Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas

Steve Darling Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on obtaining this important and illuminating debate. I look forward to the Minister’s comments. I was heartened that a number of Members said that transport was significant for our coastal communities. That is a massive pinch point for me and colleagues in Devon and Cornwall.

At least in Torbay, my part of Devon, our audience is mostly the west midlands and south Wales. The route down is sometimes a bit of a car park on the M5 in high season, so making sure that we enhance the offer of our railways is extremely important. We have an unfinished job at Dawlish—section 5 of the scheme is yet to be done. Significant upgrades to our railways across Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Dorset are extremely important to enhance the offer of travelling by rail and get more people off the roads into more sustainable transport. At the moment, Lumo is looking at running additional trains via Bristol to Paddington from Paignton. If people could take advantage of those, it would provide an opportunity to get more vehicles off the roads.

Let me move on to what Torbay has to offer when people arrive. Rock Garden is one of my favourite pub restaurants. David, the manager, told me that his business rates are crippling him; it is a great pity that we saw only tinkering around the edges of business rates from the Government rather than the wholesale reform that we were promised. As a colleague has already mentioned, Liberal Democrats want to see a commercial landowner levy, which is a lot more sustainable and would encourage growth, rather than people being punished for investing in their businesses.

As for the cost of running a business, David is paying £3,000 a month for heating and running the kitchens. The Liberal Democrats called on the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate that last autumn, but sadly it chose not to. The Liberal Democrats ask the Minister to see what she can do to support small and medium-sized businesses with their rocketing energy bills, which they are often locked into. As colleagues have already mentioned, we have a plan to cut VAT by 5% for hospitality until next spring, which would drive positive change and footfall up and down our high streets, and not just in our coastal communities.

Beverley holiday park is an incredible, multi-award-winning family-run business, but it has been crippled by the double whammy of the national insurance hike, with the challenges around the number of people it can employ, and the lowering of the threshold to £5,000—particularly for seasonal workers. That is significant for the park. It has crippled its ability to offer the jobs it has traditionally been able to. The park also faces the challenge of taking on seasonal workers for the short peak of the season and training them up. That is a challenge for younger people, who are not in quite the same place as people may have been 40 years ago and need a bit more support, as the Alan Milburn report highlighted. There is progress to be made there.

Finally, I would like to reflect on something really special to a lot of our seaside resorts: the amusement arcade. Earlier this week, I was speaking to the people who run Golden Palms in Torquay. They have exactly the same challenges with national insurance hikes and energy costs. Before the general election, they were assured that there would be changes to regulations in that world, and it was lost in the wash-up. Minister, can we please look at that?

Sale of Fireworks

Steve Darling Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making very good points. My guide dog Jennie is not bothered by fireworks—she seems to enjoy them—but Pepsi, my wife’s guide dog, is terrified of them. That is not only awful for the dog, but it means that at firework time, my wife cannot go out and socialise or conduct her business as a local councillor in Torbay. Would the hon. Member reflect on the idea of firework-free zones? I also have the pleasure of having Paignton zoo in my constituency, and the impact on zoos is massive.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I completely support the hon. Member’s call for firework-free zones. I have in my constituency urban, industrial and rural areas and there are places where fireworks are not appropriate and cause more harm in certain areas, so I completely support that call.

Seasonal Work

Steve Darling Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Training, hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues that affect businesses across the country. Many businesses, such as those in the farming and agricultural sectors, depend on recruiting the right people at the right time. Obstacles to hiring seasonal workers can have a significant impact on businesses, which are already struggling with sky-high energy bills, having trouble recruiting the workforce they need and facing high costs in trading with Europe.

We are seeing a practically stagnant economy, with business confidence down and unemployment up. Unemployment is particularly prevalent among young people, many of whom traditionally find their first jobs in the hospitality sector, which is the largest employer of young people. However, the sector is struggling to employ new workers. The damage being done to the prospects of our youth, as they struggle with unemployment, will be detrimental to the broader economy in the years to come.

Many of those challenges began under the last Conservative Administration. It was the previous Government who undermined farming, agriculture, hospitality and so many other sectors that are dependent on seasonal work by negotiating failed trade deals with the EU, Australia and New Zealand and breaking their promise to reform business rates. Their record is a dispiriting picture of low growth, high interest rates and falling living standards.

People endured years of Conservative mismanagement, which is why it is so disappointing that this Government have wasted the last 18 months by failing to pursue policies that promote growth and by imposing an unfair national insurance jobs tax that has stifled business investment.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

In the west country, we have seen an icy chilling effect from the NICs hike on our hospitality and tourism industry, particularly in Torbay. The Torbay Coast & Countryside Trust, which looks after some of our beautiful natural spaces, has faced a £100,000 cost from the NICs hike, which has forced it to close its doors and take a step into the dark. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to explore the impact of the NICs hike on this fragile sector of our economy to see how they can step in to support it?

[Sarah Olney]

It is tragic to hear of the closure of my hon. Friend’s local organisation. Not only will local people be deprived of the opportunity to enjoy the services it provided, but young people will be deprived of the opportunity to take on their first job.

On the Employment Rights Bill, the Liberal Democrats have been clear that we welcome many of the principles underpinning the legislation, but we have been pushing the Government to make crucial improvements to ensure that it properly delivers for workers and small businesses. We strongly believe in giving all workers security over their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many struggle with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. On flexible work, we will continue to advocate what we think would have been a fairer and less onerous system, based on giving workers a new right to request fixed hours, which businesses would not be able to unreasonably refuse.

On seasonal work, we are glad that, thanks to the work of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, the Government have made significant concessions for the benefit of businesses and workers, placing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult with key stakeholders before exercising powers to specify what a “temporary need” is in relation to the provisions on the right to zero-hours contracts. We are pleased that the Government have listened to Liberal Democrat calls for clarity by providing examples of how an employer could approach seasonal demand while complying with the new right to guaranteed hours. These provisions, secured by Liberal Democrat peers, will support workers by giving them more control over their working hours, while ensuring that businesses are properly consulted and given the resources to navigate this new legislation.

This weekend, towns across the country mark Small Business Saturday, but many small businesses will have struggled to celebrate, given the challenges that they face. Recent Government decisions, including the devastating business rates hike in last month’s Budget, are causing huge damage to small hospitality firms, with many now considering whether their business remains viable.

Consumer Affairs

Steve Darling Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing this important debate. What we have heard from hon. Members has been extremely wide-ranging. I will focus the vast majority of my speech on ticket touting and scalping. However, I want to reflect on what we have heard from hon. Members on shrinkflation and on how important it is to allow the public to understand the true price of goods. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that, and also on the challenge of the Tesco Metro in the town centre having significantly higher prices than the out-of-town supermarkets. That is a significant issue in my constituency of Torbay. It is perverse that those who are poorest have to pay more because they are least able to jump in a car, and very often do not own a car, so have little choice but to use the Tesco Metro, or a similar shop, in the town centre. I would like some reflections from the Minister on that.

We also heard about e-bikes. It would be welcome to hear the Minister talk about regulations around e-bikes. The problem is not just e-bikes catching fire but the irresponsible ownership of them, and the fact that there is no age limit on their ownership. I spoke to a police officer earlier this week, and that was one of the challenges she faced. In addition, often those using e-bikes are up to no good, so greater regulation around e-bikes and some words from the Minister would be extremely welcome.

I will move on to the main meat of my speech. Concerts are an extremely enriching part of our lives. In my youth, I may have gone to a Deep Purple or AC/DC concert, but my guilty pleasure was going to “Abba Voyage” not that long ago. This is my only pun: we are seeing dirty deeds done not so dirt cheap to our consumers. Surge pricing and hidden costs are absolutely shameful.

