United Front Work Department

Debate between Lee Anderson and Dan Jarvis

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks with experience and authority on these matters, and he is right to mention North Korea. On his point about resources, I am not remotely complacent about that at all. Mindful of the nature of the threat that we face, the Home Secretary and I will work with our colleagues across Government to ensure that our security services have the resources they need. We have exceptional people stepping forward to serve, and it is the responsibility of Government, regardless of political colour, to ensure that they have the resources and technology they need not just to keep pace with the threat, but to retain a competitive advantage. We will ensure that they have the resources to do that.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

Yang Tengbo is the alleged Chinese spy who has been stalking the corridors of power in our country, rubbing shoulders with royalty, Prime Ministers and business leaders, yet his name was withheld from the great British public. Does the Minister agree that his name was withheld only to avoid embarrassment for previous Prime Ministers and for business leaders, and that that was not in the best interests of the British public?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I named H6. His initial anonymity was a result of a court order; it was not a UK Government decision.

Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill

Debate between Lee Anderson and Dan Jarvis

2nd reading
Friday 21st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his intervention. I had not expected us to get into a debate today about what is going on in Germany, but he raises a valuable point. It is always important to look at how things work in different countries. The German model has been looked at closely, and a number of campaign organisations are strongly supportive of it. I have had those conversations with Ministers and a range of organisations, and there is merit in the German model, which, for the record, is my preference. I understand, however, the concerns that have been raised, and I think the Bill has currently got to the right place. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support today.

We are now six years on from the shocking findings by the Equality and Human Rights Commission about the industrial scale discrimination that expectant and new mums face at work. This is a timely opportunity to make progress. I confess that I was taken aback by the level of discrimination faced by pregnant women in the workplace. Perhaps I had made an assumption that such practices had been consigned to history, but that is not the case, and as I said, 54,000 women are directly affected as a consequence, with the wider impact that will have on their families.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

This is an excellent debate, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing the Bill. He suggested that more than 50,000 women in this country lose their jobs as a result of being pregnant, which has a terrific impact on family and social welfare. Are employers also missing a trick? They are losing their most valuable resource—those women—who can provide fantastic work in the workplace.

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. He is absolutely right that some employers are missing a trick here. As I said, I did not expect to get into a debate about Germany, but he makes an interesting point. There are so many amazing examples of extraordinary women who can excel at what they do—of course there are—so it seems incredibly strange that employers would want to discriminate against women in such a way.

I am sure the hon. Member will agree that that says something about the nature of our society. All of us recognise the importance of children and families—they are the bedrock and foundation of our society—so it cannot be right that women are treated in such a way and on this scale. That must be consigned to the past. We must move forward, and the Bill provides a really good opportunity to do that. I would be the first to admit that the Bill is not a panacea, but it is a good step in the right direction and I am grateful for the support offered for it.

Having made some remarks about the example that I referenced and the enforcement mechanism used in Germany, I am sure the Minister agrees that there is merit in us continuing to work closely together through the Bill’s passage to look at how, on a cross-party basis, we can seek to address some of the current safeguards’ shortcomings, namely around the confusion and compliance that I referred to.

On the former, now is the time to end the inconsistency of when and how regulation 10 of the MAPLE regulations is applied. For instance, when a firm is reducing its number of roles, many employers see their obligations to women on maternity leave as a two-stage process, initially by forcing them to compete for their job against colleagues and only then seeking to find them suitable alternative vacancies if they are unsuccessful in retaining their role. That is deeply unfair. Women on maternity leave are at a massive disadvantage, as they might have been out of the workplace for months—obviously, they have been focused on caring for their newborn child. It is also highly irrational. If a new mum has been selected for redundancy, there is little or no chance of their being offered a suitable alternative vacancy, because they will have been filled. As it stands, many workers do not know their rights under the existing regulations, businesses apply them in different ways, and even case law is conflicting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

That is an excellent point that has attracted support from right across the Chamber. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We must make sure that women are making decisions about their professional careers without having to weigh up all sorts of factors of unfairness. There must be a level playing field and we must make sure that women are not disadvantaged in the workplace, so I completely agree with her and very much hope this Bill will go some way to achieving that ambition.

I was referring to Emily, whose story highlights the need for consistency and the devastating consequences of what can happen when regulation 10 is not applied correctly. Confusion should never be an excuse for discrimination in the workplace. I have been working closely with the TUC and Unison on the Bill, along with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which has been incredibly helpful. It has offered to inform all its 160,000 members of the changes that the Bill will introduce, if it is successful. Will the Minister say how, if the Bill is successful, he plans to communicate the changes to workers and how he will clarify to employers their what their legal obligations will be?

On compliance, some firms simply do not offer an alternative role by falsely claiming that one does not exist. Others engineer situations to force new mums out the door. When a business flouts the rules, the onus is on the woman—who, remember, is on maternity leave—to take the matter to an employment tribunal. That highly stressful and costly decision must be made within three months. However, the 2016 findings showed that less than 1% of women lodged a complaint with an employment tribunal.

When we look into that worryingly low statistic, it is painfully obvious why the figure is so small. The scale of the challenge that such women face is almost insurmountable. Sarah, for example, was made redundant by e-mail six months into her pregnancy. Not wanting to be saddled with a gruelling legal battle during the final months of her pregnancy, she decided against taking legal action at that point. After her baby was born, she sought legal advice, only to be told that she no longer had a case because she had not raised her unfair dismissal within the three-month window. She told me that she never realised how vulnerable pregnant women are until it happened to her.

There is also Natasha: after telling her employer that she was pregnant during the pandemic, she was made redundant while other members of her team stayed on. Shortly after, Natasha suffered the heartbreak of a miscarriage. She lost her baby and she lost her job. I know that many across the House have experienced the pain and trauma of a miscarriage and know only too well its profound and devastating impact.

[Lee Anderson]

Those are shocking stories; I cannot believe that is happening in this day and age. Does the hon. Member think that some women are perhaps living in fear when they fall pregnant, and that some ladies’ fear of losing their job may lead to them doing the unthinkable, which is to have an abortion?

[Dan Jarvis]

I think all of us can completely agree that that is not the kind of society in which we want to live. We should value people who do the right thing and step forward to enter the workplace. Collectively, we all have a responsibility to put in place legislation that will provide protections to ensure that people are not treated in that way.

To go back to the hon. Member’s previous point, there is a big responsibility on business. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of the business community are sensible, decent employers. They want to do the right thing. As he said, it is in their interest to do the right thing, value their staff and invest in their workforce—not least a cohort of the workforce that, in every respect, are effective and efficient, to go back to the point about productivity. We have an opportunity to take a step forward today. As I said, this is not a panacea. There is a debate about whether we should go further and be more ambitious, but this is a good step in the right direction and I very much hope that we take it.