“Chapter 4A
Lisa Smart Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Burgon
I certainly do. The previous Government never got round to introducing such a Bill. When the Conservative party was in government, all we had about the P&O debacle were crocodile tears or statements of sorrow from the Dispatch Box, which just do not cut it.
This Bill contains important advances, such as establishing bereavement leave and introducing menopause action plans. Over 1 million people on zero-hours contracts will benefit from the guaranteed hours policy, and 9 million people who have been with an employer for less than two years will benefit from the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one. It seems to escape the understanding of many Conservative Members that this does not mean that employers cannot dismiss people; it means that they cannot dismiss people unfairly.
The Conservatives are arguing for the right of employers to dismiss people unfairly. As it stands, before this legislation comes in, the only way that workers can claim unfair dismissal from day one is if it is a discriminatory dismissal. To be clear, an employer could, six months into someone’s contract of employment, say, “I’m sacking you because I don’t like people who wear green jumpers,” or, “I’m sacking you because I find your voice irritating.” That would be unfair dismissal. As it stands, people do not have the right not to be unfairly dismissed until they have accrued two years of service, and the Conservative party needs to come clean about that.
Before I move on to my new clause 6, I want to say that I welcome many of the Government amendments and the amendments tabled by Labour Back Benchers, including the many important amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who did such a good job at developing employment policy in opposition; the important amendments on sick pay, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain); and the important amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and for Luton North (Sarah Owen).
My new clause 6 would right what I consider to be a historical wrong. The last Labour Government brought in the groundbreaking Equality Act 2010, which we can all be proud of. As part of that, they introduced statutory discrimination questionnaires. When I was an employment lawyer before becoming a Member of Parliament, I lost track of the number of times that we used statutory discrimination questionnaires to smoke out discrimination in the workplace in relation to age, disability, sex, race, sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity, gender reassignment, religion or belief, and marriage and civil partnership.
I bumped into an old colleague who is a trade union lawyer on a train, and he made the point that statutory discrimination questionnaires also—[Interruption.] I make no apologies for having a friend who is a trade union lawyer—I think the Conservatives need to get out a bit more. He made the point that statutory discrimination questionnaires showed when a claim did not have a good chance of succeeding at an employment tribunal, helped to manage potential claimants’ expectations, and thus led to an unmeritorious claim either not being pursued or being settled. Such questionnaires helped to smoke out discrimination in workplaces, helping not just the individual employee, but tackling discrimination against workers more widely in that workplace. The truth is that in 2025, given some of the rhetoric from politicians in this country and around the world, it is as important as ever to have mechanisms in place to tackle discrimination in workplaces across the country.
That was part of the last Labour Government’s pioneering Equality Act. Shamefully, the Conservative Government abolished statutory Equality Act questionnaires in 2014 as part of their attack on workers’ rights. In their consultation, 83% of respondents said it was wrong to remove this important mechanism for workers to unmask and tackle discrimination—83%—yet the Conservative party when in government, aided and abetted by some of their erstwhile friends, ploughed ahead in any event.
I tabled new clause 6 because this is an important opportunity for our new Labour Government to right the wrong done by that Conservative-led Government and reinstate a very important advance made in the last Labour Government’s Equality Act. I look forward with interest to hearing the Minister’s response. If he will not accept this amendment to the Bill, I invite him to come forward with a proposal to reintroduce statutory discrimination questionnaires as soon as possible. They made a real difference. They helped to stop some claims going to tribunal that should not have gone to tribunal, but, more importantly, they empowered workers to smoke out discrimination in their workplaces not only for their benefit, but for the benefit of their colleagues in that workplace and for the benefit of wider society. We need that now in 2025, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
A great many very important employment-related issues are being discussed, but I rise in support of new clause 16. As it stands, self-employed people are not entitled to statutory adoption pay, which creates a substantial economic barrier for prospective adopters. Without this support, the selfless act of adoption is being made harder. New clause 16 would fix that.
