Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Debate between Justin Madders and Steve Darling

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I rise to strongly support the new clause. We have seen throughout our debates in Committee that there are opportunities for changing the weather around our employment world, whether it is around foster carers, adoption or volunteering—the subject of new clause 38, championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster), which we will discuss later.

I hope that this new clause falls on fertile ground because, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater has highlighted, volunteering across the piece has significantly reduced. We need to change the weather around the employment world and make sure that people feel able and confident to volunteer, as we know that policing is a particular challenge.

I welcome the Government’s plans to invest in neighbourhood policing. Special officers are often involved in that. People feel confident when they see a uniformed officer on the street. The public do not care whether it is a paid officer or a special officer; it is a trusted individual. The more we can drive that agenda, as I know from my residents in Torbay, the more it will be welcomed. I look forward to a strong endorsement from the Minister.

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Christopher. I start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater on the new clause and join him in paying tribute to his constituent Emma-Elizabeth Murphy and all special constables who perform the vital work that Members have spoken in support of. We recognise and value the vital role that special constables play, which includes supporting neighbourhood policing. We are committed to ensuring that police forces have the support that they need from the Government to tackle important matters of public safety.

Special constables, along with the full range of police volunteers, bring valuable and diverse skills that complement the roles that officers and staff play in delivering the best service to the public. We recognise that there has been a fall in the number of special constables over recent years. Further work needs to be done to understand exactly the reasons for that. Initial consideration suggests that a range of factors has led to the reduction in the number of special constables. It is not clear whether the new clause would reverse that trend or what its impact on business would be—the hon. Member for Bridgwater has been a constant critic of the Bill’s impact on businesses—so we need to understand that better.

We are already doing a range of work to support special constables and employment rights more broadly. We are introducing the neighbourhood policing guarantee, which will put thousands of additional police officers, police community support officers and special constables on our streets and restore patrols in town centres across the country.

Many employers already support their employees to volunteer in a special constabulary. Under the Employer Supported Policing scheme, led by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, a number of organisations across a range of sectors have committed to supporting members of their workforce to serve as special constables, in recognition of the opportunities to build new skills and support local communities. The Home Office is also supporting the NPCC to develop and implement initiatives to improve the recruitment and retention of special constables. That includes developing a refreshed national citizens in policing strategy and a national special constabulary working group.

I will not be able to accept the new clause, but I am sympathetic to the case that has been made. In preparation for dealing with it, I learned that that the initial legislation that introduced time off for certain public duties is now 50 years old, so it seems time to consider this issue in the round, and the role of special constables will no doubt be included in that. The Home Office will clearly have an important say. As I said, a number of factors has led to the decline in the number of special constables in recent years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling the new clause. I think its origins are in written evidence to the Committee from the edu-legal organisation Edapt, which has been raising this issue with successive Governments for a number of years.

It is important to set out the position under current law. Section 10(3) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 explains that when a worker is asked to attend a disciplinary or grievance hearing they are entitled to bring a companion who is either a fellow worker, an official employed by a trade union, or a workplace trade union representative that the union has reasonably certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion at such hearings. Employers are free but not obliged to allow workers to be accompanied by someone who does not fall into those categories. Some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed, such as a professional support body, partner, spouse or legal representative.

As one of the initial steps in resolving tensions when the worker-employer relationship has broken down, the provisions of the 1999 Act seek to keep disciplinary and grievance procedures internal to a workplace. Expanding the types of organisations that can be involved in representing workers could lead to hearings requiring legal representation for both worker and employer. We certainly do not want to see internal disciplinary or grievance hearings ending up in a legal battle. That would invariably increase the cost of holding a hearing and potentially decrease the chances of an amicable resolution. Equally, introducing increased legal expertise from outside the workplace could increase the likelihood of a tribunal. Workers and employers may judge ACAS conciliation or mediation unlikely to resolve a dispute because legal arguments have been made during an internal disciplinary hearing. We certainly believe that amicable resolutions are the swiftest way for justice to be delivered.

The new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to set out and define in regulations the professional bodies that could represent employees in disciplinary and grievance hearings. Although, as the shadow Minister said, this measure relates specifically to the education sector, one can easily see a whole range of organisations beginning to knock on the door. It would raise all sorts of questions about regulations, standards and enforcement, and it would inevitably expand quite quickly.

As the shadow Minister said, it is not clear beyond the written submission to the Committee where the demand is for the expansion of this right. Employers are of course entitled to nominate individuals or organisations for recognition. The Government are clear that trade unions are best placed to provide workplace representation. The legislation is fit for purpose in terms of ensuring that that is done in a proportionate and balanced way. On that basis, we reject the new clause.

[Steve Darling]

Although I am disappointed that the new clause has fallen on stony ground, it was only a probing amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 38

Time off for volunteering: consultation

“(1) The Secretary of State must consult on the introduction of a requirement for employers with more than 250 employees to grant employees time off for volunteering.

(2) The consultation must consider, amongst other things, the following matters—

(a) the amount of time off an employer must grant;

(b) when the time off may be taken;

(c) any conditions to which the granting of time off may be subject; and

(d) the definition of ‘volunteering’.

(3) The consultation must be conducted within one year of this Act being passed.

(4) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the consultation closing, publish and lay before Parliament the Secretary of State’s response to the consultation.”—(Steve Darling.)

This new clause calls for a consultation on allowing employees at companies of over 250 people the opportunity to take time off in order to undertake voluntary work.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Let us start where we can all agree: volunteering is a very important part of our society and we want to do everything we can to encourage it. It is a central part of civic life and has a positive impact on our society, and we all pay tribute to the volunteers in our communities. There are large employers that have impact days and corporate social responsibility days where they come into the community—there are a number of examples in my constituency where that has happened. Larger employers, in particular, have been able to pool their resources and have a real benefit in their communities.

However, as the shadow Minister outlined, the Government will be undertaking a significant number of consultations, and we do not wish to add to that at this stage. We want to focus on the priorities in our “Make Work Pay” agenda. In particular, we want to see how the enhanced right to flexible working will benefit people’s ability to volunteer. We believe that when we implement the new rights to flexible working in the earlier parts of the Bill, they will enable employees to access flexible working requests in order to fit in their volunteering, and that further legislation is not necessary at this time.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is delivering the Know Your Neighbourhood fund, which has a key focus to ensure that learning is shared

“on how people in disadvantaged areas can be supported to volunteer and improve their social connections”.

So there is work going on in Government, and a recognition that volunteering is an important part of the fabric of our society, but, as has been indicated, we do not wish to undertake additional consultations at this point.

[Steve Darling]

I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that we are looking at employers that employ over 250 individuals, so the new clause would far from impact smaller businesses. I have grave concerns that the Government believe they have all the time in the world and expect that there will be a second glorious term for the Labour party, come hell or high water. The jury is out on whether a second term for Keir will appear. One is better driving the agenda forward while one has the helm than to hope for the helm when it turns the next headland. I encourage the Government to reflect on their proposals and grasp the opportunity to consult on this volunteering opportunity.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has had a road to Damascus moment on the need for further consultation on the Bill. I am delighted that the Conservatives believe that consultation is a good thing, unlike my Conservative council colleagues in Torbay. I look forward to the Minister looking kindly on the new clause, which shows that the Conservatives believe in consultation. I would ask that he please grasp this opportunity.

[Justin Madders]

It seems the coalition era love-in has started again in earnest. As the shadow Minister outlined, new clause 42 would require the Certification Officer to lay before both Houses, within 12 months of Royal Assent, a report setting out the impact on various sectors of the UK economy of introducing a four-day week. It would require the Certification Officer to consult businesses, workers, consumers and others and to publish consultation responses when laying the report. Just when we thought we had got away from consultation, we have another one.

In considering the new clause, it might be helpful to set out the role of the Certification Officer. It has been the regulator of trade unions and employer associations since 1975. It not only carries out regulatory functions, but has administrative, supervisory and significant quasi-judicial functions. It adjudicates on complaints raised by trade union members and other parties. As part of our repeal of the provisions of the Trade Union Act 2016, we will remove the Certification Officer’s enhanced investigatory and enforcement powers, as well as the levy imposed on trade unions and employer associations. As such, we will return the role of the Certification Officer to what it was before that Act.

Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting)

Debate between Justin Madders and Steve Darling

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I am sure that my residents would be horrified that these proposals are seeing the light of day in the Committee. I am shocked that Conservative Members are putting them out there. I expected us just to pass on by them, but I want to make sure that it is on the record that the Liberal Democrats do not support these rather peculiar proposals, which have only seen the light of day thanks to a Conservative Member.

[Justin Madders]

There are approximately 170,000 words in the “Oxford English Dictionary”, but I am struggling to find one to adequately encapsulate the speech by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire. It is clearly a novel approach to a Bill Committee to move an amendment and then speak against it. I do not think anything he said would have persuaded me the other way had I not already been minded to oppose the new clauses, although he did his best.

It is important that we put on the record our appreciation for the work of prison officers. They work in difficult environments every day, dealing with very challenging people, and we recognise that they are critical to keeping the public safe. Under the current legislation, prison officers are prevented from taking industrial action, and their pay is governed by the independent Prison Service Pay Review Body, which acts as a compensatory mechanism for that restriction. Indeed, one of the first actions of this Government was to accept the pay review body recommendations for 2024-25, and we delivered on our commitment to launch the 2025-26 pay review body process in September, three months earlier than the previous Government did. Our written evidence to the body for the next pay round was published on 10 December, paving the way for a timely pay round. We are well positioned for that process to conclude. We need to ensure that everyone who works in a prison has the right to decent conditions and a fair reward for their hard work. The Government are committed to achieving that, but I believe that we can do so without the need for legislative change.

Prison officers are essential to maintaining order and control in prisons. A withdrawal of their services, as we have heard, even if only partial, would create a risk to order and to the life and limb of individuals. There are limited contingency plans in place to deal with strike action and, during such incidents, reliance on a narrow pool of operational managers and support from the police would create risks. I am sure that Members do not need that spelling out. This would also result in significant disruption to the operation of the courts and the police, representing a significant risk to public safety.

I know that the POA is very keen, understandably, to have this proposal enacted. Its representatives have met the Justice Secretary recently, and they continue to do so, and I have spoken to them. I understand their view, but we cannot agree to this at this point. I do not know whether the amendment will be pushed to a vote—I suspect that it will not be, from what the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire said—but we will not support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

First, I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for moving the new clause. This is his clause 4 moment—the road to socialism is often a long one, but I am glad to see he is taking steps towards it. He raises an important topic on behalf of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran); indeed, a number of Members of the House have discussed it with me over a period of time, because the use of non-disclosure agreements presents challenges.

As has been said, NDAs can be used quite legitimately in different contexts and contracts. As the responsible Department for the use of NDAs in employment relationships, we recognise that they can have a legitimate role, such as to protect trade secrets, intellectual property and commercially sensitive information. Of course their most common use is in allowing workers and employers to reach a settlement on a dispute or a claim. It goes without saying that a worker may want to settle a dispute and receive the confidentiality protections associated with a settlement agreement to avoid going through an employment tribunal, which can be a distressing experience in itself. Having a non-disclosure agreement can also increase the value of such an agreement, depending how negotiations go.

There are existing legal limits to the use of NDAs in the employment context. For example, any clauses of an NDA that sought to stop a worker blowing the whistle to a lawyer or a prescribed person under the legislation would not be enforceable. The use of an NDA by an employer may amount to a criminal offence if it is an attempt by the employer to pervert the course of justice or conceal a criminal offence. A settlement agreement under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and any confidentiality clauses it contains is void if the worker did not receive independent advice on the terms and effect of the agreement. Speaking as one who has given such advice on countless occasions, I can assure the Committee that this a matter the legal profession takes very seriously. None the less, workers may not be aware of their rights.

Both the Equality and Human Rights Commission and ACAS have published guidance on NDAs, but reports continue of improper use of NDAs, as the hon. Member for Torbay mentioned, particularly in relation to sexual harassment, discrimination and bullying in the workplace. Last year, the Women and Equalities Committee inquiry into misogyny in music and the Treasury Committee inquiry into sexism in the City reported on the misuse of NDAs in specific sectors and industries. Their reports highlighted how NDAs can have a silencing effect on some victims, who come under pressure to sign an NDA and are not aware of their existing rights, and how NDAs may be a part of wider organisational cultures and practices for some employers. We have heard a clear example of that today. The Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Legal Services Board have also recently conducted a call for evidence and a thematic review into the use of NDAs among the legal profession. Overall, those reports highlight that, while we have seen some progress and some positive developments, the issues in this space are multiple and persistent. The Government are live to the concerns about the misuse of NDAs to intimidate and silence victims of crime and other types of misconduct, particularly harassment, discrimination, and bullying.

The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 contains a measure that, when commenced, will ensure that victims can report a crime, co-operate with regulators and access confidential advice and support without fear of legal action. It does so by providing that any clauses in NDAs seeking to prevent those actions cannot legally be enforced. The Ministry of Justice is carefully considering plans to bring the relevant section of that Act into force and will be working closely with the victim support and business sectors to ensure that the new measure is implemented and deployed effectively. We continue to listen carefully to representations on further action needed to curb the misuse of NDAs.

The specific wording that is proposed today would make any provision in an agreement precluding a worker from making a relevant disclosure that relates to harassment carried out by a fellow worker, or client of their employer, unenforceable. Under the consequential amendment, the measure would come into force on the day that this legislation is passed. I have some reservations about the amendment as drafted, as it would make a significant change from the current position and there might be unintended consequences.

To render provisions related to disclosures on harassment unenforceable could have negative effects on both workers and employers. A worker may want to settle a dispute over harassment and receive the confidentiality protections associated with a settlement agreement. The proposal may also impact on their ability to reach a settlement and avoid going to an employment tribunal, or may indeed reduce the value of such an agreement. The amendment may also lead to uncertainty for both employers and workers who have entered into NDAs previously.

The Government are looking into this. There is obviously some evidence, and there was a Government consultation, but that was some time ago, so we intend to look more closely at what we can do in this area. I have met some of the interested parties and there are other proposals to deal with this issue that might be slightly more workable than those in the new clause proposed by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I say to him that although we are aware of this issue and know it needs attention, we are not able to support the new clause.

[Steve Darling]

I welcome the Minister’s reassurances and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Substitution Clauses

“(1) Any agreement, whether a contract or otherwise, between—

(a) an employer or a contractor of services, and

(b) an employee, worker or dependent contractor

must not include provision for the employee, worker or dependent contractor to appoint a substitute to supply services or undertake work on their behalf.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), “contractor of services” means an organisation that—

(a) enters into an agreement, whether a contract or otherwise, with a supplier or dependent contractor to supply services,

(b) does not require the supplier or dependent contractor to supply services, and

(c) pays the supplier or dependent contractor according to tasks performed rather than hours of work.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), "dependent contractor" means an individual who—

(a) is appointed to perform work or services for an employer or contractor of services,

(b) is paid according to tasks performed rather than hours of work,

(c) depends partially or primarily on the employer or contractor of services for employment and income,

(d) is not required to perform services for the employer or contractor of services, and

(e) is not specified as an employee or worker within a statement of employment particulars or a contract of employment.”—(Nick Timothy.)

This new clause would prohibit the use of “substitution clauses”, which allow companies to permit their suppliers – including some delivery couriers – to appoint a substitute to supply services on their behalf.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting)

Debate between Justin Madders and Steve Darling

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling]

I echo the shadow Minister, who sits to my right—in more ways than one. Definitely, further clarity from the Minister would be welcome.

[Justin Madders]

I understand what the Opposition Members are saying. They seek reassurance that there will be no disruption to the good work that goes on already, and clearly, that is our intent. We will keep a close eye on how this works when the Bill has passed and received Royal Assent. A lot of the operational questions that have been asked will emerge during that time. Whether the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire remains my shadow—either of us could of course be moved on at any point—it would be perfectly reasonable for us to keep the Opposition updated on operational decisions and how the fair work agency emerges. There will of course be further parliamentary opportunities for scrutiny as more detail emerges.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 6, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 7

Transitional and saving provision relating to Part 5

Employment Rights Bill (Eighteenth sitting)

Debate between Justin Madders and Steve Darling

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. Clauses 76 and 77 are relatively straightforward. Quite rightly, as is standard in similar legislative provisions, they state explicitly that both the strategy, every three years or so, and the annual report, every year, should be laid before Parliament. That is welcome: it is standard and is in no way under question.

