Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting)

Debate between Peter Bedford and Justin Madders

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Bedford]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Why am I moving a new clause tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)? I asked myself that question. I believe that it is important that the Committee hear and debate in full every proposed amendment to this truly awful Bill. Indeed, this is why my constituents in Mid Leicestershire sent me to this place. They likely knew what the make-up of the House of Commons, and therefore the composition of this Committee, would be after the election. I believe they would want me to hold the Government to account, particularly on legislation such as this.

Even though I find the views of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington completely unagreeable, he has been sent to this place to put on record what he believes is right. It will be interesting to see how many on the Government side agree with his new clauses. In layman’s terms, new clauses 2 and 3 relate to allowing prison officers the right to strike. I am sure their instinct is to support these new clauses. I will take the time to outline why I believe this would be a step in the wrong direction.

Prisons are essential for every functioning society. They serve out punishment, act as a deterrent and reform offenders. The prison guard—or screw, to use the colloquial vernacular—plays a crucial role in maintaining these key purposes. In 2024, there were more than 23,614 prison guards in England and Wales. This increased by 5,000 during the term of the last Conservative Government. I am sure that everyone on the Committee will be thankful for the work of Conservative colleagues in increasing that total.

Anecdotally, when I speak to residents in my Mid Leicestershire constituency, a large majority believe that prison officers do a great job and should be commended for all they do to keep us safe. Although my constituency does not have an active prison within its boundaries, there are three nearby in the county of Leicestershire. First, there is HMP Gartree, which is located to the south-east of Leicester city, a short drive from Mid Leicestershire. It is a category B prison and has had some notable inmates over the last 60 years. There is also HMP Fosse Way, which is a category C prison located to the south of the city. Finally, there is HMP Leicester, a category B prison in the city centre that hosts more than 400 inmates. In fact, the strange castle design of the prison leads to many tourists visiting it and taking photos.

The prisons offer three incredible employment opportunities for my constituents in Mid Leicestershire, but I fundamentally believe that they would be deeply concerned about the provisions in these new clauses. What would happen in these prisons on strike day? Would prisoners be able to do as they pleased? Would they be left in their cells? Who would be there to care for them if something terrible—

[Justin Madders]

On a point of order, Ms Vaz. Is it in order for a Member to move a new clause and then speak against it?

[The Chair]

I am waiting to hear what the hon. Member says when he gets to the end of his remarks.

Employment Rights Bill (Eighteenth sitting)

Debate between Peter Bedford and Justin Madders

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Justin Madders]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but this is about how we intend to deal with industrial relations and the workplace in future—the tripartite arrangement, where we get everyone in the room, so they can agree or put different points of view. As has been demonstrated successfully by the Low Pay Commission, that results in the right balance, which is good for the economy and good for workers. It results in settlements that everyone can agree with.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. To follow up on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater makes about the advisory board, what is the Minister’s view of ministerial accountability? Will there be transparency on the board’s recommendations and on being held to account for decisions? Over the past several years, Governments of all colours—Conservative, coalition and Labour—have tended to create boards, advisory panels and so forth and have felt obliged to follow the advice that they give. They almost want to derogate from their responsibility. What is the Minister’s view of the advice given by the board? Does he believe that robust ministerial responsibility should still exist, so the Minister could, or should, take decisions that are against the board’s advice? I guess I am asking what the transparency is on the board’s advice to the Minister.

[Justin Madders]

That is a perfectly reasonable question. It is dealt with in the clauses, which we are about to debate and which address the requirement for the board to set out an annual report and strategy. That will inform the Secretary of State of the direction of travel of the fair work agency. Again, this is not an unusual arrangement. If we believe, as we do on the Government Benches, that the fair work agency needs an advisory body—I cannot recall any person or organisation who submitted evidence to the Committee suggesting that that was not an appropriate idea—the logical conclusion of what the hon. Member for Bridgwater suggests is that the Bill should name every single person on it. That is not a practical way to proceed.

I suggest that a huge mountain has been made out of a small molehill. This is an established practice that has worked well and has been seen to work well, and it has support from many stakeholders. It is entirely in line with what we seek to achieve.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76

Labour market enforcement strategy

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

Employment Rights Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Debate between Peter Bedford and Justin Madders

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Justin Madders]

Indeed it is, and the usual parliamentary scrutiny will apply, but I was talking specifically about the role of the fair work agency. There will be that role, and no doubt as more detail emerges there will be more parliamentary opportunities to talk about the role and functions of the agency.

My hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles and for Birmingham Northfield talked about the broad support for the agency’s establishment, as indeed did the hon. Member for West Suffolk. I have a list of all the supportive witnesses at the oral evidence sessions, and it is a broad and impressive cast. It includes the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the British Retail Consortium, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, the Food and Drink Federation, the Co-op, Margaret Beels, and of course all the trade unions. There is support across the board for this single enforcement body.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. There are a few points about the creation of the agency that I would like the Minister to address. I am broadly supportive of synergies and of the rationalisation of public bodies, particularly to ensure that the taxpayer is getting value for money, but have the Government considered the cost of this new body and whether it will result in savings for the taxpayer? Will they consider locating it outside London so that it is more broadly reflective of the country at large?

[Justin Madders]

As a regional MP—a north-west Member—I am always looking to see where we can get more Government agencies out into the rest of the country. It is probably too early to say, but those kinds of decisions are being looked at.

At the moment, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs deals with minimum wage enforcement. Moving such a specific task across to another body will take some time, so there may well be a period during which HMRC continues to undertake that work, albeit that it is within the remit of the fair work agency. Such operational details will be discussed and dealt with in due course.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk made a point about the powers of individual officers. Initially, we envisage that officers will move into, effectively, their existing roles. It will be a matter for operational consideration in due course whether it is beneficial to extend people’s remits. It will not be required of anyone without sufficient training and safeguards in place, but as the agency develops, it may well be considered advantageous to broaden the role of enforcement officers. One of the rationales for the body is that there are often several aspects to an employer’s breach of obligations, so we want the fair work agency to be able to tackle these things as a whole. However, that is an operational matter that will be dealt with in due course. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 72, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

Legislation subject to enforcement under part 5

Employment Rights Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Peter Bedford and Justin Madders

Committee stage
Thursday 5th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Justin Madders]

We are taking this approach because we want to be reasonable and engage with businesses and trade unions on what the shape looks like. That is why the full consultation, which will look at the broad range of issues, is not yet ready. It is not really in the spirit of that for us to nail down everything in the Bill. Most employment rights have their detail in secondary legislation.

There are some clear principles about the levels of compensation that we will set out. Clearly, a worker should not be compensated for more than the number of hours that he or she has lost. If other heads of loss occur, there are already principles about wages, for example, whereby ongoing losses have to be compensated for. That is the kind of thing where the detail ought to be put into secondary legislation and consulted on fully, which is what we intend to do.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

The one thing that businesses do not like is uncertainty. Unfortunately, there are so many gaps that need filling in the Bill that it makes it very difficult for businesses to plan for the future—for example, about how many people they will employ, what risks they will take on, and how to budget. Does the Minister accept that the Bill is so full of gaps that it causes more uncertainty for businesses and makes it harder for them to plan?

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

There is a danger that we will get too prescriptive about this. There will be a relatively small number of cases in which there is detriment, but they are all going to be very fact-sensitive. That is why we have framed the amendment in this way.

[Mr Bedford]

The hon. Member for Dundee Central referred to how a lot of businesses will have insurance for various eventualities. As a maximum is not specified, have the Government considered the unintended consequences of such provisions on businesses’ ability to insure against such instances?

[Justin Madders]

We are not talking about the general running of a business, with reference to shift notice and cancellations; we are talking about a very specific set of circumstances in which an employer’s act is considered to be detrimental to the employee and gives rise to an employment tribunal claim. I am sure that there are insurance products that cover all employment tribunal claims, but this is about individual acts of penalisation against employees or workers. This is not a departure from existing legal principles; it is well set out and understood by lawyers and HR practitioners. I do not envisage that this is a provision that will be greatly used, but it is an important principle to have in the Bill.

Amendment 48 agreed to.

Amendment made: 49, in schedule 1, page 107, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 108 and insert—

“(7A) Where—

(a) the complaint is made under section 48(1BA),

(b) the detriment to which the worker is subjected is the termination of the worker’s contract, and

(c) that contract is not a contract of employment,

any compensation must not exceed the compensation that would be payable under Chapter 2 of Part 10 if the worker had been an employee and had been dismissed for a reason specified in section 104BA.”—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment relates to the maximum award of compensation by an employment tribunal in a detriment claim under section 48(1BA) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The change achieved by the amendment is that the maximum award in cases involving the termination of an arrangement that is not a worker’s contract is at the tribunal’s discretion.

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