A constituent of mine, Kirsty, is a self-employed mother who discovered this significant gap in the financial support system while exploring the possibility of adoption. Kirsty and her husband have a son, Charlie, who is a bright-eyed four-year-old with an unshakeable love of trains. He often talked about how much he wanted a little sibling to be his assistant train driver, and after a year of trying to conceive a second child, Kirsty and her family decided that opening their hearts and their home to a child through adoption was the best option. However, one of Kirsty’s close friends—also self-employed and in the process of adopting—informed her that she was not entitled to the same financial support through statutory adoption pay, throwing her plans into doubt.
Unlike biological parents, who qualify for maternity allowance, or employed adopters, who are eligible for statutory adoption pay, self-employed adopters such as Kirsty fall into a financial support void. While statutory guidance allows local authorities to make discretionary means-tested payments equivalent to these allowances for the self-employed, such support is not guaranteed, and local authorities have no legal duty to provide it. In fact, a freedom of information request by the charity Home for Good has revealed that 34% of local authorities lack any policy for providing this financial support. Even worse, 90% of self-employed adopters, when they were surveyed by the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence back in 2022, reported that their social worker never advised them about these discretionary payments and the possibility of receiving them.
Adoption provides children with the opportunity to thrive in a permanent, loving home, often completing a family, as I have had the great pleasure of seeing for myself in my role as a proud adopted auntie. I am confident in my belief that Members across the House will agree that self-employed people are no less suited to adopt than anyone else. Despite the increase in the number of children in care, the number of adoptions in the UK has halved since its peak in 2015, and this is completely unsustainable. The enormous and growing pressures that face our foster care system will only worsen if the number of adoptions continues to decrease.
As of December 2024, there are 4.39 million self-employed people across the UK. If we began removing the financial barriers and empowering those who are self-employed through guaranteed financial support for adoption, we could begin to reverse the worrying trends in the number of adoptions. That would allow willing adopters such as Kirsty and her husband to be financially able to do so.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lisa Smart Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
My constituent Kirsty is self-employed and is looking to adopt a child, but she does not qualify for adoption leave or adoption pay and, because she is not having her child biologically, she does not qualify for maternity allowance. Would the Government support changing that, whether through the Employment Rights Bill or otherwise, so that brilliant future parents are not put off from adopting because they cannot afford it?
Justin Madders
That is an interesting question. There is a great interplay with rights for self-employed people. We are committing to a review on that in due course, together with a wider look at the parental leave system. We will get back to the hon. Lady on that.
Fireworks: Sale and Use
Lisa Smart Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) very much for leading this important debate; I agree with a great deal of what he said. I also thank the many petitioners who raised the issue. As the MP for Hazel Grove, I was not surprised to see that my constituency has one of the highest numbers of signatures. That highlights the strength of feeling among my neighbours.
Fireworks are among the most common topics that my constituents get in touch with me about; that was the case before I was elected in July, when I was a local councillor, and has been since. I also care about the issue because I am the owner of a mischievous rescue dog, Bonnie, who is absolutely terrified of fireworks—both the lights and, particularly, the noise—so the period between the end of October and the new year is always particularly upsetting for her.
We all vaguely know when to expect the beginning of the firework season, but these days fireworks do not seem to stop. Many displays seem to occur outside the typical season, and it is the same for kids enjoying themselves on the estate behind my house. Across the autumn and beyond, there is little I can do to prevent the enormous distress that Bonnie goes through each year. Every time she hears the opening whizzes or bangs, she throws herself around the room or across the garden, barking furiously and absolutely terrified. There is only so long that we can keep her inside with the blinds closed, with drum and bass blasting out to block out the noise. The call of nature calls her outside from time to time, and then she is back to being terrified again. I am sure that experience will resonate with the tens of millions of people across the UK who have animals in their homes.
The impact of fireworks is felt not only by pets and their owners but by all the wildlife across the UK, as well as the many people who have conditions such as PTSD or sensitivity to unexpected noises. We should not have to expect or accept regular and continuous fireworks displays for many weeks of every year. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley rightly pointed out the difficulties in enforcing the existing regulations.