If the Minister is agreeable to it, I would like him to confirm that Members of both Houses will be given the chance to question and debate the documents—certainly the strategy, which is an important document on a longer timescale—rather than their just being laid before the House. Although it would be unusual to specify that in the Bill, will he confirm that when the first strategy is published under clause 76 or the first annual report is published under clause 77, his expectation is that Ministers will be willing to make an oral statement so that the House can properly question it and scrutinise the Secretary of State, or whichever Minister draws the short straw and presents it to the House?

When documents are simply laid before the House, sometimes these things get overlooked. Select Committees sometimes have too much work in their programme to squeeze in a scrutiny session around the publication of such documents; sometimes the House of Commons sees only a written statement. It would be sufficient if the Minister confirmed that his desire is to see these documents not simply laid before Parliament, but actively debated, at least through the means of an oral statement.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. On behalf of my residents in Torbay, whether they are employers or workers, a strategy to know how the Government are looking to drive this agenda forward can only be welcomed.

[Justin Madders]

I think there is broad support for these clauses. The shadow Minister requests that I commit to an oral statement, but he will be aware that I am not in control of the business of the House. I hope that we would want to ensure that all Members have the opportunity to ask questions, but he will know that a number of other mechanisms—sorry, I am sounding a bit like the Leader of the House now—are available to Members to ensure that particular matters are debated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I broadly accept the Minister’s argument on bringing legislation into the 21st century, and it would be foolish not to acknowledge changes in the way that documents are stored or the fact that certain businesses operate online in a way that they simply did not when the existing legislation was passed. We do not seek to object to that element.

When expanding any power of any enforcement officer under the state, however, there is always a concern to best ensure that the checks and balances that any reasonable person would expect are there. The Bill will undoubtedly become an Act, so I gently ask the Minister how, when these powers are delegated by the current or any future Secretary of State to the enforcement body, the practical application of the use of those powers—particularly those that are a step into the unknown regarding online and electronic document storage—will be assessed and reviewed to check that the right delegations are in place, and that there is no overstretch or unnecessary steps to demand documents that may not be required.

We can all imagine a situation in which, because documents are held in electronic form, some enforcement officers might desire to be over-zealous and ask for far more than they need. I do not see a safeguard to ensure that enforcement officers ask only for things that they categorically and absolutely need within the function of the duties that this or any future Secretary of State delegates to them.

[Steve Darling]

It is important that we hear from the Minister about getting the balance right and supporting people’s rights, while not being too invasive to businesses. I look forward to hearing from him.

[Justin Madders]

Fair points were made by the Opposition spokespeople. Clearly, the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible to Parliament for the operation of the fair work agency and the use of powers by enforcement officers. I expect that will ensure that there is oversight at least on a parliamentary level. On an operational level, there will also be an opportunity for the advisory body to be involved.

On the modernisation of the rules, I understand that that applies only to the employment agency standards inspectorate, because the other bodies already have those powers. It is not a dramatic extension of the existing powers that are already in place.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 78, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 79

Power to enter business premises in order to obtain documents, etc

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not object to the thrust of the clauses, particularly the provision about not retaining a physical document if taking a photograph or making a copy of it is practicable. I do not want anyone to misinterpret what I am saying, but although I recognise the need for enforcement agencies to be able to acquire the evidence and documents they need to conclude their right and proper investigations, the question arises, how long may evidence be held by the enforcement agency, or indeed any part of the British state, particularly in cases in which a physical document has not been retained but a photograph or a copy has been taken of it? Clause 81 is pretty explicit about the retention of physical documents, but it is less clear on how long a copy or a photograph may be held by any arm of the state. I look for reassurance from the Minister that the rules will apply to copies as much as to the original documents seized, taken or willingly given to the enforcement officers.

[Steve Darling]

I broadly welcome the way forward proposed in these clauses.

[Justin Madders]

I hope that I can put the shadow Minister’s mind at rest. My interpretation of the provisions of clause 81(2) are that they would apply equally to the provisions of clause 81(3) and that copies would be retained only for as long as necessary for the purposes set out in subsection (2). I will write to him if my understanding is incorrect, but I believe that the legislation is fairly clear on that point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 80 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82

Powers of enforcement officers under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I heard what the Minister said, and these are indeed relatively minor amendments that do make sense. Amendment 92 enables an enforcement officer entering a premises with a warrant under clause 83 to exercise the same powers to inspect, examine and seize documents as would be exercisable if the officer had entered the premises in reliance on the power conferred by clause 79. Amendments 93 and 95 largely build on that. While we accept the spirit and the letter of the amendments, which all make sense, I cannot pass up yet another opportunity to wonder why they were not in the Bill in the first place.

[Steve Darling]

I welcome the further clarity that the amendments offer.

Amendment 92 agreed to.

Amendments made: 93, in clause 83, page 85, line 11, after “any” insert “other”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 92.

Amendment 94, in clause 83, page 85, line 15, leave out subsection (5).

This amendment is consequential on NS1.

Amendment 95, in clause 83, page 85, line 24, leave out from beginning to “may” in line 26.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 92.

Amendment 96, in clause 83, page 86, line 3, at end insert—

“(10) For further provision about warrants under this section, see section (Warrants) and Schedule (Warrants under Part 5: further provision).”—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC9 and NS1

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

[Justin Madders]

The clause is an essential measure that empowers enforcement officers to enter premises, including by force if necessary, when investigating unlicensed gang- masters activity under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. It carries over the existing powers of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and brings them together with the other enforcement powers of the fair work agency. It enables officers to gather necessary evidence when there is a reason to suspect illegal labour practices and is a vital step in protecting vulnerable workers from exploitation. It ensures that enforcement officers can conduct thorough investigations to uphold fair labour practices without delay. As at present, enforcement officers will need a warrant to exercise this power.

The clause supports a co-ordinated approach to labour enforcement by integrating the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority into the fair work agency. We are amending the clause as discussed and introducing a new schedule so that the process of applying for and executing a warrant mirrors that in clause 79, to create a single system of enforcement across the employment rights landscape. I commend the clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

I welcome the points made by the shadow Minister, and wait eagerly to hear from the Minister.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for the general support. The shadow Minister has raised some fair questions and articulated the frustration we all feel when trying to deal with certain organisations. I know it is a Thursday afternoon, but I could talk for some time about how my satellite TV provider has proven quite elusive when I have tried to speak to an individual.

I think I can put the shadow Minister’s mind at ease on this issue. Clearly, the purpose of the undertakings is to encourage compliance, so an undertaking will not appear out of thin air, but will be the result of an ongoing conversation between the employer and the fair work agency. Clause 87(6) specifies that notices or undertakings can be sent by electronic means only if

“the person has indicated that notices under section 84 may be given to…an electronic address”

and in a particular format, so there is already a safeguard in the Bill to ensure that those messages do not go missing. The whole purpose of an undertaking is that there is an agreement between both parties that there will be compliance, so it would not be in the fair work agency’s interest to send things to addresses or places where it was not confident that they would be received. It is all about encouraging compliance, and that is the purpose of the clauses we have just debated, so I commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 84 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 85 to 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 88

Power to make LME order on application

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

Employment Rights Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Debate between Justin Madders and Steve Darling

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling]

I have some sympathy with the desire to understand the cost, but to me, the vast majority of the Government proposals before us today are about modernising the system appropriately. I am concerned that this afternoon we have seen the official Opposition one minute say that all in the garden is rosy and there is no need for equality, and the next flip over and catastrophise about the Government’s proposals. We need to get a firm hand on the tiller and see that the vast majority of these proposals simply entail modernisation. I welcome them.

