body. The regulations will confirm the type of body being created. The power also allows for reporting requirements to be imposed on the negotiating body, such as producing reports. Engagement with the sector will ultimately influence the type of body that the negotiating body actually becomes. All public bodies have specific reporting requirements to meet transparency standards.

I can confirm that the Department of Health and Social Care has committed to publishing an impact assessment on establishing fair pay agreements in the adult social care sector to accompany the secondary legislation required to establish the negotiating body. It is intended that the assessment will include an analysis of the potential costs and benefits that will arise from a fair pay agreement. On that basis, I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks, and not least for acknowledging the importance of the points about just travel time and about compensation for using one’s own vehicle and having to purchase the petrol, diesel, electricity, hydrogen or whatever to get around—in a brave new world, who knows what it might be? I invite him to ensure that that can be locked into, whatever the negotiating body has the power to do. I say that not least for rural communities such as mine, where it is not unusual for someone to have to travel for half an hour between many of the villages, and from one person they are caring for to another. That adds up very quickly in terms of not just time, but the cost of the fuel to get them there and the wear and tear on the vehicle’s brakes, tyres and so on.

We will not press these amendments to a Division. However, as the Minister reflects on this issue, I urge him to again ensure that the way in which this new body will inevitably be set up accounts for the multiple different platforms of provision across local government, the private sector and the not-for-profit sector, which the hon. Member for Chippenham talked about. This is a much more complex arena than that of schools, which is much more heavily defined—we spoke about that earlier. I urge the Minister to reflect on that as he potentially brings forward Government amendments or minor surgery to the Bill ahead of Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 30 to 44 stand part.

[Justin Madders]

As Committee members will have noticed, this is a significant group of clauses, which relate to the establishment of a negotiating body for the adult social care sector, a key element of the Government’s plan to make work pay. The body aims to address the long-term issues of low pay and poor retention in the adult social care sector.

The adult social care sector is large, with 1.59 million people working for it in England in 2023-24, which as I have already said is equivalent to 5% of all adults in employment. Poor terms and conditions are associated with higher staff turnover. For example, the Skills for Care annual report states that care workers were less likely to leave their posts if their employers paid above the 3% auto-enrolment rate for pensions, or paid more than statutory sick pay if care workers could not work due to illness. This is a key element of the Bill.

I will speak to each clause in turn. Clause 29 gives the Secretary of State the power to create the adult social care negotiating body by regulations, with the aim of negotiating a fair pay agreement within the adult social care sector. Giving specific powers to the Secretary of State in relation to the body is key to ensuring that the Government have the necessary powers to set up and design this body, and that will take place after engagement with the sector.

The clause ensures that the Secretary of State has the power to create a body that is appropriately made up of members including representatives from relevant trade unions and employers. It also enables regulations to provide for the smooth and efficient running of the body, and for it to be subject to reporting requirements. The Secretary of State will have the power to set out the body’s decision-making process and to make provision for any staff and facilities and for payment of fees and expenses.

Clause 30 defines the matters within the negotiating body’s remit—namely, the remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment of social care workers. The clause enables the body to cover not only pay, but wider terms and conditions of employment of adult social care workers.

We know that the adult social care sector is diverse, so the clause also allows the Secretary of State to add further matters to the remit of the body, provided they relate to a social care worker’s employment. The remit of the body can also be narrowed by the Secretary of State, who has the power to specify in regulations the types of social care worker that fall within the remit of the body.

Members will see that clause 31 defines “social care worker” as including those who work in, or are employed in connection with the provision of, adult social care. The clause specifically excludes from the definition of adult social care anything provided by an establishment or agency regulated by His Majesty’s chief inspector of education, children’s services and skills, to ensure that children’s services are not captured. The clause provides an essential definition of adult social care worker, which the other clauses refer to throughout. Without it, the remit of the body and the scope of the clauses would not be sufficiently defined.

Clause 32 sets out the power of the Secretary of State to make provision in regulations about the consideration by the negotiating body of matters within its remit. In accordance with regulations made under the clause, the Secretary of State will be able to specify conditions that any agreement must meet, such as on funding. It also allows regulations to provide that the body may consider only matters referred to it by the Secretary of State, such as specific terms and conditions for certain types of social care worker, and must take into account specified factors when coming to an agreement.

The regulations that can be made under clause 32 can impose information-sharing duties on the body’s members to enable efficient negotiation and require the body to submit any agreement to the Secretary of State for consideration. They also allow for the body to be allocated clear deadlines for discussion, so as not to delay this important process.

Clause 33 enables regulations to provide that the Secretary of State can refer agreements back to the negotiating body for reconsideration. Making provision for reconsideration of an agreement ensures that any agreement can be refined following review by the Secretary of State and that the Government are not forced to reject an agreement they are unable to implement. It also provides the Secretary of State with an appropriate safeguard to ensure that further work can be done, where necessary, to ensure that a suitable agreement is reached. The Secretary of State can also make regulations that provide for the same matters listed in clause 32.

Clause 34 allows the Secretary of State to make provision in regulations for circumstances where the negotiating body is unable to reach an agreement. Providing a clear process for the body to resolve roadblocks in reaching an agreement is key to ensuring that the body arrives at a conclusion that is agreeable to all parties. In regulations made under this clause, the Secretary of State will have the power to appoint someone to resolve the barriers to an agreement and confer the relevant dispute resolution powers on them.

Clause 35 allows the Secretary of State to ratify an agreement made by the negotiating body and thereby give it legal effect. That is essential to successful implementation and ensures that any agreement provides the maximum protection for affected workers. It allows for sufficient flexibility, because the Secretary of State can ratify part of an agreement, such as implementing some aspects through employment contracts, while leaving others that would be more appropriately implemented through codes of practice.

The regulations may have a retrospective effect, as outlined under clause 41. That is necessary to enable regulations to appropriately fill any gap between, for example, the body reaching an agreement and the subsequent regulations ratifying that agreement, and could be used to backdate a pay rise to the date previously agreed by the body. However, the retrospective effect is limited by appropriate safeguards: regulations cannot make provision that reduces remuneration or alters conditions of employment to a person’s detriment, in respect of a period before the date on which regulations are made.

Clause 36 explains that the effect of ratifying an agreement under clause 35 is to change the employment contracts of adult social care workers included in the scope of the agreement. The ratification regulations can change both the remuneration and the terms and conditions of employment contracts, depending on the content of the fair pay agreement. They also give precedence to the terms in ratified agreements over inconsistent terms in existing employment contracts. For example, if an agreement sets a new minimum hourly rate, that will take precedence over employment contracts that set out a lower rate, and so ensure that the employee enjoys the rate set out in the ratified agreement. The clause is essential to ensuring that any ratified agreement will be on a statutory footing and therefore legally implemented.

Clause 37 gives the Secretary of State the power to make provision in regulations when the body has notified the Secretary of State that it has been unable to reach an agreement. The Secretary of State’s powers under this clause are limited to those matters on which the body has failed to reach an agreement. The powers under the clause are similar to those in clause 35, and enable regulations to override the pay and other terms and conditions set out in social care workers’ contracts.

As under clause 35, the regulations may have a retrospective effect, as outlined under clause 41. That is necessary to enable regulations to appropriately fill any gap between, for example, the body reaching an agreement and the subsequent regulations ratifying that agreement, and could be used to backdate a pay rise to the date previously agreed by the body. However, the retrospective effect is limited by appropriate safeguards: regulations cannot make provision that reduces remuneration or alters conditions of employment to a person’s detriment, in respect of a period before the day on which regulations are made.

Clause 38 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations about the creation of guidance or codes of practice in relation to the agreements reached by the body. The clause also enables regulations to impose duties on specific persons in relation to provision in guidance or a code of practice, and makes provision around the consequences of failing to comply with those duties, including increased financial awards in any later court or tribunal proceedings. That will ensure that any pieces of guidance or codes of practice are appropriately followed, with appropriate consequences for parties that fail to comply.

Clause 39 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations imposing record-keeping obligations on employers. Similar provisions already exist for enforcing other aspects of employment law, such as the national minimum wage and the working time regulations. The clause therefore gives the power to apply the provisions under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, to give social care workers a right of access to records. There may be new requirements under a ratified agreement that are not covered by existing record-keeping obligations, and without this clause the employer may not be able to provide evidence to enforcement authorities that the new requirements are being followed. We expect the fair work agency, upon its creation, to take on responsibility for the enforcement of the national minimum wage, including those record-keeping requirements.

Clause 40 will give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations about the enforcement of remuneration terms in ratified fair pay agreements. These regulations can apply enforcement mechanisms used under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, notably the notices of underpayment regime, and the clause lists specific sections of that Act in relation to enforcement. We do not intend to introduce any criminal sanctions to enforce the fair pay agreement framework. That will ensure that any pay terms can be appropriately enforced by the state, ensuring that employees are effectively paid under the conditions of a ratified agreement. The clause also prevents double recovery of remuneration, ensuring that enforcement cannot take place twice—once for the national minimum wage and again for a ratified fair pay agreement—in respect of the same work.

Clause 41 gives the Secretary of State the power to create regulations under clauses 35 and 37 that have retrospective effect. As we have set out previously, that is to ensure that provision in terms of pay and conditions that falls after an agreement is reached and before the day on which regulations are made can have retrospective effect. That is necessary to enable regulations to appropriately fill any gap between the body reaching agreement and subsequent regulations being passed to ratify that agreement. Subsections (3) and (4) ensure transparency, creating an obligation to publish documents, such as the ratified agreement, that are referred to in the regulations.

Clause 42 makes further provision about the regulations that can be made under the powers in this chapter. These provisions are non-controversial, and they include the option for regulations to confer discretion on a person. That may be needed, for example, to give the chair of the body discretion to deal with a matter during the negotiation process or to give a third party discretion to resolve a dispute in accordance with the regulations under clause 34. Subsections (2) and (3) provide that ratification regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure, and any other regulations made under this chapter will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is because ratification relates to an agreement that has been reached by the negotiating body and assessed by the Secretary of State as being appropriate for ratification, and it would not be necessary to subject the ratification regulations to detailed parliamentary scrutiny.

Clause 43 simply allows regulations to provide that any actions or agreement by the body would not constitute collective bargaining or a collective agreement as defined in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Government have taken that approach because these clauses, and the regulations made under them, will create a new, separate legal framework under which fair pay agreements in the adult social care sector will be negotiated. For example, the clauses provide for a fair pay agreement to apply across the entire sector and to be legally binding when it is ratified in regulations.

That goes further than the 1992 Act, which sets different requirements for collective agreements to be legally binding and envisages that collective bargaining will be on a much smaller scale between one or more recognised trade unions and one or more employers or employer associations. The Government’s intention is very much for the negotiating body’s activities to be a form of collective bargaining, as a concept. It is simply that we cannot have two different legal frameworks to the same process.

Clause 44 is uncontroversial. It simply provides definitions for the terms used in this chapter and ensures that the definition of worker’s contract can cover agency workers who might not have a contract with their agent or the person they have been supplied to work for. That ensures that an agreement can be ratified for agency workers who do not have a contract with the agent or principal. The clause clarifies that references to a ratified agreement may also include references to parts of an agreement that have been ratified.

I am confident of the Government’s ability to deliver this flagship policy, supported by the Health Foundation, which indicated the strong case for improving pay and conditions in the social care sector in its written evidence to the Committee. Indeed, the same thing was noted in much of the evidence that we have heard in support of these measures. I commend clauses 29 to 44 to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Gibson]

I start by thanking the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby for that very personal story. I imagine it has been extremely difficult. She must be very relieved to have finally found somewhere where her son is happy. I have several friends with children in similar situations. I know that it can be extremely stressful.

We are all in agreement that people working in social care have been undervalued for a long time. These provisions are incredibly helpful in bringing them to the fore and in trying to make their conditions of work considerably better. Members on both sides of the Committee have made that point very clearly.

I have one specific concern, which is on clause 41, where it talks about

“provision that has retrospective effect.”

Like the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, I find the word retrospective in any legislation extremely worrying. My background is in the building industry, and that retrospective element has been introduced many times in the 20 years that I have been in the building industry, to the detriment of many of the hard-working professionals involved.

This clause concerns me because many of our care-provider employers are small businesses, and they are also not-for-profit small businesses. Those small businesses will be in no position whatsoever to provide any retrospective increase in salary if they are asked to do so, because they simply do not have any profits—because they are not for profit—to draw on to pay any increase. I am very concerned that if subsequent legislation were to introduce a retrospective pay increase that these firms do not have provision for, that would detrimentally affect some of these hard-working and useful not-for-profit care providers. As it stands, I will not be able to support that clause.

[Justin Madders]

I will deal with the point raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson and the shadow Minister first. This measure is about the practicality of negotiations. Clause 41 is not trying to say that the body will reach back in time to change workers’ terms and conditions; it is about the fair pay body agreeing terms and conditions, and the period between that agreement being reached and it then being ratified and passed in regulations by the Secretary of State.

For example, if the body said that from 1 April 2028, for argument’s sake, there would be an uplift of whatever pence or pounds an hour to everyone’s pay, and if the regulations enacting that were not passed until July of that year, the retrospectivity would be from July 2028 back to 1 April, so that pay can be included. That is normal in pay negotiations. That is all it is; it is not about trying to unpick previous agreements; it is about the way that anything agreed is implemented.

The shadow Minister said that we legislate first and consult second. As he will be aware, introducing a fair pay agreement in such a huge area of employment in this country is a novel and groundbreaking introduction to our legal system, so we need to put the legislative framework in place, which is what the Bill does. The detail and how it will work in practice is what the consultation and the secondary legislation will deal with. That is the proper way to do this, and that is how we will get this right. The Government are absolutely committed to getting this right. We absolutely recognise the terrible pay and conditions that lots of people in the adult social care sector face and the need for this kind of body to try and drive out those poor practices.

The shadow Minister asked about clause 33 and the ability of the Secretary of State to refer matters back to the negotiating body. He will of course understand that as the Bill is currently drafted the Secretary of State will need to pass regulations in order to enact many of the recommendations from the body. Some will be guidance, but that will still need the Secretary of State’s involvement. It simply would not be tenable for the Secretary of State to be compelled to pass legislation with which they did not agree, so I am sure that the shadow Minister will appreciate why that is in the Bill. We hope that that does not come to pass—it would clearly not be in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve—but we have no way of knowing what the future holds in that respect. It is therefore important for the Secretary of State, who is the person responsible for this system, to have the final say on such matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I took careful notes, and we can check Hansard later, but I am pretty certain that the Minister himself used the word sufficient in his remarks.

[Justin Madders]

We may have to write to the hon. Member on that. Having furiously double-checked clause 32 during the other hon. Members’ speeches, I cannot find the word sufficient.

My final point relates to the powerful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby about her personal circumstances and how important it is that we get this right. It is people such as her son who have benefited from good support in social care, and at the end of the day, they are the people who will benefit from stability and security in the workforce and better retention rates. This is about the workforce, but it is also about the people who receive the care, and it is about time that we gave them more priority. That is why these clauses are so important, and I therefore commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 30 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

Before I call the Whip to move the Adjournment, I wish everybody a very happy Christmas and a happy new year.