Concerts are a way of driving tourism. I would not have gone to Leipzig a couple of years ago had it not been one of the few venues that I could easily get to to see one of my favourite bands, Goran Bregović and his Wedding and Funeral Orchestra. In my constituency of Torbay we have Electric Bay, an outstanding festival that was headlined by Fatboy Slim this summer on the Saturday night. Taxi drivers and those in the hospitality industry told me that the bay was buzzing, and that it was better than a bank holiday weekend. However, there are opportunities for ticket touts to come into play for these types of festivals.

One of my staff was impacted by ticket touting on Ticketmaster for the Oasis concert—there is no accounting for taste—which the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington mentioned. He spent hours online and saw the ticket go from £135 to more than £300—the surge pricing that we believe is wicked. On the secondary market, we saw that same ticket go up to £6,000. It is utterly shameful. I am aware that Ticketmaster sometimes labels tickets as if they are platinum when they are actually the same as standard tickets. Regulation is needed in these areas. To stop this, we need to take some inspiration from Ireland, where there are limits of 10% increases and surge pricing is banned in both primary and secondary markets. We need to allow true fans to sell on the tickets they are no longer able to take advantage of, but limit the additional handling fees to a reasonable level and ban surging.

Concerts are an outstanding way of enhancing one’s sense of wellbeing, relaxing and, probably most importantly, developing a sense of community. However, we need to ensure that people are protected when buying tickets, because we all need a bit of light relief in the challenging world that we all live in now.

Whistleblowers

Steve Darling Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on obtaining this extremely important debate. We have heard quality information from colleagues around the Chamber on how this matter needs to be tackled for the common good of the United Kingdom. Clearly, the law is not strong enough on whistleblowing. People leave themselves open to harm if they do the right thing. As colleagues have said, the Government should have their backs, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

Colleagues have highlighted that there needs to be a change of culture. Some parts of the aviation industry are very good on their culture: among air traffic controllers, there is openness and transparency. Things are shared not just when there are crashes, but when near misses happen and lessons can be learned. We need exactly that openness and transparency in industry and in society more generally. Whistleblowers cast a light into dark corners.

I want to reflect on the occasions during my time as a servant of Torbay that I have come across whistleblowers who have had a positive impact. I sat on a tribunal in respect of a social worker; whistleblowers had played a significant role in the local authority’s parting ways with him, and he was struck off because of the issues that whistleblowers raised. Waste management in Torbay is another area where a whistleblower stepped out from among his colleagues and shared some challenges. That was some years ago, and matters were taken in hand and positive changes made.

On the international scene, one has only to look at Boeing and a gentleman called John Barnett, who had worked for the company for more than 30 years as a quality control manager. He blew the whistle about serious concerns, yet sadly he was not protected and he ended up committing suicide a little over a year ago. Those are some of the real challenges that we see, both close to home for me in Torbay and internationally, and examples of how whistleblowers act in the best interests of our communities.

Non-disclosure arrangements often play a part in this world. They are meant to be purely about intellectual property rights, but they are often used to silence people. I experienced a situation a few years ago in which, due to my disability, there was wrongdoing that could have been taken to the law. Compensation was paid, which I passed on to charities of my choice, but I still had to sign a non-disclosure agreement, even though the company in question had picked up better ways and should have been sharing that.

Liberal Democrats want an office of the whistleblower to be created, and we want laws on whistleblowing to be strengthened so that people are protected, but most of all we need a culture change, with a culture of belief and support for whistleblowers. As colleagues have said throughout the debate, they do so much good for our society as a whole.

UK-US Trade and Tariffs

Steve Darling Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

My hon. Friend reminds me that I did not get a chance to respond to the shadow Secretary of State. If, following these announcements in the United States, we had come to Parliament and said, “You know, the answer to this is that low-paid people will not get the sick pay they would otherwise have got under this Labour Government,” that would have been the wrong response. Again, as ever, that would be scapegoating the wrong people for difficult things that have nothing to do with their position in the UK economy.

My hon. Friend skilfully leveraged in a number of questions. There are real differences of opinion between us and the United States on VAT. We say that it applies, as it does, to domestically produced goods as much as to goods that come into the UK, and that it is not trade distorting; indeed, the balance of trade between the US and the UK is evidence of that. The argument from the US is slightly different. I will not go into the content of all the negotiations—she will appreciate that—but success in any negotiation is about being willing to be at the table and put forward our argument, while recognising the other side’s argument. That is the approach of this Government, and that is the way forward.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

We must stand up to the bully that is Trump and support British business. This morning, I reached out to Gooch & Housego, a manufacturer in Torbay of fibreoptics that help to facilitate international communications. It has interests in manufacturing in the US, the UK, Europe and Thailand. It and other players in the high-tech sector now have an extremely complex world to navigate. How does the Secretary of State plan to help the high-tech sector navigate the challenging world that we now live in?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Our job is to defend the UK national interest, and the company in Torbay that the hon. Member described—it sounds like a fantastic company —is an exemplar of why I want businesses to be based in the UK: because they can then access a whole range of markets from the best possible position. That is exactly the kind of company that, because of complex supply chains, will have questions about what the announcements mean for it. We decided to launch bespoke information on great.gov.uk today to coincide with this announcement precisely to attempt to provide such companies with the assurance that they need.

A business like that can genuinely help us through this difficult period, because whatever hon. Members think of the President and his agenda, that agenda is based on returning a certain type of good-quality manufacturing job to the United States, and in many cases British firms and British business already provide those. They will provide more if we can find a way through these trade tensions and the imposition of tariffs, so they can work with us on the solution to these problems. I am grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning that company.

“Chapter 4A

Steve Darling Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The holy grail sought by all Governments, of whichever hue, is economic growth. I therefore think it important for us to look through the lens of economic growth, and to think about whether the Bill drives it. I recall from my time in Committee, where I spent many hours listening to the oratory of the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), that we spoke a great deal about productivity and whether it would be driven by the Bill.

I have spoken about the possible impact of the Bill to people in my community, including representatives of Enlightened HR and Alison Bennett, a human resources consultant, for whom its destination was very welcome. Indeed, we have heard from many other people who have been consulted that the Bill’s destination and aspirations are correct and appropriate, but it is a question of how we get there and whether the Government have achieved the right balance between employers and employees. That is important, because the last thing we want the Bill to do is have a chilling effect on the economy. We are only too well aware that the national insurance contributions that are set to kick in next month are already having that negative impact, and we do not want this well-intended Bill to echo that further.

There are 250 amendments before us at this late stage of the legislation. The Minister says that that is due to levels of consultation and so forth and should be welcomed, and that we are trimming our sails, but if that is the case, and if the Minister was in such listening mode in Committee, why did the Government accept no Opposition amendments whatsoever? I should welcome some reflections from the Minister when he winds up the debate.

As a Liberal Democrat, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions, I can say that carers are at the front and centre of our world. What is effectively the population of Portsmouth—200,000 people a year, or 600 a day—walk away from the employment market to take up caring occupations and, in many instances, support family members. That has an £8 billion annual impact on our economy, which leaves us less productive. I hope that the Government will give serious thought to our amendment to make leave for carers a paid opportunity, because giving them that flexibility and that breathing space would unlock more people for our employment market.