[Justin Madders]

The shadow Minister asked why we cannot support new clauses 32 and 33. The simple answer is that there are already legislative protections in section 54(12) of the Employment Relations Act 2004, which sets out the conditions that must be adhered to in order to ensure that balloting is done in a secure and safe manner. He made some interesting points about people peering over others’ shoulders when votes are taking place. Clearly, his colleagues in the parliamentary Conservative party cannot be trusted to behave themselves when electronic voting takes place. That is something he will no doubt address with his colleagues in private.

If the shadow Minister is concerned about the impact of electronic balloting in all spheres—I am sure there are sometimes reasons in his own party to question the outcome of the electronic ballot—we can look at that, but there is already clear provision in law about how any trade union ballot is to be conducted. The working group will be considering that. If the Conservative party thought there were concerns about the use of electronic ballots for industrial disputes, they might not have commissioned the Knight review back in 2017 to consider the matter. That they did so suggests that they considered that it is right and appropriate that we modernise trade union practices to allow for electronic balloting for industrial action.

Moving on to the assessments the shadow Minister is requesting, the Government are pretty clear that, through new clause 43, the Opposition seek to add another administrative hurdle for a trade union that wants to take industrial action. There is no doubt that any such tests or assessments that were undertaken would lead to a multitude of satellite litigation, delay resolution of disputes, and divert both parties’ focus from resolving the disputes to arguing about impact assessments. I am not quite sure what the family test is. I think there is a family and friends test that some organisations use. It is a little vague. It is also unclear who would be the arbiter of whether these tests and assessments were being done sufficiently accurately. It is also fair to say that trade union members know, when they take industrial action, that there will be consequences. They are well aware. They do the job every day, they know the impact, and that is why they always take these matters very seriously.

The central point that the Bill will lead to more industrial action is counterintuitive, given that we are, in the main, reversing provisions of the 2016 Act. As we know, there has been more industrial action in recent years than there has been for decades. Perhaps there is not a cause and effect relationship between that and the 2016 Act, but I would suggest that the evidence points to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 55 and 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57

Industrial action: provision of information to employer

Employment Rights Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Debate between Justin Madders and Steve Darling

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

As the Minister said, Government amendment 80 clarifies that if circumstances are specified under new section 70ZF(4)(a), the effect of specifying those circumstances is that it is to be regarded as reasonable of the CAC to make a determination that officials of a union are not to have access, but does not require the CAC to make such a determination. Government amendment 81 would allow the Secretary of State to prescribe matters to which the CAC must have regard when considering an application for a determination about access. Therefore, these amendments set out that if the Secretary of State has specified circumstances in which it would be reasonable to decline union access to a workplace, the CAC must accept those circumstances.

That is all well and good, but the access principles, as they are set out, are incredibly broad and make it very difficult for an employer to refuse access. For example, subsection (2)(a) of new section 70ZF specifies that

“officials of a listed trade union should be able to access a workplace for any of the access purposes in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the employer’s business”.

That accepts that access can and should be allowed to cause interference, but what would count as unreasonable interference? Can the Minister give any concrete examples? How will businesses know what they are or are not expected to put up with in terms of inconvenience and disruption to their operations? This all seems to be still particularly woolly and ill-defined. It will cause a lot of headaches and a lot of businesses to scratch their heads to work out what they have to put up with, bear the burden of, or lose profit to in order to enable some of the access that the Bill determines will take place.

The circumstances in which it would be reasonable for officials of a union not to have access will be specified in future regulations, but this is an area where it is incumbent on the Government to be very clear—indeed, crystal clear—about where the Minister or the Department feels these regulations should sit, or the operating window in which they should sit, moving away from woolly language and into real practical detail to allow businesses to begin to prepare. Can the Minister give any examples of matters that might be specified by the Secretary of State to set some constraints on the access principles envisaged by the amendments? I know he will say that he wishes to consult, which is all very well and good, but as I said a moment ago, this is an area where I do not think businesses will simply accept the offer of future consultation; they will instead want an operating window with practical examples and very clear language about what the amendments envisage will happen in the future. It is just not good enough for us to be left in this position of trying to second-guess and wonder what things will be like when the consultation finally happens.

[Steve Darling]

I will be concise and echo the shadow Minister’s call for clarity.

[Justin Madders]

I acknowledge the points made by the shadow Minister, but of course, as he has already anticipated, my response is that all of that will be determined in secondary legislation following a consultation. That is the right approach. The sort of detailed questions he is rightly posing are best dealt with in secondary legislation and probably in codes of practice as well. That is the kind of detail that would not normally find its way into a Bill. Of course, for me to prejudge any consultation on the circumstances in which it may or may not be appropriate for unions to gain access would of course, be to predetermine the outcome of the consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

As the Minister said, the amendment clarifies that the Employment Appeal Tribunal may dismiss an appeal under new section 70ZK(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Of course the Opposition agree that this amendment should be accepted and put into the Bill, but it beggars belief that the amendment was necessary in the first place. Of course the Employment Appeal Tribunal should be allowed to dismiss an appeal if it finds that to be necessary, but how on earth was a Bill put before this House of Commons—this Parliament—that only envisaged that the tribunal might quash the order or make an order requiring the person to pay a reduced amount to the CAC? How was this Bill introduced in a form in which the dismissal of an appeal was not even an option?

It is extraordinary that a Bill could have been allowed through the write-around process—the various processes that Government have—without this anomaly being spotted and rectified before the Bill was presented and had its Second Reading debate. I gently ask the Minister to reflect on that and go back through the Bill’s provisions to double-check for any other glaring omissions, which I am sure he never wished to see in the first place and is now correcting by the amendment in his name. Could he ensure that the Bill contains no more of these, frankly, howling errors that could cause so much damage?

[Steve Darling]

Bill Committees are here to check for snags in the final construction of legislation. I am pleased that this snag has been picked up and will be sorted out by this amendment.

[Justin Madders]

I am not sure that the shadow Minister wants me to check everything again, because it might lead to further amendments and we may have this debate repeatedly. I would gently push back on the suggestion that this is a “howling error”, as he described it. Of course, the Employment Appeal Tribunal already has the jurisdiction of the CAC to hear appeals. It is probably more a case of making sure it is clear that that applies to this particular provision rather than its being an oversight in the first place.

Amendment 82 agreed to.

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

Employment Rights Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Justin Madders and Steve Darling

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is why we need to act today.

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Collective redundancy: extended application of requirements

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

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

[Steve Darling]

We are strongly supportive of the measure.

[Justin Madders]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Public sector outsourcing: protection of workers

Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Justin Madders and Steve Darling

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Employment Rights Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Justin Madders and Steve Darling

Committee stage
Thursday 28th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Justin Madders]

Q Thank you. Helen and James, is there anything you want to add to that?

Helen Dickinson: No, the overarching point is exactly as has been said. The most successful retail businesses are ones that have highly engaged workforces that are aligned to the objectives of the business and feel part of the success of a company. People who feel like that are going to work harder and the business is going to be more successful. It is all part of a reinforcing system. If it is done well, from an individual company point of view, the exemplars are the more successful businesses. It comes back to ensuring that the Bill targets those at the bottom of the pile, those that are not engaging in the right way in having forums for employee engagement or having a two-way dialogue on flexible working or whatever it might be. It should be a win-win, but I think the risk is big in terms of making sure that we do not end up with those unintended consequences.

James Lowman: Retail is based on respect for colleagues and customers. That is how businesses work, and I think that the Bill and the principles here are very much in line with that.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Q I know from conversations that I have had with businesses in my community that the Budget is set to have a significant impact on employers. Although there is a lot to welcome, broadly, in the Bill, would taking a more staged approach to its implementation be of help, or are you confident that your businesses could take this in one big bang?

Helen Dickinson: That would help. I am jumping straight in, because I feel quite strongly about this one. I do not want to rerun some of the challenges of the Budget, but the pace of additional costs that have come in for every business—particularly for retail, because of the nature of flexible work, with a lot of part-time contracts and the changing of the threshold—means that every single retailer in the country needs to look very hard at their investment plans and workforce plans, and everything that sits around that.

