Terms and Conditions of Employment

Debate between Justin Madders and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and will address their specific points. As we have discussed this issue before in separate venues, I fully understand that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), does not feel that this order goes far enough. It is interesting to consider the briefings that came from recent discussions in the Labour party about its new plans for the workplace. There was a briefing that the party accepted some situations where dismissal and re-engagement may be needed. That may be a vicious rumour, but it seems to me that those on the Labour Front Bench decide their policy on the basis of whom they have talked to last—whether that is a business, employers or employee representatives.

[Justin Madders]

We remain committed to banning fire and rehire, but if the Minister wants to debate our policies properly, let us have a general election and see what the public think.

Draft Code of Practice on Dismissal and Re-Engagement

Debate between Justin Madders and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 15th April 2024 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir Graham.

I thank the Minister for his introduction of the code of practice. It has taken more than two years, but we are finally here debating the action promised by the Government on dismissal and re-engagement. When the Government committed to introducing this code, there was a moment of consensus across the political spectrum that the situation we saw with P&O Ferries, which summarily sacked almost 800 workers over Zoom, could not happen again. The Business Secretary at the time, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), said that

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

Well, I am sorry to say that those legal loopholes remain as open today as they did two years ago, and there is absolutely nothing to stop the outrage of P&O happening again. Why do I say that? It is there in black and white in paragraph 12.3 of the explanatory memorandum to the code of practice, which says that

“the Code does not impose any new legal obligations and operates within the current legal framework”.

That, in the final analysis, is why this code of practice is such a let-down—another promise broken, another capitulation to the bad bosses and another reason why it is time for change.

It has taken two years to get to this point. In those two years, P&O has still been benefiting from Government contracts, and all the while, fire and rehire continues to pollute the country’s industrial relations landscape. While the P&O Ferries case was not wholly a fire and rehire situation, I will return to it later, because it bore many hallmarks of the practice and exposed the gaps in our laws designed to protect workers, where employers with deep enough pockets could use fire and rehire to disregard our laws.

In the wake of the pandemic, there has been a jump in the number of employers using fire and rehire. Research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that between 2021 and 2023, the proportion of firms using fire and rehire had almost doubled. Many well-regarded household names attempted to do so, including Tesco, Clarks and British Airways. What was once a seldom-used device has become a mainstream practice and part of a wider pattern of growing insecurity at work. In short, it has become a first choice rather than a last resort.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman raises P&O, which I must point out is specifically not a case of fire and rehire. What is the Labour party proposing to stop another P&O situation happening in future?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the Minister for his intervention, but we have been down this road before where he keeps asking what Labour’s policies are. My answer is, “Call a general election and we’ll have a debate about these things.”

[Kevin Hollinrake]

So you don’t know the plan.

[Justin Madders]

The Minister knows perfectly well where our policies can be found. The new deal for working people has been well advertised and well covered in the press. As he knows, there is a lot of support for our proposals to end fire and rehire.

As a TUC investigation recently found out, around 38,000 employers were using fire and rehire as a tactic. In that context, we need to scrutinise the draft code of practice and consider whether it will end the commonplace use of those tactics. I am afraid that, despite having had two years to get this right, we are no closer to ending the scourge of fire and rehire. The code of practice is vague, it is weak and in its final analysis, it will not prevent another case as egregious as P&O. On that basis, the Government have failed to keep the promise they made two years ago.

Let us take the element that many people found most offensive about P&O: the fact that at the outset, its management were able to look at the sanctions that they were potentially liable for and decide whether they wanted to break the law. The cost of breaking the law was considered as just another business overhead to be factored in when making decisions and, as we saw, P&O decided that the sanctions were not a strong enough deterrent to prevent rule breaking.

It is welcome that the code of practice gives an indication to unscrupulous employers that they cannot get away scot-free with breaking the law. However, we have concerns that the 25% uplift on awards at tribunals for employers who have been found to have unreasonably failed to comply with the code will not be strong enough to deter bad employers.

First, we have concerns about the inclusion of an award cap in the code of practice. As I have mentioned, it was particularly concerning that P&O was able to look at the options and perform a cost-benefit analysis of whether to conform with the law. It knew the maximum penalty it would face in compensation for each employee, which it then priced into its decision. In effect, it was able to treat the law on compensation—a law that is in place to protect workers’ jobs and their dignity—as optional. What the code of practice means, in effect, is that breaking the law remains an option, though it is now slightly more expensive than it used to be.

Laws are only as strong as their enforcement, so we believe that sanctions should reflect the egregiousness of the transgression. If an employer decides to break the law, their sanction should not be capped but should instead be decided on the basis of the facts. That way, any employer tempted to brazenly flout their legal requirements would no longer be able to calculate the costs of doing so, because in the most serious cases that cost would not be knowable and they would have to take their chances in court. Smaller transgressions would be treated by a tribunal. As it stands, the most egregious cases still have a ceiling, which means that those who act with ill intent can still price in the cost of acting unlawfully.

The code of practice therefore retains the status quo, whereby an employer can look at the maximum fixed penalty associated with breaking the law and, in effect, choose whether they will abide by it. It is workers who suffer the consequences. Some bad employers might see consultation requirements as burdensome, but there is a reason why the law requires consultation.

The consultation process is a vital opportunity for the voices of workers and their representatives to be heard, and for alternative proposals to be put forward to save jobs and protect conditions. When consultation works best and is meaningful, it can benefit employers and employees. There are, thankfully, many good employers who understand that and work collaboratively with trade unions. We commend those employers, and we know that they already go above and beyond their legal requirements. However, this code of practice needs to be set in a robust framework for bad employers, who sadly are out there. Frankly, there is no evidence that the 25% uplift will act as a deterrent.

I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that, because I do not know how he can confidently assert that a 25% uplift will actually prove to be a deterrent. In response to my written question about the use of compensatory uplifts by employment tribunals, he said:

“Data on the use of compensatory uplifts by Employment Tribunals is not collected.”

That means that the Government do not know how much the compensatory uplift is used in other areas of employment law where there is a similar code of practice. That gives rise to the question: on what basis has it been decided that this measure is effective in preventing employers from failing to follow the code of practice? Does the Minister have evidence of its effectiveness that he can share with us today?

It is also worth reminding Members that this deterrent will not come into force straightaway. As the Minister indicated, secondary legislation is required to amend section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. He said that that will be introduced this summer. Will he confirm whether that means before the recess or at a later date over the summer? It would be useful to get a date for the introduction of that secondary legislation.

It must also be pointed out that under the current drafting of the code, the sanctions can be awarded only if an employee has been found to have been unfairly dismissed. We know how easy it is for an employer to dismiss a worker in the modern economy. Of course, generally speaking, those with less than two years of continuous service cannot be considered to be unfairly dismissed. Some may sign settlement agreements that offer them their statutory entitlement, but a hard-nosed employer may say, “Well, if you want to argue for an extra 25%, take your chances at a tribunal,” where the cost to the employee might be more than the potential sum to be gained.

On top of that, the code of practice protects only “employees”, meaning that some of the most insecure workers in the labour market will not benefit one jot. To add icing to the cake, or salt to the wound, the Government intend to reintroduce employment tribunal fees, which we know from experience have a significant impact on people’s ability to enforce their rights. Will the Minister provide an assessment of how many people will benefit from this code of practice, and how many employers he believes will not use fire and rehire as a result of it?

Paragraph 14 of the code refers to a 25% reduction in compensation where the employee—not the employer —unreasonably fails to comply. Is it the Government’s intention to give tribunals the power to reduce employees’ compensation in fire and rehire cases, and if so, what element of the P&O case led the Minister to conclude that that was necessary? As the TUC pointed out, the uplift does not cover redundancy situations. As we know, P&O was in part a redundancy situation, where surely the same sanctions should apply. Will the code apply where workers are replaced with agency staff?

Turning to the substance of the guidance, I have made the general point that, as is clear from the explanatory memorandum, the code creates no new legal obligations. That is sadly reflected in the number of times that the code says that an employer “should” rather than “must” do something. I will not list every example—I appreciate that people have other places to be—but there are some important instances where “should” comes in, such as paragraph 16, which says that the employer “should” consult in good faith. Paragraph 23 says that

“the employer should consider what information could be provided about…the proposed changes”.

Paragraph 28 says that the employer

“should genuinely consider the points that are put forward”,

and paragraph 31 says that

“a threat of dismissal should not be used as a negotiating tactic”.

On the last of those, why not say that the threat of fire and rehire “must” not be used as a negotiating tactic? I am pretty clear that that is what Ministers had in mind when they made those promises two years ago. Why is it a requirement only that an employer “should” consult in good faith? Surely we want every employer to consult in good faith; there should be a legal requirement for them to do so.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There should be.

[Justin Madders]

Employers should do, yes—and that should be enforced in law.

There is a similar issue with the guidance offered in the code on the provision of information and how to conduct consultation with workers. Instead of clearly and unambiguously stating what information employers ought to provide, the code relies on the phrase “as reasonably possible” on numerous occasions. Instead of providing concrete guidance on the timeline of providing information, paragraph 21, for example, simply states:

“Information should be provided as early as reasonably possible.”

