Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that example; colleagues across the Chamber will probably cite similar, if not worse, ones. That is a shocking indictment of the company we are discussing. The law already requires service charge increases to be “reasonable”, but when charges are skyrocketing for basic maintenance services such as cutting grass, many residents do not feel that they are being treated reasonably.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Residents in Stratford and Bow tell me that some of their monthly service charges have now reached almost £600. It is driving them to the financial brink, and many of their neighbours are now facing legal threats for falling behind. I have had to intervene on several occasions, calling public meetings with management agents that are behaving terribly and treating residents as cash cows. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an absolute disgrace that leaseholders continue to be pushed about by unregulated property management agents who are profiteering from our constituents, and that the Government must bring forward robust measures to protect leaseholders as quickly as possible?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point—as I mentioned, many colleagues will have dealt with similar cases. This is an issue that we want the Government to look seriously at, and one that has frequently been brought up in the Chamber. It is right that Members are advocating for their constituents, but local MPs or Housing Ministers should not have to name and shame these companies; we are talking about some of the largest managing agents in England. We are seeing patterns, with the same companies coming up time and again across the country. As MPs, our support for individual blocks and housing estates might result in small wins locally, but it is not addressing the root cause of the problem.
Our Committee surveyed over 7,000 homeowners, and found that the regulation of managing agents was the No. 1 action that homeowners wanted the Government to prioritise as part of their leasehold and commonhold agenda. In 2018, the Lord Best report proposed a new regulator to cover letting and managing agents, with a mandatory and enforceable code of practice. Lord Best recommended that this new body should be established as a statutory regulator for property agents, as there was no existing body that could take on that role. Even the managing agents themselves have told us that they would welcome Lord Best’s proposals for regulation and the professionalisation this would bring to the sector. We already have industry-funded professional bodies with their own codes, but self-regulation does not work.
North Sea Oil and Gas
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing a debate on such an important issue. I put it on record that I am the chair of the APPG on climate change.
Frustratingly, the British public once again find themselves at the mercy of the latest chapter of the geopolitical crisis. Our constituents are looking at their energy bills and wincing at yet another increase, as people up and down the country pay the price for an energy market that is exposed to global conflict. The fact remains that the hard-earned money of British taxpayers and bill payers is lining the pockets of fossil fuel giants, which want us to believe that drilling oil is the only way forward. As long as the UK relies heavily on oil and gas, global conflicts and supply disruptions will continue to lead to price hikes. That is why we need to focus on cleaner energy sources. Those hikes are driving fuel poverty in every corner of our country, leaving less money in the pockets of workers and pensioners alike.
For too long—we have heard this in the debate—climate action has been pitched as a zero-sum game in which economic activity will somehow be hampered, but it is not at odds with economic security or prosperity. There is a case for moving away from oil and gas and towards clean energy not only for our planet, but for British bill payers. Energy bills cannot and will not be brought down by North sea oil and gas. Our constituents are better protected from energy shocks by investment in renewables than by further exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets.
The British taxpayer has been subsidising a hugely polluting industry for too long. Oil and gas companies enjoy an effective tax subsidy of £3 billion every year, when we should instead be investing in the industries of the future, such as renewable energy projects that deliver wealth back into our communities, building global leadership and growing global markets for clean energy technologies. I worked globally on such initiatives with nearly 100 countries in the United Nations. Countries are successfully shifting away from fossil fuel production. That is happening—it is a reality.
Kerry McCarthy
Something that has been missing from this debate is the opportunity we have to be the leading exponents of offshore wind, including floating offshore wind, hybrid assets and energy connection. When I was a climate Minister, I held the international energy brief, and whether it was from talking to Azerbaijan about what it can do in the Caspian sea, to countries on the Black sea, to countries on the Baltic sea or to the governors of states on the west coast of America, I saw that everyone is interested in what we are doing and that there is huge potential. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Uma Kumaran
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
We are talking about communities that are dependent on this industry. As a proud member of the GMB, I absolutely understand why workers must be at the heart of this. North sea oil and gas reserves are in terminal decline. They cannot provide a secure future for workers, and there is no long-term future in them. We have heard that just 10% is left to be extracted.
Mr Carmichael
Much of what the hon. Lady says is correct, but she is setting oil and gas up in opposition to the development of renewables, when they absolutely are not. I do not believe there is a long-term future for the oil and gas industry, but we will need oil and gas in the future. We are talking not just about the long term, but about the short to medium term. That is the whole point of a transition: it is about how we get from here to where we want to be. There is no way of getting to the renewables future without going through oil and gas first.
Uma Kumaran
The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I cannot say that I agree with all of it, but we need all voices around the table.
Mr Carmichael
Each time, the hon. Lady says, “Instead of that, it’s this.” It is not an either/or; it is an “as well”.
Uma Kumaran
The oil industry and fossil fuel lobbyists want us to believe that we need to take them on the journey with us. The case for renewables is there. At the moment, however, the voices for the renewables industry and more sustainable energy sources are being drowned out by those who want us to preserve the system that we already have.
Uma Kumaran
I will not give way; I will continue.
I am making the case for growing clean industries, ensuring that British workers are at the heart of the cutting-edge change that every country is now facing, for the jobs of today and the future.
Workers need a credible transition plan, which means proactive planning, serious investment and putting their voices first. That is exactly what this Government are doing. This is about ensuring workers’ jobs and livelihoods so that they can pay their bills, rents and mortgages. These are the challenges that people are facing now. We are not talking about hypotheticals; people have bills to pay now, this month and next month. This is not a hypothetical scenario or an abstract discussion; we must take workers with us.
We cannot allow the pipe dreams peddled by those with vested interests in fossil fuels to blind us to the realities in front of us. This is an industry already in decline. We know what a botched industrial transition looks like.
Uma Kumaran
I will not give way; I will continue.
We also know what success looks like. Countries in the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, ranging from Denmark to Costa Rica, are committed to ending reliance on oil and gas, so this issue is already being discussed globally.