I think that everybody sort of breathed a sigh of relief with the clarity that the timetable was for 2026, but even now, looking at the scale of the proposals, it would be great to have more visibility over the sequencing of the different consultations, so that the industry can gear up in the right way to be able to respond effectively to them, and to make sure that we have longer than six-week periods to respond, with four consultations all going on at the same time, because that all makes it quite a challenge.

Coming back to the direct point of your question, in terms of implementation, if there are changes that need to be made in companies, I think that a run-in, or an implementation period that is workable and that gives those companies the chance to make any changes to processes, is a necessity for ensuring that the Bill lands in the right way and that we do not again end up with some of those unintended consequences. I think the Budget has unfortunately made the backdrop that much more challenging, just because of the things that people already need to deal with now and over the next six months.

Claire Costello: I will add to the piece around implementation timing: it is really easy to think of this as, “Oh, it’s straightforward; it’s about writing a policy, then, once you are in a business, sharing that with your colleagues, making sure that your line managers know what is expected of them, and landing it.” Much of what we are talking about here will require businesses, certainly larger businesses, to think about how their systems are set up as well. It changes your payroll system; it changes your workforce management system. All that is doable, but it is at the same time as other changes that organisations will be working on in the background as well. That is what we need to factor in.

On top of that, where we then have colleagues who are themselves impacted by the changes, it is about making sure that you have time to make sure that they understand that and what it means to them. It is about that run-in. It is about more than the cost; it is quite significant from the point of view of process, understanding and implementation. That is the ask, really—it is the detail and the time.

Helen Dickinson: I am sure that James will have points from a sort of one-establishment type business, but, for multi-site businesses, you could be talking about 10, 100 or 1,000 stores and distribution centres up and down the country, so we should not underestimate the significance of the need for up-front visibility of the changes.

James Lowman: The other change that has happened with the Budget and those additional significant costs on businesses is about how retail businesses respond to them. In maybe a medium-sized business—among our medium-sized members—they might have had to take out layers of management. That might include, for example, HR functions and things like that, and losing that support. In an individual store, with an independent retailer, that retailer is probably working more shifts behind the counter and in the store themselves, rather than working on the business and managing the business. That will be a consequence.

Decisions are being made to cut back shifts to compensate for those significant additional costs, so the ability and the time available for businesses of all sizes—particularly some of the smaller and medium-sized ones —to implement these changes is less than it was before the Budget, or before April. That is the reality of it.

Again, yes, it is partly about timing—that is very important and I align myself with what Helen and Claire have said about that—but that also makes it even more important that the guidance and regulations are absolutely right, so that those already increasingly and additionally stretched businesses are not spending more time in employment tribunals and having to deal with complex interpretations with their colleagues, or struggling to fill shifts and therefore having to work more hours themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Q Good morning. One of the issues the Bill is trying to tackle is the level of insecurity at work. Could you explain a little bit about how the current framework impacts your members in terms of insecurity?

Joanne Cairns: Across the whole economy, precarious employment is a major issue. There is clearly a need for policy intervention in the labour market. The TUC estimates that one in eight people are in precarious employment, and that has risen by 1 million people since 2011. It has risen nearly three times faster than secure employment. That is certainly backed up by what we see with our members. Living standards have fallen quite significantly, and the impact of insecure work on our members is significant.

Of our members, 40% tell us that they have missed meals to pay their bills, 73% cannot afford to take time off work when they are ill, 15% struggle to pay their bills every month, and more than half have told us that financial worries are having an impact on their mental health. The level of statutory sick pay and the three waiting days for it is an issue of major concern for our members, as is having contracts that do not reflect the hours that they normally work. We welcome the Government taking action in those areas.

[Steve Darling]

Q I have one short question. How do you see the Bill impacting the United Kingdom’s productivity?

Liron Velleman: The Bill should have a positive impact on productivity. Following on from Joanne’s previous answer, when people are in insecure work, they are worried about whether they are going to lose their job tomorrow, whether they will lose some of their benefits or pay, and whether they will have the security of knowing what shifts they will be working. Tightening up lots of parts of employment legislation currently on the statute book should give workers extra confidence, so that they will be able to be happy at work and work more flexibly, representing the current state of the economy rather than keeping to how things were. That should, in totality, result in greater productivity for businesses as well as for individual workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Q I assume that it would be quite difficult to quantify in economic terms the impact of removing that anxiety for 2 million workers, but if you were able to have a go at that, I would be interested to hear it.

Nye Cominetti: I would not want to try. It is not quite the same, but the closest that some studies have tried to get is saying to workers, “Would you consider this alternative job, which would improve your terms and conditions in these respects, but offer you lower pay?” That tries to get at the question of how much pay people would be willing to trade off for those other benefits, such as a more stable income or a better relationship with management.

It does not directly answer your question, but there was a study in America of Walmart workers which found that they would accept a 7% pay cut in exchange for being treated with better dignity by their managers, including things such as better advance notice of their shifts and not getting messed around late in the day to come in and pick up extra hours. I definitely cannot quantify it, but more ambitious researchers might be able to.

[Steve Darling]

Q My constituency, Torbay, is sadly in the upper quartile of the most deprived constituencies. I would welcome your reflections on how the Bill could have an impact on constituencies such as mine where there are high levels of deprivation.

Nye Cominetti: Well, I have a few caveats. First, overall employment rates are lower in high-deprivation areas, so we need to remember that all these measures will have an effect on workers, rather than those who are not working. If you want to improve income levels, this is not the place to do it. As I was just saying, however, we know that low-paid workers experience those issues of insecurity at higher rates than high-paid workers.

You also need to remember that there is not a one-for-one overlap between high pay and high income and low pay and low income. Some low-income households will have higher-paid individuals in them, but because of having a large family or having only one earner rather than two, they will still end up in that low-income category. That caveat aside, it is still the case that any measures that improve working lives for low-paid workers will have the biggest impact on lower-income households.

There are questions about what the knock-on effects are going to be. If you were really optimistic, you might say that some of these measures to improve job quality could even have a positive labour supply effect. We know that, in the 2010s, that was a big driver of improved income at the bottom and massively increased employment among low-income households. So an optimistic take on these measures might be that you could trigger some of those kinds of effects, but that is much more uncertain.

Employment Rights Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Justin Madders and Steve Darling

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Justin Madders]

Q Jane, you have said quite a lot in the past about the link between good employment protections and productivity, and the CBI has also said there is a case to be made for better security at work increasing productivity. Do you agree that the Bill has the potential to deliver on the idea that an increase in protections at work can help to increase productivity for employers?

Jane Gratton: Employers know that a happy and engaged workforce is more productive. It is in their interest to make sure that they look after their workforces, and most businesses are good, caring employers. The worry with the legislation is that in trying to address bad behaviour by a tiny minority of businesses—of bad actors—the cumulative impact and cost of all this will have a negative impact on the majority of very good businesses. Again, it comes down to the proportionality. These are huge changes, and one concern is that they have been brought in at such pace—although we are very grateful to the Minister and the Department for the time they have been able to give us in terms of consultation—that there are things written into the Bill that our members do not feel they have had sufficient time to be consulted on, because of the pace of change.

I think we need further engagement on some of these key aspects, including the reference period for offering guaranteed hours and extending those things to agency workers. There is a lot of disquiet around how that would work, particularly for companies that offer seasonal work, such as Christmas and holiday periods. How does a 12-week reference period equate to that? It does not seem to work. It would be better to have a 26-week period, for example. There are a lot of things.

The other thing that has come up often is a real nervousness around removing all the waiting days for statutory sick pay. Again, employers are really on board with supporting people who have a long period of illness, but some of the feedback from members has been that it is the single day of sickness absenteeism that causes the most disruption and impact. Rather than its being day one, a lot of employers have said, “Could it be from day two? Can we pay from day two, so the Government meets us halfway?” The overwhelming response from businesses has been, “Can Government please minimise the additional cost of these regulations on all businesses, but particularly on small and medium-sized companies?”

Matthew Percival: Yes, there is a lot of confidence in the idea that employee engagement helps to boost productivity; that is why businesses make it a priority. I am not sure they believe that much in this Bill is going to increase productivity, though, because they are not convinced that much in this Bill is going to improve employee engagement.