Similarly, paragraph 22 states that

“employers should share as much information regarding the proposals as reasonably possible”

in order for employees and their representatives to understand the plans and ask questions. Section D on consultation states that an employer should

“genuinely consider any reasonable alternative proposals”

and should

“consult for as long as reasonably possible in good faith, with a view to reaching an agreed outcome”.

Those statements are not really anything other than restatements of the existing legal principles on consultation, and the repeated references to “should” rather than “must” mean that in reality, the code does not strengthen protection for workers at all.

Insomuch as there is concrete guidance about the provision of information, I suggest that it is insufficient. Paragraph 23 lists the information that could be provided, such as the proposed changes, who will be affected, the business reasons for the changes, the timeframe, any other options considered, and next steps, but those are not the only pieces of information that unions or other representatives will require to propose truly viable alternatives to fire and rehire. It is unclear why the Government have chosen not to be more prescriptive with the types of documentation that could be provided. The TUC recommended that the list be expanded to include information similar to that set out in paragraph 11 of the ACAS code of practice on the disclosure of information to trade unions for collective bargaining purposes. That would mean that unions and other representatives could get sight of more information about a number of elements relating to staff, including productivity and efficiency data.

Perhaps most importantly, financial information would also be available—cost structures, profits, assets, liabilities and forecasts—which would help to formulate a credible alternative plan. In particular, financial information would help those representing the workforce to determine whether the financial position of the company was such that some sort of action was justified, as opposed to the situation that we often see in fire and rehire, where the company is making a healthy profit on the face of it but refers to vague and sometimes intangible reasons for the proposed changes. It may even refer to something as vague as

“the strategic direction of the business”,

which is mentioned in the first paragraph of the code of practice.

Choosing not to include that level of prescription in the code will limit the ability of unions and other representatives to suggest ways to avoid fire and rehire. Indeed, what we are presented with in the code of practice is perhaps the exact opposite of what ought to be best practice.

In particular, paragraph 27 of the code gives employers the opportunity to withhold information should they believe it to be commercially sensitive. The employer alone decides what to disclose, so they can hide behind that catch-all paragraph to keep whatever they want private. Yet the sharing of confidential and commercially sensitive information is commonplace in good industrial relations, and it can be the basis of a shared conversation to find a solution, particularly in cases of fire and rehire, when access to documents such as financial forecasts is critical to unions being able to assess the firm’s position and suggest viable alternatives. Instead of encouraging employers to withhold such information, as the code of practice does, it should suggest ways to facilitate the sharing of sensitive information. The code could easily have talked about circumstances in which it would be appropriate to disclose such information to the appropriate reps, perhaps on the condition of confidentiality, but it chooses not to.

Another glaring omission is the lack of clear and concrete guidance as to how to conduct an effective consultation process. There are comments that remind employers to conduct a meaningful negotiation and process, but no guidance on how to actually go about it. In its consultation response last year, the TUC suggested that the relevant section should include practical guidance about how to go about conducting an effective process. It recommended that there should be guidance on the exchange of written information, including responses to demonstrate that employers have actively considered alternative proposals. Those are the standards that we want to see in a good and effective consultation process. Of course, most employers want to do their best, so why shy away from providing that level of detail?

Instead of paying lip service to the idea of conducting a meaningful consultation, more practical guidance could drive up standards and ultimately improve the outcome of the consultation process. That is far beyond what is included in the code of practice. In fact, paragraph 25 states that the provision of information in writing is not even an obligation, but just “good practice”. Are the Government really saying that the information in consultation exercises does not have to be provided in writing? That sums up the failings evident in the section of the code of practice that deals with information and consultation. It is vague, it is weak and it does not encourage employers to make the most of the opportunities to avoid imposing changes on their workforce.

I want to say a few words about the advice in the code of practice that fire and rehire should be used only as a last resort. The code of practice is clear that it does not mean a last resort in the sense that there is no alternative to the action other than insolvency or redundancies, for example; rather, the suggestion is that it can be used as a last resort if negotiations are not successful. In practice, that means that employers can, as they do now, use the most spurious of reasons for proposing fire and rehire, but as long as they can show that they have attempted some consultation, they can still do it.

That brings me to the question of what an employer will be expected to produce to show that it considers its decision to fire and rehire as a last-resort measure when consulting unions and, indeed, when the matter is taken to a tribunal. Will that include anything to do with the disclosure of financial records, business forecasts or accountancy advice? In the absence of such information, how will unions be able to differentiate between employers considering dismissal and re-engagement as a genuine last resort and those that use it as a scare tactic? These fundamental points should have been addressed in the code of practice.

The original code of practice contained a whole paragraph that stated that, before making the decision to dismiss workers,

“the employer should take some time to reassess its analysis and consider carefully again”.

It listed conditions such as whether it was “truly necessary” to impose the new terms, whether any

“alternative options…could achieve those same objectives”,

and whether the changes would impact those with protected characteristics. In other words, it set out a much more thorough process than we have ended up with in the final version of the code of practice.

The removal of those requirements can be seen only as a capitulation to the interests of bad employers who disliked the idea of having to re-examine their business case to make sure that the imposition of changes was absolutely necessary. The consultation response notes:

“Some respondents indicated that re-examination would be overly burdensome for employers, suggesting a lighter-touch approach with employers reviewing only specific proposals, rather than their entire business strategy.”

I do not think that language sends out the message that fire and rehire is a last resort. It would be helpful if the Minister took the opportunity to explain why the decision was taken to water down the requirements in the original draft code of practice.

It seems clear to me that the changes reflect more of an intent to reduce concerns about the code being burdensome on business than an intent to protect workers from having new terms and conditions imposed on them. I suggest that those are not the actions of a Government intent on curbing the use of fire and rehire. We were clear that the original draft would fail to do so, but now that the draft has been further watered down it seems even more ill-equipped to deal with the scourge of fire and rehire.

Finally, the Minister will be aware that the P&O case led to a report and recommendations by the International Labour Organisation’s committee on freedom of association. That report came out at the end of last year. Can the Minister update us on what actions the Government have taken in response, and whether they intend to implement all the ILO’s recommendations?

What we have before us is a code of practice that fails to deal with the fundamental reason for its creation, which is to stop another case as egregious as that of P&O. It has taken two years to get to this point, yet we are no closer to the protections that workers in this country deserve. The code of practice represents a missed opportunity to right the very real wrongs that we have seen up and down this country for far too long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

What that business leader did was disgraceful. We impose criminal sanctions on employers very cautiously because we want people to invest in our economy. That is hugely important. We make changes in employment law at our peril. It needs to be balanced between the needs of employers and employees.

[Justin Madders]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Perhaps the shadow Minister will answer this question as part of his intervention. In The Telegraph, Archie Norman, one of the foremost business people in this country, who has done tremendous work in making sure that people have good employment opportunities, described Labour’s potential package in the area of employment law and the changes the party intends to make. He said that the changes would reduce flexibility, make it more costly to hire people, deter people from entering the workplace and deter investment. Perhaps the shadow Minister will address Archie Norman’s criticisms when he intervenes.

[Justin Madders]

I could, but I fear that Sir Graham might say I am out of order. It comes as no surprise that a former Conservative MP would want to prevent the extension and strengthening of workers’ rights. The Minister said that there is no room for criminal law, but is it not the case that his Government referred the matter of P&O Ferries to the Insolvency Service for potential criminal proceedings?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, corporate criminal proceedings, not individual criminal proceedings. I think that what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North refers to is individual criminal sanctions, which would be disproportionate. If the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston thinks that a Conservative politician is only on the side of the employer, I do not think he has met Archie Norman. Perhaps he might benefit from a meeting with him. He is a very considerate employer who understands the need to treat employees right as well as make sure the framework is right for business in this country.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston asked why the 25% uplift would prove a sufficient deterrent. Clearly, it is a deterrent, because it is more than an employer would have to pay if they go through the simple process of consulting their workforce. I might describe it as bleeding obvious. The actual impact remains to be seen, but we certainly think it is a significant deterrent. The hon. Gentleman asked whether it will be implemented before, within or after the summer recess; we are intending to do so before the summer recess.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston also asked about these provisions applying only to employees with two years’ service. He is right to say that generally, unfair dismissal rights are around only after the first two years, unless there is something like discrimination, for example. I know the Opposition are seeking to change this in their proposals, which we think is disproportionate and wrong. In a collective situation, however, there are circumstances where people who have been in the workplace for less than two years are covered.

On the point about “should” and “must”, we are dealing here with provisions that will be heard before a court. A court can make the judgment, of course, on whether somebody has done the right thing. I think “should” is the right kind of phrase to use in that situation, because a judgment is made and the tribunal can award up to 25% on top of the normal financial requirements if an employer unreasonably fails to comply with the code. That joins the circle, in terms of making sure that this code is effective when people go before a tribunal.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the ILO. We are carefully considering the committee on freedom of association’s recommendations, and will provide information to the ILO in due course.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about some of the changes and said that they have been watered down, but that is not the case at all. We did make changes following consultation, and did some reordering to make it more straightforward, which was based on feedback we received. We also made changes suggested by trade unions, including saying that employers have to speak to ACAS before raising fire and rehire, and adding the award to claims that can attract 25% uplift for non-compliance.

[Justin Madders]

In the Government response to the consultation, there are some lovely pie charts showing the responses.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Thank you.