Our proposal to make caring a protected characteristic is extremely important. We have already heard about harassment and discrimination in connection with other parts of the Bill, but this would help immensely to support carers. Doubling the pay of those taking adoption leave is also important, as is support for people who take caring roles such as kinship care. I hope that the Ministers will take those family roles into account.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have missed an opportunity to recognise the extraordinary contribution of kinship carers in this Bill? I recently met a couple in my constituency who are kinship carers. They have acted out of love, but they have had none of the support that foster parents would have had in looking after the children in their care. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government would do well to look at including the same employment rights for kinship carers as they currently offer to foster parents?

[Steve Darling]

As somebody who was adopted myself, I know only too well the importance of supportive love. I have been heavily involved with children’s services, and I know that the best care for children in need of loving homes is often not too far away from home. The more that children’s services can be less of a child-rescuing service and more of a child support service, the better, so I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend alludes to.

An area that particularly exercised the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire in Committee was third-party harassment, and I strongly support the Government’s proposals in this Bill. I have engaged with young women in Torbay who work in retail and the hospitality industry, particularly those from Torquay girls’ grammar school, and they find that harassment in the workplace is not a bit of banter, but repugnant in the extreme. They told me that they will go to a shift feeling sick to the stomach because they know a particular individual will be coming in that evening who will act inappropriately. Their managers should have a duty of care toward them, and I welcome that proposal in the Bill.

I know that some of the amendments allude to non-disclosure agreements. I welcome the Minister’s kind words, but warm words do not get measures into legislation. I ask him to reflect on that, and I am sure that colleagues will speak about NDAs.

The final area I need to cover is probationary periods. We Liberal Democrats would really welcome putting a three to nine-month probationary period on the face of the Bill, which would ensure that there is less chance of expensive tribunals for employers. We welcome the steps that the Government have taken in respect of statutory sick pay, but we need to ensure that the correct balance is struck between the burden on employers and positive outcomes for employees.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

I welcome the amendments put forward by the Liberal Democrats, especially new clauses 12 to 14, which would extend paternity leave from two to six weeks and double the amount of pay. Those precious weeks are essential for fathers to bond with their child and to provide additional support to their partners. Does my hon. Friend agree that these are essential new clauses that the Government should accept?

[Steve Darling]

I agree with my hon. Friend. When I go and speak to primary school teachers, they say that they face a challenge where there is poor attachment between the parent and the child, which can have a significant developmental impact on young people. By giving greater powers through this Bill, we can drive stronger connections between those parts of the family unit.

The reality is that we need to support small businesses and get the right balance between implementing the good stuff in this Bill and making sure that we are not punishing businesses. We need to make sure that we support the family, because, as I have said, the family is the core part of what our society is, and strengthening that will hopefully strengthen outcomes and strengthen our society. My fear is that this Bill is a little bit like Snow White’s apple: it may have looked extremely good on the outside, but it sent her to sleep. My fear is that this Bill is a little like that, because it may have a lot of promise on the outside, but it could be a sleeping potion for our economy.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I give my full support to the measures in the Bill. Without question, they are some of the most progressive in this area of legislation for decades.

My new clause 25 seeks to set up a working time council, comprising businesses, trade unions, Government Departments and experts on the subject, to advise the Secretary of State on how the transition from a five-day week to a four-day week would affect employers and employees, and on how businesses, public bodies and other organisations should approach such a transition. Virtually every progressive change in employment legislation over the decades has been pooh-poohed by the Conservative party. Leopards do not change their spots, as we have seen in spades today.

In the evidence session, the Minister asked some witnesses what the productivity implications of some of the proposals contained in the Bill would be. The answer from Professor Simon Deakin, of Cambridge University, was that

“there is a strong correlation between stronger labour protection and both productivity and innovation.”

He went on to say that research

“shows that, on average, strengthening employment laws in this country in the last 50 years has had pro-employment effects, for various reasons.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 137-138, Q141.]

I know the shadow Minister was there when Professor Deakin said that.

Historically, it is a well-trodden path for some to object to measures that would advance employment rights, even if those rights are of advantage to everyone concerned, be it employers, employees or society more generally. That is especially so in the medium to long term, because legislatures do not just legislate for today; they also legislate for tomorrow.

I thank the Minister—my admiration for him knows no bounds—and other Members for the work that they have put into this Bill. My primary aim in tabling new clause 25 was to try to get the debate about the four-day week out of the blocks. I accept that the notion is challenging, but that is not a reason to put off the debate; the discussion has to be had. It is over 100 years since the introduction of a five-day week in different industries, which was down to the influence of Henry Ford, who was not the most radical of people. In the 1920s, the introduction of the two-day weekend for those working at his car factories was a pivotal moment. He argued that it would boost worker productivity and morale, and it did.

The argument that a shorter week affects business resilience or productivity has been used time and again. The Factories Act 1961 contained requirements to deal with overcrowding, control temperature and introduce ventilation, all of which were opposed at the time on the basis of cost. As colleagues will know, the same argument was put forward about the Equal Pay Act 1970. It was the same when paid holidays were introduced in 1938. People said the minimum wage was going to cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, but we all know that it did not. Paternity and maternity leave was eschewed because it was said to damage industry, but did it do so? No, it did not.

Research from Barclays shows that working hours in the UK have fallen by 5% on average in the past four decades, with British workers now working 27% more hours on average than their German counterparts. Workers in France, Italy and Spain have enjoyed a 10% decline in working hours, but despite people in this country working longer hours than those in our competitor and partner nations, we are one of the least productive countries in the G7, and we have to do something about that. What about the impact on employers?

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Steve Darling Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Please accept my sincere apologies for being late, Madam Deputy Speaker. Things moved on at pace this afternoon. I will take what you said seriously into account.

The Liberal Democrats had such proposals in our manifesto, so we welcome the regulations. Some 34,000 people—equivalent to the population of Yate—are set to benefit from the regulations in the first year after they come into force. I note that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), said that the Conservatives promised to deliver such proposals, but—a bit like their hospitals programme—they failed to do so. One needs to bear that in mind.

I pay tribute to Stuart McDonald, a former MP whose private Member’s Bill—the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill—addressed this issue. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for sponsoring that Bill, which gave these proposals legs in the Chamber. I am delighted that they are coming to fruition today.

In my Torbay constituency, developing an attachment between parents and children is often a challenge, particularly for those who face serious difficulties in their lives. Many prematurely born youngsters are from more deprived backgrounds—there is twice the chance of that. We Liberal Democrats truly welcome the proposals, because they will drive strong attachment between parents and their babies, and that can only bear fruit for communities across the United Kingdom.

Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Steve Darling Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I would like to add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater has proposed. The first duty of Government is to protect citizens from threats abroad and keep them safe at home. Given all the other rights and extensions of rights that the Government are pushing in the Bill, it would seem unusual if support for our special constables, whom I salute for all their hard work day in, day out as part of the mission to keep the British people safe, were not included. I urge the Minister to consider the new clause in a genuine spirit of trying to work together on this issue.

I am tempted to rise to the bait set by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles. We have many differences of opinion about the Bill’s provisions, but, in the spirit of the Bill, surely we can find some cross-party consensus on extending employment rights to special constables going about their duty—the often dangerous duty that they carry out on behalf of us all.

[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 ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Although I am disappointed that the Minister has not accepted the new clause, I will withdraw it at this stage. I can count 10 Government Members and only five on the Opposition Benches, so my chances of success in a Division would be limited. I hope the new clause can find its way back into the Bill, perhaps in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 35

Carer’s leave: remuneration

“(1) In section 80K of the Employment Rights Act 1996, omit subsection (3) and insert—

‘(3) In subsection (1)(a), “terms and conditions of employment”—

(a) includes matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under the contract of employment, and

(b) includes terms and conditions about remuneration.’”—(Steve Darling.)