To take a couple of practical examples, I already mentioned in the industrial relations space the importance of the recognition process, where there is a great deal of concern that, if you recognise a trade union that does not speak for much more than a tiny proportion of your workforce, and you elevate that voice ahead of the voice of the actual workforce, that is not going to boost employee engagement. Employers are happy to work with trade unions who are the representatives of their workforces, and it is right that they should do that, and it is right that, if there are any employers who will not do that voluntarily, there is a statutory process that can force them and bring them to the table. But in the same way that we have employment law not because every employer has negative intentions, but because there are a small minority who have the potential to abuse their power, it is also appropriate to regulate the actions of trade unions in the industrial relations space.

Another quick practical example within the zero-hours contract aspect of this regulation is that crafting the requirement for accessing guaranteed hours as something that employers need to be constantly calculating for all employees whenever they work beyond their fixed hours, and then making offers to people, some of whom would want to receive those offers and some of whom would not, seems to us the most administratively complex and costly way of delivering on the proposal. We think there could be two other constructions worthy of consideration.

One of those constructions could be a right to request framework, where there are good tests on when an employer needs to accept a request versus not, just as we have around flexible working currently. Or you could call it a right to have, if you like, but at the moment I have not seen a difference between a right to request that an employer has to accept other than in limited circumstances, and a right to have that you do not have the right to have if an employer meets the same test for limited circumstances. What really matters is not whether you call it a right to request or a right to have, but what the test is for when an employer accepts the request. That would minimise significantly the administrative burden, rather than calculating lots of offers for people who will not want to accept them.

A number of individual businesses have told us that, if the Bill is to go with the grain of the good practice that already exists within industry, they will monitor people’s hours where they already have mechanisms to do so, and there will be a trigger for a conversation between the individual and their line manager in the event that their hours regularly exceed the hours guaranteed in their contract. Those who have that policy in place tell us that, most often, that leads to no change in contract. The hours are picked up as extra hours, and the individual does not want to guarantee them in their contract. There will be occasions when the individual does change contract, but those businesses say that the majority of people in that situation do not want to change their contractual arrangements, so we are hoping to minimise the admin burden.

Alex Hall-Chen: I just want to emphasise that employers absolutely recognise the link between the two. That is why, in many cases, they are ahead of the legislation. A good example of that is flexible working: 90% of IOD members’ organisations already offer at least one form of flexible working to their employees.

The concern is about the scale of the changes and the costs associated with them. We know from the Government’s impact assessment that that may be as high as £5 billion a year, with the cost disproportionately falling on small and medium-sized enterprises. A frequent piece of feedback that we get from members is that they feel that the Government do not understand how difficult it is to run an SME at the moment and just how tight profit margins are. That is primarily where we are coming from. These changes are huge—to an extent, they are unprecedented—and will impact on those already very fine profit margins.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Q I have a series of short questions. First, if the panellists were to put a stake in the ground on probationary periods, what timescale would you choose? What is a reasonable approach?

Jane Gratton: It is really important that there is a probationary period, and it should be at least nine months. Businesses ideally want a 12-month probationary period, not least because some individuals are required to undertake mandatory training, which takes 12 months or more. We could live with a nine-month probationary period.

The key thing is that there should be a light-touch approach during that period so that businesses are not discouraged from taking a risk on employees. Employers should not have to introduce very stringent performance monitoring from day one, which helps neither the employee nor the business. Having structure during the probation period is good, but businesses need to be able to end the relationship on the basis of ability or performance, as we do now. There should be no greater risk to an employer of an employment tribunal than there is currently during the probation period.

Matthew Percival: Typically, a business’s standard probation period is no longer than six months. However, that does not mean that it is appropriate to set in regulation a limit on probation periods of six months. That is important for us, because a common response of an employer who sees that an individual is not performing quite to the level that they would want to be able to confirm them in post is to say, “Okay, we have gone through our standard probationary period, but we are willing to continue to invest in you, offer you more support and training, and extend that probation period, rather than rush to a firm yes or no decision for confirming employment.”

It is important that the regulations do not prevent the employer good practice of being willing to extend someone’s probation and give them more time to adapt to work, particularly if we are thinking about the challenge of getting people back into work who have had a period out of work. That is a big public policy and economic priority at the moment. We are in the same camp: certainly no less than nine months, so that there is that extra time before an employer is forced to make a firm yes or no decision on confirming employment, but preferably 12 months.

Alex Hall-Chen: Similarly, the feedback we have had from members is that their probation periods tend to be between three and six months, but as the other panellists have said, given exemptions around training and the potential to extend probation periods, nine months would be the minimum and 12 months would be preferable. As to the specific process, the lighter-touch dismissal process is better. We have done research that suggests that even a light-touch dismissal process, as defined by Government at the moment, would not solve the issue. A third of our members said that it would not mitigate their concerns around this policy at all, and half said that it would only partially mitigate their concerns, so we remain worried about the impact that this policy will have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Q Thank you. I have a specific question for Cathryn, and the other two witnesses could also respond to it. First, though, I should say that the right to disconnect is not in the Bill.

Cathryn, you spoke about surveys with your managers and about the strong support for the Bill, and you said that there is nothing in the proposals that should alarm a responsible business. Given what you also said about the pace of implementation and the need to continue dialogue, if we get that right, would you still say there is nothing in the proposals that should alarm a responsible employer?

Cathryn Moses-Stone: First, the right to disconnect was just a useful example of the sort of concerns we hear.

We are not saying there is nothing for businesses to be alarmed about. One of the challenges that managers and leaders face is implementing and managing change across their organisations, and that is a complex thing. That comes back to our point that we have a whole suite of data on the impact that highly skilled managers have on managing change in their organisations, and the knock-on impact that has on recruitment, retention, productivity and the success of a business. It does not mean it is easy and straightforward; I do not think many things that managers and leaders do are easy and straightforward. Again, it comes back to the core principle of having the right amount of time and being able to support managers to skill up. That at least gives them the tools to be able to tackle these complicated things head on, because they will be complicated.

Ben Willmott: I absolutely agree that there is a significant role for well-designed, effectively enforced employment regulation to support overall improvement in employment standards and to support efforts to improve employee engagement and productivity. The key is that it has to be well-designed regulation. If it is excessive or too complex to implement on the ground, it will lead to increased costs, and that will undermine the ability of businesses to improve job quality, invest in recruitment and skills, and support technology adoption and things that will drive productivity. That is why, as we move forward, the consultation is so important.

An example of a measure in the Bill is around the reference period for workers to have the right to guaranteed hours. It is not set out in the Bill, but in “Next Steps” it is set at 12 weeks. In our view it is crucial that there should be consultation on the 12-week reference period. The Government have set out their principles for a modern industrial relations framework: accountability, proportionality, collaboration and balancing the interests of business and workers. Those principles need to apply as we roll out and implement the proposals, so 12 weeks is a test that should be subject to consultation, because it is so important to the functioning of that right. That is the sort of thing where we want to see consultation—where it would help to decide that the ultimate regulation is effectively designed and can work.

[Steve Darling]

Q From Torbay to Tyneside, productivity in the British economy is the biggest challenge that we face. Cathryn has alluded to productivity a number of times during evidence. What opportunities do you see in the Bill for driving productivity and the culture change needed to drive that agenda through our workforce?

Ben Willmott: The Bill is focusing businesses’ minds on how they recruit, manage and develop their people. I will refer to comments I made earlier. If the measures in the Bill are designed the right way, they can support improvements in overall employment standards. But if consultation is not effective and measures are introduced that are not workable, it will have the opposite effect. It is about finding the right balance.

Cathryn Moses-Stone: Similarly, we have a lot of data that shows that policies like flexible working, enhanced family-friendly rights and day one rights make employees feel valued and supported, which in turn drives better performance.

We did a study last year looking at the impact of trained managers in effectively delivering hybrid working. By way of example, 68% of our managers said that hybrid working made it easier to increase their work productivity, and that was a result of managers being trained to manage teams that work in a hybrid way. We know that where managers trust their direct reports—this is what our evidence shows—they find that productivity rises. As I have already said, poorly managed teams face lower motivation, satisfaction and retention, and ultimately impact on business delivery. So really good management in designing work that allows employees to thrive is important.