[Justin Madders]

On a point of order, Ms Vaz. I thank all those who have worked behind the scenes—the Clerks and other staff—to ensure that the Committee has run smoothly. We have had some very interesting debates and made good progress with the Bill. I wish everyone involved a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. No doubt we will see many of them in January.

Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Justin Madders Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Will everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on declarations of interests, as set out in the code of conduct.

Clause 25

Public sector outsourcing: protection of workers

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

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

Good morning, Mr Mundell; it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. As is customary, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions.

The clause will empower Ministers to reinstate and strengthen the two-tier code on workforce matters where contracts for public services have been outsourced to the private sector. It will ensure fair and equitable employment conditions for public sector workers who have been transferred into the private sector, and private sector workers who work alongside them on public service contracts, while maintaining a high quality of service for the public. It therefore directly supports the Government’s manifesto commitment to make work pay and will tackle the issue of unfair two-tiered workforces where staff working alongside one another to deliver the same contract do not have comparable terms and conditions of employment.

The powers are constrained so that the provisions of the regulations and the code, when developed, will apply only to new contracts entered into once the Bill comes into force, but can and will apply to re-procurements of services already outsourced where the re-procurement leads to a further transfer of workers. Ministers will have the power to make regulations specifying provisions to be included in relevant outsourcing contracts. The provisions may, for example, set out model contract terms that, where incorporated into contracts, will impose obligations on suppliers. Authorities will be required to take all reasonable steps to include those provisions in all relevant outsourced contracts.

The regulations made under the clause will, first, have the purpose of ensuring that transferring workers are treated no less favourably as workers of the supplier than when they worked for the public sector contracting authority and, secondly, have the objective of ensuring that workers of the supplier who are not transferred from the public sector but recruited by the supplier to work on the contract are treated no less favourably than those transferring workers. Alongside that, Ministers of the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments will be subject to a duty to publish a code of practice addressing similar matters to which contracting authorities will need to have regard.

To ensure that the code is effectively enforced, there will be several forms of redress. Contracting authorities will be required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that suppliers meet their contractual obligations, as set out in the regulations. In addition, the procurement review unit, which will be established under our new Procurement Act 2023, due to commence in 2025, will be able to investigate whether a contracting authority has had regard to the code and taken appropriate steps in relation to provisions specified in the regulations.

These powers are being extended through amendments to the clause, which we discussed last week, to the devolved Governments of Scotland and Wales so that the benefits of a consistent approach to fair and equitable employment terms and conditions on relevant outsourced contracts can be spread throughout the UK. Fair and equitable working conditions are the right of all employees working alongside one other on the same outsourced contracts, and these measures will help to tackle that issue head on.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once more, Mr Mundell.

Clause 25 has got me thinking about many moons ago, in 2006, when I was part of the team that won Hammersmith and Fulham council for the Conservatives for the first time since 1968. One of our first acts was quite literally to take the red flag down from the roof of the town hall. Part of the symbolism of that, which is why I mention it, was that the council, in 2006, was one of the last to outsource anything at all. Competitive tendering simply had not happened in that London borough. Everything was still a direct service run by the local authority, and we set about contracting out waste, grounds maintenance and many other services. Why? Because we wanted to deliver better value for taxpayers—indeed, we cut council tax by 20% over the eight years that we ran the council—and to improve service standards.

One of the things I learned in that process, and the reason my point is relevant to the clause, is that the first iteration of any contracting out—that first contract, be it for refuse collection, street cleansing, grounds maintenance or whatever—does not tend to result in economies and improvements. It is often in the second or third contract iteration where the cost savings and improvements in service standards start to be seen. That is partly because of the TUPE provisions that rightly exist to ensure that those staff who are being transferred from whatever part of the public sector we might be talking about—in this case, local government—transfer with the same rights, terms and conditions, and pay that they had at the point that they ceased to be direct employees of the council, or whatever other public service, and became employees of whoever won the contract.

The rub comes in the real-world application. In such cases, the staff members who transferred are on favourable terms and conditions, and probably better pay, than some of the staff that the contractor brings into the team. If it is immediately locked in that everybody new has to be on the same terms and conditions and pay scales, we will never achieve value for money for taxpayers, and we will never enable the contractor, be that a refuse collection company or whatever, to find efficiencies and savings at the same time as increasing service standards in the way that we all want to see. It might as well never be done in the first place. That makes me question whether that is in fact the ideological position that the Government want to take. I can see the Minister grinning; perhaps I have hit upon something.

I gently remind the Committee of the time when every refuse service and local government service was provided directly, in house, before competitive tendering and the revolution of the 1980s and the Thatcher Government. We can all remember what delivery of those services looked like in the 1970s: the rubbish piled up on the streets with no one collecting it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

I would say better, having had some experience. The hon. Gentleman might want to return to that point.

On the substance of the clause, there were some concerns about the original incarnation of the two-tier code. It was purely voluntary and did not contain meaningful provisions for redress where an employer who had signed up to uphold the standards of the code did not follow through. I hope that that deficiency will be remedied when the associated regulations appear.

It is legitimate to have differences on points of principle. After the current Lord Maude abolished the two-tier code, the Secretary of State—now Baron Pickles—said that the Government of the time had

“Abolished the…two-tier code that…hindered the voluntary and independent sector from delivering better value for money.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 166WS.]

The shadow Minister has made much the same point. This was explicitly about driving down wages for the large number of people who are contracted out to deliver public services. I very much welcome the fact that this Government have a policy objective of making work pay. For a large number of people in the labour market who have been overlooked by politicians for too long, the clause represents an important step forward for remedying that deficiency.

[Justin Madders]

We have had a broad debate—very broad from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, who took us on a canter through the history. He was right that it was the coalition Government who abolished the two-tier code, which is why it is welcome that the Liberal Democrats have realised the error of their ways; I welcome their support on this. Their spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chippenham, made the important point that the inherent unfairness of people doing exactly the same job for the same employer finding out that they are on different terms and conditions and are earning less is a big morale sapper. It is also a big issue in terms of workforce retention—one problem that we often see with outsourced contracts.

I will turn to the shadow Minister’s misty-eyed days at Hammersmith and Fulham, and I will raise him Ellesmere Port and Neston borough council, which was a great believer in direct provision of services; we certainly felt that was the best way to deliver value for the taxpayer and good-quality services. In his contribution, the shadow Minister alighted on the illusion of outsourcing—the fact that consultants can demonstrate that savings can be made, but when you drill into the detail, those savings are always off the back of the workforce. They are not some magical way of doing things differently. It is about cutting terms and conditions and it is about a race to the bottom, which we are determined to end.

[Greg Smith]

I do understand the ideological difference between the two sides on this point, but I take issue with the Minister that this is about a race to the bottom and cutting terms and conditions; it really is not. From my experience, it was not a matter of consultants, but of properly probing contracts, setting the right specification to deliver for the residents in the place that the council served, and requiring the flexibility to ensure that some people would be doing very different jobs in a different way from before in order to deliver that. It was not about wanting to cut anyone’s pay or terms and conditions; it was about service delivery and value.

[Justin Madders]

I take the shadow Minister’s point. I am not familiar with the machinations of Hammersmith and Fulham council in the 2010s, and it may well be that savings were made by doing things differently. But there is absolutely no reason why that cannot be done directly from a public body: if it is well led, if it is able to have constructive dialogue with its work force, savings can be made.

The difficulty with the shadow Minister’s analysis is that, while he may have been able to find savings for the taxpayer through those kinds of measures, too often the savings are made by cutting terms and conditions for new workers. That is why, as he said in his original contribution, the second or third outsourcing is usually where the savings happen, because it is when those new workers come in on lower terms and conditions that the savings begin to emerge. That is why the whole outsourcing trick is a con, because it is how those savings tend to be made.

When we add in the contract monitoring costs and the profit motivations for the outsourced company to make a living from these things, we can quickly see why it becomes a bad deal for the taxpayer. I certainly make no apologies for putting forward this proposal, because we think it is the right thing to do, to respect and value those who work in public service and ensure that they are paid the same as their colleagues for doing the same work. I therefore commend—

[Laurence Turner]

I thank the Minister for giving way at the death. Does he also recognise that one example of a council that tried to go down the wholesale outsourcing route was Northamptonshire? We all know how that story ended, and Eddie Martin, the Conservative former leader of Cumbria county council, stated that the then Government

“says that outsourcing is everything, but while it might get you an initial cheaper price, that price simply doesn’t last, you lose flexibility, and it causes a great deal of unrest.”

[The Chair]

I call the Minister to rise from the dead.

[Justin Madders]

I think that is the kindest thing that has been said about me this year, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I think we can all see the difficulties. I know, from dealing with public bodies in my area, that sometimes when there is more than one person responsible for a service—the public body and then the contracting body—we find duplication, differing priorities and often a poorer service as a result, because there are competing ambitions in those bodies. That is one of the main reasons why we want to see a much more holistic approach to our public services. I commend clause 25 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Equality action plans

[Sarah Gibson]

I beg to move amendment 112, in clause 26, page 38, line 35, at end insert―

“(c) supporting employees with menstrual problems and menstrual disorders.”

This amendment would add menstrual problems and menstrual disorders to “matters related to gender equality”, in relation to any regulations made under the Bill to require employers to produce equality action plans.

I am very pleased to move this amendment. First, as the Bill stands, there are provisions for businesses to report on the impact of menopause on women in the workplace as part of the equalities impact assessments. I think the hon. Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) is right to table this amendment and to remind us all that menstrual problems can hinder women at any point in their working life, not just as they enter menopause. She is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women’s health and an officer on the APPG on endometriosis; I feel confident that she has tabled this amendment with the best intentions. It seems an omission that this issue was not included in the original Bill.

Several constituents have contacted me about endometriosis, and specifically its impact on them at work. Endometriosis costs the UK economy £8 billion a year in treatment, loss of work and healthcare costs, and it takes an average of eight years to get a diagnosis. One in six workers with endometriosis leaves the workforce due to their condition—an issue that the Government and employers cannot afford to ignore. Those people could go back to work and stay in work if there was additional flexibility for them.

As one of my constituents told me—she does not wish to be named for these reasons—many employees with endometriosis find that their employers do not believe them about their symptoms, that their flexible working requests are refused and that they are subject to discriminatory automated absence procedures that penalise short but intermittent time off work. The amendment seeks to address that injustice. I want to be very clear that I support it, and I hope that the rest of the Committee will see its importance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Clause 28 introduces schedule 3, which inserts proposed new part 8A into the Education Act 2002. Paragraph 1 of schedule 3 contains proposed new sections 148A to 148R of the 2002 Act and will be discussed separately.

The reinstatement of the school support staff negotiating body will give school support staff the recognition they deserve for the crucial role they play in children’s education and development. Establishing the SSSNB through the Bill will help ensure that schools can recruit and retain the staff needed to deliver high-quality, inclusive education and support the Government’s work to drive high and rising standards in schools, so every child has the best life chances.

The body will bring together representatives of school support staff employers, representatives of support staff, an independent chairperson and a representative of the Secretary of State. The SSSNB will consider the remuneration, terms and conditions of employment, training and career progression opportunities for school support staff. Its remit will lead to the creation of a national terms and conditions handbook, fair pay rates and clearer training and career progression routes for school support staff in England.

Most school support staff are currently employed on National Joint Council for local government services pay and conditions. The NJC is a negotiating body made up of representatives from trade unions and local government employers. Existing NJC arrangements are not statutory or school specific. Moving to a school-specific body where pay rates and pay awards for support staff are negotiated by school support staff employer and employee representatives and ratified by the Secretary of State will both help to ensure fair pay rates for school support staff and allow central Government to have a strategic view of pay across the school workforce.

It is essential for the SSSNB to have a statutory remit so that all prospective and current support staff in state schools nationally benefit from a transparent, guaranteed core pay and conditions offer. The Bill re-establishes the SSSNB as an unincorporated body on a similar footing to the previous body from 2009 that was abolished by the coalition Government in 2010.

As education is a devolved matter, the extent of these measures is therefore England and Wales and the measures will apply to England only. This is consistent and in line with the remit of the School Teachers Review Body being England only.

The 2009 SSSNB included only those support staff employed by local authorities and governing bodies to work in maintained schools within its scope. Roughly half of schools are now academies, compared with around 200 in 2009 when the body was previously established. Support staff employed by academy trusts are now included within the SSSNB’s remit. It is crucial that the body has a remit for all state-funded schools in England in order to achieve greater national consistency, irrespective of which type of school support staff work in. That is a point that we may come on to debate in due course.

[Greg Smith]

The Opposition have tabled a number of amendments that probe what is introduced by clause 28 and schedule 3, which we will come on to in subsequent debates today. I will reserve the bulk of my remarks for those debates, although, as clause 28 introduces schedule 3, I will preview those debates now by noting our strong opposition to these provisions. There was a very good, solid and rational reason that the former Secretary of State for Education during the coalition years—now editor of His Majesty’s Spectator magazine—abolished SSSNBs, which was to give that flexibility and freedom to the quite right and good, educational standards-raising revolution in education that came through the creation of the academies by the last Labour Government and in particular the creation of free schools by the last Conservative Government, including in the coalition years. Clause 28 and schedule 3, which we will come on to shortly, seek to undo a lot of that. For the reasons I will outline when speaking on those amendments, I think this part of the Bill requires a rethink.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am trying to think of how clause 28 and schedule 3 relate to SEND education, and I am struggling. I do not believe that the SEND system is a success, and I do not think that more central control is the way to solve that. In fact, one of the problems is that every time there is a problem, we in Parliament and Whitehall think, “The solution is a directive from above. That will sort out the problem.” That is precisely the model that the Government are adopting in clause 28 and schedule 3: “There’s a problem with low pay, so we will set up a process in London that will help matters.” That is not true at all.

I hope we can all agree that the purpose of spending money on education is to improve the life chances of our children. How are resources allocated? Are they best managed on a school basis or an academy basis? Or are they best decided in London? I argue that they are best decided on a school or an academy level. As I say, I fear that clause 28 and schedule 3 are the beginning of a process in which we will see more and more central control exerted over schools, and that that will lead to worse outcomes for our children.

[Justin Madders]

I will respond in the strict terms that you have directed, Mr Mundell. I also point out to Members that an education Bill will be presented today. So there will be an opportunity for the wider debate that Members are keen to have, when that Bill gets its Second Reading in due course.

[Nick Timothy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Timothy]

I will avoid the temptation to start to read out the PISA statistics. It is important that the Bill that is published today is seen alongside this Bill, because together they chip away quite substantially at the academy freedoms that have been behind school reform. It would be good to hear the Minister acknowledge that fact.

[Justin Madders]

Of course, the Bill has not been published yet, so we cannot stray into that. We may be able to get on to it this afternoon, but we are trying to help some of the most poorly paid people in our society, who do such an important job. My hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge, for Birmingham Northfield and for Stratford and Bow all talked about how important teaching assistants are, particularly in supporting those with special educational needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield was right that it is shameful that the Low Pay Commission has now deemed teaching assistants to be part of the low pay environment. We are determined to address that, which is why the reinstatement of the SSSNB is an important step.