This new clause would make Carer’s Leave a paid entitlement.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Steve Darling]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is an opportunity to extend carer’s leave across the whole of Great Britain. I hope it falls on more fertile ground than the previous new clause. There are 10.6 million carers across the United Kingdom, yet only 2.5 million are actually in paid employment. That shows that, although some of those carers may be beyond or even below working age, there is still a significant untapped pool of opportunity to drive productivity in our economy.

The economic growth figures released this morning show that the handbrake is sadly still on in our economy due to the appalling state that the Labour party inherited from the previous Government, so we need to think about how to allow people to work in our economy as strongly as possible. Centrica has found that there is an £8 billion cost to our economy for those who choose to leave the workplace due to having caring commitments. This would potentially allow a goodly number of those to remain in the workplace and continue to contribute. Although this is a probing amendment, I hope the Minister will give it some serious consideration and advise the Committee on what exploration the Government may choose to undertake of this golden opportunity for us as a society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

I thank the Minister for her encouraging words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 37

Right to be accompanied

“(1) Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3), after paragraph (b) insert—

‘(ba) a person who has been reasonably certified in writing by a Professional Body as having experience of, or as having received training in, acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary or grievance hearings, or’

(3) After subsection (7) insert—

‘(8) In this section, “Professional Body” means any organisation, which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (9).

(9) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.’”—(Steve Darling.)

This new clause would expand the right to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Steve Darling]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would ensure that workers in the early stages of an employment dispute, such as a disciplinary or grievance hearing, can be supported by those who are qualified, rather than just by trade union representatives or similar colleagues. It would allow for matters to be brought to a head much sooner and prevent cases from necessarily going to tribunal, which clogs up the tribunal system. I hope the Government will take the new clause in the positive sprit in which we tabled it.

[Greg Smith]

I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Torbay said. On one level, I would be interested to know why the Liberal Democrats think the expansion is needed, where the shortfalls are in the current right to be accompanied, and what benefits the new right would bring. I think that what the hon. Gentleman is proposing could be done through existing legislation in many respects.

That said, representatives of the charity and third sector who seek to represent those in the teaching profession have welcomed the new clause, because the teaching unions have a bit of a monopoly at the moment. Although my mother has been retired for many years, she always joined a union through considerably gritted teeth—she may have been the only Conservative in the staff room, but she gritted her teeth. In fact, she may even have taught for many years in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield. The teaching unions have that monopoly because of the insurances and so on that they give to teachers. The new clause would widen things out and allow teachers who do not wish to join a union to get the support they need—accompaniment at a hearing—from a charity or third sector organisation, which may be welcome.

We need more clarity on the impact that would have on the teaching profession, which is why we do not think the new clause should be accepted at this time. However, the hon. Member for Torbay has opened the door on an area that it is important for us to explore as the Bill proceeds, and perhaps in future legislation.

[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.

[Steve Darling]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause relates to volunteering and giving leave to volunteers. It would require a consultation, so I hope that the Government will grasp it with both hands. It feels like their modus operandi on the Bill is for a vast majority of it to go out to further consultation, so what harm would there be in another small consultation on volunteering?

--- 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 ---

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would require the Certification Officer to publish a report on the impact on various sectors of the economy of introducing a four-day week. The Certification Officer is responsible for ensuring that trade unions carry out their statutory duties, and it is important that it is aware of the impacts of this policy, which various elements of the labour movement and the trade union movement have supported.

We have seen just how effective the four-day week has been where it has been tried. Let us take the example of South Cambridgeshire district council, which introduced it for its workers in 2023. The Mail reported last week that one in six staff have a second job during their day off. That is despite the council’s website stating that the time off is to allow workers to “recover and re-energise” for the “more intense” four-day week. It is full-time pay for part-time work, and then some.

It would be extremely helpful for all concerned if we had a little more transparent information about the effects the four-day week might have on the economy as a whole if introduced more widely. That is why we have tabled new clause 42, which would require the Certification Officer, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the economic and financial impact of introducing a four-day week.

The report would be required to cover the retail and wholesale industry; the manufacturing industry; the finance and insurance industry; the health and social care industry; the construction industry; the education industry; the public sector and defence industry; the transport and storage industry; the arts and recreation industry; and agriculture, mining and fishing. To ensure that the report is balanced, the Certification Officer must consult business owners, workers and consumers, although that, of course, is not an exhaustive list.

For full transparency, we would like to make sure that any submissions that are received are published, preferably in a way that can be questioned in this House. The new clause aims to introduce a “look before you leap” ethos into the Government’s policymaking. Given the state of the Bill, I would argue that that is very much needed.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I listened carefully to the Minister’s response. The four-day week is subject to much media interest at the moment, and it is important that we keep a close eye on moves to shorten the working week, given the impact it would have on productivity and growth in our economy going forward. For the time being, I am happy not to press the new clause, but the Opposition are concerned, and we will keep an incredibly close eye on the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 46

Adoption pay: self-employed persons

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations enable statutory adoption pay to be payable to persons who are—

(a) self-employed, or

(b) contractors.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the meaning of ‘self-employed’ and ‘contractors’ shall be set out in regulations under this section.”—(Steve Darling.)

This new clause extends statutory adoption pay to the self-employed and contractors.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Steve Darling]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would extend statutory adoption pay to those who are self-employed or contractors. I must declare something of an interest, although I do not formally need to, because I am adopted myself, and this issue is extremely close to my heart. When I was leader of the Torbay unitary council, we went from “failing” to “good” for our children’s services within two years. That is probably the biggest achievement of my life. Again, it was something I was driven on because I am adopted. In the ’70s, I was very fortunate to be adopted by Eric and Penny. Eric was not a toolmaker, but he was a lorry driver, and would potentially have benefited had there been an opportunity such as the one I have outlined in the new clause.

I encourage colleagues to step back slightly and to reflect on the challenges in social care, and particularly children’s social care, and on the heavy costs—I am sure colleagues are only too aware of them—to local authorities, which have a responsibility for children’s services. For those kids who need support, the best people are foster carers or those who adopt. When there is a lack of such people—when there is not that capacity—kids might have to be picked up by the private sector, and hard-pressed local authorities often have to pay through the nose for that. The new clause is about changing the weather again around support for youngsters in need. By extending statutory adoption pay to those who are self-employed or contractors, we would enhance the pool of those who can participate.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for her help with the new clause. Earlier this week, she led a worthwhile debate on this issue, and I acknowledge the positive feedback the Minister in that debate gave on the proposals. I look forward to hearing from this Minister how the Government could take the proposals in this probing amendment forward.

[Greg Smith]

I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Torbay. The issues he raises are worthy of debate, but as he said this is a probing amendment, so these are matters for a future occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling new clause 46. I start by expressing my appreciation for all adoptive parents, who offer loving and stable homes to children who are unable to live with their birth parents. This Government are committed to ensuring that all working parents receive the best possible support to balance their work and family lives.

New clause 46 calls for eligibility for statutory adoption pay to be extended to individuals who are self-employed or contractors. It would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations within six months of the passage of the Bill to enable self-employed individuals and contractors who adopt to receive statutory adoption pay. The proposed regulations would also define the terms “self-employed” and “contractors” to ensure that we have a shared understanding of who would qualify for statutory adoption pay under this extended eligibility.