We must remember that managers are employees themselves. Managers want it to work for themselves as much as they want it to work for employees. That in turn will boost productivity at the higher levels of the organisation as well. We have lots of data that backs that up. Again, it is all about how the legislation is implemented and all about the time and space that is given to support managers to do that.

Ben Willmott: The other thing I would add is that our members are certainly supportive of the ambition behind the Bill. Our member survey shows that there is significant support for changes to improve statutory sick pay and to improve parental leave.

There are definitely areas of the Bill that have support, but I will give an example of an issue. When talking to members in sectors that might bear more cost from changes to statutory sick pay, we found they were much more sanguine in September than they were after the Budget, because they are now thinking about it in the context of broader changes. The cumulative effect of changes and increases in employment costs needs to be taken into account when we think about individual measures.

Carly Cannings: On the point about productivity, if you look at what makes a workforce productive, there are lots of things that go in the mix, such as feeling engaged in the work you are doing and valued by your managers, as well as having an environment around you that offers things such as flexibility. The factors that lead to productivity are broad. We need to be realistic about the measures in this Bill and how far they will go to support productivity, given that lots of employers are probably already meeting lots of these minimum thresholds.

It is a step in the right direction. It raises the profile of things such as flexible working, so hopefully more businesses will adopt it—it is now a day one right anyway. It definitely moves in the right direction in terms of creating that happy, engaged workforce who feel valued and able to work in a way that works for them and their employer. Again, it is back to that point about raising minimum standards. There is more to this element about workplace culture and productivity than just minimum standards of employment legislation.

Cathryn Moses-Stone: Echoing that, it is important to acknowledge that lots of forward-thinking employers are already doing a lot of this stuff anyway. They are doing it for a reason, because they are seeing the impact on their business. That must not be forgotten.

Employment Rights Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Justin Madders and Steve Darling

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Justin Madders]

Q Jane, you have said quite a lot in the past about the link between good employment protections and productivity, and the CBI has also said there is a case to be made for better security at work increasing productivity. Do you agree that the Bill has the potential to deliver on the idea that an increase in protections at work can help to increase productivity for employers?

Jane Gratton: Employers know that a happy and engaged workforce is more productive. It is in their interest to make sure that they look after their workforces, and most businesses are good, caring employers. The worry with the legislation is that in trying to address bad behaviour by a tiny minority of businesses—of bad actors—the cumulative impact and cost of all this will have a negative impact on the majority of very good businesses. Again, it comes down to the proportionality. These are huge changes, and one concern is that they have been brought in at such pace—although we are very grateful to the Minister and the Department for the time they have been able to give us in terms of consultation—that there are things written into the Bill that our members do not feel they have had sufficient time to be consulted on, because of the pace of change.

I think we need further engagement on some of these key aspects, including the reference period for offering guaranteed hours and extending those things to agency workers. There is a lot of disquiet around how that would work, particularly for companies that offer seasonal work, such as Christmas and holiday periods. How does a 12-week reference period equate to that? It does not seem to work. It would be better to have a 26-week period, for example. There are a lot of things.

The other thing that has come up often is a real nervousness around removing all the waiting days for statutory sick pay. Again, employers are really on board with supporting people who have a long period of illness, but some of the feedback from members has been that it is the single day of sickness absenteeism that causes the most disruption and impact. Rather than its being day one, a lot of employers have said, “Could it be from day two? Can we pay from day two, so the Government meets us halfway?” The overwhelming response from businesses has been, “Can Government please minimise the additional cost of these regulations on all businesses, but particularly on small and medium-sized companies?”

Matthew Percival: Yes, there is a lot of confidence in the idea that employee engagement helps to boost productivity; that is why businesses make it a priority. I am not sure they believe that much in this Bill is going to increase productivity, though, because they are not convinced that much in this Bill is going to improve employee engagement.

To take a couple of practical examples, I already mentioned in the industrial relations space the importance of the recognition process, where there is a great deal of concern that, if you recognise a trade union that does not speak for much more than a tiny proportion of your workforce, and you elevate that voice ahead of the voice of the actual workforce, that is not going to boost employee engagement. Employers are happy to work with trade unions who are the representatives of their workforces, and it is right that they should do that, and it is right that, if there are any employers who will not do that voluntarily, there is a statutory process that can force them and bring them to the table. But in the same way that we have employment law not because every employer has negative intentions, but because there are a small minority who have the potential to abuse their power, it is also appropriate to regulate the actions of trade unions in the industrial relations space.

Another quick practical example within the zero-hours contract aspect of this regulation is that crafting the requirement for accessing guaranteed hours as something that employers need to be constantly calculating for all employees whenever they work beyond their fixed hours, and then making offers to people, some of whom would want to receive those offers and some of whom would not, seems to us the most administratively complex and costly way of delivering on the proposal. We think there could be two other constructions worthy of consideration.

One of those constructions could be a right to request framework, where there are good tests on when an employer needs to accept a request versus not, just as we have around flexible working currently. Or you could call it a right to have, if you like, but at the moment I have not seen a difference between a right to request that an employer has to accept other than in limited circumstances, and a right to have that you do not have the right to have if an employer meets the same test for limited circumstances. What really matters is not whether you call it a right to request or a right to have, but what the test is for when an employer accepts the request. That would minimise significantly the administrative burden, rather than calculating lots of offers for people who will not want to accept them.

A number of individual businesses have told us that, if the Bill is to go with the grain of the good practice that already exists within industry, they will monitor people’s hours where they already have mechanisms to do so, and there will be a trigger for a conversation between the individual and their line manager in the event that their hours regularly exceed the hours guaranteed in their contract. Those who have that policy in place tell us that, most often, that leads to no change in contract. The hours are picked up as extra hours, and the individual does not want to guarantee them in their contract. There will be occasions when the individual does change contract, but those businesses say that the majority of people in that situation do not want to change their contractual arrangements, so we are hoping to minimise the admin burden.

Alex Hall-Chen: I just want to emphasise that employers absolutely recognise the link between the two. That is why, in many cases, they are ahead of the legislation. A good example of that is flexible working: 90% of IOD members’ organisations already offer at least one form of flexible working to their employees.

The concern is about the scale of the changes and the costs associated with them. We know from the Government’s impact assessment that that may be as high as £5 billion a year, with the cost disproportionately falling on small and medium-sized enterprises. A frequent piece of feedback that we get from members is that they feel that the Government do not understand how difficult it is to run an SME at the moment and just how tight profit margins are. That is primarily where we are coming from. These changes are huge—to an extent, they are unprecedented—and will impact on those already very fine profit margins.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Q I have a series of short questions. First, if the panellists were to put a stake in the ground on probationary periods, what timescale would you choose? What is a reasonable approach?

Jane Gratton: It is really important that there is a probationary period, and it should be at least nine months. Businesses ideally want a 12-month probationary period, not least because some individuals are required to undertake mandatory training, which takes 12 months or more. We could live with a nine-month probationary period.

The key thing is that there should be a light-touch approach during that period so that businesses are not discouraged from taking a risk on employees. Employers should not have to introduce very stringent performance monitoring from day one, which helps neither the employee nor the business. Having structure during the probation period is good, but businesses need to be able to end the relationship on the basis of ability or performance, as we do now. There should be no greater risk to an employer of an employment tribunal than there is currently during the probation period.

Matthew Percival: Typically, a business’s standard probation period is no longer than six months. However, that does not mean that it is appropriate to set in regulation a limit on probation periods of six months. That is important for us, because a common response of an employer who sees that an individual is not performing quite to the level that they would want to be able to confirm them in post is to say, “Okay, we have gone through our standard probationary period, but we are willing to continue to invest in you, offer you more support and training, and extend that probation period, rather than rush to a firm yes or no decision for confirming employment.”

It is important that the regulations do not prevent the employer good practice of being willing to extend someone’s probation and give them more time to adapt to work, particularly if we are thinking about the challenge of getting people back into work who have had a period out of work. That is a big public policy and economic priority at the moment. We are in the same camp: certainly no less than nine months, so that there is that extra time before an employer is forced to make a firm yes or no decision on confirming employment, but preferably 12 months.