Let us reflect on some of the evidence that we have had—for example, the GMB evidence. Andy Prendergast said:

“we see increasingly more pupils with special educational needs go into mainstream education, and they need that additional support.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 132, Q136.]

Some of those staff do detailed things such as phonics, supporting pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, and help to deliver classes.

I take the point that has been made about the NJC being an inappropriate way of evaluating and assessing job value. It is clear—indeed a number of other pieces of written evidence have supported our assertion—that the NJC is not the right vehicle for assessing teaching assistants’ pay. We believe that the SSSNB is the way ahead.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater talked about this being a centralising move. Of course, the SSSNB will comprise mainly employers and employee representatives. It will not be a Whitehall-dominated machine.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

But to the extent that the SSSNB will decide the terms and conditions of assistants in Bridgwater, Mid Buckinghamshire and Birmingham Northfield, and those conditions will apply to all teaching assistants, regardless of the school’s or academy’s view on the subject, it is a centralising measure, does the Minister not agree?

[Justin Madders]

It is a necessary measure because, as we have seen, teaching assistants and school support staff have suffered in recent years. The point that the hon. Member for Chippenham and several other Members made about funding is correct. It will, of course, be incumbent on future Governments to ensure that any proposals that come forward are affordable. It should be noted that the recent Budget put some additional funds into special educational needs.

Let us look at why this measure is needed. We know that there is a chronic issue of low pay, a lack of career progression and damaged recruitment and retention among school support staff. A survey of teaching assistants found that 27% were considering leaving education altogether—surely we need them to stay—while 60% cited low pay as a reason for leaving, and 40% said that lack of opportunities for progression was. Eighty-nine per cent of schools said they found recruitment difficult, particularly in respect of teaching assistants, and 78% said they found that group hard to retain. There were similar figures in terms of the difficulties with the recruitment and retention of teaching assistants with SEND specialisms.

We are setting up this body to recognise that these people do a critical job in our education system and that they are not properly represented at the moment. They do not have a proper voice, and they do not have a proper mechanism to ensure that the valuable work they do is properly measured, remunerated and recognised. That is why the SSSNB is so important.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Royal Mail Takeover Bid: EP Group

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

Royal Mail is an iconic national institution, and this Government will ensure that it continues to be one. Since taking office in July, the Secretary of State and I have been clear that the Government would robustly scrutinise the proposed takeover of Royal Mail, and ensure there are safeguards for its future.

While the takeover bid is still ongoing and subject to the relevant ongoing regulatory processes, this statement is to update the House on the legally binding undertakings that have now been given to Government by the bidder— EP Group. This does not mark the conclusion of the takeover, and these undertakings will only become effective if the takeover goes through.

Should the takeover complete, I am pleased to confirm that the Department for Business and Trade has secured significant commitments to promote the long-term and financially sustainable future of Royal Mail in the United Kingdom.

It may be helpful to set out where Royal Mail was at the time the takeover bid was announced. In its financial year 2023-24, Royal Mail recorded an operating loss of £348 million. At the same time, Royal Mail had not met its quality of service targets as set by the independent regulator, Ofcom. Royal Mail’s performance for the 2022-23 financial year resulted in a £5.6 million fine.

While the previous Government were happy to accept decline, this Government have worked closely with EP Group to secure significant commitments to delivering transformation of Royal Mail into a sustainable service, and hardwired in stronger protections for Royal Mail’s identity.

My Department’s objectives when these discussions with EP Group began were to first strengthen the financial sustainability of this iconic and important British institution. Secondly, we wanted to protect the customers, workers and brand of Royal Mail.

The Department for Business and Trade has agreed unprecedented commitments from the potential buyer of Royal Mail to protect its long-term future and to recognise its position in the UK’s national life.

Significantly, EP have committed to issue the Department for Business and Trade with a “golden share” in Royal Mail for certain matters. This means that—except in very limited circumstances—the Department for Business and Trade can now prevent Royal Mail from moving its headquarters abroad or moving its tax residency without the Government’s permission. This is an entirely new measure which was not in place at the time of Royal Mail’s privatisation, and it will remain in place in perpetuity, including where there is a subsequent change in ownership of Royal Mail in the future.

I want to be clear that this will not change any of the Government’s role in the day-to-day running of the business; Royal Mail remains a private entity.

In addition to this golden share, there are several other commitments made by EP Group to the Department for Business and Trade. These include:

A number of financial commitments to guard against value extraction and introduce a set of requirements to strengthen Royal Mail’s finances, including the implementation of a balance sheet restructuring, which will remove a significant intra-group debt that is currently due to the remainder of the IDS group.

There is a commitment from EP Group to ensure that Royal Mail has the financial means to fund the transformation of its business in the three-year period following completion of the acquisition.

Royal Mail has consistently not met its targets set by Ofcom. Recognising this, there will be a commitment such that EP Group cannot extract value from Royal Mail Group until it both can afford to do so, and has achieved specific performance targets.

I am placing copies of the deed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS311]

Royal Mail Takeover

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the ongoing takeover of Royal Mail Group’s parent company, International Distribution Services plc.

Royal Mail is an iconic national institution, and this Government are committed to ensuring that it remains one. Since taking office in July, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and I have been clear that the Government will robustly scrutinise the proposed takeover of Royal Mail and ensure that there are safeguards for its future. While a takeover bid is still ongoing and subject to the relevant regulatory processes, the purpose of this statement is to update the House on the legally binding undertakings that have now been given to the Department for Business and Trade by the bidder, EP Group. I wish to be clear that this does not mark the conclusion of the takeover, and these undertakings will become effective only if the takeover goes through. Should the takeover complete, I am pleased to announce that the Department for Business and Trade has secured significant commitments to promote a long-term and financially sustainable future for Royal Mail in the United Kingdom.

It will be helpful if at the outset I set out where Royal Mail was at the time the takeover bid was announced. Before the bid, Royal Mail’s financial position was challenging. In its financial year 2023-24, Royal Mail recorded a loss of £348 million. That loss was in part due to a long-term decline in letters, and the significant fixed costs of the universal service delivery network. At the same time, Royal Mail has not met its quality of service targets set by the independent regulator, Ofcom. Royal Mail’s performance for the 2023-24 financial year resulted in Ofcom fining it £10.5 million. While the previous Government were happy to accept decline, this Government have worked closely with the buyer to secure significant commitments to deliver the transformation of Royal Mail into a sustainable service, and hard-wired in stronger protections for Royal Mail’s identity.

When the discussions with EP Group began, my Department’s objectives were: first, to strengthen the financial sustainability of this iconic and important British institution; and secondly, to protect the customers, workers and brand of Royal Mail. Today I can confirm that we have agreed a deed that customers and the workforce alike can welcome, with significant new commitments from the buyer to the Government. This deed is a clear example of the Government’s commitment to working hand-in-hand with business to generate reform and investment in public service. It is also yet another example of this Government fixing the foundations where the previous Government did not.

I am proud to announce to the House that we have agreed that the Government will have a golden share in Royal Mail. This golden share will ensure that the Department for Business and Trade now has an ability to prevent Royal Mail from moving its headquarters abroad or moving its tax residency without Government permission. I should make it clear that that is an entirely new measure that was not in place at the time of Royal Mail’s privatisation. Except in very limited circumstances, that measure will remain in place in perpetuity, including when there is a subsequent change in ownership of Royal Mail. I want to be clear that the agreement will not give the Government any role in the day-to-day running of the business—Royal Mail remains a private entity.

Not only have we agreed a golden share, but the EP Group has made a number of other commitments in addition, which I will set out at a high level. Those commitments include a commitment to prevent value extraction unless two tests are satisfied: first, a financial test that takes into account the debts of Royal Mail, so that value cannot be extracted if the company is heavily indebted; and secondly—this recognises a key concern of the public—a quality test to ensure that value is not extracted unless specific performance targets are met.

All businesses need to adapt and improve in order to respond to change, and Royal Mail is no different. Recognising that there is a need for Royal Mail to modernise, there is a commitment from EP Group to ensure that Royal Mail has the financial means to fund the transformation of its business in the three-year period following completion of the acquisition. In addition, EP Group has agreed to take an immediate step to strengthen Royal Mail’s balance sheet by removing a significant intra-group debt, which is currently due to the remainder of the International Distribution Services group. The agreed undertakings also include a commitment to ensure that Royal Mail retains ownership or access on fair terms to those assets necessary to meet the universal service obligation.

Next, EP Group has agreed to meet all the regulatory requirements that Royal Mail Group is subject to, including ensuring that it remains the universal service provider for as long as EP Group is in control. We all know—not just in this House, but across the UK—that Royal Mail is an iconic British brand, and that is why there is a commitment to the existing brand protections in place for Royal Mail. Royal Mail is a respected and revered operator, and not just in the UK—it has various international responsibilities at international fora and with the overseas territories. Those will be respected and continued, maintaining the UK’s prestigious international position.

EP has stated its long-term commitment to Royal Mail, and the discussions have demonstrated the wide range of areas of public interest in the work of the company, so I am also pleased to confirm that EP has committed to taking steps to facilitate discussions between any future owner of the business and the Government, be that in 10 or 20 years’ time. These commitments have been offered by EP Group to the Department on a voluntary basis; nothing has been offered in exchange.

I take this opportunity to thank EP Group. I am confident that we share the same objective of a reliable and financially sustainable universal service provider, while workers and consumers are placed at the heart of a sustainable Royal Mail. I am also pleased that, as well as reaching an agreement with the Department, EP Group has today announced that it has in-principle negotiated agreements with both unions representing the Royal Mail workforce. The Government welcome those agreements, and I am confident that the constructive and collegiate approach between the unions and the buyer can represent a restart for industrial relations in the Royal Mail Group.

I have set out some of the key commitments, but there are further commitments from EP Group that I do not have time to set out in full today. I am therefore placing copies of the deed in the Libraries of both Houses. I will keep the House informed as much as I can as the takeover progresses. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

May I start by thanking the Minister for advance sight of his statement? Before I get into my questions, can we take a moment to thank every postman and postwoman up and down this country for their hard work, particularly at this time of year? In all the challenging weather, they are out there putting letters through every letterbox in the land and collecting thousands of letters from the red pillar boxes in every corner of our country. I take the opportunity, especially in this Christmas season, to say thank you on behalf of all of us.

Every colleague here will recognise the importance of Royal Mail, both as an institution and as a provider of a vital nationwide service. It has been in existence for more than 500 years, and it has seen a lot of change over those years, but the one consistent thing is that it is still a service on which we all depend every day. It is not the only way we communicate any more, but it is a vital one, and it will continue to be needed, including by Government. What a shame it is that one of the biggest postal deliveries done by Royal Mail this year was from the Government. It was a letter to many pensioners—often on low incomes—cancelling their winter fuel payments.

The dwindling number of letters sent has eroded the base on which the success of Royal Mail was built. The inevitable consequence is that Royal Mail has been facing serious financial challenges, and amid those challenges the service received by people across Britain has become worse, whether that is deliveries missing their deadlines, letters going missing or occasionally, in some areas, people going weeks at a time without post. The example of that failure was shown last week by the fines that Royal Mail received. The cost of this poor service cannot be overstated, whether it is for those who subscribe for services by mail, those who rely on business deliveries or those who miss appointments with their general practitioner, impacting their health and costing the Government. That poor service cannot be allowed to continue.

The inward investment into the service announced today will be scrutinised by shareholders, but given that they are the golden shareholder, I have questions for the Government. What guarantees has the Minister received about the service provision? What commitments has he received about the level of jobs across Royal Mail? How much of Royal Mail do the employees themselves now own? In some places it has been reported that the commitment to the tax residency guarantee is for five years, but I heard the Minister say at the Dispatch Box that it was perpetual. Can he clarify that?

What ongoing role will the Government have in making sure that Ofcom ensures that Royal Mail delivers the service expected by customers? The fines do not seem to be doing it. An important part of the service offered by Royal Mail is the universal service obligation, which now requires post to be delivered six days a week and parcels to be delivered five days a week. When the Royal Mail is working well, the universal service obligation provides an outstanding service. However, Royal Mail wishes for it to be reformed. Does the Minister believe that the obligation must be maintained in its current form? Can he confirm what discussions he has held with EP Group about the obligation? Will he confirm whether there is a sunset on the obligation? He mentioned that there potentially was with a transfer of ownership.

The value of Royal Mail goes far beyond the universal service obligation. Can the Minister outline whether he expects any of the other services provided by Royal Mail to be impacted? For example, can my rural constituents continue to count on their letters being collected from every post box? What risks has he identified with the takeover itself? Although the Post Office and Royal Mail are separate entities, they are closely tied. Just over a month ago, the Government announced that more than 100 post office branches were at risk of closure, with hundreds of jobs lost. Can the Minister explain what assessment he has made of the risks facing the Post Office and how they will be impacted by the sale of Royal Mail?

Royal Mail faces the same headwinds, often created by this Government, as other businesses. Whether it is Labour’s employment regulations or the national insurance jobs tax, businesses have warned that they may be forced to put up prices and cut jobs, because of the very actions of this Government. Finally, can the Minister confirm whether Royal Mail has expressed concerns over the Budget or the Employment Rights Bill?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the shadow Minister for her comments, and I start by joining her in thanking all those postal workers who throughout the year—not just at this time of year, when it is particular busy, but 12 months a year—come rain or shine, sleet or snow, deliver those much-needed communications from friends, family and loved ones. I was pleased to be able to go to my own depot in Ellesmere Port last Friday. I will go to another one in my constituency, in New Ferry, this Friday. All hon. Members should be encouraged to make those visits, because they really show how much we appreciate the work that our postmen and women do.

The hon. Lady is right that the Royal Mail is a service that we all depend on. I agree that performance has not been good enough in recent years. That is why we have had a number of discussions with the company and with Ofcom about how we will get things back on track. That is why the agreement is so important, because the deal will get in the investment needed to try to drive up that performance.

I turn to some of the hon. Lady’s specific questions. On guarantees of service provision, the legislative framework is already there for the universal service obligation, and I see the takeover having no impact on that. It has not been part of the discussions—it is an entirely separate issue—but Parliament will have its say on that if needed. Next year, Ofcom will have a consultation on the universal service obligation. I think it is recognised that an awful lot of work is needed to bring standards up to the level that we would like, and one of the protections in the agreement will hopefully deliver on that.

On jobs guarantees, the hon. Lady will be aware that the general secretary of the Communication Workers Union has spoken positively about the agreement reached. He believes that sufficient assurances have been given on jobs. On employee engagement, she asked whether the employees will own the company. That is not the case, but they will have a say in governance in future as a result of an agreement between the Communication Workers Union and EP Group. That is to be ratified by the Communication Workers Union executive, but that will be a groundbreaking arrangement that we did not have previously. She also asked about tax residency in perpetuity, which is what the golden share does indeed intend to deliver.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement made by this hard-working Minister. I take it from the announcement that Mr Křetínský has cleared the investment screening tests that the Cabinet Office is responsible for. It would be useful to have that confirmed.