[Justin Madders]

I am glad the Minister has been looking at the artwork. A large proportion of responses —sometimes as high as 40%—to the question, “Do you agree?” are categorised as “unspecified”. Is the Minister able to explain what that covers?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Not off the top of my head, but I am happy to confirm it via separate means.

The hon. Gentleman also said that the code should be more detailed in specifying exactly how a consultation might take place. We think that would be the wrong approach, and that the employer is the right person to determine that, in terms of how he or she consults members of their team. We did not want to get a very lengthy code that would naturally result in being too specific about exactly how that consultation should take place. I think I have covered all the points raised by the hon. Gentleman; he can intervene on me if I have missed anything.

[Justin Madders]

I have just one small point. The code of practice referred to compensation being reduced by 25% for employees not compliant with the code. Is the Minister able to confirm whether it is the intention for that to apply in this case?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman’s question. Perhaps we can have a discussion about that afterwards.

To conclude, we are taking robust and appropriate action in this area. We believe that a statutory code of practice is a proportionate response to dealing with controversial fire and rehire practices. The code will address the practice of fire and rehire, aiming to ensure it is only ever used as a last resort, and that employees are properly consulted and treated fairly. It clarifies and gives legal force to accepted standards about how employers should behave when seeking to change employees’ terms and conditions. Employment tribunals will have the power to apply an uplift of up to 25% of an employee’s compensation if an employer unreasonably fails to comply with the code where it applies. Subject to approval by this House, the code will be in force later this summer, prior to recess, and I hope Members will support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice on Dismissal and Re-Engagement.

Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024

Debate between Justin Madders and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 18th March 2024 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Hosie. I thank the Minister for outlining the changes these regulations make to implement the new rates of minimum wage, as recommended by the Low Pay Commission, to which I also pay tribute for its sterling work. I will refer to some of the findings from its annual report during my contribution.

I also—he should really steel himself, because I do not do this often—congratulate the Minister on delivering the promise to match the minimum hourly rate to two-thirds of median wages. I think that has been eight years in the offing, but we have got there. In achieving this figure, the Low Pay Commission recommended a rise that represents the largest increase in cash terms since the introduction of the minimum wage. That is clearly welcome news for those working in minimum wage jobs, as is the extension of the entitlement to all those over the age of 21. It represents a 9.8% increase for those older than 21, with the hourly rate of the main rate—the so-called national living wage—now at £11.44 an hour. That equates to an annual increase of just over £1,800 for someone working a 35-hour week, and clearly we in the Opposition welcome that.

While I understand the Government are keen to celebrate this year’s levels, I would caution them not to be too overconfident, because anyone who has taken the time to study the Low Pay Commission’s report will see that much more needs to be done before work in this country pays in the way that it should. There are clear warning signs in the report about the persistence of insecure work and in-work poverty.

No one here will need reminding that the rates of inflation we have had to endure in recent years have thrown workers—and, indeed, everyone in this country—into a cost of living crisis. Inflation rates peaked at 11.1% in October 2022 and have been hovering around 4% and 5% even now. Between April 2021 and April 2022, household bills doubled, and the price of essential goods and services increased at a magnitude not experienced since the 1970s and 1980s. The Low Pay Commission report notes that energy, food and transport costs were at the “highest rates recorded” since the CPI series began, way back in 1989. Even in September last year, when inflation was beginning to come down, energy prices were still increasing by 5% and food inflation was 12.2%.

Last year I raised concerns that, in the face of such high levels of inflation, the minimum wage uplifts were not large enough to prevent a real-terms cut to the rate. That has been confirmed by the Low Pay Commission report, which states that the past two years’ increases in the minimum wage have in fact represented a cut in real terms due to inflation. I am pleased that the commission is confident that today’s increases will restore the value of the minimum wage in real terms, but I am also aware that the increases do not undo the previous two years, when pay did not keep up with the cost of living and hardship has endured as a result.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I said, the national living wage has outstripped inflation twofold during the period since its implementation. At one point in time, the Opposition talked about a national living wage of £15 an hour. Is that still the hon. Gentleman’s policy? Is that his personal policy or the Opposition’s policy?

[Justin Madders]

That very interesting question is some way outside the remit of the regulations. Of course, if the Minister wants to talk about what our policies will be, he should advise the Prime Minister to call a general election—but perhaps we are not quite there.

My question for the Minister is about the inflationary spikes of the last couple of years. What mechanisms are being looked at to ensure that the minimum wage increases at a rate that reflects those in real time? The evidence gathered by the Low Pay Commission on how workers have been affected is truly sobering. In Belfast, the commission found that supermarkets had introduced payday pantries, which provide food for workers in the run-up to payday. A care worker in Manchester told the commission,

“Most of my colleagues are using food banks.”,

and stated that that was not a new, post-pandemic problem. Such examples chime with responses in trade union surveys. In autumn 2022, Unison found that 17% of respondents had skipped meals and that 20% had asked for a loan from family or friends. In May 2023, USDAW found that 46% of its members surveyed were worried about food bills, 15% had turned to food banks and 42% had missed meals in the last year to pay for bills. If anything, the situation has been getting worse. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s yearly poverty report states that the proportion of households in poverty with at least one working adult increased from 61% in 2021 to 64% in 2022. The poverty rate across the country as a whole is now more than one in five, and poverty has not fallen for 20 years.

It is worth saying a few words about why, despite the Minister’s comments, minimum wage increase have not eradicated in-work poverty, which is what we would like to see. Of course, I commend the Government for reaching their 2016 pledge to increase the minimum wage to 60% of median wages by 2020 and to two thirds of median wages by this year. Indeed, the impact has been that the number of employees on low hourly pay has fallen consistently; the fall since 2015 is estimated to have been about 20%.

However, the graph on page 62 of the Low Pay Commission report reveals that on two issues we still have an awful long way to go. It is hard not to be struck by the large disparity between men and women in terms of low pay—a point I shall return to—and the persistence of low weekly pay as opposed to low hourly pay. That instructive graph shows that increasing the minimum wage floor is only one of the tools needed to tackle problems in the labour market, and that it has largely left unaffected the issue of low pay for those on weekly earnings. There is clearly an issue about the number of hours people are working.

The Low Pay Commission annual report highlights the wide gap between men and women. Consistently since 2011, roughly 15% of men in employee jobs have been on low weekly pay, despite the increases in the minimum wage. The percentage of women on low weekly pay is double that of men, at roughly one in three. That has fallen gently since 2011, when the rate was around 41%, but that large disparity is still there. Will the Minister say whether there are any plans to deal with that gender pay gap and the question of hours worked?

To adequately address the problems in our labour market, we have to consider not only the number of hours but the quality and insecurity of work. Citizens UK has estimated that there are 6.1 million workers currently trapped in insecure forms of work, 3.4 million of whom are on low pay. That amounts to 19% and 11% of the total workforce respectively on low pay. Low pay is not an inherent condition for those in insecure work, however; those on low pay are around five times more likely to be in insecure jobs.

It is noted in the Low Pay Commission’s report that those insecurely employed struggle to get adequate hours, still receive late shift notices and are on zero-hours contracts. Respondents noted that workers in sectors such as hospitality had to take on multiple jobs to obtain full-time hours, which brings the challenge of having to juggle their availability in order to be accessible for both.

In its fieldwork, the Low Pay Commission found that workers continue to struggle to get contracts that reflect their actual hours worked. It was also noted that employers are still allocating shifts with as little as a day’s or just a few days’ notice, with some workers interviewed even stating that they had had shifts cancelled on the day they were meant to be in work. That is clearly a problem that is not going away. I ask the Minister this: how is someone supposed to plan for the future when they do not know how many hours they will work from week to week or month to month? What can a worker do if they are told they are surplus to requirements on a particular day when they might have already paid out for childcare or transport costs? Such practices erode the gains that we have made on the minimum wage.

As I say, I will not be entirely negative—the Minister would not expect me to be so. Positive steps have been made this year. We particularly welcome the removal of the 21 to 22-year-old age category. That measure was found to have broad support among those contacted by the Low Pay Commission. But as I mentioned last year, we are sad to see the Government continuing to support age discriminatory bands for those over the age of 18. Why should someone’s age determine their pay? A young adult is unable to go to their landlord and demand lower rent or to tell the cashier at the supermarket that they should have a discount because they are under the age of 21. Their bills are no cheaper than anyone else’s, yet for some reason we expect young people to make ends meet on lower pay.

That is accentuated by the fact that the rates have grown more slowly for younger workers. The gap between the main rate and the 18 to 20-year-old rate has grown massively since the Conservative party came to power in 2010. The Low Pay Commission report shows how the 18 to 20-year-old rate hovered around 85% of the value of the adult rate throughout Labour’s time in office. It then fell to below 80% between 2011 and 2013 and has continued to fall since 2015.

The minimum wage rate now for those aged 18 to 20 is just over 70% of the adult rate—around 15% lower than it was under the Labour party, rubbing salt into an already unjust situation. I appreciate that the Minister has referred to an above-rate increase for 18 to 20-year-olds this year, but is that part of a concerted plan and strategy to bring back the differential that existed under the Labour Government?