At present, parental leave and pay entitlements are generally not available to the self-employed. That is because the parental leave system is focused on supporting employed parents, who need specific rights and protections to take time off work. Self-employed people are generally considered to have more flexibility and autonomy, and not to need those same protections. There is, of course, the exception of maternity allowance, which is available to self-employed mothers to ensure that they can take time off work following childbirth to recover and establish breastfeeding, if they wish to do so. That is an important health and safety provision.

None the less, the Government are committed to supporting parents to balance their work and family responsibilities and keen to hear how the system can be improved. While adoptive parents who are self-employed or contractors do not qualify for statutory adoption pay, statutory adoption guidance advises local authorities to consider making a payment similar to maternity allowance for those parents.

In November 2024, the Government published “Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive,” which sets out our vision for children’s social care. As part of that vision, the Government have allocated £49 million to the adoption and special guardianship support fund for this financial year. The fund enables local authorities and regional adoption agencies to offer a wide range of tailored support, including psychotherapy, family therapy and creative therapies to children who are adopted and their families. These services are available to all adoptive families following a locally conducted assessment of the family’s needs. Depending on individual circumstances, additional financial support—for example, universal credit and child benefit—may also be available to contractors or self-employed people who adopt.

We have committed to a review of the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports all working families. The review will be conducted separately to the Employment Rights Bill, and work is already under way on planning its delivery. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for Torbay to withdraw his proposed new clause.

[Steve Darling]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 51

Access to employment rights: workers on temporary visas

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, commission an independent report on the extent to which workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law.

(2) In commissioning the report, the Secretary of State must arrange for the report to meet the requirements set out in subsections (2) to (4).

(3) The report must examine the extent to which workers on temporary visas feel unable to assert their employment rights because they are dependent on their employers to sponsor their visas.

(4) The report must make recommendations to the Secretary of State about how the Secretary of State can support workers on temporary visas in the assertion of their employment rights.

(5) The report must be completed within three months of being commissioned.

(6) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is practicable after receipt of the report, publish the report and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.

(7) The Secretary of State must, within three months of receipt of the report—

(a) respond to the recommendations in the report, and

(b) publish the response and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Chris Law.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I believe this is the last of the new clauses to the Bill.

It is imperative that employment rights are universal. Everyone should have access to them, regardless of their circumstances. That cannot just be theoretical; it needs to be applied in practice too. Although the Bill increases workers’ rights for many people, which I fully support, it will make no difference to their realities if they do not have the ability to access those rights or to seek redress when they are breached. To make the Bill as worth while and effective as it can be, we must take every possible action to strengthen it and to ensure that no one is denied their rights. We must do our utmost to prevent scenarios in which denial of employment rights and exploitation can exist.

I have therefore tabled this new clause on access to employment rights for workers on temporary visas. I know that most of us in this room will have had constituents on those visas who have been exploited. If we accept the new clause, it will compel the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill being passed, to commission an independent report on the extent to which workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law.

Workers on temporary visas consistently report that they are unable to assert the basic rights derived from being a worker in the UK. Why is that? Because they are dependent on their employer for not only their job but their ability to live in this country. More often than not, they do not have the same safety nets that others benefit from. For people in that situation, the stakes are simply so much higher.

We know that migrant workers, who often incur large debts to migrate to the UK to work—to address labour shortages—simply cannot afford to report abuse, if doing so risks their jobs and visas. They are justifiably fearful that their employer, who sponsors their visa, will punish them and that they will be left without redress. Time and again, we see cases of workers who face unsafe conditions—including in my constituency and, I am sure, in those of everyone in this room. Whether it is underpayment or sexual harassment, they do not feel able to do anything about it, for fear of deportation. That lets exploitation run rife.

By not addressing this issue, we are allowing a huge blind spot in the UK’s employment rights framework to continue unchecked. Until the Government address temporary and restrictive visas, the gap between workers only widens, entrenching the UK’s tiered workforce and leaving migrant workers behind. That is simply unacceptable. Restrictive visas have created a tiered workforce, where migrant workers face significant barriers to enforcing their rights, driving a race to the bottom in pay and conditions across the UK labour market.

Such visas often limit the sectors in which workers are permitted to work or the employers for which they can work. Workers’ immigration sponsors may also be their employers or responsible for placing them in employment. This results in a vicious cycle, in which migrant workers are doubly punished for speaking out, first by unscrupulous employers and then by immigration enforcement, with a resulting loss of work, income and immigration status. That has allowed a proliferation of abuses, from non-payment of wages to overwork and sexual assault, among a litany of other labour and criminal law violations.

It is important to recognise that workers’ experiences of exploitation can vary, but all these instances need addressed. At one end of the scale, there is decent, well-paid work, with bad practices such as breaches of employment rights culminating, at the opposite end, in severe labour exploitation, such as human trafficking and forced labour. Where minor breaches of rights occur and are not sufficiently addressed, it increases the risk of more severe exploitation further along, as well as driving down workplace standards. Surely the new Labour Government find that totally unacceptable?

In working on the new clause, I engaged with Focus on Labour Exploitation—I have a briefing from it here, which I am happy to share with the Minister. FLEX is a research and policy organisation working towards an end to labour exploitation, and its recent research and policy work has focused on sectors where workers are known to be at higher risk of exploitation.

The new clause, which is intended to be friendly and collaborative, would lead to an investigation into the extent of these issues and how they can be addressed. Any immigration system that does not proactively include mechanisms that enable workers to report exploitation—and ultimately leave an exploitative employer without jeopardising their employment, accommodation and immigration status—inevitably has exploitation baked into its design. To meet its aims, the Employment Rights Bill needs to address that.

It is especially important that the use of restrictive or short-term visas is not allowed to prevent improvements in working conditions and pay in certain work sectors by facilitating access to workers who, due to immigration restrictions, are unable to challenge poor working conditions. One option open to the Government to combat that would be to introduce a UK workplace justice visa, drawing on international best practice. Such a visa would provide 12 months of renewable limited leave for those who have visas dependent on their employment and who have experienced labour exploitation or lost their employment and limited leave through no fault of their own. That would ensure that migrants with work visas who experience such issues have a route to remain and settle in the UK, to enable them to leave abusive work situations and, most importantly, to access justice. The new clause does not propose such a visa, but it is one option the Secretary of State should strongly consider as a way of supporting workers on temporary visas in the assertion of their employment rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I think this will be the last set of amendments we discuss, so let us ensure that they are good ones. Amendment 164 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term when making any regulations under the Bill. Amendment 165 would require the Secretary of State to undertake consultations on all regulations published under the Bill.

The effects of the Chancellor’s Budget of broken promises are apparent for all to see. On 7 January, the yield on a 30-year gilt broke a 27-year record, at 5.198%. That is the highest figure since the Debt Management Office was created in 1998. On Monday, the yield rose to 5.461%. That is not abstract; it reflects dwindling confidence in the UK economy, puts extra pressure on the Government’s headroom against their own fiscal rules and could lead to taxpayers paying billions more just to service the Government’s debts.

The Chancellor has chosen to increase borrowing by an average of £32 billion a year for the next five years. That is the largest fiscal loosening in any fiscal event in recent years. It will add substantial pressure to those debt repayments. Earlier this week, The i Paper reported that average two-year and five-year fixed deals for those with 25% equity or deposit are now expected to rise above 5% in the coming weeks, causing more financial pain for buyers and those trying to remortgage.

The Budget, the rise in employer national insurance contributions and, importantly, the provisions in the Bill could not be described as pro-growth, yet the Government repeatedly assure us that growth is the one thing they will deliver, which will unlock everything else.