Alex Hall-Chen: Similarly, the feedback we have had from members is that their probation periods tend to be between three and six months, but as the other panellists have said, given exemptions around training and the potential to extend probation periods, nine months would be the minimum and 12 months would be preferable. As to the specific process, the lighter-touch dismissal process is better. We have done research that suggests that even a light-touch dismissal process, as defined by Government at the moment, would not solve the issue. A third of our members said that it would not mitigate their concerns around this policy at all, and half said that it would only partially mitigate their concerns, so we remain worried about the impact that this policy will have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Q Thank you. I have a specific question for Cathryn, and the other two witnesses could also respond to it. First, though, I should say that the right to disconnect is not in the Bill.

Cathryn, you spoke about surveys with your managers and about the strong support for the Bill, and you said that there is nothing in the proposals that should alarm a responsible business. Given what you also said about the pace of implementation and the need to continue dialogue, if we get that right, would you still say there is nothing in the proposals that should alarm a responsible employer?

Cathryn Moses-Stone: First, the right to disconnect was just a useful example of the sort of concerns we hear.

We are not saying there is nothing for businesses to be alarmed about. One of the challenges that managers and leaders face is implementing and managing change across their organisations, and that is a complex thing. That comes back to our point that we have a whole suite of data on the impact that highly skilled managers have on managing change in their organisations, and the knock-on impact that has on recruitment, retention, productivity and the success of a business. It does not mean it is easy and straightforward; I do not think many things that managers and leaders do are easy and straightforward. Again, it comes back to the core principle of having the right amount of time and being able to support managers to skill up. That at least gives them the tools to be able to tackle these complicated things head on, because they will be complicated.

Ben Willmott: I absolutely agree that there is a significant role for well-designed, effectively enforced employment regulation to support overall improvement in employment standards and to support efforts to improve employee engagement and productivity. The key is that it has to be well-designed regulation. If it is excessive or too complex to implement on the ground, it will lead to increased costs, and that will undermine the ability of businesses to improve job quality, invest in recruitment and skills, and support technology adoption and things that will drive productivity. That is why, as we move forward, the consultation is so important.

An example of a measure in the Bill is around the reference period for workers to have the right to guaranteed hours. It is not set out in the Bill, but in “Next Steps” it is set at 12 weeks. In our view it is crucial that there should be consultation on the 12-week reference period. The Government have set out their principles for a modern industrial relations framework: accountability, proportionality, collaboration and balancing the interests of business and workers. Those principles need to apply as we roll out and implement the proposals, so 12 weeks is a test that should be subject to consultation, because it is so important to the functioning of that right. That is the sort of thing where we want to see consultation—where it would help to decide that the ultimate regulation is effectively designed and can work.

[Steve Darling]

Q From Torbay to Tyneside, productivity in the British economy is the biggest challenge that we face. Cathryn has alluded to productivity a number of times during evidence. What opportunities do you see in the Bill for driving productivity and the culture change needed to drive that agenda through our workforce?

Ben Willmott: The Bill is focusing businesses’ minds on how they recruit, manage and develop their people. I will refer to comments I made earlier. If the measures in the Bill are designed the right way, they can support improvements in overall employment standards. But if consultation is not effective and measures are introduced that are not workable, it will have the opposite effect. It is about finding the right balance.

Cathryn Moses-Stone: Similarly, we have a lot of data that shows that policies like flexible working, enhanced family-friendly rights and day one rights make employees feel valued and supported, which in turn drives better performance.

We did a study last year looking at the impact of trained managers in effectively delivering hybrid working. By way of example, 68% of our managers said that hybrid working made it easier to increase their work productivity, and that was a result of managers being trained to manage teams that work in a hybrid way. We know that where managers trust their direct reports—this is what our evidence shows—they find that productivity rises. As I have already said, poorly managed teams face lower motivation, satisfaction and retention, and ultimately impact on business delivery. So really good management in designing work that allows employees to thrive is important.

We must remember that managers are employees themselves. Managers want it to work for themselves as much as they want it to work for employees. That in turn will boost productivity at the higher levels of the organisation as well. We have lots of data that backs that up. Again, it is all about how the legislation is implemented and all about the time and space that is given to support managers to do that.

Ben Willmott: The other thing I would add is that our members are certainly supportive of the ambition behind the Bill. Our member survey shows that there is significant support for changes to improve statutory sick pay and to improve parental leave.

There are definitely areas of the Bill that have support, but I will give an example of an issue. When talking to members in sectors that might bear more cost from changes to statutory sick pay, we found they were much more sanguine in September than they were after the Budget, because they are now thinking about it in the context of broader changes. The cumulative effect of changes and increases in employment costs needs to be taken into account when we think about individual measures.

Carly Cannings: On the point about productivity, if you look at what makes a workforce productive, there are lots of things that go in the mix, such as feeling engaged in the work you are doing and valued by your managers, as well as having an environment around you that offers things such as flexibility. The factors that lead to productivity are broad. We need to be realistic about the measures in this Bill and how far they will go to support productivity, given that lots of employers are probably already meeting lots of these minimum thresholds.

It is a step in the right direction. It raises the profile of things such as flexible working, so hopefully more businesses will adopt it—it is now a day one right anyway. It definitely moves in the right direction in terms of creating that happy, engaged workforce who feel valued and able to work in a way that works for them and their employer. Again, it is back to that point about raising minimum standards. There is more to this element about workplace culture and productivity than just minimum standards of employment legislation.

Cathryn Moses-Stone: Echoing that, it is important to acknowledge that lots of forward-thinking employers are already doing a lot of this stuff anyway. They are doing it for a reason, because they are seeing the impact on their business. That must not be forgotten.

Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Justin Madders and Steve Darling

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Justin Madders]

Q I have just one question, mainly for Jemima, but you are welcome to chip in, Joeli. The Regulatory Policy Committee has suggested that there is no evidence base for third-party harassment. Do you have any thoughts on that criticism?

Jemima Olchawski: There is strong evidence that the majority of sexual harassment experienced in the workplace comes from third parties. This is where someone experiences harassment from a client, customer or patient. Some of those who are most vulnerable would include those working in retail and hospitality. It is essential that anyone working in those environments is as safe as they can be and respected in their workplace. We would consider it essential that employers’ responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment includes third parties, because as a victim, it is not relevant that the person was not a direct co-employee. What matters is the harm experienced. It is absolutely within the bounds of good practice and reasonable steps for employers to address that.

Joeli Brearley: Nothing from me. It is not my area.

[Steve Darling]

Q I visited Torquay girls’ grammar school in my constituency of Torbay some time ago, and met the head and some of the sixth-form students who were experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace throughout Torbay. Does the proposed legislation go far enough? I am particularly thinking of young people who may lack confidence. What could be built in to support them to call it out, so that it is not just seen—as other people might call it—as a bit of a banter or something like that? It is deeply hurtful and painful for those individuals, and the sooner we give them support the better. I welcome your reflections on how the Bill could be strengthened in this area.

Jemima Olchawski: It could be strengthened by having clear guidance and expectations around the reasonable steps that will prevent. That should include multiple reporting routes, which might be anonymous if that feels more appropriate, and training for managers. Our research shows that managers want to respond appropriately, but often when those conversations come up, they do not know what the right thing to do is. Consequently, lots of those conversations end up going badly, and young people or employees do not get the support they need.

It is also important that enforcement agencies have the resource to investigate whether policies and procedures are in place, so that we can embed a culture of prevention rather than just respond decently when incidents happen. That is in the interests of employers too, because cultures where there is bullying or harassment are bad for productivity and staff turnover. It is in everyone’s interest to ensure we address this and cut it off at the pass.

Joeli Brearley: The only thing I would add is that when women experience sexual harassment or any form of discrimination and want to access justice, the justice system is currently failing them—it is not working. We know, certainly in cases of pregnancy and maternity discrimination, that fewer than 1% of women who have that experience even raise a tribunal claim. Part of what we need to do is extend that time limit to raise a claim. It is currently three months. It needs to be at least six months, so that women have the opportunity to recover from their experience before they start to go through that onerous, difficult process of raising a tribunal claim.