Let me press my hon. Friend about the universal service obligation. Is it his intention that beyond the initial five years he will seek six-day delivery and a universal service obligation in place for Royal Mail for as long as His Majesty’s Government retain the golden share?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his comments. The golden share is to deal with tax residency and headquarters being domiciled in the UK. Obviously, there will be discussions about the universal service obligation. We know that this is a fast-moving market, and that will be for determination by Ofcom some time next year.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but the Liberal Democrats get two minutes for their response and we are quite a while after that.

[Justin Madders]

I assure the hon. Lady that the universal service obligation is not contingent on this deal—that is an entirely separate matter for Ofcom to be considering—but a number of commitments that we have secured in this agreement will hopefully improve standards, which in any event have clearly not been as we would all want.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister and the Government’s work to secure the long-term future of the Royal Mail. The statement shows that we have got a good deal for UK customers and workers. Will the Minister assure me, Royal Mail customers and workers in the Livingston constituency that when the deal goes through, the new owners will be held rigorously to their obligations on an ongoing basis? We have had too many instances over the last 14 years of privatised industries going off track because the regulatory environment has not ensured that they meet their obligations.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that some of my early discussions in this role have been with Ofcom, and indeed with Royal Mail about its performance. There is a shared determination between not just the regulator and the Government but the trade union, the workers and the new owners to drive up that performance, because we can all clearly see that it is not good enough at the moment.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Thirty-one years ago, when I had the Minister’s job, I was trying to privatise the Post Office, but I was stopped by rebellious Tory Back Benchers—nothing new there. I was sacked a week later. So I warn him that this is quite a difficult issue.

What people were worried about was the universal service obligation—it costs so much more to deliver in rural Lincolnshire than in central London—so I think that what we are all worried about is that, as the Royal Mail moves ever further away from public ownership, this new private company will try to chip away at the universal service obligation, particularly in rural areas. Can the Minister reassure us that he is really on the case?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. Is he now the rebellious Back Bencher, I wonder? We all share those concerns about the universal service obligation. This deal is not contingent on the universal service obligation. We have had discussions on how we improve the current state of affairs, because it is clearly not good enough. I hope that his constituents will see an improvement in service as a result of this deal.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Barely a week goes by without a constituent reaching out to me to express frustration at the quality of service they receive from our local Royal Mail delivery services. What will the announcement mean for them and for the quality of service that they receive?

[Justin Madders]

We hope that the deal will lead to an improvement in service. Specific investment commitments are being made as part of the deal, which we hope will be used to drive up standards. I think that everyone is committed to seeing an improvement on where we are at the moment.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I have eight Royal Mail delivery offices in my constituency, staffed by a team of hard-working posties who cover a vast rural area around the Scottish Borders. Will the Minister tell them, and me, what commitment the new owner has given to maintaining those offices and staff levels?

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Member must be busy at Christmas time if he has eight offices to visit. He makes an important point about the Royal Mail’s vital role in rural constituencies. We have got commitments to improve standards, and hopefully the deal will deliver on that through the increased investment that has been agreed.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Postmen and postwomen in my constituency were shaken to the core a couple of months ago when one of our postmen was brutally attacked and hospitalised while doing his rounds. I am sure the Minister will join me in sending my sympathies to him and his family for that terrible incident. When I visited the depot in my constituency—fortunately, I only have one—the postmen were concerned about the long-term future of Royal Mail. What assurances can he give me and postmen in Harlow that he has done all he can to protect Royal Mail and ensure that any future takeover does not lead to a running down of services?

[Justin Madders]

First, I extend my sympathies to my hon. Friend’s constituent who was attacked. We all feel abhorrence when public servants are attacked doing their job.

My hon. Friend can be assured that services will be protected. This is an opportunity to get investment. We have commitments that were not in place previously post privatisation, so we are in a better place than before.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

On Friday I will be visiting the delivery office in my constituency. Like other Members, I am concerned to reassure those who work there about what this privatisation will mean for them. We have talked a lot about services and universal obligations, but what reassurances can the Minister give that jobs will not be lost down the line?

[Justin Madders]

It is not a privatisation—that began under the hon. Lady’s party’s time in office. This is an important step forward, getting commitments that were not previously in place to protect the Royal Mail brand and delivering the investment that we all clearly see is needed.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Our posties go above and beyond 12 months of the year, but especially at this time of the year. I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, but I particularly welcome the support that it has garnered from the workforce. Can he say a little more about his conversations with the trade unions during the negotiations about the industrial relations reset that has been discussed by the general secretary of the Communication Workers Union? What steps have been taken to ensure that any future owner of Royal Mail does not run it into the ground?

[Justin Madders]

The Secretary of State and I have regularly met the Communication Workers Union. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, there has been considerable industrial unrest in recent years, so it is extremely good news that the Communication Workers Union has talked positively about the groundbreaking deal that it has signed with EP Group. I agree with the union that it is time for a fresh start and a complete reset of employee and industrial relations. We want good industrial relations across the whole economy, so we welcome the constructive way that EP Group has engaged with the trade unions. We hope that that spirit carries forward into the future.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

As many have mentioned, many rural communities will be concerned to know how this could affect them. I spoke to postal workers in Blandford Forum in my constituency on Friday; they can be the best advocates, so can the Minister ensure that they are well primed to explain to their customers—who they are very proud to serve—what this means for the universal service obligation?

Likewise, the Royal Mail has such a crucial job in delivering elections, particularly but not exclusively with postal votes. There is growing concern about the resilience of Royal Mail to meet the growing demand. I appreciate that it is outside the Minister’s brief and he may need to write to me, but can he provide some assurance to the House that the contract that the Government give to Royal Mail will be honoured in full by the new owners to ensure that our democracy can still function?

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Member may have noticed that I was sitting next to the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), before the statement and we had a brief conversation about that, because we all agree on the importance of Royal Mail delivering our democracy. I assure him and his constituents that it is our intention to see that the universal service obligation is complied with and improved on in future.

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

I start by thanking postal workers across the country for the magnificent job that they do all year round. I remind Liberal Democrat Members seeking assurances that it was under the coalition Government that the Royal Mail was privatised in the first place, with none of the assurances that we have currently have.

I refer Members to my entry in the register, and I declare that I started my working life on a Royal Mail apprenticeship. It is a proud part of my life—28 years of service, and I am proud of all of it. The Royal Mail has been run into the ground and is currently broken. Through the golden share, the Minister has been able to get this Government back in the room, because we have been locked out ever since privatisation. That represents a breakthrough, and ensures that Royal Mail does not carry on as it has. The current board is responsible for the biggest failure in quality of service, the biggest attack on its workforce and the creation of a two-tier workforce. Can the Government give us some assurances that those responsible will not walk away filling their wallets, but will turn around and apologise for what they have done?

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his questions and his service in the Royal Mail. Clearly, arrangements for those currently in the Royal Mail are a matter for the new owners once the deal goes through, and I am sure that that point will be discussed. He is right that the performance has not been good enough, and we are very pleased to have secured a number of commitments in the deal that were not previously in place.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

I welcome many parts of the statement, not least the part on quality assurance. I would like to know a little more about that because one issue in Dundee, which has the largest teaching hospital in Europe, is that appointments letters often arrive too late, which of course has an impact on the NHS.

I want to focus specifically on the question not yet answered, which is about jobs. In Scotland, 11,000 people are employed by the Royal Mail, and they will be listening today to find out what cast-iron assurances there will be for their jobs. Mr Křetínský recently completed a takeover of a French supermarket, promising in 2023, in the run-up to that deal, that there would be no job losses, but one year later there were plans to cut 3,000 jobs. Can the Minister be very specific today and tell us what cast-iron guarantees he has for the 11,000 people employed in Scotland and those who are employed elsewhere across the UK?

[Justin Madders]

I have no doubt that the Communication Workers Union and the Unite Communication Managers Association would not have spoken positively about the deals that they had struck had they not received sufficient guarantees about the workforce. As I said, the general secretary of the Communication Workers Union has been on the air today, speaking very positively about the commitments that he has received about not just job security but governance arrangements, and about workers having a “meaningful stake” in the success of the business moving forward. This is a really positive deal, and if the CWU is speaking positively about it, I think the hon. Member should be reassured.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

On Friday morning, I visited the West Brom Royal Mail sorting office and saw the fantastic work that the staff there do. Many of the posties have worked there for decades, and one for as long as 40 years. How will this deal protect Royal Mail and, critically, the postmen and postwomen who are so important to our communities?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the biggest assets in the Royal Mail is the workforce itself. That is widely understood not just on the Labour Benches but by the EP Group. As I said, commitments have been made between the trade unions and the EP Group on job security. I hope that goes some way to dealing with her concerns.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

When I visited the two depots in my constituency last week—I join Members in thanking our posties—I noticed how run down and aged the van fleets are. Will there be an upgrade of Royal Mail fleets as part of this deal? Given the Minister has said that the Government’s golden share does not extend, maybe understandably, to operational matters, is the takeaway today that there can be no assurance for my rural constituents that their service will be maintained at the level that they expect?

[Justin Madders]

I can assure the hon. and learned Member that there is nothing in the deal that affects the universal service obligation, and it is our understanding and commitment to continue to ensure that there is a universal service obligation moving forward. There are commitments in the agreement to deliver more investment. On the van network, I know that Royal Mail has purchased a number of vans in recent times, conveniently from the Stellantis plant in my constituency. Hopefully, that will be replicated throughout the country, because it is an ageing fleet. As the company has ambitious targets to meet net zero, I think it wants to improve the make-up of the stock.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

I thank John Kay, my local CWU rep, for showing me around the Fotherby Street depot on Friday morning. It was very good to see my current postie, Nev, there as well. They pointed out that some of the performance issues, including missed deliveries, come down to a lack of staff, which comes down to the two-tier workforce. It is less desirable now to work for Royal Mail. Has the Minister had conversations with Royal Mail, EP and the CWU about moves to end the two-tier workforce?

[Justin Madders]

When I visited my depot on Friday, we discussed the two-tier workforce and the variation in terms and conditions. I think it is generally recognised that it is not a helpful thing; I do not think it has helped Royal Mail with retention. My understanding is that there are agreements to be made between the Communication Workers Union and the EP Group on moving away from that. The detail has yet to be ratified by the union’s executive, but I hope that will mean there is a common basis to try to deal with the issue.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I am the proud son of a postie, as the Minister knows, and I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud member of the CWU. When I met my local posties at the depot on Friday, they told me that they have seen the demise of Royal Mail since privatisation. My constituents are asking for reassurances—what can the Minister tell them about how we can finally get Royal Mail operating to a decent standard again, ensuring they get their letters on time?

[Justin Madders]

I pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend father does, and to his work as an official of the Communication Workers Union. What the union has said about the reset in industrial relations is really important to improving standards; of course, the other part of the agreement—on investment in the company—is much needed. When everyone works together, everyone shares the common goal of the business expanding and improving its performance. I think we have got everyone aligned on that at last, and I hope that we will all see improvements off the back of that.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Our posties are friendly, familiar faces who go above and beyond all year round, but never more so than at Christmas. It was a pleasure to visit Bournemouth Royal Mail depot recently, on a tour with Martin and Sonia. Will the Minister outline how the Government will prevent any future owner of Royal Mail from driving the company into the ground? What assurances can he give the people of Bournemouth that Royal Mail will finally deliver?

[Justin Madders]

There are a number of safeguards in the deed of understanding that relate to value extraction, so the EP Group will not be able to take profits out of the company unless there is an improvement in performance; there are also safeguards in respect of debt leverage. I hope that gives my hon. Friend the assurances he is looking for.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I join Members in paying tribute to and thanking our postal workers. In particular, I thank those at my depot in Portsmouth North, which I will be visiting for the second time next week; that was one of my first visits when I was elected. Like me, the posties and people of Portsmouth North were concerned when the previous Government began to negotiate a takeover deal. We therefore welcome the steps that this Minister and his team have taken, particularly around the involvement of the workforce and the trade unions. Can he give us further information on those negotiation talks?

[Justin Madders]

A number of commitments have been made that were not previously in place, and there is no doubt that we are in a much better position than we were post privatisation. As I say, this groundbreaking deal between the unions and the company includes rights in terms of governance, a profit-sharing incentive and guarantees on job security. I am sure that Members will be pleased to hear that we really have made fantastic progress.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

For the final question from the Back Benches, I call Dave Robertson.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) is right to raise the issue of complaints, which I am sure all Members from across the House receive from constituents let down by failures to meet the universal service obligation. From speaking to posties, as I did today, it is clear that posties right across the country, just like my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), are proud of what they do. They are proud of the job that they do, proud of being part of the community, and proud of the identity that working for that iconic brand gives them. It is clear that they are not the ones who are letting the public down; that is down to the current board of the company, which is running the organisation into the ground. Today I spoke to a proud postie, who said that he feels the company is a national disgrace—that shows how far it has fallen under the current ownership. Can the Minister assure me that the new ownership will not be allowed to sink to the depths that the current ownership did under the guidance of the previous Conservative Government?

[Justin Madders]

I agree with my hon. Friend that when the Royal Mail fails to deliver, it is not the fault of the postmen and postwomen; it is about institutional failure in the company that has been allowed to fester for too long. He will be pleased to hear that we have secured a number of commitments to get the investment and security that we need to ensure that the poor performance does not carry on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

4. If he will make an assessment with the Secretary of State for Education of the potential merits of introducing a right to paid employment leave for kinship carers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

We recognise the vital role that kinship carers play in caring for vulnerable children, and the challenges that many face in balancing that care with employment. We recently announced the largest ever investment in support for kinship carers: £40 million to trial a kinship allowance in up to 10 local authorities. We will also review the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports all working families, and work is already under way to plan for that delivery.

[Munira Wilson]

I am sure the Minister will agree that kinship carers are unsung heroes, who often step up at a moment’s notice to look after a child whose parents cannot, but four in 10 are forced to give up work to do so, which means they often struggle to pay the bills or put food on the table. Will the Minister look to right that wrong through the Employment Rights Bill, and introduce a right to paid employment leave for kinship carers, given the savings to the public purse and the better outcomes for children that arise from kinship care?

[Justin Madders]

I met a kinship carer in my constituency recently who told me about the challenges the hon. Lady has articulated. The carer said that the most important thing to her was getting respite care—a point that we can all recognise. We are looking at how the trial pans out. I have spoken in detail to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) about the proposals coming forward, but we think it is best to see how the trial works, and to look at the wider review of the parental leave system.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to support the hospitality sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

15. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of levels of take up of parental leave.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

The parental rights survey 2019 found that 89% of employee mothers took maternity leave and 70% of employee fathers took paternity leave, but take-up of shared parental leave is much lower. In fact, it is disappointingly low, which is why we are committed to a review of the parental leave system. Work is under way to deliver on that, and I will provide an update in due course.