Amendment 164 would restore the Government’s good intentions and get them back on track. It would ensure that the Secretary of State has regard to the need to ensure growth when making regulations under the Bill. On the basis of all the evidence that we have seen since the general election, growth is clearly not front and centre in the Government’s thinking when they are making policy. It must be.

Amendment 165 would ensure that the Secretary of State consults properly before making regulations under the extensive powers in the Bill. It is merely to hold the Government to their word: they acknowledge that in many respects the policy in the Bill is undercooked and needs further work before implementation.

With these final amendments that the Committee will discuss, let us lay down the gauntlet and see whether the Government will put their money where their mouth is. If the Government are serious about growth, they will surely accept amendment 164.

[Steve Darling]

Throughout our debates, Conservative colleagues have been critical of the Government for not having an oven-ready Bill and emphasising the need for further consultation. I have sympathy with that, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham. However, the last Conservative amendment that we will consider in Committee would require consultation, so I wonder whether the Labour party’s proposals have worn the Conservatives down into believing in it. I am delighted by that; perhaps they have changed their minds on the rest of the Bill, too. I hope that the Minister will grasp the opportunity with both hands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I echo the thanks that the Minister gave, particularly to the Clerks of the Committee, the wider Scrutiny Unit and everyone else who has worked so hard. These Bills are an enormous amount of hard work for the staff of the House, particularly the Clerks, and it is always appreciated by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Likewise, from the Doorkeepers and Hansard to everyone who prepares the room for us, it is an enormous job of work, and we thank them most sincerely. The Bill will shortly move on to Report, when the battle will recommence. In the meantime, Sir Christopher, I thank you and the other Chairs of the Committee for your chairmanship. We look forward to the next round.

[Steve Darling]

I echo the thanks to you, Sir Christopher, and the other Chairs who have ably chaired the Committee. I thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers and Hansard, who have reported throughout. I thank colleagues for the good-natured way that the Bill has been debated. This is my first Bill Committee, and I look forward with gusto to my next one. I also thank Laura Green, who has ably supported me throughout the Committee.

Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting)

Steve Darling Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Bedford]

Thank you, Ms Vaz. Who would be there to care for them if something terrible were to happen? Most importantly, for my constituents, who is there to stop these prisoners getting out of the prison grounds? We could have a situation whereby, within a short journey of Mid Leicestershire, hundreds of inmates are on the run. Furthermore, with the funding settlement that the Government have announced for rural areas such as Mid Leicestershire, it is questionable whether the police would be able to catch those who have escaped.

It appears that my opinion is not unique. YouGov has been polling the UK public on the matter since August 2019, when 52% of the public thought that prison guards should not be able to strike. Incredibly, even through tough times, that figure has increased to 54%.

I believe that the public would be particularly sceptical about new clauses 2 and 3 because of the riots that they have seen on prison grounds, which unfortunately have happened even when prison officers have been on the premises. For example, many remember the riots at Strangeways in 1990, which were caused by poor officer-prisoner relations and poor conditions on prison grounds.

I am also concerned about the two-tier impact on police and prison officers. The policing profession is intrinsically linked to that of prison officers. Police officers are at the heart of keeping the public safe. Police officers throughout the UK join the profession willingly and, because of their professionalism, accept that they will never be able to strike. Police officers throughout the UK know how important it is to keep the public safe. In fact, many police officers I talk to express their annoyance at how little they can do to fight real crime when a lot of their time is taken up by other issues, such as non-crime hate incidents and investigating dubious posts on social media.

However, the crux of the argument against new clauses 2 and 3 is public safety and the lack of supervision should they be accepted. I therefore hope that they are not added to the Bill.

[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.

[Mr Bedford]

Held by my arguments and the arguments put forward by hon. Members, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Non-disclosure agreements: harassment

“(1) Any provision in an agreement to which this section applies is void insofar as it purports to preclude the worker from making a relevant disclosure.

(2) This section applies to any agreement between a worker and the worker’s employer (whether a worker’s contractor not), including any proceedings for breach of contract.

(3) In this section, a ‘relevant disclosure’ means any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, shows that harassment has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed, by a fellow worker or a client of the employer.

(4) In this section, ‘harassment’ means any act of harassment as defined by section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.”—(Steve Darling.)

This new clause would render void any non-disclosure agreement insofar as it prevents the worker from making a disclosure about harassment (including sexual harassment).

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Steve Darling]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 4, in clause 118, page 104, line 32, at end insert—

“(aa) section [Non-disclosure agreements: harassment];”

This is a consequential amendment to NC4, to ensure its implementation.

[Steve Darling]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. When I became an MP, I never thought that I would be standing before a Committee talking about clause 4. However, this is not about public ownership but is actually about non-disclosure agreements. Non-disclosure agreements were originally about keeping trade secrets but, over recent years, they have proliferated and, sadly, have kept shameful secrets away from the public eye in situations where light needs to be cast to make sure that things are tackled. Sadly, I personally have been signed up to one of these agreements. I reassure the Committee that it was not a business in my constituency, but another one where I suffered a level of discrimination, and I had to sign an NDA. That did not allow me to cry foul on a certain issue that myself and my family suffered.

As for the bigger picture of where NDAs have been used at an industrial level, one only has to look at Harrods and the stories that have come up around sexual harassment. Part of the Bill is about trying to tackle harassment and sexual harassment. New clause 4 strengthens the Bill by making sure that NDAs are exempt from this area. As I alluded to with Mohamed al-Fayed, these were used at an industrial level when people were at a very confused stage, and were very vulnerable. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to incorporating the new clause in our proposals.

This is a golden opportunity. We have already seen Ireland take this step. I encourage the Minister to embrace new clause 4.

[Greg Smith]

I shall speak briefly to new clause 4, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Of course, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support all practical measures to combat harassment and sexual harassment wherever it occurs. Our challenge to the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Torbay on behalf of the third party is about understanding where the shortfalls are in existing whistleblower legislation that make the amendment necessary. I heard what he said about his personal experience, but our analysis of the provisions of legislation that is active and live now, as we consider the new clause in Committee, shows that whistleblowing legislation already covers what he is trying to achieve. We are not certain why it is necessary, on a practical level, to add the new clause to the Bill.

[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.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy]

I thank the Minister for his constructive reply. If he is willing to have further conversations with me about what solutions we might be able to bring to bear on this problem, I will be happy to withdraw the new clause now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

Rates of statutory maternity pay, etc

“(1) In regulation 6 of the Statutory Maternity Pay (General) Regulations 1986 (prescribed rate of statutory maternity pay) for ‘£184.03’ substitute ‘£368.06’.

(2) In the Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay (Weekly Rates) Regulations 2002—

(a) in regulation 2(a) (weekly rate of payment of statutory paternity pay) for ‘£184.03’ substitute ‘£368.06’; and

(b) in regulation 3(a) (weekly rate of payment of statutory adoption pay) for ‘£184.03’ substitute ‘£368.06’.

(3) In regulation 40(1)(a) of the Statutory Shared Parental Pay (General) Regulations 2014 (weekly rate of payment of statutory shared parental pay) for ‘£184.03’ substitute ‘£368.06’.

(4) In regulation 20(1)(a) of the Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) Regulations 2020 (weekly rate of payment) for ‘£184.03’ substitute ‘£368.06’.”—(Steve Darling.)