Eligibility is only half the battle. Unfortunately, entitlement to a minimum wage does not translate directly into securing that rate of pay. Enforcement is key and the right to be paid a minimum wage remains an important part of the enforcement universe. Questions, therefore, ought to be asked about the effectiveness of enforcement, as too many workers still report being underpaid.

Data from the annual survey of hours and earnings shows that, despite the total number of people reporting being paid less than the minimum wage having fallen since 2019, last year 365,000 workers were still being underpaid by their employer. As a share of the minimum wage coverage, that has increased since 2019, at a rate of 23.4%. That means that of those who earn on or around the minimum wage, around a quarter of them are not actually receiving it. That is certainly something that we need to see more action on.

From what we have seen from the Low Pay Commission’s report, workers in certain sectors are impacted more than others. I spoke last year in the same debate about the impact in the social care sector and raised the findings that Unison had shared with me about the exploitation of domiciliary care workers. I mentioned then that 73% of those workers were being underpaid. They were not being paid for the travelling time. I also stated that record keeping by employers was found to be way below the standards expected and that the complexities of those pay calculations made it incredibly difficult for employees to establish whether they had in fact been underpaid.

It was therefore pleasing to see that the Low Pay Commission had dedicated some space in its annual report this year to discussing those issues. It noted that the amount of arrears that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs recovered for non-payment of the minimum wage

“pales into insignificance when compared to the average amount of arrears that Unison secures”

for social care workers—well done to the trade union Unison, but should it not be HMRC’s job to recover arrears and ensure the minimum wage is paid properly in the first place? Is it the case that HMRC is unable to properly decipher the records, or is it going lightly on social care employers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

On the Minister’s point about how the minimum wage has increased over the past eight years, why is it still the case that so many people are in in-work poverty? How many people have actually made that request for predictable hours under the legislation?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There has been a significant decrease in the number of people in absolute poverty—millions of people since 2010 and 400,000 fewer children in absolute poverty, which we all welcome. As I said before, in pushing the national living wage as high as we have done, we are putting burdens on businesses. We want to ensure that we strike a balance, and that is our concern with this. We always take into account the concerns of employers as well as workers.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that part of the rationale behind the national living wage is to ensure that wages that employers pay are not being subsidised. The total cost of the welfare system is around £303 billion, some of which is a result of the issue he raised. To me, that is wrong and that is one of the reasons why we would like to see the national living wage increased. Nevertheless, we do not want to see that at the detriment of jobs in our economy.

There is still a balance to be struck on making sure people have the opportunity for predictable hours. That is covered in the legislation we have introduced. I understand that the policy of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is that anybody who has been in work for 12 weeks and is on a contract can request those hours in terms of as a permanent position. I think that is the policy that the Opposition are going to introduce. It will be interesting to see what impact that will have on employers, particularly employers of seasonal workers.

There is a balance to be struck between business and workers. I point out that there are 4.2 million more jobs in our economy than there were in 2010. That is a huge success story. There are 1.2 million fewer people unemployed and looking for work. That is a huge achievement. Some of the policies that Labour always tend to bring forward end up costing jobs. Every single time we have had a Labour Government, unemployment is higher at the end of their term than it was at the start.

[Justin Madders]

Is the Minister aware that an election is about to be called, because he has spent the last couple of minutes talking about Labour policies rather than the statutory instrument? If he is so convinced that our policies are bad, why won’t he let the public decide?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am purely responding to the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, to try to make him understand there is a balance to be struck in the economy between jobs and pay. That is the balance we are trying to strike.

The hon. Gentleman and the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, made points about enforcement, which we take very seriously. We have doubled the compliance budget between 2015-16 and today to £27.8 million. We have ordered employers to reimburse £100 million to 1 million workers. We take this very seriously.

The naming and shaming scheme was suspended during covid. I understood why, but I was very keen to reintroduce it. It is the principal deterrent. I reassure the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and other members of the Committee that, whenever we are about to do a naming round, we write to all the employers and tell them that they are going to be named. We get a lot of push-back, and we push right back again. There is no excuse for not paying the minimum wage. We have named a total of 3,200 businesses since 2013, including more than 500 just last month.

The hon. Gentleman raised the point about the vacancy in the Low Pay Commission. We are actively seeking candidates for that; if anybody is out there listening, I am very happy for them to come forward. I am very confident that new chair Baroness Stroud will do a fantastic job.

The SNP spokesman said that he wants a higher living wage, which I completely understand. He is very willing to nail his colours to the mast, unlike the Opposition, about where he thinks that should be, but I gently push back to him as well on the balance we need to strike here. The hospitality sector in Scotland is struggling as well as ours, and others are too. We must make sure we get that balance right. I have to say that in Scotland the failure rate in hospitality is even worse, being 30% higher than it is in England. That is partly down to the fact that Scotland has not passed on the rates money for those hospitality businesses, as has been done in England. The average pub in Scotland is £15,000 a year worse off because of that policy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justin Madders and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 7th March 2024 Commons Chamber

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) is right that too many employers still think they can opt out of paying the minimum wage. Earlier this week, the Low Pay Commission published its 2023 report, which said that non-compliance “appears persistent” in the social care sector. I have heard a range of evidence citing problems with record keeping, exploitation of migrant workers, and workers routinely not being paid for travel time.

It is clear that the social care sector has a real issue with the minimum wage but, when browsing through the latest naming and shaming list published by the Department a couple of week ago, I found only 17 employers classed as being within the social care sector, which is less than 0.1% of the total number of employers in the sector. What will the Minister do to ensure that everyone working in the social care sector gets at least the minimum wage?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue, on which we do much. For example, we make sure that people can anonymously report the underpayment of the national living wage through either His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or ACAS. It is really important that we do that. We have labour market enforcement undertakings and orders, and we provide the tools for serious cases. As of April 2022, 40 employers were on labour market enforcement undertakings and 18 employers have been prosecuted. The message should be loud and clear to employers that if they do not comply with the law, we will take action.

Draft Carer's Leave Regulations 2024 Draft Maternity Leave, Adoption Leave and Shared Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Debate between Justin Madders and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 21st February 2024 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Minister for his introduction. We will not be opposing the regulations today, although that is not to say that I do not have a few questions and comments—I know the Minister would have been disappointed if I did not have anything to say. Let me start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for North East Fife and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for their work on the private Members’ Bills that led to these regulations.

As the Minister highlighted, the draft carer’s leave regulations will provide employees from day one—we in the Opposition certainly like day-one rights—the right to a maximum of one week’s leave per year to care for a loved one, without any requirement to provide evidence. As we know, the entitlement can be taken in chunks as small as half a day or as one week’s continuous leave, and it cannot be refused by an employer, nor can an employee be detrimentally treated as a result of taking such leave, in common with many other protections in employment law.

Campaigners have pushed for many years for the right to statutory care leave, but until now there has been no such right. We know that there is a whole range of reasons why carers might need to take time out; the regulations will hopefully allow them to provide assistance with a doctor’s appointment or recovery after surgery, for example. The regulations are undoubtedly a step forward, and they should make a difference to those with caring responsibilities who are in paid work.

As we heard, the number of people potentially affected by the regulations is not insignificant. There are millions of people who are both in work and responsible for caring. Carers UK found that before the pandemic almost 5 million people were juggling work and caring, and that increased to 7 million during the pandemic. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development estimates that the figure is closer to 3.7 million people, while the impact assessment published alongside the regulations states that the total number of carers—not just those who are in work—stands at 4.2 million. There are, therefore, several different estimates of the number of people who will be impacted by the regulations, and I will return to that briefly later on, but whatever figure we choose, it represents a substantial proportion of the total population, let alone of the number of people actually in work. Given that, at the latest count, there were about 33 million people in work, around 11% to 15% of the overall workforce may benefit from the regulations.

There is a large amount of evidence that good employers already have informal care leave practices in place, but of course many employees do not have that option and, unfortunately, often take caring leave in the form of annual leave or sick leave. That was uncovered during the Government’s 2020 consultation, which found that two thirds of carers had had to use annual leave to provide care for their dependants. In essence, until that point the issue was hidden: carers would use annual leave or find another way, by hook or by crook, to take the time out that they needed. We should make it very clear that annual leave is meant for rest and recuperation, not caring responsibilities.

A 2018 report by the Work and Pensions Committee summed up that unfortunate practice as “detrimental” to carers’

“own physical and mental well-being,”

and said that, in the long run, it would increase

“the risk of sickness, exhaustion and ‘burnout’.”

Those warnings appear to be accepted in the summary of the “do nothing” approach in the impact assessment published alongside the regulations, although I cannot help but point out to the Minister the irony of the Government’s being alive to the importance of a worker having the option and the ability to take annual leave in the context of caring, just a couple of months since the introduction of reforms to rolled-up holiday pay, which will have the opposite effect.

All hon. Members here will appreciate how taxing such caring efforts will be for workers, and many will, of course, have personal experience of such difficulties. Research published by the CIPD in 2021 found that almost one third of working carers provide at least 30 hours of caring per week, meaning that they are effectively undertaking another full-time job on top of their full-time caring responsibilities. Of those working full time, 28% provided at least 30 hours of care. Understandably, for many that can take a huge physical as well as psychological toll, not to mention the need to balance such personal challenges with the development of a career.