I find it interesting that Conservative Members here are passionately making the case for oil and gas today, because it was their Government that presided over an unmitigated collapse in jobs in the oil and gas industry. Half the jobs in the North sea disappeared in the last decade under a Conservative Government. We did not hear anything from the Conservatives at the time, so let us remember why so many of them are talking about oil and gas today. They are masking what they are saying as standing up for workers, but the truth is that they are fighting climate deniers on their own Benches and Reform’s climate sceptics on their right. They are using the industry as a tool in their own political fights here.
Uma Kumaran
I will not give way; I will carry on.
The case that I am making is backed by science. We heard earlier that a 1% increase in global warming would be catastrophic. We are already seeing extreme temperatures. The news right now is that France has just hit 44°, we have sweltering temperatures in Britain, and people are pooh-poohing the idea of a 1% rise in global temperatures. They continue to deny the reality of the climate crisis. Yes, this debate is about jobs, energy security and our future, but it is also about protecting the planet from the present and very real threat of climate devastation. The simple reality is that North sea production is not compatible with Britain’s climate commitments.
Uma Kumaran
I will continue.
Rosebank could produce the equivalent of 70% of the UK’s annual emissions of carbon dioxide. That is not compatible with the UK’s international climate obligations; they are international agreements, but they are obligations. These are treaties that we have signed up to and they reflect the deeper moral case that every country has a part to play in ensuring that we meet the global call to action.
I want to take this opportunity to urge the Minister to continue along the path that the Government are already on and do everything in their power to continue to limit the expansion of fossil fuel production. That includes ensuring that Rosebank does not happen.
We cannot abdicate responsibility at this vital moment. New oil and gas production in the North sea is not a solution. It will not bring down our constituents’ bills, it will not meaningfully diminish reliance on imported gas, and it is not delivering prosperity. However, it will risk further climate disruption, which is destruction that can never be undone.
The solution is not inaction. It is a plan for a future that backs British workers, believes in British industry and ingenuity, and backs a transition to renewable energy sources. That is everything that we should be focused on delivering.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne—sorry, I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas)—for securing this important and timely debate, although I think his call for personal ambition to be left aside at this time is a faint hope. Given what is happening on the Government Benches, this is surely a time for personal ambition to come to the fore, and I am sure we will see a lot more of it in the next few weeks.
In that regard, I take this opportunity to welcome the newest Conservative party Member of Parliament to this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) secured an incredible majority in his constituency last week, in a referendum on the future of our oil and gas industry that was won by those of us who support its continuance, by those of us who support the jobs being maintained in this country, that city and that region, and by a real champion for that part of the world. I am sure that his voice, heard already in this Chamber this morning, will be heard loud and clear over the next few months and years as he continues to champion that great city and that great industry.
I thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), and the hon. Members for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for adding their voices to this debate. It was interesting that three of the four Labour Members spoke in favour of a change of policy on oil and gas.
Although I have a lot of time and respect for the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow—indeed, I like her—I disagree considerably with her. She is a passionate advocate for what she believes, and she is right to stand up in this House and make those arguments about the UK contributing to the battle against climate change, but when she describes those of us who care passionately about the existing oil and gas industry as climate deniers, she is somewhat insulting the thousands of people in my constituency, and constituencies across the country, who rely on that industry for their income and have the very skills that will be relied upon by those developing the technologies of the future. It is supply chain industries based in Westhill, Portlethen, Banchory and Blackburn in my constituency, and in places around the country, including the north-east of England, that will develop the offshore wind or floating solar technologies of the future, or whatever it might be. It is people in Na h-Eileanan an Iar and across the United Kingdom that the hon. Lady will need and want to build more quickly.
Uma Kumaran
The hon. Gentleman is making his case very eloquently, but let me correct him on what I said. I am not in any way accusing his wonderful constituents of being climate deniers; I am simply pointing out the case made by some of his colleagues. I absolutely agree that we need to bring communities with us, and I am sure the whole House shares that aim.
Andrew Bowie
Absolutely—I could not agree more. We do need to bring communities with us.
While I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove for securing the debate, I find it increasingly frustrating that we have to return to this House and platforms across the UK to make the same arguments. One of my constituents said just the other week, “It is like banging your head against a brick wall.” None of us understands what this Government need to see or hear from experts, trade unions, former leaders of the Labour party, leaders of Scottish Renewables and RenewableUK or the chairman of Great British Energy, which this Government established less than two years ago, who are all clamouring for a change of position on the UK’s oil and gas sector.
My constituents, and people across Scotland and the United Kingdom, just do not understand why the Government, at this time of constraint on our economy, are voluntarily giving up a potential £13 billion of additional revenue over the next decade. They do not understand why the Government insist—and, indeed, are about to legislate—on a ban on new licences in the North sea while increasing imports from Norway, which has just issued more licences in its sector of the North sea, adding to the burden on climate change and undermining our economy, with British jobs lost in the process.
People do not get why the Government say on one hand that they are passionately committed to tackling global climate change and want to be global leaders in ensuring that this world is a safer place for our children, and yet on the other hand are seemingly blind to the increased emissions produced by importing more of the oil and gas that we will need over the next 30 to 40 years from places such as Qatar and the USA. They do not get why the Government are seemingly treating workers in Aberdeen, the north-east of Scotland, Fife, the Northern Isles, Na h-Eileanan an Iar and the north-east of England—everywhere that has been mentioned—with callous disregard, given that there is no transition evident.
There is a slow-down in the deployment of renewables, which is being driven by the accelerated decline in the oil and gas industry. The Port of Aberdeen, which invested millions of pounds in developing South harbour to take advantage of what it expected to be the boom in floating offshore wind less than 10 years ago, is laying off workers because the boom has not arrived. Some 63% of the harbour’s profit is generated from the oil and gas sector, and less than 2% from renewables. The decline in oil and gas is being driven too fast, and the uptick in renewables is not there.
It is a cruel irony that we are having this debate at the very moment that Swire House, a multimillion-pound global energy headquarters building, which opened a decade ago to great fanfare in the city of Aberdeen, is being demolished. That is symbolic of this Government’s approach to our energy industry, oil and gas industry, the city of Aberdeen, the north-east of Scotland and those who worked proudly in the North sea, but are now looking overseas.