This new clause sets out rates of Statutory Maternity Pay, Statutory Paternity Pay, Statutory Adoption Pay, Statutory Shared Parental Pay and Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Steve Darling]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for assisting in tabling the new clause, which is about ensuring that we put the family at the heart of our society by doubling the rates of maternity, paternity, adoption, shared paternity and parental bereavement pay, which are really important when people are on leave. Sadly, a lot of men choose not to take up these opportunities. We will discuss later our proposals on kinship care and fostering, and this is all part of that bigger picture. By supporting families with these four proposals in the three key areas that they cover, we are putting family at the heart of our world. One only has to reflect on social care and children’s social care, and the significant cost where there is family breakdown, to see that the more the state can do to support families, the better.

I would like to move on to kinship care, where there are real opportunities. I know that the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care has discussed these measures and sees this as a real opportunity for the Government to move positively to support kinship carers.

[The Chair]

Order. Can I just interrupt the hon. Gentleman? That is the next new clause. We are on rates of statutory maternity pay, etc.

[Steve Darling]

That is fine. As I said, the new clause is about supporting the family, and I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to our proposals. Apologies for misunderstanding, Ms Vaz.

[The Chair]

That is fine—don’t worry.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for introducing the new clause, and for his absolute sincerity in wanting to support families.

The Government are committed to ensuring that employed parents receive the best level of support to balance their work and family lives. Our plan to make work pay will ensure that employees are supported to work while balancing their essential family responsibilities. We understand that parental leave and pay entitlements are a key part of that, and that is why the Bill will already make changes to parental leave.

The new clause would double the existing rate of statutory parental payments from £184.03 to £368.06. When considering calls to increase the level of parental pay generally, we need to consider the impact on limited resources and the burden on employers. Changes to parental pay would require careful consideration alongside tax reform and consideration in the wider context of benefits and employment rights over the longer term, and they would need to be made in consultation with businesses and stakeholders.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is required by law to undertake an annual review of benefits and state pensions, including statutory payments. That is based on a review of trends in prices and earnings growth in the preceding year. Parental payments are generally increased in line with the consumer prices index. For example, in April, all statutory parental pay provisions, including statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay, were increased by 6.7%. That is in line with other benefits.

It is worth noting that statutory parental pay is only one element of the support available to parents. Depending on individual circumstances, additional financial support, such as universal credit, child benefit and the Sure Start maternity grant—a lump sum payment of £500—may also be available. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Torbay to withdraw the motion.

[Steve Darling]

I will just share with colleagues that this measure was part of the commitments in the Liberal Democrats’ fully costed manifesto. I thank the Minister for their reassurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 14

Kinship care leave

“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 80EE insert—

‘Chapter 5

Kinship care leave

80EF Kinship care leave

(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations entitling an employee to be absent from work on leave under this section if the employee satisfies conditions specified in the regulations as to an eligible kinship care arrangement with a child.

(2) The regulations must include provision for determining—

(a) the extent of an employee’s entitlement to leave under this section in respect of a child;

(b) when leave under this section may be taken.

(3) Provision under subsection (2)(a) must secure that—

(a) where only one employee is entitled to leave under this section in respect of a given child, the employee is entitled to at least 52 weeks’ leave;

(b) where more than one employee is entitled to leave under this section in respect of the same child, those employees are entitled to share at least 52 weeks’ leave between them.

(4) An employee is entitled to leave under this section only if the eligible kinship care arrangement is intended to last—

(a) at least one year, and

(b) until the child being cared for attains the age of 18.

(5) For the purposes of this Chapter, ‘eligible kinship care arrangement’ means—

(a) special guardianship,

(b) a kinship child arrangement,

(c) a private fostering arrangement, or

(d) a private family arrangement,

within the meaning given by section (Meaning of ‘kinship care’) of the Employment Rights Act 2024.

(6) The regulations may make provision about how leave under this section is to be taken.

(7) In this section—

(a) “special guardianship”, “kinship child arrangement”, “private fostering arrangement” and “private family arrangement” have the same meanings as in section (Meaning of “kinship care”) of the Employment Rights Act 2024.

(b) “week” means any period of seven days.

80EG Rights during and after kinship care leave

(1) Regulations under section 80EF must provide—

(a) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is entitled, for such purposes and to such extent as the regulations may prescribe, to the benefit of the terms and conditions of employment which would have applied but for the absence,

(b) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is bound, for such purposes and to such extent as the regulations may prescribe, by obligations arising under those terms and conditions (except in so far as they are inconsistent with subsection (1) of that section), and

(c) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is entitled to return from leave to a job of a kind prescribed by regulations, subject to section 80EH.

(2) The reference in subsection (1)(c) to absence on leave under section 80EF includes, where appropriate, a reference to a continuous period of absence attributable partly to leave under that section and partly to any one or more of the following—

(a) maternity leave,

(b) paternity leave,

(c) adoption leave,

(d) shared parental leave,

(e) parental leave,

(f) parental bereavement leave.

(3) In subsection (1)(a), “terms and conditions of employment”—

(a) includes matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under the contract of employment, but

(b) does not include terms and conditions about remuneration.

(4) Regulations under section 80EF may specify matters which are, or are not, to be treated as remuneration for the purposes of this section.

(5) Regulations under section 80EF may make provision, in relation to the right to return mentioned in subsection (1)(c), about—

(a) seniority, pension rights and similar rights;

(b) terms and conditions of employment on return.

80EH Special cases

(1) Regulations under section 80EF may make provision about—

(a) redundancy during or after a period of leave under that section, or

(b) dismissal (other than by reason of redundancy) during a period of leave under that section.

(2) Provision by virtue of subsection (1) may include—

(a) provision requiring an employer to offer alternative employment;

(b) provision for the consequences of failure to comply with the regulations (which may include provision for a dismissal to be treated as unfair for the purposes of Part 10).

80EI Chapter 5: supplemental

(1) Regulations under section 80EF may—

(a) make provision about notices to be given, evidence to be produced and other procedures to be followed by employees and employers;

(b) make provision requiring employers or employees to keep records;

(c) make provision for the consequences of failure to give notices, to produce evidence, to keep records or to comply with other procedural requirements;

(d) make provision for the consequences of failure to act in accordance with a notice given by virtue of paragraph (a);

(e) make special provision for cases where an employee has a right which corresponds to a right under section 80EF and which arises under the person’s contract of employment or otherwise;

(f) make provision modifying the effect of Chapter 2 of Part 14 (calculation of a week’s pay) in relation to an employee who is or has been absent from work on leave under section 80EF;

(g) make provision applying, modifying or excluding an enactment, in such circumstances as may be specified and subject to any conditions which may be specified, in relation to a person entitled to take leave under section 80EF;

(h) make different provision for different cases or circumstances;

(i) make consequential provision.

(2) The cases or circumstances mentioned in subsection (1)(h) include—

(a) more than one child being subject to the same eligible kinship care arrangement, and

(b) a child being subject to an eligible kinship care arrangement on two or more separate occasions,

and regulations may, in particular, make special provision regarding the applicability and extent of the entitlement to leave in such circumstances.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for some or all of a period of kinship care leave to be paid.’”—(Steve Darling.)

This new clause sets out an entitlement to kinship care leave.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Steve Darling]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 15—Meaning of “kinship care”—

“(1) This section defines ‘kinship care’ for the purposes of sections 80EF to 80EI of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (inserted by section (Kinship care leave) of this Act).

(2) Kinship care describes an arrangement where a child is raised by a friend, relative or extended family member other than a parent.

(3) Subsections (3) to (8) set out the arrangements that are recognised as being types of kinship care.

(4) An arrangement where a child is adopted (within the meaning of Chapter 4 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002) by a friend, relative or extended family member (‘kinship adoption’).