For many the situation can seem insurmountable, and people often reduce their working hours or give up work entirely. I hope the regulations stop that happening as much as it has been to date, but according to research 9% of the population have had to do that: the impact assessment notes that 5% have left the workplace altogether and a further 4% have had to cut their hours. Carers UK claims that this translates to 600 workers leaving the workplace per day. If that is correct, it is a staggering figure and clearly something that we should all want to do something about. It is clear that informal care needs can impact on one’s career, leaving many working people in a state of economic inactivity in order to provide care. When so much potential and experience is lost to the labour market, we need to address that; I hope the regulations will help in that respect.

It is important to note that the burdens do not fall on all sections of society equally. The impact assessment notes that the impact of caring while in work hits those aged 45 to 54 hardest—I declare an interest at this point as I am in that age group; I know it is hard to believe, but I am under 54—with more than a quarter of people reporting that it had taken a toll on their work. There is also a gender aspect to this, with women more likely than men to be responsible for caring. The family resources survey found that 9% of women, as opposed to 6% of men, are in this position. If we put the facts together, it is no surprise that women aged between 45 and 64 years old are most likely to be carers. As we know, with such added responsibilities they are more likely to be leaving the workforce, which exacerbates the existing gender pay gap.

All this shows that not only are many making a massive personal sacrifice, but there are societal consequences as well. The inequalities in terms of who is responsible should trouble us all, but there are also profound financial impacts. The impact assessment notes that the potential cost incurred to the Exchequer alone is around £2.9 billion per year. Analysis suggests that better carer’s leave policies could save businesses a cumulative £4.8 billion per year in unplanned absences, and a further £3.4 billion in improved employee retention. Clearly, those figures may need to be tested by experience, but it is clear that some businesses have caught on to the benefits of providing carer’s leave and introduced voluntary policies. Sadly, though, that applies only to a small proportion of businesses overall—Carers UK report that it is around 12% of existing employers.

It is an understatement to say that a very strong case for carer’s leave has been made for a number of years, but we do have concerns about some of the aspects of the regulations. Most significantly, the calls made during the passage of the Carer’s Leave Act for the Government to consider making such leave paid have fallen on deaf ears. It was not just the Opposition who called for paid leave; the Government’s own response to the consultation on the matter, which was published in September 2021, stated:

“There were strong calls from charities and individuals for this leave entitlement to be paid.”

Despite those strong calls, the space allocated to considering them in the consultation extended to just 162 words, in which the Government said they were “sympathetic” to the calls but judged that the impact on businesses would not be “proportionate”. There is no analysis to support that position, and no further evidence. I know that finances are tight, but we already know about the potential positive financial impact, so I would have expected some form of analysis in the impact assessment—which took a year to come out—of the costs and benefits of making the entitlement paid. The Government should at least have considered that as an option.

Why have the Government decided that it would be disproportionate to make the entitlement paid without offering any supporting evidence? Has the Minister looked at costings at any point? Indeed, has there been any consideration of that point at all? Given the evidence that there is an economic benefit, it is important that there is an explicit acknowledgment in the impact assessment that keeping the leave entitlement as unpaid will discourage some carers from taking up leave. The impact assessment says that

“as this is an unpaid leave entitlement some carers will be disincentivised to take the full entitlement of leave, as they do not want to lose more of their income. Existing survey evidence shows that one of the key reasons for not taking leave is because of affordability.”

Will the Minister explain why the Government have chosen a policy which, according to their own analysis, appears to limit the take-up?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman is implying that we should make the entitlement paid, which is a perfectly reasonable position. As he makes that assertion and that policy decision that the Labour party will presumably adopt, does he understand how much that decision will cost and where the money will come from?

[Justin Madders]

As the Minister knows, we will publish our proposals with costings when we get to the general election. However, as the Government have been considering the regulations, I want to know whether they have undertaken such an exercise. It appears they have not, and I think, given that there is apparently some financial benefit, that it is perfectly reasonable to ask why that question has not been addressed at all. I further point out that the impact assessment states that

“some employees may prefer to use their annual leave for caring responsibilities, as this is an unpaid entitlement and annual leave is paid at full-pay.”

That undermines the purpose that the regulations are trying to achieve, so I hope the Minister can address that in a little more detail when he responds.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a question about how many people will actually benefit. I quoted figures from Carers UK and the CIPD, which place the number of people in work who are carers at more than 5 million or at 3.7 million, respectively. The Government’s estimate of those who will benefit is substantially lower, at 1.9 million, according to page 13 of the impact assessment. That number is also alluded to in the explanatory memorandum, which states that the number of in-work carers is roughly half the total number of informal carers, which is 4.2 million. It would be useful to hear from the Minister why we have such discrepancies on the figures; after all, there are several million people between the Government’s and the CIPD’s estimates. One possibility is that many carers do not qualify for the assessment because they are not employees. I do not know whether that has been part of the issue.

I have some concerns about the mechanics of the entitlement and will ask the Minister to address those when he responds. The particular issue is the ability of an employer to postpone the leave for a period of up to one month. The regulations state that an employer is entitled to delay the take-up of leave if

“their business will be unduly disrupted if the employee took carer’s leave during the period identified in the notice”.

That appears rather open-ended. What constitutes a business being unduly disrupted? Will the Minister help us with that? Will there be guidance issued on that point, alongside the regulations, to clarify the circumstances in which it can be invoked?

It is also worth noting that if an employee provides less than one week’s notice, the leave could be postponed before the earliest day or part day requested in the employee’s notice. That means that there are asymmetrical notice requirements. Where an employee must provide adequate notice to proceed with their entitlement, the employer can seemingly postpone at a moment’s notice. We can all see why that that might not necessarily align with people’s caring responsibilities. Most of the time, the leave will be dependent on the care needs of the recipient, and it might not be possible to rearrange cover in such a fashion, so will the Minister accept that a balance must be struck between the needs of the carer and of the employer?

I suggest that the way the draft regulations are framed means that the employer could, if so minded, refuse a request for whatever reason they chose, as long as they use the wording of regulation 8(b). On the face of it, under the draft regulations, there is no mechanism to challenge an employer’s decision. On reasons to postpone carer’s leave rather than refuse it—it is supposed to be operational in a month—what explanations does the Minister expect a business to produce? What measures can the Government take to ensure that consent is not withheld unreasonably?

Before I move on to the second set of regulations, I will say that it is a little disappointing that we have had to wait such a long time for regulation. It is now not far off seven years since the Government promised to

“give workers a new statutory entitlement to carer’s leave, as enjoyed in other countries”,

in the 2017 Conservative general election manifesto. That was repeated in the 2019 manifesto, which stated that they would introduce the

“entitlement to leave for unpaid carers, the majority of whom are women, to one week.”

A promise to introduce the provisions as part of the now mythical employment Bill was made in the 2019 Queen’s Speech. A consultation was launched in March 2020, followed by a Government response a year later, but then we heard nothing more.

As we know, throughout the passage of the Carer’s Leave Bill there was no opposition to its principles and no amendments were made. I think it was universally accepted that it was a positive step forward, which poses the question of why we have had to wait seven years for this to be delivered. Why did we have to rely on a private Member’s Bill for it to come into law? Hundreds of thousands of workers could have benefited from the protections in the legislation had it been issued earlier. It is positive that we have finally got there, but it is reasonable to ask the Minister why it has taken us so long.

I now turn to the second set of regulations, the draft Maternity Leave, Adoption Leave, and Shared Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations. As the Minister stated, they are about the protections against being made redundant that are afforded to workers who take maternity, adoption or shared parental leave. The rights stem from the MAPL regulations of 1999 and similar provisions in the Paternity and Adoption Leave Regulations 2002 and the Shared Parental Leave Regulations 2014.

All the existing regulations state that if a worker’s job is being made redundant during their maternity, adoption or shared parental leave period, they are entitled to be offered alternative employment that is not substantially worse than their previous job. As the Minister said, the new regulations will expand the time during which those protections apply up to 18 months after the birth of the child. That will mean that a mother taking the full 12-month entitlement to maternity leave or a parent taking the full 12-month adoption leave will be protected for at least six months after their return to the workplace. For a parent taking shared parental leave, protections apply only if they take off at least six consecutive weeks of parental leave.

We absolutely support the Government on increasing protections and, as the Minister said, a range of evidence that has been available for a long time indicates that new mothers have been pushed out of jobs and discriminated against. The Minister referred to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s 2015 estimate of about 54,000 new mothers being forced out of their jobs, equating to about 11% of the women responding, who had

“been dismissed, made compulsorily redundant where others in their workplace were not, or treated so poorly they felt they had to leave their jobs”.

In 2020, a Pregnant Then Screwed a survey of almost 20,00 women also found a figure of about 11% of women on maternity leave who had been made redundant or expected to be made redundant. The Government recognised that position and made positive noises following a 2017 Women and Equalities Committee report, but did not launch a consultation on the issue until 2019. Again, a commitment to act was made in the 2019 Queen’s Speech, but here we are in 2024 before we finally have some regulations.

It must be stated that the second set of regulations will address only one element of the challenges that women and other parents face: that of being made redundant while pregnant. On page 7 of the impact assessment, it is estimated that the measure will likely cover about 7,500 people. Clearly, that is a not insignificant number of workers, and it is a welcome step that additional parents will have the protections, but that is only a small proportion of those who start a family each year, and it is certainly a drop in the ocean compared with the 11% figure in the surveys to which I have referred.