[Christine Jardine]

I agree with the Minister: it is very disappointing. For many parents, current maternity pay is too low, and the leave system is not flexible enough. A recent report by the BBC said that almost half of new fathers were unaware of what was available to them. The system is skewed, and the take-up is lower among lower earning families. That is particularly important—this was pointed out to me by a constituent in Edinburgh West—for those with multiple births who need not only more time but more financial support during maternity leave. Does the Minister agree that maternity pay levels need to be increased, and that the flexibility of the scheme needs to be improved, as does public awareness?

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Member makes a number of points, which I am sure we will consider as part of the review we are undertaking. The Employment Rights Bill has a number of important measures to support working families, bringing 1.5 million parents into scope for parental leave and another 32,000 into scope for paternity leave. We are keen to build on that and we want to support families who are in work.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

17. What recent estimate he has made of the contribution of creative industries to the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

Tomorrow—on Friday the 13th—the EU’s general product safety regulation comes into effect. Businesses are telling me that the additional costs will mean that they can no longer sell to the EU and to Northern Ireland. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that small businesses are supported as the regulation comes into effect?

[Justin Madders]

As the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, the regulation comes into force tomorrow. Actually, it covers things that most businesses are doing already, but we have provided guidance for businesses, including online marketplaces, on how the regulation will apply in Northern Ireland. We will continue to engage with businesses and online marketplaces to ensure that we are supporting them in dealing with this new regulation.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

T5.   I declare an interest as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on critical minerals. Although Cornwall sits on some of the richest deposits of critical minerals in the world, including tin and lithium in my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, there are significant geological reserves right across the United Kingdom, including in the north of England, Northern Ireland and the lands of our Celtic cousins in Wales and Scotland. Will the Minister confirm that domestic critical mineral production and processing will form a key part of the Government’s industrial strategy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

My constituent Kirsty is self-employed and is looking to adopt a child, but she does not qualify for adoption leave or adoption pay and, because she is not having her child biologically, she does not qualify for maternity allowance. Would the Government support changing that, whether through the Employment Rights Bill or otherwise, so that brilliant future parents are not put off from adopting because they cannot afford it?

[Justin Madders]

That is an interesting question. There is a great interplay with rights for self-employed people. We are committing to a review on that in due course, together with a wider look at the parental leave system. We will get back to the hon. Lady on that.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I welcome this Government’s commitment to getting more disposable income in the pockets of working people. At Christmas time a lot of people will want to buy concert tickets; what conversations is the Minister having with Cabinet colleagues on reforming the secondary ticketing market?

[Justin Madders]

Hopefully, we will make an announcement very shortly about plans in that area.

Employment Rights Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Justin Madders Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Ms Vaz. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has explained that this is a probing amendment to find out the Government’s intentions, but I put it to the Minister and Labour Members that each of the Government’s proposals seems to be based on the premise that we need to legislate against the worst possible outcome.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles referred to P&O, and that was in fact a scandal. But the problem with this approach, of course, is that a regulatory burden is imposed on each and every other employer, and the labour market is made less flexible and employing people is made more expensive. Therefore, every time the Government see a problem with one employer and say, “We have to regulate for everyone,” the whole labour market is made more expensive and less attractive to foreign investors—less like Britain and more like France. As we look across the channel, we see a country with a similar-sized economy, but an unemployment rate approximately double our own.

Combine that, for example, with the proposal on unfair dismissal, and employers could be less likely to employ that marginal worker. In this case, as Matthew Percival from the CBI said, it becomes more attractive, perhaps, for employers to make their workers redundant than to try to renegotiate terms and conditions.

I ask the Minister to consider the cumulative effect of each and every one of his proposals. It is easy for him to stand up and say, “This proposal on its own is modest and reasonable and good,” but the whole Bill will add £5 billion of costs to industry, and the majority of that falls on small and medium-sized enterprises. My fear is that the Minister, through the very best of intentions, will end up with unemployment higher at the end of this Parliament than when he started.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz. For the benefit of the Committee, I again refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions.

It has been an interesting debate. I think we are on the opposite end of the spectrum from where we were in the earlier debate about where the balance lies with our measures to end fire and rehire. I think that the fact that we have two arguments from other ends of the spectrum suggests that we are in about the right place—but if the shadow Minister expects us to believe that cows queue up to be milked in the morning, I just say to him: pull the other one!

[Sir Ashley Fox]

They get worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Yes, they do get worse—it is Thursday afternoon.

The shadow Minister did raise some important points, though. He gave the example of a dairy and its changing practices. Of course, a change in job function does not necessarily mean that terms and conditions have to change or indeed become worse. History is full of examples where technology has come in and made jobs different. As we look forward to the advent of automation and AI in our economy, I hope that people find new jobs and new roles and that those jobs are more fulfilling as a result of technological development.

I will say a few words about the comments from the hon. Member for Bridgwater. We are talking about overall impacts in this Bill of 0.4% of employers’ total costs—a very small price to pay for a comprehensive set of reforms that really are needed for workers. It is about rooting out bad practices and making sure that those bad employers, who we all rightly condemn, are not able to exploit existing loopholes. It is about stopping the race to the bottom. It is about creating a level playing field. One reason why P&O said that it took the action that it did was that its competitors were undercutting it. We do not want to see that race to the bottom continue. We want to see good employers rewarded for respecting and rewarding their employees well by being able to compete on a level playing field.

The general thrust of the shadow Minister’s remarks was interesting. There is nothing to stop an employee agreeing to changes to terms and conditions. Indeed, proposed new section 104I(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 makes it clear that these provisions will not apply if the employee agrees to the changes. Changes and discussions happen every day of the week in industry—that is called negotiation, and that is what good industrial relations looks like. That is the sort of thing that we want to encourage.

We are trying to stop a situation that we have seen far too often, where an employer might just say, “Well, here are your new terms and conditions. If you don’t like it, there’s the door.” That, I am afraid, has become far too prevalent in our country. We have heard plenty of evidence about how many employers have been doing that. It is about recognising that there is a loophole in the law. This may be a probing amendment, but it would certainly make this clause ineffective, and arguably, it would make the situation worse than the status quo, because it would effectively legitimise some of those actions by employers. They could point to this legislation and say, “Well, the law says that we are able to do it.”

The way the amendment worded is quite broad. There is a reference to “outdated” terms and conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield gave a good example of where reasonable dialogue between the trade union and the employer would see that change. The shadow Minister’s old colleague, Jacob Rees-Mogg, might have a different view about what “outdated” means. He might think anything after 1874 could be considered modern—[Interruption.] He probably does, yes. There would be very broad latitude for an employer to say that something was outdated. That is why I am concerned that the amendment would make things worse than they are now.

The Bill as drafted makes it very clear what the obligations of a responsible employer are. They are the sort of things that responsible employers do already. We recognise that there will be unfortunate situations in which an employer has no alternative but to change terms and conditions, but the Bill makes sure that, if there is a positive for the employees—there often is from a change in terms of conditions; that is what negotiations often involve—there is a way for that to continue. We are not going to stop that. If employees consent to changes, they will be able to be made under this Bill. I urge the shadow Minister not to press the amendment to a vote.

[Greg Smith]

I understand the argument that the Minister has set out, and I appreciate that this particular probing amendment was at the extremer end of the spectrum in trying to probe that response from him. I accept that there are many mechanisms whereby employees can consensually work with their employer to change contracts, and that is clear. I am still a little nervous—the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, as the Bill progresses and no doubt becomes legislation—about the nightmare scenario of businesses simply saying, “Rather than trying to engage in this process, as we were warned by the CBI, we will just make everyone redundant instead.”

There needs to be a clear, previously set out mechanism from the Government so that, if that disaster-zone eventuality comes to pass—I hope I am wrong; I do not want to see people being made redundant—there is a quick snapback or sort of provision to allow secondary legislation to throttle those measures down, or to fix them in some other way that still stops the exploitative practices without tying businesses’ hands behind their backs, because the net result will be job losses. I would be incredibly disappointed and sad if these issues, which both the Opposition and businesses have warned about throughout the passage of the Bill so far, became a job killer. The Government need to be ready, if they have got it wrong, to have a process that will give businesses the confidence again to properly engage in negotiations, such as those good industrial relations that the Minister spoke of, and not just make people redundant. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[Justin Madders]

We are back on fire and rehire again; I should probably count up how many times I have spoken in debates on this issue in the last few years. It has taken a lot of parliamentary time, and rightly so. We all remember the obloquy directed towards P&O when it took those actions, several years ago, and I am afraid that fire and rehire has become far more prevalent in our economy than anyone would want to see.

Investigations by the Trades Union Congress found that around 38,000 employers were using fire and rehire as a tactic. Research from the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development found that, between August 2021 and 2023, the proportion of firms that had used fire and rehire had almost doubled. The impact assessment estimates that there are around 178,000 workers facing the threat of fire and rehire at this very moment, so the problem is not going away—indeed, because of the way that P&O has been allowed to get away with it, employers see it as a golden opportunity to take a sword to hard-fought terms and conditions.

Other Members have spoken about the household names that have attempted to do that, and USDAW’s written evidence included some notable household names. Once upon a time, fire and rehire was a seldom-used part of the employment law and industrial relations landscape but, as part of the wider pattern of insecurity at work, it has become a much more common tool. I am afraid, as we have seen, it is far too often an act of first—rather than last—resort, and the Government are committed to ending that practice.

The solution to dealing with many of the concerns raised by the shadow Minister and others is to point to what good and bad industrial relations look like, and to say, “This is what bad employer practice looks like.” Good employers and industrial relations will take workers with them. Again I refer to USDAW’s written evidence, which noted occasions where negotiations had begun with fire and rehire on the table almost from the start. That is not a healthy place to have sometimes very difficult discussions about changes to terms and conditions. The impact assessment notes that the power asymmetry can provide incentives for the more powerful party, in this case the employer, to act in a strategic manner to suppress wages and conditions. Such tactics are why we have seen such a slump in wage growth over recent years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Fire and rehire is an absolute scourge to those people who are impacted by it. Whether in significant numbers or a minority, it is utterly shameful. My Liberal Democrat colleagues broadly welcome the amendments, and we look forward to supporting the clause.

[Justin Madders]

It is good to hear that we have the support of the Liberal Democrats. Most of the country supports this measure; fire and rehire is rightly seen as a practice that should see its end. I quote the former right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield, Grant Shapps, who said at the time, when P&O first started on that course, that

“we will not allow this to happen again: that where new laws are needed, we will create them, that where legal loopholes are cynically exploited, we will close them, and that where employment rights are too weak, we will strengthen them.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 840.]

I have news for the Committee: I am afraid that only this week several Members of this place have told me about fire and rehire tactics going on in their constituency. A fire and rehire situation is taking place right now in Wrexham. The loopholes have not been closed. That is why we need to act.

To put the shadow Minister’s mind at rest, I believe that proposed new subsection (5) gives employers a real guideline as to how they need to deal with this. Furthermore, as was common to much of the evidence we heard, responsible and good employers do all those things anyway, so they will not be penalised or face any additional burdens, but rather will be able to operate on a level playing field.

To refer to the evidence given by DFDS about this particular matter, or to someone working in an area very relevant to it, they said that they were pleased that fire and rehire was going to be dealt with, because as an operator, they are

“simply looking for a fair and level playing field.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 56, Q54.]

That is why we need to act today.

I also refer to the support of the Institute of Directors; approximately two thirds of its members who were polled supported this action, too. I think it will come to be seen as a watershed moment in industrial relations in this country, where we finally got rid of one of the most obnoxious and outdated practices that this country has ever seen.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Collective redundancy: extended application of requirements

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 58, in clause 23, page 34, line 27, at end insert—

“(3A) In section 197 (power to vary provisions), in subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for “188(2)” substitute “188(1A)”;

(b) in the words after paragraph (b), for “188(2)” substitute “188(1A)”.”

This amendment would correct incorrect cross-references in section 197 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

This is a purely technical amendment to fix an incorrect cross-reference in section 197(1)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 197(1)(a) provides that the Secretary of State may make secondary legislation to amend the minimum time period for collective consultations in section 188(2) of the same Act. However, as I am sure the shadow Minister had already noticed, that reference is incorrect: “section 188(2)” should read “section 188(1A)”. A consequential amendment was missed when section 188 was amended by the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1995. That instrument renumbered section 188(2) as section 188(1A). Of course, it should have also made a consequential amendment to section 197(1)(a), but did not.

The amendment will not change the law, which can already be interpreted to refer to the correct cross-reference by way of the Interpretation Act 1978. The 1978 Act provides that where an instrument repeals and re-enacts a provision then, unless the contrary intention appears, any reference in any other enactment to the repealed provision is to be read as a reference to the re-enacted provision. The amendment will improve the clarity and accessibility of the law, which I am sure we will all be relieved to hear.

[Greg Smith]

I can be very brief on this amendment, Ms Vaz; in fact, I will channel the questioning style of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). This is what happens when a Bill gets rushed to meet an arbitrary political deadline, is it not?

[Justin Madders]

The shadow Minister will be pleased to hear that we have picked the error up at this stage, so that when the Bill is enacted it will of course be absolutely correct.

Amendment 58 agreed to.

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

[Justin Madders]

Employers are currently obliged to collectively consult when they propose to make 20 or more employees redundant at one establishment. Collective consultations are an important part of ensuring fairness and transparency between employers and employees.

In the year to November 2024, approximately 3,500 employers in Great Britain gave notification that they were initiating a collective redundancy process at a single establishment. The benefits of consultation are felt by both employees and employers. Consultation ensures that affected employees can input into the process with a view to avoiding or mitigating redundancies wherever possible, and it helps employers to retain skilled workers and reduce the risk of disputes.

That is why the Government intend to strengthen the collective redundancy framework. The clause will amend the framework to ensure that employers must fulfil collective consultation obligations whenever they are proposing 20 or more redundancies, regardless of whether the redundancies take place at one establishment or not. This will ensure that more employees—many of them in vulnerable positions—will now benefit from redundancy consultation, and that affected employees can participate meaningfully in the redundancy process, regardless of how they might be dispersed across an employer’s business. The clause will also make it easier for employers to understand when they have to comply with these obligations.

I know that businesses have raised some concerns about the practical implications of the clause and I will take this opportunity to clarify its scope. First, the clause does not mean that employers will need to consult with the entire workforce in their organisation whenever they propose 20 or more redundancies. As is currently the case, they must consult only the relevant trade union or employee representatives of employees being proposed to be made redundant, or those who may be affected by measures implemented as a result of the proposed redundancies, such as relevant line managers.

Secondly, when an employer is required to undertake collective consultation with employees across different establishments, they have the flexibility to tailor the process to suit each location. For example, they are not required to undertake a single, uniform consultation across affected locations, but can hold separate consultation activities with each group of affected employees to ensure that discussions are both localised and meaningful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Wheeler]

I am sure it is not. I worked in a retail establishment that did not benefit from trade union representation and that went through consultation, not on redundancy but on a variation of contracts, so it is relevant to what we were talking about before. It was actually a relatively smooth and easy process for employee representatives to be appointed and elected from among our number, despite the lack of an existing structure, and to engage with the company in those consultation exercises. While I would love there to be a trade union fighting the corner for every worker, when it is absent it is not a burdensome process to have employee engagement in these processes.