(5) An arrangement where—

(a) a child is looked after by a local authority (within the meaning of section 22 of the Children Act 1989), and

(b) a friend, relative or extended family member of that child is approved by the local authority to be a foster carer for that child (‘kinship foster care’).

(6) An arrangement created by a special guardianship order pursuant to section 14A of the Children Act 1989 (‘special guardianship’).

(7) An arrangement created by a child arrangements order pursuant to section 8 of the Children Act 1989 where the court orders that a child is to live predominantly with a friend, relative or extended family member of that child (‘kinship child arrangement’).

(8) An arrangement where a child is fostered privately (within the meaning of section 66 of the Children Act 1989) by a friend or extended family member (‘private fostering arrangement’).

(9) Any other arrangement where a child is cared for, and provided with accommodation in their own home—

(a) by a relative of the child, other than—

(i) a parent of the child; or

(ii) a person who is not a parent of the child but who has parental responsibility for the child; and

(b) where the arrangement has lasted, or is intended to last, for at least 28 days (‘private family arrangement’).”

This new clause is linked to the new clause about kinship care leave.

New clause 45—Foster carer’s leave—

“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) In the title of Part 8B, for ‘CARER’S LEAVE’ substitute ‘CARER’S LEAVE AND FOSTER CARER’S LEAVE’.

(3) After section 80J (Carer’s leave) insert—

‘80JA Foster carer’s leave

(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations entitling an employee to be absent from work on leave under this section in order to undertake activities as a result of being a local authority foster parent.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “local authority foster parent” is defined in accordance with section 105 of The Children’s Act 1989.

(3) The regulations must include provision for determining—

(a) the extent of an employee’s entitlement to leave under this section;

(b) when leave under this section may be taken.

(4) Provision under subsection (3)(a) must secure that where an employee is entitled to leave under this section the employee is entitled to at least a week’s leave during any period of 12 months.

(5) The regulations may make provision about how leave under this section is to be taken (including by providing for it to be taken non-continuously).

(6) The regulations may provide that particular activities are, or are not, to be treated as providing or arranging care for the purposes of this Part.’

(4) In section 80K—

(a) in subsection (1), after ‘80J’ insert ‘and 80JA’;

(b) in subsection (2), after ‘80J’ in both places it occurs insert ‘and 80JA’;

(c) in subsection (4), after ‘80J’ insert ‘and 80JA’; and

(d) in subsection (5), after ‘80J’ insert ‘and 80JA’.

(5) In subsection (1) of section 80L, after ‘80J’ insert ‘and 80JA’.

(6) In section 80M—

(a) In subsection (1)—

(i) in the opening words, after ‘80J’ insert ‘80JA’,

(ii) in paragraph (e), after ‘80J’ insert ‘and 80JA’

(iii) in paragraph (f), after ‘80J’ insert ‘and 80JA’

(iv) in paragraph (g), after ‘80J’ insert ‘and 80JA’

(v) in paragraph (h), after ‘80J’ insert ‘and 80JA;’

(b) In subsection (2), after ‘80J’ insert ‘and 80JA’; and

(c) In subsection (3), after ‘80J(4)’ insert ‘and 80JA(4)’.”

This new clause ensures local authority foster parents are entitled to at least one extra week’s leave every 12 months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

Apologies, Ms Vaz; I was somewhat premature on the previous item. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, who has highlighted this matter and proposed this new clause on kinship care. The kinship care APPG discussed this proposal and was mostly in favour of it.

The number of children in our United Kingdom who benefit from kinship care is 130,000—equivalent to the population of Colchester or Watford. That is three times more than the number of youngsters who benefit from fostering, which is where one imagines, and one would hope, most youngsters in need of support would get it. The new clause, by allowing additional leave, would allow greater flexibility to get those youngsters into the family, and would help families come to terms with, and settle into, kinship care.

There are eye-watering costs in the care system. Some companies are making outrageous profits from family breakdown. I encourage Members to think about how we can reshape society to give more support. As somebody who has adopted myself, adoption and fostering are matters very close to my heart, and I would strongly welcome more opportunities for kinship care.

Equally, new clause 45, which would provide for an additional week of unpaid leave for foster carers, is extremely important. We need to change the workplace so that it supports foster families and kinship care families, making sure that, the vast majority of the time, the best place for a child is within a loving family home—whatever shape or form that takes—rather than in a care home or similar place miles away from home.

This collection of proposals would help to drive the agenda to change our culture in the UK and support young people in loving homes, with families.

[Greg Smith]

I preface my comments by saying that I welcome anything that supports kinship carers. I had an inspirational meeting with a constituent who is a kinship carer over the summer, which certainly opened my eyes to many of the challenges faced by those who take on the heroic and wonderful mission in life of looking after those young people.

New clause 14 sets out an entitlement to kinship care leave. That in its own right seems to me a very good, sensible and noble proposal. Where the clause falls a little short is that it appears to be very trusting of the Government. Some on the Committee might think that is equally a very sensible and good thing, but obviously Governments come and go. Anything set out in any legislation that leaves things open also leaves them open to misinterpretation and the risk that they will not necessarily deliver that which was intended.

The entire eventual policy that new clause 14 would enable would be left up to Ministers, including the extent of an employee’s entitlement to leave, when leave may be taken and much more. I wonder whether the Liberal Democrats have a policy position on those matters; if they do, it seems rather trusting to just leave it up to the Government to determine, rather than setting it out in the new clause.

New clause 15 defines what is meant by kinship care. There is some confusion here, because the Government have set out their definition of kinship care in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which specifies that a child is in kinship care if

“the child lives with a relative, friend or other person connected with the child for all or part of the time”,

or if the child lives with that person

“for all of the time, or for more time than the child lives with a parent”,

and that person provides

“all of the care and support provided for the child, or more of that care and support than is provided for the child by a parent.”

A child is also in kinship care if the child lives with two or more relatives, friends or other persons

“all or most of the time (whether or not the child lives with those persons at the same time)”,

and

“those persons, taken together, provide all or most of the care and support provided for the child.”

That definition was introduced after new clause 15 was tabled, so it would be interesting to know whether there are aspects of the Government’s definition that the Liberal Democrats support, or whether they prefer their own, and why. It seems to me that, now there is live Government legislation in this area providing a perfectly good and well-meaning definition of kinship care, we do not need the new clause.

New clause 45, on additional leave for foster carers, would ensure that local authority foster parents are entitled to at least one extra week’s leave every 12 months. I would be interested to know whether the Liberal Democrats have undertaken any assessment of how businesses would be able to absorb the additional cost. That is not to say that we necessarily oppose the principle, but again, like with new clause 13, it would be important to know, before we could formally support any such change—well-meaning as it might be—whether that research has been done to understand the cost to business.

--- Later in debate ---

I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for his continued important advocacy for all families, including foster and kinship families. The Government remain committed to supporting all working families. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member not to press new clauses 14, 15 and 45 to a vote.

[Steve Darling]

I thank the Minister for that reassurance. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 19

Consultation on trade union legislation

“(1) The Secretary of State must initiate a consultation on—

(a) the operation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; and

(b) the effects on that operation of provisions contained in Part 4 of this Act.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament, no sooner than eighteen weeks after the initiation referred to in subsection (1), a report on—

(a) the outcome of that consultation, and

(b) the Government’s proposals for changes to the legislation referred to in subsection (1).”—(Greg Smith.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to undertake a consultation on the operation of trade union legislation, and see also Amendment 116.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.