There is concern, then, that the regulations will not take us all the way to where we want to be in protecting women and new parents from discrimination during and after pregnancy. I think we can all agree that the surveys and the evidence show us that there is currently an unacceptable level of discrimination, but it is important to remember that that has all been happening under the current rules on maternity, adoptive and shared parental leave, so it is reasonable to ask this question. What do the Government think will happen, when the extension of the period comes into force, to actually ensure that all discrimination in the workplace is eliminated? We know that tens of thousands of women are already being forced out of their jobs, through reasons not associated with redundancy, during pregnancy or within six months of their return to work. I fear that the measure will not go far enough, so does the Minister have any thoughts or suggestions about what else could be done to reduce the very high numbers?

The regulations on which the statutory instrument builds are reliant on awareness by the employer of the rules and on the ability of the worker to enforce their rights. The impact assessment noted that 70% of employers reported a high level of awareness of female employees’ rights, but it also noted that deeply concerning biases were held by an unacceptably large proportion of employers. Reportedly, 70% of employers held the belief that women should declare a pregnancy during the recruitment stage, and 25% thought it was acceptable to ask a woman about their plans to have children when hiring. Those statistics are concerning and should be setting off alarm bells about the latent discrimination that still exists. I started work nearly 30 years ago and even then those sorts of questions were simply unacceptable, so the fact that the impact assessment reveals that that kind of prejudice is still alive is worrying to say the least.

The concern is reflected in the part of the impact assessment that raises concerns that the effectiveness of the regulations could be blunted through an employer’s adherence to them. I will draw to the Committee’s attention two passages in the impact assessment. The first is the comment on the wider landscape, where it says:

“The legislation in this area is complex and thus businesses may struggle to understand their obligations. As a result, employees may find it difficult to exercise their rights.”

The other, which is a surprisingly candid comment about how the current system is not robust enough to adequately protect workers, says:

“Employers are currently not incentivised to provide sufficient employment protection for pregnant and new parents, and are likely to prioritise their costs and bottom line.”

It would be useful to hear the Minister’s reflections on those comments, because they allude to a wider problem. Will he reassure us that there will be adequate support for businesses to understand the new protections and that they will be accompanied by a robust enforcement mechanism to ensure that the protections actually benefit the people they are intended to benefit?

In closing, I remind Members again that the Select Committee report with actions in relation to where we are with the regulations today was published in 2016. We know that a week is a long time in politics, so eight years must seem like an eternity, particularly to those 54,000 women who we can estimate have been forced out of work each year during that period. The total is more than 400,000 women during that time. As I said, I will conclude on those points. We support the regulations, but there are some questions that I hope the Minister will address when he closes the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justin Madders and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 25th January 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Postal workers are the bedrock of our communities, but they are being forced to work at unsustainable levels—something that, sadly, has not been recognised in Ofcom’s report on the future of universal service obligations. The input of postal workers is critical to a successful Royal Mail, so please can we have confirmation that their views will be considered in any future decisions?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That would make perfect sense. We read the Ofcom report into the review of universal service obligations with interest. Our clear position is that we will retain a six-day service for our citizens and businesses, but those views will be taken into account.

Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2023

Debate between Justin Madders and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 9th January 2024 General Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to the debate. I think all contributions focused on enforcement, quite understandably. As I said earlier, legislation without implementation is rather a waste of time, so let me say exactly what we are doing. As the shadow Minister and the SNP spokesperson said, it is quite a daunting thing to challenge one’s employer, especially in this kind of environment. As I said in my remarks to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire, these complaints can be made to Acas online or on the phone, or anonymously to HMRC, so they do not necessarily risk that relationship—although in some circumstances it would be pretty clear who had tipped off the agencies.

In terms of information campaigns, I agree, and that is what we are planning to do. We will work with Acas, which will update its guidance. The Government website will also be updated with guidance. However, that is not necessarily the place where everybody is going to look—we are also working with the au pair and domestic worker agencies, for example, to make sure that they are fully aware of responsibilities in this area. We are also working closely with charities that support vulnerable workers in this kind of space.

[Justin Madders]

I have a suggestion that might help the Minister. Is it worth talking to the Home Office about information that goes through when visas are processed?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is a challenge I am very happy to take on, and advice I am very happy to take up. We work very closely with our colleagues in the Home Office. As the hon. Gentleman may have noticed, some officials are here so I am sure that is what we will do.

The hon. Gentleman also rightly mentioned capacity. He will be aware that over the last seven years we have doubled capacity on enforcement in HMRC—it is now £27.8 million. That comes in two areas: a promotion campaign, which is upstream work with employers to make sure that they are aware of their responsibilities, and enforcement, which includes very significant levels of potential fines. We have found that the most effective deterrent is the naming and shaming work we do on employers that are breaching the national minimum wage regulations. That is something we are very keen to do, and are doing, more often. Furthermore, employers are required to keep records for six years, which feeds into the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire. If there is an anonymous tip-off and HMRC investigate, it is much easier for them to make sure that the rules have been followed.

The legislation will ensure that all work is treated fairly and end the misuse of the exemption to exploit workers, particularly migrant women. I would like to conclude by once again extending my thanks to the Low Pay Commission. Thanks to its independent and expert advice on this national minimum wage exemption, we can ensure that the right balance is struck between the needs of workers, affordability for business, and the wider impact on the economy. I put on the record my thanks to Bryan Sanderson, who has been the chair of the Low Pay Commission for some time. We worked very closely with him. He is now moving on to pastures new, but he has done a brilliant job leading that commission. I thank the commission for its recommendations on the 2024 rates, which will give a record cash increase to the national living wage and end hourly low pay for those aged 21 and over. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Employment Rights (Amendment, Revocation and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023

Debate between Justin Madders and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 5th December 2023 General Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions.

We have been clear throughout the Brexit process that we have no intention of abandoning our strong record on workers’ rights, having raised domestic standards over recent years to make them some of the highest in the world. The shadow minister always talks about the impact on workers—today, the impact on irregular and part-year workers. In our debates last week and today, I noticed that Opposition Members never once mentioned the rights of businesses or protections for businesses. It is always workers. Does the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston not understand that there is a balance to be struck between the rights of workers and the rights of businesses? I never hear Members of the new “party of business” taking the needs of business into account. Why does that never feature in any of his remarks?

[Justin Madders]

We do support business, but every time this Government bring forward legislation, it is about attacking workers. Is it not the same today? Is not taking £250 million out of workers’ pockets an attack on workers?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not accept that. Again, that speaks to the fact that the only organisations quoted in last week’s debate and today’s are the unions, such as the BMA. But I think what the if I can deal with his point, if I may, I think the

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about part-year workers, there is no doubt that there is a £150 million saving for businesses, but he also talked about parity, and this is about parity. It is about two workers working in slightly different patterns but working the same hours every year having the equal amounts of holiday pay. That is what this is. Many people would consider the judgment that led to a difference to be unfair, a perverse outcome. What we’re legislating for here is fairness across the board, whether people work a part-year or a full year.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is quite the opposite. We do not pick a side; we try to help both sides and to achieve a balance. That is where we are. I never hear about that balance between both sides from the Opposition; all I hear is about the impact on workers and on unions. In the debate last week, not once did I hear once about the 4 million working days lost to strikes, the 2 million operations cancelled, the hospital appointments cancelled, or the £3.5 billion impact on the hospitality sector.

[Justin Madders]

Was the Minister not listening when I when I talked about how having a different holiday pay calculation rate for the four weeks and the extra 1.6 was actually going to create more burden on businesses?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. He is talking about a single pot of annual leave. We believe in maintaining two pots. Presumably he is talking about the four weeks at normal pay currently and 1.6 weeks at basic pay, and about raising the 1.6 weeks of basic pay to the level of normal pay, which actually costs employers more. How much more is he suggesting employers should pay to regularise that position?

[Justin Madders]

Can the Minister give us a figure for how much more this would be?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is incumbent on the hon. Gentleman to do that. We are maintaining the status quo. He wants to make that change. What is the figure for what he describes as a simpler position? Does he not agree that that would be a cost on business? It is simple as that, yet he throws that out as if it were no matter for employers, who would have to deal with the extra cost.

[Justin Madders]

The Minister pointed out that, apparently, this will save businesses £1.2 billion. I don’t know if that is more or less than the change would cost, but I would have thought that it is something that could have been looked at, yet it does not appear to have been considered at all.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think we are back to the same place. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the £1.2 billion is largely the administrative costs of maintaining a recording position. What he wants to move to would cost a cost employers £1 billion. That is an interesting point.

Raising concerns that I think are scaremongering, The hon. Gentleman said that in future employers would be able to keep records “if they like”. That is not the case, and he knows that. Why would he say that kind of thing? Employers are required to make and keep adequate records. He knows that from the legislation. He also raised some concerns about change expressed by one of the unions, but it is not a change, because these measures have not yet been implemented in the UK economy. Again, he raises those concerns that somehow this is detrimental to health workers, but that is not the case. Does he accept that?

In terms of the points on rolled up holiday pay raised by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Walthamstow, the Government believe the existing safeguards are proportionate in addressing current concerns about impacts on workers from rolled up holiday pay. Employers are already required to provide an opportunity for workers to take leave, and we have heard through our stakeholder engagement that this is taking place. We also have safeguards in relation to the 48-hour working week, where a worker cannot work more than 48 hours a week unless they choose to opt out.