As much as the Government like to say that they will increase funding and expand the transition fund, those workers are skilled workers; some of them have spent decades honing their skills in a specific, global industry, an industry that, in every country bar this one, is booming. Those skills are in high demand in the middle east, Australia, the Gulf of America—or Gulf of Mexico; take your pick—South America and Canada; basically, in every country with an oil and gas industry that does not have the current UK Energy Secretary in charge of energy policy.
That is why those workers are taking the difficult decision to uproot their families, leave the communities where they have lived all their lives and go overseas, taking with them those vital skills needed by the technologies of the future and leaving the economy of the north-east of Scotland and the United Kingdom weaker as a result. We need to see a change of policy; surely the result last week in Aberdeen South demonstrated that.
People are fed up and want change. Yes, they agree they want to get to net zero—overwhelmingly, people believe that we must tackle climate change—but this Government’s callous disregard for the industry and its workers speaks volumes about where their priorities lie. If last week did not demonstrate that, I do not know what will. I say to the Minister, “Please, please scrap the energy profits levy. Do not legislate to ban licences. Give the people of Aberdeen and north-east Scotland, and all who work in the oil and gas industry, hope for the future that the Government understand, are listening, recognise and will invest in that industry.”
Commemoration of Matchgirls’ Strike
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
May I say how wonderful it is to have you in the Chair for this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker? You were in the Chair for my maiden speech, and this is my first ever Adjournment debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), who is also proudly wearing the ribbon that we are wearing today.
I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate and to pay tribute to the women and girls of the matchgirls’ strike of 1888. I am proudly the very first Member of Parliament for the new constituency of Stratford and Bow. The boundaries may be new, but it is a part of east London with a rich and radical history that I am so proud to represent. As the granddaughter of one of Jaffna’s first ever trade unionists, I am proud to be here to speak about this subject.
In my maiden speech, I paid tribute to some of the well-known and illustrious figures who were residents of Bow. Some were household names, like Gandhi, Attlee and Annie Besant, but today I pay tribute to some lesser-known but equally powerful figures in British history: the matchgirls—the young women of the Bryant & May match factory in Bow. I am proud to have residents from Bow here in the Gallery to hear the debate, and I pay tribute to the Chisenhale ESOL Bengali ladies, who visited me earlier today.
The matchgirls were mostly very young girls—some were as young as six, but they went up to the age of 13 and beyond. They endured long hours, pitiful pay and appalling working conditions. They were fined for being late, for being untidy and even for talking. Worst of all, they were being poisoned slowly and painfully. The white phosphorus used to make the matches made them sicker by the day, giving them a condition called “phossy jaw”. The girls would dip the matches into sulphur, then into the white phosphorus mixture, and that led to that horrible disease, which caused painful abscesses, facial disfigurement, the loss of their jaw and, in some cases, a slow and painful death.
When this came to light via work with Annie Besant and in a news article, factory bosses tried to force the girls to lie. Instead, they fought back and took their futures into their hands. Some 1,400 of those brave young women walked out on strike in July 1888, and they sent a delegation right here to Parliament. Some 56 matchgirls marched from Bow to Parliament, and a group of 12 of those women met with two MPs, right outside this Chamber in Central Lobby. Their courageous act is recorded in Hansard, as Mr Cunninghame Graham asked the Home Secretary to investigate the strike and the factory’s punitive practice.
I am proud that this week, working with the Matchgirls Memorial team, who are also here in the Gallery, and my union, the GMB, we have an exhibition in this very place, which the matchgirls walked to. The strike was exactly 137 years ago this week, and it lit the spark of the new labour movement and the new trade union movement. It was a spark that ignited the fire of modern trade unionism in Britain—the same movement that fights for our rights at work, and a movement that I am very proud to be a part of as a member of my union, the GMB.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on bringing forward this debate. She is absolutely right to celebrate the strike of 1888. Does she agree that the spirit of the matchgirls lives on in our women today? An example of that in my constituency and in hers is that of the WASPI women, who refused to take the wrong done to them lying down, and fought for recognition and fair compensation. The fight that began with the matchgirls’ strike in 1888 clearly still lives on in 2025.
Uma Kumaran
This is the first Adjournment debate that I have secured, and I am delighted to be a recipient of one of the hon. Gentleman’s famous Adjournment interventions—I have finally made it as a Member of Parliament. I certainly think that the spirit of the matchgirls reminds us that unionism and collective action have long been in the domain of women, regardless of how male-dominated the union movement or the struggle for workers’ rights may be.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that commemorating the struggle of workers, particularly women workers, is key to understanding working-class history—our history? Does she also agree that the matchgirls should be commemorated alongside industrial struggles across the country, not least those of the 19 teenage girls who were killed in the disaster of 1922 in the Dudley Port factory, the Wednesbury “Tube Town” strikes of 1913 and the 1910 women chainmakers’ strike in Cradley Heath, all of which helped to form our modern-day trade union movement?
Uma Kumaran
I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. All Labour Members have stories of women who have shaped the struggle for working people’s rights in British history. Too often, those stories do not get told, so I am really pleased that we have a chance to hear them today.
As I was saying, the strike took place exactly 137 years ago this week, and I am proud to be in the Chamber speaking about it. The union movement is still fighting for dignity and fairness at work, and standing up for workers’ rights against mistreatment and malpractice. We owe so much to the women who came before us—the pioneers of the rights we enjoy today. They stood up against injustice, took power into their own hands, and won all the concessions they demanded from greedy factory bosses. Those women changed the course of history, and I and many other women would not be here without them. I come to the House today in that same spirit, to ask the Minister whether we will finally formally recognise the matchgirls’ role in the British trade union movement and in the advancement of the rights of women and girls in Britain.