[Justin Madders]

I recognise that the shadow Minister welcomed the clarification I provided. No doubt there will be debate to come, as is often the case with legal issues, but the Government are fairly clear and confident that the clause will not have the unintended consequences we heard raised in evidence.

The shadow Minister asked, “Why 20?” He will pleased to know that that was a product of EU regulation. It is in existing law as part of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which has been amended many times, so I could not say exactly when it came into force, but—

[Greg Smith]

The Minister can of course look back in history at when these measures were put in, but the Bill seeks to change all sorts of things across all sorts of sectors. We are free from the European Union! He could change it if he wished.

[Justin Madders]

I will remember that next time the shadow Minister tells me that we are trying to do too much in this Bill. With the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, the Bill Committee for which I had the great pleasure of serving on, his Government could have done something about this before they left office.

The figure of 20 is long established, and we have no current plans to change it, but we are keen to ensure that the scenario my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles described cannot continue. As he said, Woolworths made 27,000 people redundant, and about 3,000 of those were completely exempt from collective redundancy consultations because of this issue. There has been a number of high-profile retail redundancies where people have missed out on collective redundancy obligations because of this law, which we are pleased to be able to change.

On the question of smaller employers where there may not be trade union representation readily available, the regulations already provide for employee representatives to be engaged and elected in those circumstances, so there is no change to the law in that respect. There is already provision to deal with that situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Collective redundancy notifications: ships’ crew

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

[Justin Madders]

The clause will address the loophole that allowed P&O Ferries to avoid prosecution when it dismissed 786 seafarers without notice in March 2022. It will require operators of frequent services to British ports to notify the UK Government when making 20 or more redundancies even if those affected work aboard ships registered in another state. The clause means that if an operator of frequent services to a British port chooses to copy P&O Ferries and make collective redundancies without providing notice to the Government, it could face prosecution under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and ultimately be liable for an unlimited fine.

The clause will apply to services calling between Great Britain and another place in the UK. It will also apply to any services entering Great Britain from a place outside the UK on at least 120 occasions in a 12-month period before the redundancy notification, or to new services that have been operating for less than 12 months and have called 10 times or more per month while they have been operating. We estimate the number of operators in scope of the measure to be around 2,000. The cost to businesses will be minimal; it is estimated to be around £20 per notification. We hope that the prospect of an unlimited fine will deter operators from making mass redundancies without the appropriate notification.

While this measure may not prevent redundancies from being made, it will mean that the Government and any employee representatives must be notified before any dismissals take effect. It will prevent the sort of disruption seen following the P&O Ferries dismissals and will mean that the Government will be able to provide valuable support to seafarers facing redundancy. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

I understand where the Minister is coming from, particularly on the expansion of the requirement to notify the flag state. I spoke earlier about my time on the Transport Committee watching the P&O scandal unfold; we held some pretty tough evidence sessions as part of that. I understand that the clause is very specifically to protect seafarers from that sort of engagement. I very much hope that it works to protect those seafarers, and we will not oppose it.

[Steve Darling]

We are strongly supportive of the measure.

[Justin Madders]

I am pleased to see that we have support all round.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Public sector outsourcing: protection of workers

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 59, in clause 25, page 36, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(2) After Part 5 insert—

‘Part 5A

Outsourcing: protection of workers

83A Application of this Part

(1) This Part provides for a Minister of the Crown, the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers to make provision for the protection of workers in relation to relevant outsourcing contracts (see section 83B).

(2) Accordingly, in this Part, “appropriate authority”—

(a) means—

(i) a Minister of the Crown,

(ii) the Scottish Ministers, or

(iii) the Welsh Ministers, and

(b) does not include a Northern Ireland department.

(3) In addition to the restrictions in section 113, a Minister of the Crown—

(a) may exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating devolved Scottish authorities only in relation to joint or centralised procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement;

(b) may not exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement.

(4) The Scottish Ministers—

(a) may only exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating—

(i) devolved Scottish authorities, or

(ii) procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement;

(b) may not exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating—

(i) joint or centralised procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement, or

(ii) joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement.

(5) In addition to the restrictions in section 111, the Welsh Ministers—

(a) may exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating devolved Scottish authorities only in relation to joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement;

(b) may not exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement.

(6) This Part does not apply in relation to—

(a) a private utility;

(b) a person referred to in regulation 4(1)(b) of the Utilities Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2016 (S.S.I. 2016/49);

(c) a devolved Welsh authority listed in Schedule 1 of the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023 (asc 1);

(d) procurement under a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement, except to the extent that the procurement—

(i) is carried out by a devolved Scottish authority, and

(ii) is not joint or centralised;

(e) a transferred Northern Ireland authority, except in relation to—

(i) procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement,

(ii) procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement, or

(iii) procurement under a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement.

(7) For the purposes of this section, procurement under a procurement arrangement is “joint or centralised” if as part of that procurement arrangement a contract is to be awarded following a procedure or other selection process carried out—

(a) jointly by a devolved Scottish authority and another contracting authority which is not a devolved Scottish authority, or

(b) by a centralised procurement authority or equivalent body.

83B Relevant outsourcing contracts

(1) In this Part, “relevant outsourcing contract” means a contract in relation to which conditions A to C are met.

(2) Condition A is met where the contract—

(a) is a public contract under this Act, or

(b) is a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation.

(3) Condition B is met where the contract—

(a) is a contract for the supply of services that include the performance of functions that are or have previously been performed by the contracting authority, or

(b) is—

(i) in the case of a public contract, a framework for the future award of a contract referred to in paragraph (a), or

(ii) in the case of a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation, a framework agreement the purpose of which is to establish the terms governing a contract referred to in paragraph (a).

(4) Condition C is met where the functions referred to in subsection (3)(a) are, or are expected to be, performed by individuals (“transferring workers”) who—

(a) in performing the functions, are employed by the supplier or a sub-contractor under a worker’s contract, and

(b) were employed by the contracting authority under a worker’s contract in performing functions of the same kind.

(5) For the purposes of this Part—

(a) “contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation” means a contract the procurement of which by a devolved Scottish authority is regulated by Scottish procurement legislation;

(b) in relation to a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation—

(i) “contracting authority” means a devolved Scottish authority that is a contracting authority within the meaning of the relevant Scottish procurement legislation;

(ii) “framework agreement” has the same meaning as in the relevant Scottish procurement legislation;

(iii) “supplier” means an economic operator within the meaning of the relevant Scottish procurement legislation;

(iv) “the relevant Scottish procurement legislation” means the Scottish procurement legislation regulating the procurement of the contract.

83C Power to specify provision for inclusion in relevant outsourcing contracts

(1) An appropriate authority may by regulations specify provision to be included in a relevant outsourcing contract for the purpose of ensuring that—

(a) transferring workers of a specified description are treated no less favourably as workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor than they were as workers of the contracting authority, and

(b) workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor who are not transferring workers and are of a specified description are treated no less favourably than those transferring workers.

(2) In carrying out the procurement of a relevant outsourcing contract, the contracting authority must—

(a) take all reasonable steps to ensure that provision specified under subsection (1) is included in the contract;

(b) where provision specified under subsection (1) is included in the contract, take all reasonable steps to secure that such provision is complied with.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply—

(a) where the contracting authority or the relevant outsourcing contract is of a specified description, or

(b) in specified circumstances.

(4) In this section, “specified” means specified in regulations made by an appropriate authority.

83D Code of practice on relevant outsourcing contracts

(1) An appropriate authority must prepare and publish a code of practice containing guidance to contracting authorities for the purpose of ensuring that, where a contracting authority carries out the procurement of a relevant outsourcing contract—

(a) transferring workers of a description specified in the code are treated no less favourably as workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor than they were as workers of the contracting authority, and

(b) workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor who are not transferring workers and are of a description specified in the code are treated no less favourably than those transferring workers.

(2) An appropriate authority—

(a) may amend or replace a code published by it under subsection (1), and

(b) must publish any amended or replacement code.

(3) A code published under subsection (1) or (2) must—

(a) in the case of a code published by a Minister of the Crown, be laid before Parliament;

(b) in the case of a code published by the Scottish Ministers, be laid before the Scottish Parliament;

(c) in the case of a code published by the Welsh Ministers, be laid before Senedd Cymru.

(4) In carrying out the procurement of a relevant outsourcing contract, the contracting authority must have regard to the code of practice for the time being published under subsection (1) or (2).

(5) This section does not require an appropriate authority to do anything which the authority does not have power to do (see section 83A and Part 11).

83E Interpretation of this Part

(1) In this Part—

“appropriate authority” has the meaning given in section 83A(2);

“contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation” has the meaning given in section 83B(5)(a);

“relevant outsourcing contract” has the meaning given in section 83B;

“transferring worker”, in relation to a relevant outsourcing contract, has the meaning given in section 83B(4);

“worker” and “worker’s contract” have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (see section 230 of that Act).

(2) For the purposes of this Part, in relation to a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation, “contracting authority”, “framework agreement”, “supplier” and “the relevant Scottish procurement legislation” have the meaning given in section 83B(5)(b).

83F Power of Scottish Ministers to amend this Part

The Scottish Ministers may by regulations modify section 83A, 83B or 83E in consequence of a modification of Scottish procurement legislation.’”

This amendment would restructure the new provisions to be inserted into the Procurement Act 2023 so that the powers and duties extend to the Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers and devolved Scottish and Welsh authorities. The amendment also clarifies that the duty to publish a code of practice does not depend on the making of the regulations.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 60 to 64.

[Justin Madders]

Amendment 59 will expand and restructure the provisions in clause 25, which amends the Procurement Act 2023, to reinstate and strengthen the two-tier code for relevant outsourced contracts for public services so that the powers and duties in clause 25 extend to Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Amendments 60 to 64 make changes that are consequential on those made by amendment 59, including by updating various definitions in the Procurement Act 2023 and by providing that regulations made by Scottish and Welsh Ministers must be made using the affirmative procedure of the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd.

We are making the amendments at the request of the Scottish and Welsh Governments. They are necessary because to get the benefits of a consistent approach to fair and equitable employment terms and conditions on relevant outsourced contracts, it is essential that a reinstated two-tier code applies throughout the UK.

We continue to engage with our counterparts in Northern Ireland about whether the powers should also extend to Ministers there. The regulations and code of practice created in our provisions will apply to reserved Northern Irish authorities. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

I am reminded of the old chestnut about rushing out a Bill in 100 days and forgetting about the devolved settlements as part of the process. Given that devolution was largely the product of the previous Labour Government, I am slightly surprised that the current one would forget about Holyrood and Cardiff Bay. However, it is good that we now have clarity. We will of course want to test how things are actually going to work. Indeed, the question of Northern Ireland—which is just as important a part of our country as England, Scotland and Wales—really should be resolved sooner rather than later, so that there can be clarity that the Government are seeking to legislate for the whole of our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and not doing it in a piecemeal fashion.

[Justin Madders]

I gently correct the shadow Minister: we did not forget to engage with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. We were making sure that we had agreement before we tabled amendments, which is why they have appeared as they have today.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that this is actually an example of the Government keeping not only their manifesto promise to deliver a new deal for working people, but the manifesto promise that I certainly made many times during the election campaign, which was that the new Government would show the utmost respect for the Scottish Parliament and Government, and for all the devolved institutions? I reassure the Minister that the Scottish Parliament was not forgotten during the drafting of the Bill, because there was extensive engagement with the Scottish Government, some of which I saw myself.

[Justin Madders]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. On that note, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Amendment 59 agreed to.

Amendments made: 60, in clause 25, page 37, line 33, at end insert—

“(2A) In section 2 (contracting authorities), after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) But see also section 83B(5)(b)(i) (which provides for “contracting authority” to have an extended meaning in relation to certain contracts regulated under Part 5A (outsourcing: protection of workers)).’”

See the explanatory statement to amendment 59.

Amendment 61, in clause 25, page 37, line 34, leave out subsection (3).

See the explanatory statement to amendment 59 - because the new provisions are now being inserted as a new Part of the Procurement Act 2023, there is no longer any need to amend section 100 of that Act.

Amendment 62, in clause 25, page 38, line 3, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

“(4) In section 122 (regulations)—

(a) in subsection (4) (regulations by Ministers of the Crown subject to affirmative procedure), after paragraph (i) insert—

‘(ia) section 83C (provision for inclusion in relevant outsourcing contracts);’

(b) in subsection (10) (regulations by Welsh Ministers subject to affirmative procedure), after paragraph (g) insert—

‘(ga) section 83C (provision for inclusion in relevant outsourcing contracts);’

(c) in subsection (14) (regulations by Scottish Ministers subject to affirmative procedure), before paragraph (a) insert—

‘(za) section 83C (provision to be included in relevant outsourcing contracts);

(zb) section 83F (power to amend section 83A, 83B or 83E);’”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 59.

Amendment 63, in clause 25, page 38, line 6, at end insert—

“(4A) In section 123 (interpretation), in subsection (1), in the definition of ‘appropriate authority’, at the end insert—

‘(but see section 83A(2) for a different meaning of “appropriate authority” in Part 5A (outsourcing: protection of workers));’.

(4B) In section 124 (index of defined expressions), for the entry for ‘appropriate authority’ substitute—

Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Justin Madders Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. This pair of amendments on unfair dismissal stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends from the official Opposition.

Amendment 156 would make the fact that the employee was made redundant a reason in relation to the dismissal of an employee during the initial period of employment. The Bill stipulates that the modified protections against unfair dismissal in relation to the initial period of employment mean that an employee can be dismissed for the reasons listed in section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which include

“the capability or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do…the conduct of the employee”

or

“that the employee could not continue to work in the position which he held without contravention (either on his part or on that of his employer) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under an enactment.”

The 1996 Act also includes a fourth reason,

“that the employee was redundant”,

which is not replicated in the Bill. This is a probing amendment—we do not intend to press it to a Division—to try to tease out from the Government a little more detail and to establish why that fourth reason is omitted from the Bill.

Amendment 157 is also a probing amendment. We want to understand what steps will be specified in regulations that an employer must follow in order for the dismissal of an employee to be treated as fair. That will come back to the test of subjective reasoning rather than specific guidelines or regulations in the Bill. It is only right that the Committee and businesses out there in the real world can fully understand the scope with which the Government are defining “fair” or “unfair”. Inherent to that is the question, why is it not in the Bill? Why is it not as clear as day in the words printed in this quite substantial tome? I know that the Government want to table more amendments, so perhaps those could be a little more specific. Critical to amendment 157 is the question how burdensome the Government intend this measure to be and how proportionate that burden will be on businesses in relation to the problem that the Minister thinks the Bill in its current form—its current vagueness—will solve.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.

The shadow Minister has posed some questions that underlie amendment 156, which seeks to include redundancy as one of the reasons for dismissal to which the lighter-touch standards will apply during the statutory probationary period. As he has rightly identified, the Bill sets out that the reasons for dismissal to which the lighter-touch standards may apply are the statutory grounds of capability, conduct, illegality and some other substantial reason.