I am a Liberal, and I do not think we should ban things just because I find them annoying, but I do think that when my actions harm someone else and my freedoms bump into someone else’s, we should look at whether we have the balance right. In the majority of states and territories in Australia, it is illegal for members of the public to possess and use fireworks. In the few regions that permit public use, they are limited to a small number of very specific holidays. In other states, they are carried out only by trained and licensed pyrotechnicians or those they have approved and instructed.
We must balance the cultural significance and recreational value of fireworks displays on special holidays with the safety and welfare of people, pets and wildlife. If we adopt Australian-style legislation, local authorities would be able to manage their own fireworks calendars and prevent the continuous barrage of fireworks that we regularly face in the last few months of every year.
The petitions are a mandate from our constituents to act. We need to do more to protect our friends, families, pets and wildlife from the harmful effects of fireworks. I urge the Government to take action to reduce the detrimental impact of fireworks across our communities and to adopt similar legislation to that which we see elsewhere. On behalf of my many constituents who signed the two petitions, and particularly on behalf of my mischievous and pyrophobic rescue dog Bonnie, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss these issues today.
Stellantis Luton
Lisa Smart Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds
Let me be clear: we worked constructively on the ZEV mandate that the previous Conservative Government put forward. I believe in incentives towards the transition. I am not arguing against that—I reacted to the sheer brass neck of those on the Opposition Front Bench, who somehow did not even recognise that it was their policy that we were willing to change, and presented the argument as if it was the other way round. I will be robust in saying that the facts are as they are when those on the Opposition Front Bench are not willing to accept them.
We want this transition to work. This is not about the destination or even the thresholds; this is about the flexibilities, how the policy operates, and what that means for market conditions in the United Kingdom. That is an entirely reasonable and proper response to what we found walking through the door as a new Government, and I see no reason why people cannot pragmatically get on board and support that.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
One thing stopping some of my constituents from transitioning to electric vehicles is a lack of access to charging points. As a constituency neighbour, the Secretary of State will know that some of the housing stock in my patch lends itself more easily to personalised charging points than other parts. What more can the Government do to ensure that everyone can access charging points to make the transition to EVs?
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree that that is one concern that consumers have. The principal concern for consumers on EV take-up is the cost of the vehicle. The hon. Member will know from our constituencies that in some places, it is difficult to envisage the kind of infrastructure that people take for granted in areas that have more capacity to have it built into properties and driveways. There are about 70,000 public EV chargers in the United Kingdom, and there is not always equity across different parts of the country. A lot of people are surprised to learn that we have more public chargers than Norway, for instance, which is very much the leader in electric vehicle roll-out. There was money in the Budget to expand the roll-out of charge points and build on the 70,000 already in place, but the hon. Member is right to say that that is a key concern. We must consider not just the overall number of charging points, but the equity of those around the country, and I promise that the Department for Transport is interested in that.
Future of the Post Office
Lisa Smart Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Thomas
I can assure my hon. Friend that I will happily come back to visit his constituency when the banking hub there has a permanent home. I would be delighted to.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Post offices offer more than the sum of their parts, and their loss is felt keenly when branches close, as two have done recently in my constituency, on High Lane and on the Fiveways Parade in Hazel Grove. In both cases, the postmasters felt no longer able to continue in the role, at least in part for commercial reasons. Will the Government take this opportunity to look at strengthening the role of post offices, so that they offer even more local services, and at opening up new funding opportunities to keep these vital services in our communities?
Gareth Thomas
The situation the hon. Lady describes is exactly why I welcome the fact that the new management of the Post Office is putting the issue of sub-postmaster pay front and centre in its thinking. If we do not do something to shift sub-postmaster pay upwards, we will see more sub-postmasters making the sorts of decisions that she describes. We must do something urgently to address this. The Post Office management and chair are rightly homing in on that question as fundamental to the future of the Post Office. As I have underlined, I think there is more that the Post Office could do on banking; that view is certainly shared by the Post Office senior management team, and we are working directly with them to see what more can be done.