In terms of consultations, employers will have to tell their workers if they intend to start using rolled up holiday pay, and this payment will have to be clearly marked on the worker’s payslip. If employers need to make changes to terms and conditions, they must seek to reach an agreement with their workers or their representatives.

I think I have covered most of the points raised—I am sure I will be told if I have not. Our standards and our workers’ rights were never dependent on membership of the EU—indeed, the UK provides stronger protections for workers than are required by EU law. For example, we have one of the highest minimum wages in Europe, and on 21 November, the Government announced that we will increase the national living wage for workers aged 21 and over by 9.8% to £11.44 an hour. That will certainly help the hon. Lady’s constituents, some of whom may be low paid, as she said.

Our regulatory system is recognised globally, but we want to raise the bar even higher and deliver on our ambition to become the best regulated economy in the world, as we embrace our newfound freedoms outside the EU. By doing so, entrepreneurial businesses will have more opportunity to innovate, experiment and create jobs, and importantly, workers’ rights will be protected. This will cement our position as a world-class place to work and to grow a business.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justin Madders and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 30th November 2023 Commons Chamber

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

Fire and rehire is rife in this country. Research published by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that, between March 2020 and July 2021, 43,000 employers changed their employees’ contracts through fire and rehire techniques. The Government promised in March 2022 that they would take action following the P&O scandal, and we now learn that it will be a full two years since that time before anything actually changes. Given the propensity for using fire and rehire tactics, can the Minister tell us how many employees he estimates will have had their contract changed through fire and rehire in that two-year period?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not have that number to hand. We want to strike a balance between employers and their workforces. We condemn what P&O did. We need to bring in new measures on fire and rehire, and we have committed to do that. A consultation is clearly needed to make sure those provisions are fair on both businesses and workers. That is what we are doing right now, and we intend to bring those provisions before the House next spring.

Regulatory Impact Assessments Bill

Debate between Justin Madders and Kevin Hollinrake

2nd reading
Friday 20th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I would like to wait and see what the inquiry says about the way that that was handled. An awful lot of evidence has been given about Government decision making at the time, which it makes clear was less than ideal. It is probably best for us to wait and see what comes out of the inquiry on how we as a Parliament can best deal with these issues in future. Hopefully that situation will never repeat itself, but the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) made the point that the solution to many of these challenges lies in Members robustly challenging Government when opportunities arise.

The House of Lords Committee said that an impact statement

“should not just be treated as an item on a ‘to do’ list but be an integral part of the policy formulation process… One of our major concerns is that IAs which are published late, or that appear to have been scrambled together at the last minute to justify a decision already taken, may undermine the quality of the policy choices that underpin the legislation.”

Again, that theme has been picked up in the debate.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Reflecting on that particular statement, does the hon. Gentleman think his party was wrong to call for longer lockdowns on the basis of no evidence in cost-benefit analysis?

[Justin Madders]

That is a bit rich from a Minister of a Government who did not introduce any impact assessments when they first brought in the lockdowns or various restrictions. I can recall on numerous occasions asking Ministers why people were limited to being in groups of six or why pubs had to close at 10 o’clock. We never got a satisfactory answer to any of those questions, so for the Government to try to put that on us is a little rich.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Justin Madders and Kevin Hollinrake

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank Members for their contributions. It is fair to say that we will have to agree to disagree. We believe that this legislation is a proportionate response that gives the Government the power to ensure a safe level of service in areas such as health, transport and border security, so that people’s lives are not put at risk and they can work, access healthcare and safely go about their daily lives.

I will touch on one or two points raised by right hon. and hon. Members. I have a great deal of time for the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), though perhaps we do not agree so much in this debate. He asked who we govern on behalf of, and he listed very important people in our society—our nurses, train drivers and border security officers. But is he properly representing the many other stakeholders in this debate, such as pub landlords, restauranteurs, hoteliers and people seeking urgent medical treatment or trying to get to work or to see family? There have been 600,000 cancelled appointments as a result of the strikes of recent months and £3.2 billion of economic detriment—much of that to our restaurateurs, hoteliers and pub owners. It is important that their voices are heard, too.

[Justin Madders]

I hear what the Minister is saying, but that is an argument to ban strikes altogether. Is that not what he is doing?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We have been clear that there is a balance between people being able to seek industrial action and being able to go about their daily lives. That is the balance that we are trying to strike. He asked if we fear scrutiny; not at all. What we fear is delay. That is what the Opposition parties are trying to bring about: delay in wrecking amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justin Madders and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 18th May 2023 Commons Chamber

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

Ministers have promised an employment Bill more than 20 times, but they have consistently failed to deliver. It seems that not a week goes by without a company in the gig economy announcing that it is stripping back workers’ rights and protections, presumably because they are confident that this Government will not legislate to introduce protections in the gig economy. Will the Minister come clean on the Government’s plans? If they are not going to bring in any protections for gig economy workers, will he now apologise to them for another failed promise?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Paying the national living wage is the law, and failing to pay workers the correct wage can result in significant fines, public naming and, for the most serious offences, criminal prosecution. The national living wage applies to all those who are classified as employees or limb (b) workers. If an individual feels that their employment status has been misclassified, they have the right to go to an employment tribunal.

Artificial Intelligence and the Labour Market

Debate between Justin Madders and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I am grateful to be called, Dame Maria, and it is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on bringing this timely subject forward. I thought it would be appropriate to type his question into ChatGPT. I put in, “What is the potential impact of AI on the labour market?” It said, “AI has the potential to transform many aspects of the economy and society for the better. It also raises concerns about job displacement and the future of work.” That is it in a nutshell. It did not say that it was time for a Labour Government.

[Justin Madders]

Did the AI tell the Minister that the Conservative Government have got everything right?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I have not actually posed that question, but perhaps I could later.

This is an important debate, and it is important that we look at the issue strategically. The Government and the Labour party probably have different approaches: the Labour party’s natural position on this kind of stuff is to regulate everything as much as possible, whereas we believe that free markets have had a tremendous effect on people’s lives right across the planet. Whether we look at education, tackling poverty or child mortality, many of the benefits in our society over the last 100 years have been delivered through the free market.

Our natural inclination is to support innovation but to be careful about its introduction and to look to mitigate any of its damaging effects, and that is what is set out in the national AI strategy. As we have seen, it has AI potential to become one of the most significant innovations in history—a technology like the steam engine, electricity or the internet. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said exactly that: this is like a new industrial revolution, and I think it is a very exciting opportunity for the future. However, we also have key concerns, which have been highlighted by hon. Members today. Although the Government believe in the growth potential of these technologies, we also want to be clear that growth cannot come at the expense of the rights and protections of working people.

Only now, as the technology rapidly improves, are most of us beginning to understand the transformative potential of AI. However, the technology is already delivering fantastic social and economic benefits for real people. The UK’s tech sector is home to a third of Europe’s AI companies, and the UK AI sector is worth more than £15.6 billion. The UK is third in the world for AI investment, behind the US and China, and attracts twice as much venture capital investment as France and Germany combined. As impressive as they are, those statistics should be put into the context of the sector’s growth potential. Recent research predicts that the use of AI by UK businesses will more than double in the next 20 years, with more than 1.3 million UK businesses using AI by 2040.

The Government have been supporting the ethical adoption of AI technologies, with more than £2.5 billion of investment since 2015. We recently announced £100 million for the Foundation Models Taskforce to help build and adopt the next generation of safe AI, £110 million for our AI tech missions fund and £900 million to establish new supercomputer capabilities. These exascale computers were mentioned in the Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. These developments have incredible potential to bring forward new forms of clean energy, and indeed new materials that can deliver that clean energy, and to accelerate things such as medical treatment. There are exciting opportunities ahead.

If we want to become an AI superpower, it is crucial that we do all we can to create the right environment to harness the benefits of AI and remain at the forefront of technological developments. Our approach, laid out in the AI White Paper, is designed to be flexible. We are ensuring that we have a proportionate, pro-innovation regulatory regime for AI in the UK, which will build on the existing expertise of our world-leading sectoral regulators.

Our regulatory regime will function by articulating five key principles, which are absolutely key to this debate and tackle many of the points that have been made by hon. Members across the Chamber. Regulators should follow these five principles when regulating AI in their sectors: safety, security and robustness; transparency and explainability; fairness; accountability and governance; and contestability and redress. That feeds into the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who held this ministerial position immediately prior to myself, about deception, scams and fraud. We can all see the potential for that, of course.

Clearly, right across the piece, we have regulators with responsibility in those five areas. Those regulators are there to regulate bona fide companies, which should do the right thing, although we have to make sure that they do. For instance, if somebody held a database with inappropriate data on it, the Information Commissioner’s Office could easily look at that, and it has significant financial penalties at its disposal, such as 4% of global turnover or a £17 million fine. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford made a plea for a Turing clause, which I am, of course, very happy to look at. I think he was referring to organisations that might not be bona fide, and might actually be looking to undertake nefarious activities in this area. I do not think we can regulate those people very effectively, because they are not going to comply with anybody’s regulations. The only way to deal with those people is to find them, catch them, prosecute them and lock them up.