I mentioned Mr Graham, one of the MPs who met the matchgirls in Parliament. Those MPs’ names are recorded in Hansard, but the names and voices of the matchgirls are absent, because it would be decades more before a woman first sat on these green Benches. The matchgirls’ contribution to the story of new trade unionism, British labour history, and the struggle for rights and dignity at work is too often forgotten. That history is too often overlooked; working-class stories are left untold, and are under-represented in our curriculums and our history books. It is a history that belongs to all of us, and that we all have a responsibility to keep telling when we have the chance.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very strong case for the importance of history. As my parliamentary neighbour, she will know that our part of east London has an incredibly strong labour and industrial history, but does she agree that it is so often forgotten that much of that history involved—or was led by—strong working-class women? Those women had to overcome not only class prejudice, grinding poverty and difficult social conditions, but the sexism of the time. We must do far more to shine a light on their successes and achievements, from which we all benefit today, to make sure they stay in the public memory.
Uma Kumaran
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. As neighbouring MPs, we are struggling together to get our voices heard in this place and make sure those women are recorded in history. He is a powerful advocate, and an ally in the fight for improved conditions for workers. Many descendants of the matchgirls live in my hon. Friend’s constituency today, and some even work in the Tate & Lyle factory that he is proud to represent. I take this moment to pay tribute to our joint predecessor, Lady Brown of Silvertown, who held a debate about matchgirls over a decade ago.
The history I am talking about belongs to all of us, and we have a responsibility to keep telling it. I am sad to say that the Conservative Benches are completely empty this evening. Conservative Members might try to talk down our trade unions when they are in the Chamber, but we on the Labour Benches are so proud of our industrial heritage. As such, I ask the Minister whether the Government will look at how that history is taught in schools, so that working-class stories such as those of the east end matchgirls and so many others that we have heard about today are finally heard, and that these people’s contribution to Britain is finally recognised.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
This is an important debate, and I thank my hon. Friend so much for securing it. The matchgirls’ strike played a really important part in the whole of labour history and the struggles of women. In Durham, we had the Durham Women Against Pit Closures, who sustained the miners in their strike. They joined the picket lines and were key figures in their areas, and they are still around today—we saw them last week at the gala. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is so important that the struggles of women of the past are remembered, and that they empower women of the future?
Uma Kumaran
I could not have put it better myself. Durham is rooted in the fight for workers’ rights, and I am proud that that tradition is still continuing. My hon. Friend has long been a powerful advocate for working people’s rights and union voices in Britain. She has made a powerful point, and I thank her for her intervention.
As we honour these women and celebrate how far we have come, we also know that—in the words of another incredibly powerful woman—great is the work yet to be done, particularly for women in today’s workforce who still struggle disproportionately with low-paid and insecure work. There are 3.9 million working women in the UK who are in severely insecure work—insecure work that creates a culture of fear and uncertainty, isolates employees, and so often leaves young women struggling financially.
Young women are more likely to work in sectors with high job insecurity. They are paid less, work fewer hours, and face last-minute shift changes. All that puts them under greater financial and emotional pressure. Young women are paid less, and are stuck in roles that are far below their potential. Over time, this chips away at their confidence, their mental health, and any sense of self-worth. When they do not feel safe to speak up about poor treatment, they start to believe that being treated unfairly is just part of the job. What is worse is that many young women do not even know their rights at work. I have worked with the Young Women’s Trust, which has told me that nearly half the women it surveyed did not know their rights in insecure jobs.
This follows women throughout our lives. When women return to work after pregnancy, their wages stagnate and they are crippled by the costs of childcare. Women are still struggling today, and that must change—which is why I was so proud to be a member of the Bill Committee considering this Labour Government’s Employment Rights Bill, a Committee to which the Minister was integral. We are delivering the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation, rolling back Tory attacks on workers’ rights to have their voices heard at work, cracking down on fire and rehire practices, banning non-disclosure agreements that prevent people from speaking up about harassment and discrimination, delivering sick pay for 1.3 million of our lowest earners, enhancing workplace protections for pregnant women and new mothers, and taking on the gender pay gap. In all those ways, we are boosting living standards and workplace protections for millions.
Now, 137 years on from the matchgirls’ strike, those landmark reforms will deliver rights and dignity to a new generation of women and working people, but we must ensure that young women know their rights and that those rights are enforced. We must therefore give the fair work agency the power and resources to do its job well and ensure that the workers most at risk of exploitation and discrimination are helped to access their rights, so that our economy can finally gain from the skills and talents of young women.
I have covered a lot of ground today, and it has been a bit of a history lesson: the story of the matchgirls, pride in Britain’s working class history, pride in the story of my constituents in Stratford and Bow, and the security and dignity of young women in today’s workforce. If Members want to learn more, I encourage them to visit the Upper Waiting Hall off the Committee corridor, where the Matchgirls Memorial is hosting an exhibition right here in Parliament.
I want to thank the brilliant women in my team who have helped me to put this speech together, and who have been integral to the work we have been doing to shine a light on this subject. I pay tribute to Anna Gorrell, Niamh O’Brien and Sameeah Ahmad. Let me also thank Barbara Plant of the GMB, who is in the Gallery today, and Penny Robinson from GMB London region, who have played an integral role in helping me along my way as a Member of Parliament.
I want to end by honouring the inspiring legacy of the women and girls of the matchgirls’ strike of 1888 by ensuring that the names of the strike and union committees are recorded in Hansard, and that their contribution to the fight for the workers’ rights that we all enjoy today is remembered.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the brave actions of the matchgirls, like those of so many women trade unionists and, indeed, women throughout history, should serve as an inspiration to girls and young women in constituencies such as mine, and that they can be inspired to take action to gain the justice that they need in their lives and we need in all our lives?
“Chapter 4A
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith
I will happily give way in one moment. Government Members should have their eyes open to the consequences of this badly thought out legislation. Perhaps the hon. Lady will open her eyes to that point.
Uma Kumaran
These measures will ensure protections for all the 2.4 million people in the UK with irregular work patterns, be it zero-hours contracts or agency contracts. Can the shadow Minister tell the House why he thinks agency workers do not deserve the same protections as everyone else?
Greg Smith
The hon. Lady makes a point that she made in Committee. It was good to debate with her and others in Committee—we had a genuine and robust debate. What I am arguing for is flexibility and a recognition of how the employment market and our economy works in real life. To treat everything with one universal rule will be a disaster for our economy. I fear that it will result in fewer people in work and fewer jobs in the economy, and it certainly will not deliver the growth that this Government pretend they want to see.
Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Uma Kumaran ExcerptsTuesday 17th December 2024
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 View all Employment Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 December 2024 - (17 Dec 2024)
The Chair
Order. Obviously, education matters are relevant to the context of the discussion, but this is not a debate about education policy as such.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my membership of GMB union. I note the comments that you have made, but if I may I will just respond to the shadow Minister, who talked about the previous Conservative Government’s record. I draw his attention to an article published by the London School of Economics that said that England was an outlier among OECD countries, having both lower numeracy and literacy levels among school pupils.
Nick Timothy
Does the hon. Lady accept that it is not just the PISA rankings that show great advances in achievement in English schools, but the TIMSS—trends in international mathematics and science study—report published last week? That report said exactly the same thing: English schools are ahead of any comparable western country.
Uma Kumaran
The school support staff negotiating body—to stick to the Bill—is an important part of the Bill and will help to ensure standardised fair pay and employment terms across the board, addressing not only local but regional disparities.
School support staff make a massive contribution to the running of our schools. Just last Friday, I visited the Odessa school in Forest Gate in my constituency, which has an above-average intake of SEND pupils, and I saw at first hand the contribution the support staff made. That is why the Bill, and this clause, are so important—because those staff, too, deserve to have their contributions properly recognised through a negotiating body. At present, their job profiles are out of date, opportunities for professional development are poor and the work they do often goes largely unrecognised or unnoticed. The SSSNB can play a major part in tackling the recruitment and retention crisis across our schools.
I do not think anyone could look at our current approach to school staff and say it is a functioning system—that is certainly not what I hear from teachers when I visit local schools. Local support staff have told me the hardships they are under, and the TUC has shared a report with us showing that one in eight workers use food banks, a quarter take second jobs and half are actively looking to leave their role because they cannot make ends meet.
The attitude—which some may call neglectful—that we have had towards school support workers due to the approach taken by the last Government has sent a clear message that they simply are not valued. By re-establishing the school support staff negotiating body, the Bill will change that. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Sir Ashley Fox
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. We are discussing clause 28 and schedule 3, and the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield asked what the Opposition’s proposal would be. Well, nothing needs changing—the clause and schedule are completely unnecessary. I say that because it is my belief that the way the education system in England is delivered—mostly by academies—is a successful model. The Government’s proposals will harm our education system because they will take freedom away from schools and academies. There is a fixed amount to be spent on education, and the governors of schools and academies are best able to decide where those resources are allocated.
The hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield told us it was unfair that some teaching assistants have lower pay than others and that their terms and conditions are not identical. He also said it was difficult to retain and recruit teaching assistants. If that is the case, the governors of a school or the leaders of an academy can pay more to recruit the staff they need.
What we see from the Government is a belief that Whitehall knows best. They intend to centralise terms and conditions and will try to specify how much each teaching assistant in each school will work, because that suits their political agenda and the agenda of the trade unions that pay for their election campaigns.
Employment Rights Bill (Seventh sitting)
Uma Kumaran ExcerptsThursday 5th December 2024
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 View all Employment Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 December 2024 - (5 Dec 2024)
Greg Smith
I do not want to repeat the whole debate that we had the other day as we might not hit the clause that the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues are trying to get to today. I fully accept his point that the situation is not fair on the employee, but equally it is not fair on the employer, given that those circumstances, events or eventualities are quite literally outside anybody’s control.
I urge the hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleagues to reflect on how to put in place a better and more proportionate system to share the burden. I accept that nobody wants or plans for those eventualities. I refuse to believe that any employer ever wants to have to turn somebody away at the door as they turn up for work. They actually want to make those products, provide those services, ensure people have a good night out or whatever it might be. That is the core of their business. That is how they make money. That is how they grow and create more jobs in the first place. I refuse to believe that any business wants to turn someone away and say, “Sorry, that shift isn’t available,” or, “Only half that shift is available today.”
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB trade union.
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Association of Convenience Stores tells us:
“90% of colleagues in the convenience sector report that they have never had a shift cancelled with less than 48 hours’ notice, reflecting a strong track record of responsible scheduling. Furthermore, 86% of retailers state that they always offer alternative hours to employees if a shift is cancelled or reduced, demonstrating the sector’s commitment to fair treatment and employee support.”
It says that it
“can be confident that this will support existing provision by employers across the sector”,
and it welcomes amendment 30, which it says
“provides clarity in relation to short notice for when the shift is both moved and curtailed.”
It tell us that there is a counter-argument that the proposals may present challenges to convenience retailers and other small businesses, but that it has spoken to businesses and that
“these businesses tell us that they are already doing what the Bill makes provisions for.”
We are mindful of the impact on businesses, but there are a lot of businesses out there that are already doing what is proposed, and we have received representations from them welcoming the measures.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, because she underlines the fundamental point that I am making: most businesses do not want to turn people away. Convenience stores are a great example of that, and are actually some of the most flexible employers out there. My constituency, which is spread across 336 square miles of rural Buckinghamshire, has a lot of small convenience stores, and they are exemplary employers. I cannot think of a problem I have ever encountered with any of them.
I come back to my central argument, which is that sometimes things happen. Nobody has planned for it, nobody wants it, and nobody is in any way happy in that situation, but sometimes these things happen. I fully accept the hon. Lady’s point that the vast majority of employers in this country are good employers. We should celebrate them, and not try to see them through the lens of some sort of Victorian novel. That is not what employers are in this country. They are responsible and want to look out for their workforce.
We had a debate the other day about the symbiotic relationship between the worker and the business owner, which are two sides of the same coin: no successful business could have one without the other. I am not saying that there are not rogue traders out there who seek to exploit their workforce—there are, and there must be proportionate, proper and robust measures in place to combat poor behaviour—but that does not undermine the central point that there must be flexibility that accounts for the realities of the real world.
Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting)
Uma Kumaran ExcerptsThursday 5th December 2024
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 View all Employment Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 December 2024 - (5 Dec 2024)
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I will stop with the Bond jokes for now, but “Never Say Never Again”—Members know that laughter is one of the best medicines, certainly for our mental health and for the mental health of workers. Research from the Centre for Mental Health cites strong evidence that Government policies to boost workplace rights, such as on flexible working and job security, can positively impact workers’ mental health.
Flexibility is crucial to the workplace participation of those with long-term chronic health conditions and those with mental health problems, and it is good for workers. In the oral evidence sessions, we heard that good employment conditions support productivity, employers and the economy, and that good flexible working policies generally go down very well with employees: it can help staff to feel engaged in their work and to feel valued by their managers. I am sure Opposition Members want to feel valued, but—
The Chair
Order. The hon. Lady is perfectly entitled to make a speech, but I thought this was going to be an intervention. She can make a speech later. I call the Minister.
Dame Nia Griffith
I thank my hon. Friend for her valuable contribution; she reminds us that flexible working can often be a real help in getting people into work.
The changes in the Bill will support employers and employees to agree solutions that work for both parties and increase the take-up of flexible working. The Opposition amendments, new clause 26 and amendment 132, proposed by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, include a requirement for an assessment of the impact of the Bill’s provisions on flexible working to be produced before the provisions can be commenced. The Government resist those amendments. They have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments, which was published alongside Second Reading and based on the best available evidence on the potential impact of the Bill’s measures on business, workers and the wider economy.
Our proportionate assessment included labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis considering the impact of these changes on individuals and businesses. It also provided a breakdown of the impacts on employment tribunals, small business and individuals with protected characteristics. We intend to refine that analysis over time, working closely with businesses, trade unions, academics and think-tanks. The analysis published alongside the Bill describes the overall business impact as neutral. Businesses may see benefits in improved productivity, employee loyalty, worker satisfaction, staff retention and the ability to attract a wider range of employees. It is important to remember that businesses can still reject flexible working requests on eight valid business grounds, including the burden of costs.
As is standard practice, the Government will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill reaches Royal Assent, in line with the requirements of the better regulation framework. That will account for where the primary legislation in the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament in such a way as to change the impacts of the policy on business significantly. That impact assessment will be published alongside the enacted legislation. We will then publish further analysis alongside future consultations, ahead of secondary legislation to meet our better regulation requirements. I therefore ask Opposition Members to withdraw their amendments.
Uma Kumaran
I would like to highlight a few examples in addition to those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield.
According to the Nuffield Trust, these changes will greatly benefit social care workers and workers on zero-hours contracts who, as has been highlighted, have inconsistent access to statutory sick pay, let alone occupational sick pay schemes, to cover costs such as rent and bills. As we have heard, and we have seen in our constituencies, many of those workers worked through the pandemic, risking their own lives and risking infection, putting themselves in harm’s way, because they did not have a fallback—they did not have statutory sick pay.
A more generous system of statutory sick pay should be seen not only as a right for workers, but as part of our national defences, including against pandemics. In particular, the changes will benefit low and outsourced workers such as porters, cleaners and housekeepers. I recently visited Newham General hospital in my constituency, where I saw at first hand the impact that porters and cleaning staff are having. I heard from the hospital’s chief executive officer how the hospital is unable to function without those essential staff.
Health Equals found that 28% of employees are reliant on statutory sick pay, one in 10 workers get nothing at all if they are sick and 82% of workers reported that flexible working arrangements allowed them to maintain a good level of personal health and wellbeing. I spoke earlier about mental health provisions. Evidence from Mind has shown us that employees with mental health issues are reliant on SSP. Without access to it, they are forced into debt, increasing the strain on their mental health.
The Centre for Progressive Change highlighted a recent study that shows that the cost of presenteeism for the private sector for mental health alone is around £23 billion a year to our economy, which is more than the cost of absenteeism, which is around £5 billion a year. The Institute of Public Policy Research has shown that workers in the UK are among the least likely to take sick days and that the presenteeism culture costs our economy £25 billion annually, due to the impact on productivity. We are speaking about workers today, but highlighting the impact on business and our economy helps to demonstrate why these measures are so important.
I will finish with one final statistic. The Centre for Progressive Change highlighted modelling by WPI Economics that shows that the implementation of an increased SSP rate, alongside other changes put forward in the Bill, such as the removal of waiting days and lower earnings limits, would deliver substantial economic benefits to the UK, including net gains of up to £800 million for businesses. That is £1.7 billion for the Treasury and £2.1 billion for the wider economy. Those are not small sums of money. Those would have a huge impact on our economy, through measures that put workers at the heart.
Justin Madders
We have had a good debate. Most Members have spoken positively about the need for this change. Obviously, this was a measure brought in temporarily by the previous Government, during covid. They recognised the particular issue at the time.
Before I turn to the shadow Minister’s comments, I wish him the best of luck in the Mid-Buckinghamshire pantomime. I hope he does not become the George Lazenby of the Conservative party as a result. He raised two perfectly reasonable questions. The first was on Northern Ireland. I can assure him that it was not an oversight. It has been introduced as an amendment because, as this is a transferred power to Northern Ireland, we need their consent before it can be included. I think he will understand that putting it in without getting that agreement might have been counterproductive.
On the second point that the shadow Minister made, about abuse of the provision, of course employers already have the power to deal with employees whom they feel are falsely taking time off sick. Whether that is day four or day one, those powers are already there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby made a very powerful speech to highlight the impact on particular groups. The evidence we heard from the Women’s Budget Group last week was particularly important in that respect. Other Members who spoke, my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Northfield and for Stratford and Bow, raised a whole plethora of examples with pieces of evidence in support of the policy. I think it is one that is generally supported.
To deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee Central about the level of statutory sick pay, he may not have seen my opining on SSP at the evidence session last week, or the famous comments from the former Health Secretary about it not being enough to live on. I recognise that. Unfortunately, however, I have to give him the stock answer, which is that the actual level is set by the Department for Work and Pensions. He made a fair point about people on long-term sick, because there is a huge interplay between people on long-term sick and the benefits system, but it is in the Department’s gift to set the rate and to look at how it interplays with accessibility to other benefits, which of course depends on people’s individual circumstances.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Statutory sick pay: lower earnings limit etc
Employment Rights Bill (Sixth sitting)
Uma Kumaran ExcerptsTuesday 3rd December 2024
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 View all Employment Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 December 2024 - (3 Dec 2024)
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to once again serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I refer the Committee to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and I am a member of the GMB. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge spoke powerfully—
Uma Kumaran
Thank you, Mr Stringer. I am glad Members got some steps in and I hope they have come back reinvigorated.
Members across the Committee have spoken eloquently today about why they support the bold measures in the Bill, which is the best upgrade to worker’s rights that we have seen in a generation. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester for sharing his personal story. That is why we are here; it is about the people behind those stories. The Bill is about making a difference to people’s lives.
We started this month by marking World AIDS Day. The National AIDS Trust supports the amendments to increase the time limit for claims from three months to six, to bring the Bill in line with the Law Commission’s 2020 recommendation. With a diagnosis such as HIV/AIDS, three months is nothing. When a person is diagnosed, they have to go to their doctor, assess the impact the diagnosis will have on their life, and in some cases discuss how to break it to their family, friends and employers. Adding a ticking time limit of three months for their job and their livelihood can be so distressing. That is why I remind Members to remember the people behind the stories—the people we seek to serve and to help.
This is not just about the people; it also impacts business, as we have heard from Opposition Members. We have seen inclusive employers standing with the National AIDS Trust, not just in the UK but around the world, to support the asks that were brought forward to mark World AIDS Day. That is why I urge Members to support the amendments to increase the time limit from three months to six.
Sir Ashley Fox
There is one point that I would like the Minister to clarify. Some of his colleagues have said that, by extending the limit from three months to six, we will avoid a large number of claims, as there will be more time to negotiate and they will be concluded in good time. Other colleagues have said that this is an access to justice point, since lots of claims are being missed out because the time limit is too short. Can the Minister clarify, for the benefit of small businesses, whether they will face more or fewer claims? It seems to me that the Government have not decided whether this is a reform to reduce the number of claims that small businesses will face, or whether it will significantly increase the number of claims. Whatever the justice of each individual claim, small business owners will have to deal with its legal consequences and devote time to it. I think they would appreciate knowing whether there will be more or fewer claims.
Uma Kumaran
Statistically, less than 1% of women who have been subject to pregnancy or maternity discrimination pursue a claim in an employment tribunal. While making the case for business, it is important to realise that we are talking about a very small percentage of people. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, these things can make a huge difference to people’s lives, and we are talking about very specific amendments that will make a real difference to the lives of working people.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I want to add a couple of thoughts, not so much about the principle of the amendments, but about what they say about the process. I note what the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield said about the history and about the Law Commission having made its proposals in 2020. That rather adds to our confusion about why the amendments are being introduced in Committee and why they were not part of the Bill on Second Reading. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us a little about the preparation of the Bill and what his officials said at the time of Second Reading about how many more amendments would be necessary in Committee and about its readiness. Will he also tell us more about the precise impact of the amendments, and what they mean for the Bill’s impact assessment?
Employment Rights Bill (Third sitting)
Uma Kumaran ExcerptsThursday 28th November 2024
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 View all Employment Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 November 2024 - (28 Nov 2024)
Nick Timothy
Okay. Joanne Cairns?
Joanne Cairns: We have been involved in a number of roundtable meetings with DBT, which have been very helpful in understanding what the Government’s intentions are on a number of aspects of the Bill. I do not know exactly how many meetings we have been involved in, but the engagement of DBT with unions has been good, as it appears to have been with business as well.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Q
Joanne Cairns: Many of our members are juggling paid jobs with caring responsibilities, whether that is childcare or looking after disabled partners and relatives. The majority of our members are women; the burden of care continues to fall disproportionately on women, so we really welcome a number of the measures in the Bill that will help workers with caring responsibilities, including the right to parental leave and paternity leave being from day one of employment. We welcome the shift in the burden to employers to justify why they have refused a request for flexible working, and the new right to bereavement leave, which widens the current provision entitling bereaved parents to statutory parental bereavement leave.
We think that there are some areas in which those rights could be strengthened. We welcome the Government’s commitment to review parental leave more widely outside the Bill; we will be engaging with that review. We think we need to look at the length of paid maternity and paternity leave, the provision of paid carer’s leave and the wider support that is needed to make sure that those rights work effectively for working families.
On flexible working, the shift to employers having to justify their refusal is welcome, but there are still eight business grounds on which employers can refuse a request. It is still very difficult for employees to ask for flexible working; they are often concerned about what the repercussions of making a request might be. We recently surveyed our members with caring responsibilities and found that only just over half were even aware of the right to request flexible working. Of those who were aware, only half had used it. We would like a more robust framework for making requests for flexible working. For example, we could abolish the restriction on the number of applications that can be made in a 12-month period; extend the right to all workers, not just employees; and ensure that there is a right to appeal if a request is refused.
However, I would say that there has been some really important progress through the Bill and, we hope, through the review of parental leave to support working families.
Liron Velleman: I do not want to repeat what Joanne has said, but I have a small point to make. The day one right to request flexible working is so important. So many people start a new job and then work out, “Okay, how am I going to balance this with my caring responsibilities?” If they cannot make that request for the first six months and they really struggle to make sure their kids are picked up from school or to deal with their elderly parents, they might find a not great way of dealing with it. It is then quite difficult to turn around to their employer and make the request six months down the line. It is so much better to be able to say, as a day one right, “This is what I want to give to this new employment that I have just received, but this is the world I exist in and these are the other responsibilities I have—how can we best make that work?” We know that our members will see a huge benefit from that, especially if they move to a new workplace.
The Chair
As there are no further questions, let me thank our two witnesses for attending.
Examination of Witness
Nye Cominetti gave evidence.
Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting)
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Do not worry about the bell.
John Kirkpatrick: I will carry on, as long as I am audible, Sir Christopher.