It is important to note that those four areas relate to the individual employee, which is why redundancy is not included. Redundancy can affect entire workforces, whereas the other areas are included because of the overlap between the potentially fair reasons for dismissal in the legislation, particularly suitability for work, and the sorts of issues that might come up in a probationary period. A redundancy situation would not ordinarily come up within a probationary period, because it would be about the wider business condition rather than the individual employee’s performance or suitability for the job. I hope that explains why redundancy has not been included.

I turn to the shadow Minister’s more general points. We are trying to strike a fair balance between strengthening employee protections against unfair dismissal and maintaining businesses’ ability to hire, assess and dismiss new employees. The Government are committed to ensuring that businesses retain the confidence to do so. We do not wish the new procedures to undermine existing fair dismissal processes for redundancy, which already provide a robust, straightforward and fair process for employees facing redundancy.

We will work closely with ACAS, in consultation with businesses and trade unions, to ensure that there is clear, straightforward and easy-to-follow guidance on how to carry out a redundancy process under the new measures. It will be an easily accessible process. One of our concerns about including redundancy is that if an employer decided to make a significant number of their workforce redundant, it would be an additional administrative job for them to identify which employees they did not need to include within a redundancy process because they were part of a statutory probationary period, and which would be subject to the wider process. That would lead to unintended consequences and possibly risk of discrimination claims.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Can the Minister give me an assurance on how microbusinesses will be affected by the change? A very small business might choose to take on one person, and there might be nothing wrong with that person, but within a couple of months the business might realise that it is not working from an economic point of view. The employee would then be effectively redundant, because that small business cannot sustain their employment. Can the Minister assure me that if that small business cannot dismiss that person for the reason of redundancy during the probationary period, there will not be a separate, complex redundancy process to follow?

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Member may be conflating two slightly different issues. I say to him very clearly that existing laws on redundancy will not be changed as a result of the Bill. We expect employers to follow the same processes, regardless of the length of service of the employee. In that situation, I do not imagine that there would be a particularly lengthy process if it involved only one individual and a small employer. There would not need to be a pool for selection, for example, or selection criteria. We would expect the employer to comply with the law in those circumstances.

Amendment 157 questions whether regulations should be able to set steps that an employer must follow for a dismissal to be considered fair when prescribing lighter-touch standards to apply during the statutory probationary period. We have set out clearly our intention to have a light-touch process, and we know that around 9 million employees will benefit from that. The intention behind setting out those steps in regulations is to ensure that we take account of further consultation, which we will undertake not just with employers but with trade unions and civil society, to ensure that we have the right balance of process and fairness in a statutory probationary period. We will be developing that in due course. As is often the case with the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures, there are already lots of examples of really practical guidance out there, which we intend to replicate. I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

[Greg Smith]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I want to unpick another issue on which I would welcome some reassurances from the Minister.

I have spoken to a gentleman from the Torbay Business Forum who supports a charity that works across Devon, particularly by supporting people with learning disabilities into employment. One often finds that it can take a bit longer for people with learning disabilities to find the right place and get a firm contract. What safeguards are there for charitable organisations and not-for-profit companies working in that sector to prevent them from ending up in the difficult position of having people on their books who, sadly, over an extended period of time, they realise are not fit for purpose because of challenges in their lives? There will no longer be the opportunity to offer extended flexibility.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham, I broadly welcome the Bill’s direction of travel, but I would like to see some of the rough edges knocked into shape for Torbay residents.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to Opposition Members for tabling their amendments and asking a series of questions.

The hon. Member for Chippenham seeks to set the boundaries for the statutory probation period at three and nine months. The hon. Member for Torbay seemed to argue for a lengthier period; I do not know whether he was asking for nine months or beyond, but I take his point. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked us to put six months on the face of the Bill, so there is quite a range of options. We have decided that the best thing to do is work with businesses and consult with them on the detail of the proposal as we move forward. We have expressed a preference for nine months as a result of the engagement that we have undertaken.

As the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire indicated, businesses have said that generally six months is about the right period, but in some circumstances they may need a bit longer to ensure that the person is the right fit. That is why we alighted on the proposal for nine months, but we do not want to tie our hands by putting it on the face of the Bill; we want to continue to work with businesses and trade unions to understand whether that is the right figure. Putting a number in the Bill would be premature, because we will have further conversations. As we develop the light-touch process in our deliberations, that may help people to firm up their views about whether nine months is indeed the right amount of time.

The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire questioned the evidence base. Of course there can be no evidence base for people being unfairly dismissed under two years’ employment, because there is no right protecting them from unfair dismissal before then, except for those who may seek to hang their hat on an automatically unfair dismissal. As we have discussed at length, people sometimes do that because they have a sense of grievance about the way they have been treated, and they may well have a legitimate claim.

Hon. Members generally accepted that the labour force survey statistics are not particularly helpful, but there is quite a lot of evidence about the impact of job insecurity more generally and the fact that the two-year qualification period creates uncertainty for individuals. Business in the Community surveyed 4,000 employees, of whom 66% say that their mental health and wellbeing is affected by their personal job insecurity. In written evidence to this Committee, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers notes:

“Being dismissed on spurious conduct or capability grounds, without a fair investigation”—

as can happen at the moment under two years of employment—

“can have devastating consequences for an employee. It can destroy the individual’s morale and confidence and…living standards”.

This is happening to people already, and it is having an impact.

There is also evidence to suggest that there are further advantages for the wider economy. The Resolution Foundation has done some research on the cooling effect of people not moving jobs because they do not have job security. Someone who is considering moving from one job to another may be more likely to take the leap if they have that window of protection, so it is important for individuals as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. Those are exactly the same arguments that we had about the minimum wage, and they did not bear examination in the end. Indeed, the Conservative party eventually decided to support the minimum wage too.

The shadow Minister quoted from the evidence of Jane Gratton of the British Chamber of Commerce. She has actually said that she would favour a nine-month probationary period being set out in regulations, which I think is reflective of comments that I have made. It seems a little odd for her evidence to be used in support of an amendment that seeks a six-month period.

We are committed to working with businesses and trade unions to finalise the period in regulations. Setting it out in the Bill would tie our hands somewhat. It would also go against the spirit of what we are trying to achieve, which is working in a tripartite manner. The shadow Minister has sometimes criticised me for rushing a little bit, so he will appreciate that we are taking our time with this measure because we want to get it right. I urge him and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson not to press their amendments.

[Sarah Gibson]

I am happy not to press amendment 5.

[Greg Smith]

As I hope I made clear in my opening remarks, amendment 155 is a probing amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 55, in schedule 2, page 112, line 36, at end insert—

“3A In section 15 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (power by order to increase or decrease limit of compensatory award), after subsection (5) insert—

‘(5A) The power conferred by subsection (1) includes power to provide that, in the case of the dismissal of an employee that meets the conditions in section 98ZZA(2) and (3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (dismissal during initial period of employment), the limit imposed for the time being by subsection (1) of section 124 of that Act is a different amount from that otherwise imposed by that subsection.

(5B) Subsections (3), (4)(a) and (5) do not apply for the purposes of specifying the amount of the limit in such a case.’”

This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to specify the maximum amount of the compensatory award available where an employment tribunal finds that an employee has been unfairly dismissed during the initial period of employment provided for by new section 98ZZA of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 56 and 57.

[Justin Madders]

Amendment 55 will expand an existing delegated power to enable the Secretary of State to specify a different maximum compensatory award where an employment tribunal finds that an employee has been unfairly dismissed under the new light-touch standards during the statutory probation period. Amendments 56 and 57 will make consequential changes to the provisions for uprating maximum awards for inflation.

In the event of any successful unfair dismissal claim, an employment tribunal will consider compensation as a remedy. Compensation will usually consist of a basic award and a compensatory award. The tribunal will determine the compensatory award by considering what it thinks is just and equitable, having regard to the financial loss suffered by the claimant that has been caused by the employer’s actions. This will include reference to salary and benefits, including pension, until the claimant finds alternative employment. The maximum compensatory award is currently the lower of 52 weeks’ pay or £115,115.

The Government have listened to concerns that changes to unfair dismissal law could lead to an increase in unfair dismissal claims, even where there is no merit, and to an increased burden on businesses and tribunals in having to deal with those claims. We have heard that uncertainty of outcome makes it hard for businesses to judge how much to invest in either defending or settling a claim. The introduction of a lighter-touch standard for fair dismissal during the statutory probationary period aims to reduce burdens on businesses and to create certainty, but it will not apply to all dismissals during the statutory probation period.

Having listened to those concerns, the Government committed in our “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document to consulting on what a compensation regime for successful unfair dismissal claims during the statutory probation period should be. Although we want employers to pause and make considered decisions about dismissing employees during probation, the Government do not think that employers should face the full potential liabilities of unfair dismissal remedies when dismissing an employee for reasons related to performance or suitability for the role during the statutory probation period.

To have the option of implementing reform once we have consulted, it is necessary to introduce this delegated power. The power is limited to making changes to the compensatory award for unfair dismissal claims during the statutory probation period only, and only where the new lighter-touch standards apply. The Government recognise the importance of employers being able to assess new hires. We are committed to introducing a statutory probationary period in which there will be lighter-touch standards for an employer to meet in order to dismiss an employee fairly if they are not suitable for the job.

The power will not enable the Secretary of State to make changes to the level of compensation for other day one unfair dismissal rights, such as automatically unfair reasons including maternity-related dismissals, or for “ordinary” unfair dismissals such as redundancy. The power will not enable the Secretary of State to make changes to reinstatement or re-engagement as a remedy available to tribunals for unfair dismissal during statutory probationary periods, nor will it allow changes to be made to the additional compensatory award where an employer does not comply with an order of reinstatement or re-engagement by the tribunal. There may be some concerns that the power could be used to undermine enforcement of the day one right to unfair dismissal, but I assure the Committee that this is not the intention.

The Government are making basic protections against unfair dismissal a day one right for employees. They will be able to enforce their rights and take a claim to the tribunal if they have been unfairly dismissed. It is important, however, that employers are able to assess new hires and see whether they are suitable for the job without facing the full potential liabilities of unfair dismissal remedies during this period.

[Greg Smith]

I have a straightforward question. We are back once more with our old friend of not having full clarity and having consultation after legislation. The Minister gave a figure, but it is not clear exactly what the Secretary of State might consider specifying as the maximum compensation that can be awarded under this measure.

I acknowledge that there is a consultation to come, but the reason that we need greater clarity relates to the point about business confidence in making new hires, putting new job adverts out, seeing who applies and trying to recruit. If there is a risk that the figure will be disproportionately high, it will make businesses more risk-averse about growing their businesses and thereby growing the economy and creating more jobs in our country. My only substantive question is “Where is the ceiling going to be?”

[Sarah Gibson]

I share some of the shadow Minister’s concerns. Consultation to find out what most concerns businesses is obviously commendable, but if a large amount of the Bill is left to secondary legislation, a lot of it will not come back before the whole House for scrutiny. Can we be assured that decisions that are not taken before the Bill is passed can at least be considered by a Committee when they are finally made?

[Justin Madders]

I take on board the comments that the Opposition spokespersons have made, but if we put something in the Bill now, we would be pre-empting the consultation. It is very important to get this right, acknowledging the balance that needs to be struck and the points that have been made. It is worth bearing in mind that this measure will not be implemented until autumn 2026 at the earliest, which is still a considerable time off. The reason we want to take the time between now and then to engage and consult with businesses is to ensure that we get that figure to a spot that gives justice to individuals and certainty to businesses about the potential liability they may face.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I understand the point about autumn 2026, but would he acknowledge that the vast majority of businesses are probably already working on their 2026 business plans? They are not just planning for tomorrow, next week and January; they are making medium and long-term plans. Those decisions about creating a new role, filling a vacancy or whatever it might be will already be baked into business planning for 2026, 2027 and maybe through to 2030, so it is not good enough to say, “It’s not coming in until 2026, so don’t worry.” Businesses are already in that planning space.

[Justin Madders]

I take the shadow Minister’s point, but that presupposes that businesses bake into their business plans compensation for unfairly dismissing their staff, and I do not think any business would want to proceed on that basis. This is about a potential liability that might come in at a future point.

Of course, we all want employers to retain their staff and have a productive working relationship, but if they do not, we want them to comply with the law and dismiss employees fairly. There will be a small number of cases where that does not happen, but I would not expect a business to be able to anticipate what might happen in two or three years’ time with an individual employee and whether a process was followed or not. That is probably not on a business’s desk at this point.

Amendment 55 agreed to.

Amendments made: 56, in schedule 2, page 114, line 20, at beginning insert—

“(1) The Employment Relations Act 1999 is amended as follows.”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 57.

Amendment 57, in schedule 2, page 114, line 23, at end insert—

“(3) In section 34 (indexation of amounts, etc)—

(a) in subsection (1)(c), for “124(1)” substitute “124”;

(b) omit subsection (4);

(c) in subsection (4A), for “124(1)” substitute “124”;

(d) in subsection (4B)—

(i) for “124(1)” substitute “124”;

(ii) after “1996” insert “in relation to cases of any description”;

(iii) for the words from “such a sum” to “that date” substitute “, with effect from a day within 12 months before that date, a sum specified in that section in relation to cases of that description”.”—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment and amendment 56 are consequential on amendment 55.

Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Second schedule to the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 28—Unfair dismissal: impact assessment—

“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of section 19 and Schedule 2 of this Act on—

(a) employers, and

(b) the economy.

(2) The assessment must –

(a) include labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis,

(b) examine the impact of the measures in section 19 and Schedule 2 of this Act on employment, wages and economic output,

(c) consider the likelihood the dismissal measures leading to lower employment, and greater use of temporary contracts, and

(d) examine the likely effect of section 19 and Schedule 2 of this Act on—

(i) productivity,

(ii) wage growth,

(iii) equality of opportunity,

(iv) job security,

(v) economic activity, and

(vi) employment.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clause 19 and Schedule 2.

Amendment 134, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—

“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force section 19 or Schedule 2 of this Act until the findings set out in the report under section [unfair dismissal: impact assessment] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”

This amendment is linked to NC28.

[Justin Madders]

Schedule 2 amends the Employment Rights Act 1996, including the introduction of a statutory probation period. It also removes the qualifying period for the right to written reasons, replacing it with a requirement for the dismissal to have occurred after the statutory probation period ends. By removing the qualifying period, schedule 2 makes basic protection against unfair dismissal a day one right for all employees, ensuring that employees receive a baseline of security and predictability.

By introducing a statutory probation period in legislation, the schedule ensures that employers can continue to assess new hires. It allows the duration of the statutory probation period to be set out in regulation by the Secretary of State, which will follow public consultation.

I will take Members briefly through the elements of schedule 2. Paragraph 1 repeals the two-year qualifying period. Paragraph 2 makes it clear that the right to be unfairly dismissed does not apply to those who have not yet started employment. Paragraph 3 makes provision about dismissal during the initial period of employment, which we have already discussed. It will ensure that the “potentially fair” reasons in section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 will be subject to the light-touch regime where they relate to the employee with the exception of redundancy.