Unpaid Work Trials

Debate between Justin Madders and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 29th March 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for securing the debate and for the work he has done over six years to try to deal with this wholly egregious situation.

We can probably start on a note of common concern, because every right-minded person would regard it as wrong that workers should be expected to work for free. In many cases, as we have heard, they actually end up out of pocket after working a trial shift. I firmly believe that we should all adhere to the principle that there should be a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, and any action to stop exploitation—whatever form it takes—should be welcome.

As we have heard, there clearly ought to be means by which an employer can test an individual’s suitability for a position, but—call me old-fashioned—I have always thought that that was what a job interview was for. If not that, what about a paid probationary period for someone to be assessed for their suitability? Let us not forget that people have to work somewhere continuously for two years before they get any protection against unfair dismissal, which could be seen as a very long trial period, albeit one that is paid. When we consider the many options available to employers to assess the suitability of potential employees in the round, we inevitably get drawn to the conclusion that, in the main, trial shifts are not necessary—certainly not unpaid ones. When we are confronted with the evidence that we have heard today and on previous occasions, the suspicion continues to grow that they are often used as a quick way to get free labour.

We have to ask what is being done to stop jobseekers being exploited. Although it is welcome that the Government have published guidance on the practice of unpaid trial shifts, it is not worth the paper it is written on without proper enforcement. There is a problem with both the wording of the guidance and the Government’s general attitude to upholding UK employment law. In particular, I have concerns about the fact that, as the guidance notes, there are no definitive rules or tests for whether a trial shift is legal.

As we know, there are six factors in the guidance that a court or tribunal will consider when making a judgment about whether a trial shift should be paid. I ask the Minister to consider how many people have the legal knowledge, patience, time or money to pursue an employer for a handful of hours of lost earnings at the tribunal, particularly if they are in a legally vulnerable position from having no employment protection at that point. Does the Minister agree that the threat of being taken to a tribunal for an unpaid trial shift is self-evidently a hollow threat to employers, and that the Department should be much more proactive in pursuing complaints on behalf of workers? Does he agree that, given that the majority of people in these sectors are young people, because of the nature of the work, and are unlikely to be members of a trade union, they need support in enforcing their rights?

Let me give an example from my own family of what is probably a pretty typical situation. My son has plenty of experience working in bars—quite often in Glasgow, actually. He has applied for various jobs in bars, including one at a bar in Chester. He had an interview. He has all the experience needed to work there, but was offered a trial shift despite the fact that he clearly could do the job. It transpired that the trial shift would run for eight hours and finish in the early hours of the morning, when there is no public transport, so he would have to pay for a taxi out of his own pocket to get home. That looked to me like blatant exploitation. Luckily for him, his father was the shadow employment rights Minister so he could be guided on what to do in that situation, but it begs the question: how many other times have they gotten away with that? How many hours each week are young people being asked to work trial shifts for which they get no payment? The Minister should be tasking his officials with trying to find out exactly how many times this happens each week, because we are probably seeing only the tip of the iceberg.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

What guidance did the hon. Member give his son in that situation? I would be interested to know.

[Justin Madders]

I am not sure Hansard can record in a polite way the suggestion that I conveyed to him. Let me put it this way: the employment relationship did not continue.

The six factors contained in the guidance are useful, but a lot of subjectivity is applied to them. For example, how is observation—which is one of the criteria—defined? How long is a reasonable period of observation? Ultimately, how can a jobseeker be expected to know if their employer has acted in line with the guidance, given how ambiguous it is? The ACAS website does not make any reference to trial shifts at all. People need a lot more support to understand when they are being asked to do something that is unlawful.

Ambiguities aside, the guidance needs to be properly enforced. As has been mentioned, we have this figure of £3 billion for unpaid work in various forms—it is probably is an even greater figure now. The continued reliance on an underfunded and overstretched tribunal system is failing our workers. Surely it is time for a single enforcement body to follow through for workers to ensure that their rights are enforced. I know the Government promised that along with an employment Bill, which we unsurprisingly have touched on. Will the Minister give us a timescale for when this single enforcement body will emerge?

The Government’s record on national minimum wage enforcement in recent times has been concerning. A naming and shaming list has not been published since December 2021, and I know the Minister has expressed his support for that as an important pillar of enforcement. As I have mentioned to him on previous occasions, a number of Departments have awarded lucrative contracts running into the hundreds of millions of pounds to companies that have appeared on the list of shame. What kind of message does it send to companies about the importance that the Government place on enforcement of the national minimum wage if they are then rewarded with Government contracts? I hope the Minister can give us an update on when the next list will be released.

In conclusion, the debate is a useful reminder that this is unfinished business. We can see very clearly how current ambiguities are being used to exploit workers. I want to hear from the Minister about what more can be done to ensure that people get paid for the work they do, and to ensure that these ruses, in all their forms, are put to an end, so that we get to a point in this country where a fair day’s work means a fair day’s pay.

Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Debate between Justin Madders and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 6th March 2023 General Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions during today’s debate. As has been pointed out, these rises are more important than ever in the context of the continued high inflation and cost of living pressures. I am glad to see cross-party agreement—largely—on the issue.

A number of points were raised, principally by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. When the Low Pay Commission made the recommendation of 9.7%, which we fully accepted, inflation was at 8.9%, so the rise was greater in most cases than inflation at the time. As the hon Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston knows, this Government are committed to halving inflation by the end of the year, so lots of people who received those high pay increases, in percentage terms, will benefit even more as a result of reduced inflation and a growing economy. Creating more jobs is very important and eventually leads to high wages, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay pointed out.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that the Low Pay Commission recommended an above-inflation pay rate. We often hear from Ministers that one reason that they cannot accede to pay demands from various public sector unions is that anything approaching the inflation rate would boost inflation even higher. Does that not apply in this situation?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, because this applies to a much smaller cohort. If the hon. Gentleman is proposing that we pay everyone across the public sector an inflation pay increase, which I guess he is from his comment, he has to explain to the taxpayer how we will raise that £28 billion a year, because that is what it would cost. Obviously, the Low Pay Commission works with employer groups, but it also works with business groups, other stakeholders and other employers to try to strike a balance between what is affordable for employers and what is an appropriate rise for those at the bottom of the income scales.

The hon. Gentleman asked about our ambition to get to two thirds of the median salary by 2024. That is certainly what we believe to be attainable, and it remains our target. With the growing economy that we expect to see by the end of the year, the economic context will be a lot brighter than it has been over the last few months.

On age limits, the hon. Gentleman is right; our ambition is to lower the age limit in terms of access to the national living wage, as we did from 25 to 23 in 2021, based on the Low Pay Commission’s recommendation. We are hoping to lower it to 21 by 2024. Part of the reason that it is lower—other Members asked the same question—is that there is no doubt that there is a greater vulnerability for young people. Unemployment levels tend to be higher in these lower age groups and it is important that we do not price people of low age out of the market. That is probably why Labour had different rates for 18 to 21-year-olds when it introduced some of these provisions when it was in government.

Let me turn to zero-hours contracts. Only 3% of the population is on a zero-hours contract. Sixty-four per cent. of those people do not want more hours, so the contracts kind of work for both sides, but we recognise that there is an issue with exploitation in some situations and we are trying to create the conditions for a conversation between employers and employees while not putting too great a burden on employers. That is why we are legislating for a right to request predictable hours. We have already legislated for things such as exclusivity clauses, which are not allowed for zero-hours contracts. For those below the lower-earnings limit, there cannot be an exclusivity clause in a zero-hours contract.

On compliance, the hon. Gentleman was absolutely right. It is very important to us, which is why we have doubled enforcement since 2015. I have met His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs team to discuss that. I welcome the fact that they have put £100 million back in the pockets of lower-income workers since 2015 through their excellent work. The care sector is one of the sectors they look at all the time, and there was no differential between it and any other sector. As far as employment law is concerned, travel time to appointments should be covered within employment law when it comes to calculating the national minimum wage or national living wage.

We believe that internships should be paid positions and should be subject to the national minimum wage or national living wage, and that trial shifts should be no more than a few hours.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Justin Madders and Kevin Hollinrake

2nd reading
Monday 29th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I thank my right hon. Friend and neighbour for his intervention, which leads me beautifully into the next section of my speech, in which I shall talk about exactly that.

I will never accept that it is right for developers to choose not to pay a sum to councils to adopt the communal areas, and that they instead save themselves money by passing on that cost to the homeowners and then make even more money from the homeowners by charging them for things that ought to be coming out of their council tax. Like my right hon. Friend, I worry that this trend will be accelerated because the ground rent gravy train is coming to an end, and that we will hear more and more stories of homeowners having no choice but to pay inflated annual service charges that, given the choice, they would prefer to pay through their council tax.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good point about what is referred to as “fleecehold.” Does he agree it is entirely within the gift of the local authority to require the development to be made to adoptable standards in terms of roads and drainage, for example? It can then be adopted by the local authority, so people do not have to pay twice for such services.

[Justin Madders]

That is a fair point in theory, but I find it does not happen in practice. I have estates in my constituency that were built a dozen years ago and still have not been adopted because the developers have not put them up to the required standard. The to and fro never ends, because the developers have left town and they have no interest or incentive to bring those areas up to the adoptable standard.