As we have already discussed, the Government intend to consult on the standards, and the schedule repeals the two-year qualifying period. A Government amendment has been made to schedule 2 to include a delegated power to change the maximum compensatory award available during the statutory probation period where the lighter-touch standards apply, as we have just discussed. We will consult on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I will try to put the shadow Minister’s mind at ease. I point out that not just is there an overall impact assessment for the Bill, but there are 24 separate impact assessments for different measures. That shows the amount of work that has been put in. The RPC has approved two thirds of those assessments, and it was looking only at the evidence base, not the policies themselves.

The impact assessment for day one rights covers everything we would expect an impact assessment to look at: the business environment, the wider economic impact, trade implications, wages, labour mobility, productivity, and sectoral and regional impacts. As the evidence base is firmed up, we will continue to refine and develop it. It deals comprehensively with many of the shadow Minister’s concerns, and I invite him not to press his amendments to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 20

Dismissal during pregnancy

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 21 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Gibson]

I thank the hon. Member for Dundee Central for tabling the amendment, which has drawn out a potential loophole that I hope the Government will look at carefully. We so often see legislation introduced with good intentions, and then 90% of businesses—especially smaller businesses—comply with it to the letter, because they think that is the right thing to do, but the larger corporations find a way around it.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for the contributions in this debate, which deals with one of the central issues we have been grappling with. On this side of the Committee we certainly want to see fire and rehire consigned to the history books. Equally, we do not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles said, want to see businesses feel they have no option but to make people redundant because they do not feel they can take any other course of action. It is about trying to ensure that that is still available without opening a loophole, as it has been described, for abusive fire and rehire tactics to continue. There is an awful lot in the Bill as it stands that will make it a very high threshold indeed for any employer to want to take that step. There will, of course, be further guidance in regulations, where we will home in on the kinds of concerns that have been raised.

[Chris Law]

I appreciate that there is a lot in the Bill, and I appreciate that some Government Members on the Committee think this is a nut to crack. I have asked questions—I hope to hear some of the answers to them—and I want to add another. I raised the issue of “likely”, which is the language used. Will the Minister remark on whether the Department intends to advise on how the word “likely” should be determined? Will he consider whether that will reflect what was set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and a subsequent tribunal judgment, which came to define “likely” as a need to show

“a significantly higher degree of likelihood than just more likely than not”?

[Justin Madders]

I am not familiar with the particular case law the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I will take that away.

It is fair to say that employment tribunals currently do not have the kind of inquiries into a business’s finances and general condition that we are trying to achieve with this legislation. At the moment, there is a fairly broadbrush approach, particularly in terms of redundancies, to inquiries about the business reasons. It is important to draw the hon. Member for Dundee Central’s attention to the words after “likely” in the Bill. It is about an

“employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern”.

That means the alternative is insolvency or redundancies, which is the eventuality that I am sure we all want to avoid. It will ultimately be a question of fact for an employment tribunal to determine whether it genuinely was the only option available to the employer, which is what the Bill will require the employer to demonstrate.

There are a legion of examples of trade unions working constructively with businesses to avoid those kinds of insolvency situations, as a result of which terms and conditions have changed. The hon. Member for Dundee Central quoted Andy Prendergast who, in respect of what happened in the 2008 financial crisis, said in an evidence session:

“It was heartbreaking, but we had to do it because it was the right thing to do.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 131, Q135.]

He was talking about changing terms and conditions in agreement with employers to avoid redundancies and potential insolvencies.

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would take out all of subsection (5) of proposed new section 104I, which is the requirement for the employer to engage with trade unions and have the dialogue that we think is so important in industrial relations. It would say, “That does not matter any more.” The dialogue we are seeking to develop—the tripartite approach—and the move to make the arbitrary take-it-or-leave-it approach that some employers have adopted in fire and rehire a thing of the past, would not matter.

The hon. Gentleman has asked some important questions about what we would expect of employers; I think subsection (5) answers many of them. Further regulations and codes of practice will also deal with them, because we want to make sure we have a situation in which the bar for passing this test is extremely high, but in addition to that—in addition to there being no alternative but insolvency—the employer has to then demonstrate that they have carried out a full consultation with the trade union. That will involve a full explanation of the financial situation. As we develop the regulations and codes of practice, we will flesh that out in some more detail.

[Chris Law]

I am listening carefully to the words the Minister is using. When does the employer carry out that process? Ultimately, they have two options. They can carry it out well in advance to ensure that employees are kept up to speed early on. Some employees may wish to leave under those circumstances and find employment elsewhere. But often, in past cases of fire and rehire, employees have heard at a very late stage or not at all. There is currently no provision in the Bill to say what the timetable should be. I would like to get an indication of the Minister’s thoughts about potential future amendments relating to that subject.

[Justin Madders]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but subsection (5) does set out the requirements on an employer to consult. It would be normal for further detail about consultation to be considered to be in good time when proposals are at a formative stage, as has traditionally always been the case. I see no reason why it would not also take the same form in that instance.

What we are really talking about is a situation in which there is a sudden change in a company’s financial circumstances and it has to act quickly. In that situation, we do not want to force it to go insolvent or make people redundant, if there is an opportunity to save jobs. That is why subsection (5) is so important: because it will encourage and compel the dialogue that we are seeking to achieve. I accept that there is more to be done in terms of honing some of the detail, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment because it would, I am afraid, have unintended consequences.

[Chris Law]

I thank the Minister for his comments. It is helpful to know that there will be further consultation and, potentially, amendments—which may even come from his own side—to tighten up this bit of the legislation. It is critical to the wider Bill and the SNP understands its importance; we just want to see it made tighter—not to put employers in impossible situations in which they cannot negotiate, but so that it is not exploited as a loophole. As it currently stands, employers are already discussing that.

I appreciate the Minister’s response. In that context, so long as it is something that can be further considered and, particularly, brought forward on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)

Fireworks: Sale and Use

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. As the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), said, this has been a good debate and a wide range of suggestions have been made.

We had speeches from 20 Back-Benchers: my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge), the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), and my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), for Glasgow East (John Grady), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Southport (Patrick Hurley). That was quite a good spread across the isles: it shows that the issue affects everyone in this great nation of ours. Everyone spoke with great passion and insight into how fireworks affect individuals, and there were a range of suggestions about what might be done.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on leading this important debate. He set out well the balance of issues that we have to take into account when considering these matters. As he highlighted, fireworks can have a dreadful impact.

The two petitions that we are debating are “Ban the sale of fireworks to the general public” and “Limit the sale and use of Fireworks to licence holders only”. I join the shadow Secretary of State in paying tribute to Chloe Brindley and Alan Smith for their work in helping to get the petitions debated today. The debate has shown that there is an appetite across the House to look at the issue. As a constituency MP and as a member of the Government, I know from my own postbag that it is an issue of widespread concern.

I express my condolences to the family of Josephine Smith, who, as we know, sadly passed away following the placing of a firework through her letterbox. The tragic story, which was conveyed by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster, brings home the consequences of the deliberate misuse of fireworks. We heard from her about how the CCTV caught those responsible talking about what they might do, and I cannot imagine how difficult that must have been to view that irresponsible behaviour. The hon. Lady conveyed Mr Smith’s thoughts well. He asked for a sensible and respectful debate, and I certainly believe that we have had one today. I assure him that we will meet in the new year and that we will continue to engage in a sensible and respectful way. There are many things to explore in what he said.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North has caught the attention of a lot of Members with her private Member’s Bill. She highlighted what is arguably an illogical approach to licensing, and mentioned the challenge of enforcement, which all Members spoke about. Many Members clearly feel that the enforcement regime is not working as it should. There may be a number of reasons for that. She also mentioned the impact on children with special educational needs and on guide dogs, and the impact of online sales, which were not something of which we were cognisant when fireworks were last legislated for. Those were important points.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West is not in her place, but her constituency contains Edinburgh Zoo, where Roxie the panda cub sadly died. That graphically brings home the impact that fireworks can have on animals. She was right to highlight the irony of a zoo doing its utmost to protect an endangered species but losing an animal through the deliberate and possibly unthinking acts of humans. There are many elements to this. We must recognise that for many people and animals, noise and disruption can be challenging. That is why we have had this debate today and why many people have signed the petition.

We must recognise that for the many people who use and enjoy fireworks responsibly, they are an important part of their life for enjoying celebrations with family and friends, and as part of the wider community. We know they are a popular product: the industry is valued at £200 million a year. Research published by the Social Market Foundation showed that 77% of the public like fireworks a lot or somewhat. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford said, about 14 million Britons—a significant number of people—plan to have their own displays each year. However, the research also showed that only 15% of people in Great Britain want the regulations to stay as they are. It was clear from the debate that a lot of Members share that view. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge mentioned, there is potential for alternatives, including the use of light displays, drones and lasers. The use of alternatives was also highlighted in the Social Market Foundation report.

As Members have said, the Petitions Committee launched an inquiry into the sale and use of fireworks in 2019, which gave people the opportunity to raise their concerns. I believe it attracted more than 350 written submissions. The Committee made a number of recommendations but did not, in the end, advocate for a total ban on fireworks. I think it recognised the concern that doing so would create a black market. When we look at the possibility of a total ban, we must recognise that an extensive regulatory framework for fireworks already exists. We should also recognise that, particularly in Scotland, there have been a number of developments in trying to regulate them. I listened with great interest to what my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow South West and Edinburgh South West said about their experiences of that system. They both talked about the horrendous injuries that police officers and other public servants have received, and why it is so important for them to get control of the issue.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West said that a lot of this is just lawlessness, he hit the nail on the head. That feels such a long way away from the displays that many Members talked about from their youth. How we have gone from that innocent, joyful experience to downright anarchy is a sad indictment, I am afraid. I also noted my hon. Friend’s question about whether exclusion zones have been as effective as we would have liked. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East suggested that their application had not been as good as we would have liked. There are certainly things we need to look at from the experience of Glasgow and Edinburgh so far, to understand whether that tool is fit for purpose.

Under the Fireworks Act 2003, the Fireworks Regulations 2004 introduced a package of measures to reduce the nuisance and injuries caused by the misuse of fireworks, which forms part of the broader public concern with the problems of antisocial behaviour. As we know, there is an 11 pm curfew for the use of fireworks, with later exceptions only for the traditional firework periods of 5 November, Diwali, new year’s eve and Chinese new year, as well as for local authority displays, celebrations and events. In addition, the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015 include a 120 dB noise limit on the fireworks available to consumers. It should be said that the majority of people who use fireworks do so appropriately and have a sensible and responsible attitude to them, but, as we have heard this afternoon, too many people use them in a dangerous, inconsiderate or antisocial manner.

The police, local authorities and other local agencies have a range of tools and powers that they can use to respond to antisocial behaviour, including the antisocial use of fireworks offence through the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Going even further back, the Explosives Act 1875 made it an offence to throw, cast or fire a firework into a highway, street, thoroughfare or public place, demonstrating that it is sadly not a new problem.

Members have referred to the different categories of fireworks. It is worth setting out the fact that retailers must not sell low or medium-hazard fireworks, known as F2 and F3 fireworks, to anyone under the age of 18. Category F1, classed as very low hazard, cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 16. F4 fireworks are the most hazardous and can be sold only to those with specialist knowledge who have undertaken training recognised in the fireworks business and who hold a valid liability insurance. It is also an offence for anyone under the age of 18 to possess an F2, F3 or F4 firework in a public place, or for anyone to possess an F4 firework unless it is for specified professional reasons. Those offences can attract a £90 on-the-spot fine or, on summary conviction, up to six months’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine.

Retailers are restricted to selling consumer fireworks during a limited period around each of the seasonal celebrations that I have mentioned. Retailers may supply fireworks to the public outside of those periods only if they obtain a licence from their local licensing authority, so fireworks are less available to purchase outside those seasons. There are storage limits and strict rules around how and where fireworks are stored in business premises—the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth is not an example of how they should be adhered to.

[Sarah Owen]

I welcome the Minister’s thorough response. On the point about loosening the licensing laws to accommodate other sellers so that they can sell fireworks at times when people actually want to buy them—such as for fireworks night and new year—does that not seem a perverse way of doing things? If people are buying fireworks, they should be doing so from licensed, reputable sellers.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I think I have already recognised and acknowledged that there is a slight incongruity about how it works, which is something we will consider as we move forward.

Local authority trading standards work with retailers to ensure that fireworks are sold safely, and they have powers to enforce. Again, we have heard questions about whether that is currently sufficient. Trading standards can also enforce against those selling fireworks without an appropriate licence—for example, outside the normal selling period. But it is clear from the debate that some Members feel the current legislation is not only inadequate but is not being enforced properly.

Some Members mentioned the issue of noise. We recognise the impact of fireworks on vulnerable people, including veterans and those with post-traumatic stress disorder, and animals. That, along with antisocial use, is a key concern, as I have heard on a number of occasions. This year I launched a fireworks campaign to provide guidance on minimising their negative impacts. The campaign was well received on social media and shared by our key enforcement partners. But of course those who were determined to cause trouble and those who do not have any respect for others will not take heed of that.

Various animal charities have published guidance on how to protect animals during the fireworks season. We will continue to work collaboratively with animal welfare organisations, alongside other charities, to ensure that the messaging reaches the public.

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the Minister for giving way when time is moving on. It is really good to hear about that campaign, but it would be good to get a commitment to publish any analysis of how it went. If the campaign has not worked, perhaps we need to go even further next year.

[Justin Madders]

This is the first time in several years that the campaign has taken place. Hopefully there will be a baseline of evidence that we can look to. I will commit to write to my hon. Friend to see what we can elicit from officials in that respect.

As I say, UK fireworks retailers support the voluntary fireworks code, which contains advice on safety and considerate use. Many lower-noise firework products—those around 90 dB or below—are already on the market, with consumers recognising that as an option. I hope that market continues to grow. Intelligence has been shared that shows that some considerate supermarket retailers are now stocking lower-noise fireworks, and some refuse to stock fireworks altogether. Testing commissioned by the Office for Product Safety and Standards found that consumer firework products have a very high compliance with the 120 dB limit set out in law, so the issue is not with the products but with where the law sets the limit.

Many Members raised concerns about the noise and disruption that fireworks cause, but acknowledged that displays have a contribution to make to community groups up and down the country as they often raise money for good causes. In 2019, the Petitions Committee noted that point and stated that

“these community displays have widespread local support and increase community cohesion.”

It also noted that a ban on fireworks could have unintended consequences, such as a “substantial economic effect” on the industry and the risk of a black market, which the National Fire Chiefs Council and the National Police Chiefs’ Council raised in their evidence to the inquiry. There is a lot to consider, but we recognise the strength of feeling about fireworks and their negative impact on some groups in society. I also recognise the need for effective regulation in this area.

We must recognise the place of fireworks in cultural and community celebrations and consider carefully any unintended consequences. I acknowledge that, as has been said, there is a paucity of evidence about the effectiveness of the current regulations. I am committed to engaging with all stakeholders, including businesses, consumer groups and charities, to understand the issues and inform any future decisions in this policy area. The safety of the public and the impact on people and animals will be paramount in those considerations. I hope this dialogue will continue.

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.)