We have found similar sectors where people are vulnerable. We have issued specific guidance, often in combination with relevant trade associations, in sectors like hospitality and the performing arts, which appear particularly prone to instances of sexual harassment. We continue to do a lot of work on this; we have active enforcement activity, for example, with McDonald’s. We have also made an announcement only today with the Welsh Rugby Union; as some of you will be aware, they have had their difficulties in this area, but they have agreed with us a section 23 agreement, as we call it, to rectify what is going on.
It is really important. We are broadly comfortable with the provisions in the Bill that strengthen the sanctions on sexual harassment. We know that we are responsible for enforcing some of those that already exist, and we are concerned that the scale of that enforcement will be challenging for us and that we—Margaret spoke earlier about resources—will need the capacity to be able to do what we can to help enforce the measures that Parliament puts in place.
Margaret Beels: I am well aware from the evidence that comes to me that one of things that vulnerable workers also experience is sexual harassment. They are so desperate to keep their jobs that they will accept that, because it is the price of getting the next shift. That is unacceptable.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Q
John Kirkpatrick: I think I said earlier that to the extent that some of those protected characteristic groups have worse experiences in the labour market than others, protecting them is absolutely desirable. The only risk is to the flexibility of employment, which can even include such things as zero-hours contracts, which are very convenient and desirable for some people. If those opportunities were to diminish, that would be of some concern, but I think that that does no more than repeat the point I made earlier that we need, both in advance and subsequently, to monitor very carefully the impact of these measures on levels of employment and quality of employment, which is what I think they are aimed at.
Margaret Beels: In terms of the sectors that we regard as being at the highest risk of labour exploitation, which is what I worry about, such as agriculture, the car-washing industry, construction or adult social care—we have not talked much about adult social care, but I have been doing quite a lot of work in relation to workers’ experiences in adult social care—I welcome the measures in the Bill that will start to address some of those issues. I know that the Bill will not necessarily address the totality of those problems, because there are obviously issues around the finance for improving those things, but previous speakers talked about what we as a nation value. We need to value our adult social care workers and the work they do, and to give them more support.
John Kirkpatrick: Since Margaret has introduced social care as a particular sector, I might add that the work we have done in the past on the workforce in that sector again showed an issue that I referred to earlier, which is the challenge of people being able to understand their rights, particularly where those rights are complicated and are not necessarily written in the most accessible language, even in the best guidance. That can be really challenging, and has been particularly for ethnic minority workers in the health and social care sector among others.
Margaret Beels: It was quite striking in the work I did on adult social care that about a third of domiciliary workers in England are on zero-hours contracts. That does seem a very high number.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, may I thank you both for coming along and sharing your expertise with us this afternoon?
Examination of Witness
Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson gave evidence.
Anneliese Midgley
Q
Dr Stephenson: I am also an employer, and we have an incredibly flexible working policy. I think flexible work is largely beneficial for employers as well as workers, not least because it enables you to recruit and retain the best staff. At the moment, the labour market is relatively tight, particularly in some parts of the country and in some sectors. We have higher levels of, for example, economic inactivity among women than men and we know that this is something the Government want to do something about.
One of the reasons for economic inactivity among women is caring responsibilities. There are large numbers of women who are not in the labour market who said that they would like to be in paid work if they could find a job that gave them the flexibility they needed. That can only be a benefit to wider society, and ultimately to employers, first, because they can attract the best people and, secondly, because we are more likely to have a strong and growing economy.
Uma Kumaran
Q
Dr Stephenson: As I said, the flexible working provisions particularly benefit women’s labour market participation. Some of it is not just about participation, but about improved pay and conditions; for example, the end to exploitative zero-hours contracts improves women’s position in the labour market, which means they are less likely to leave the labour market.
Another thing is the fair pay agreements in social care, if they were seen as a starting point and extended so that, having started out with social care and looked at how it worked, you looked at other sectors such as early education and childcare. That is a sector very similar to social care, particularly now we have the big extension of funded hours coming in—largely private provision delivering public services that are majority publicly funded, with a majority female workforce on low pay and often working part time. That model of fair pay agreements could not just support women working in those sectors, but support more women into the labour market, if you had available, affordable early education and childcare.
We did some work with the Centre for Local Economic Strategies last year looking at the loss to the economy from women’s under-participation compared with men, and that loss comes to £88.7 billion. Enabling women to enter the labour market, to stay in the labour market or to increase their working hours has the potential to bring real benefit to both the national and local economy.
Alison Hume
Q
Dr Stephenson: Having a better enforcement body and proper enforcement of the living wage and equalising minimum wage rates with living wage rates for workers under 21—the hospitality industry in particular employs large numbers of younger people—will be really important. Good employers want to do the right thing, and they are undercut by bad employers who are deliberately breaking the law, so better enforcement is important.
To go back to my earlier point, outwith this Bill it is also important to look at access to proper legal advice for people in those situations. It can be very difficult—we have advice deserts in this country. One of the impacts of cuts to civil legal aid has been a reduction in any lawyers with specialism in certain areas, because the loss of legal aid has meant less money in the sector and fewer people going in to develop that specialism. Even if you can afford to pay, it can be quite hard to find a lawyer for certain areas. The enforcement mechanism will make a big difference, but we also need to look at legal aid.
Alison Hume
Q
Justin Madders: That is a really good question. One of the reasons was in your question—there are 1.6 million people employed in the sector. It is a huge part of the economy. Unfortunately, at the moment, as we heard in the evidence, it is characterised by poor terms and conditions and high numbers of zero-hours contracts, and quite often minimum wage is not enforced properly. These are people doing really important jobs in our society. They deserve a voice and a collective opportunity to raise terms and conditions, and the opportunity to work with employers to develop a career path. This is a transformative structure that will hopefully change the lives of many working people and, of course, the people they care for.
Uma Kumaran
Q
Justin Madders: There is generally an acceptance, both in the economic analysis we have heard from some of the witnesses today and from businesses themselves, that getting a motivated, engaged and retained workforce is good for productivity and the business overall. Having a more engaged and well-remunerated workforce has been shown to actually boost profits. The fact that the OECD was referred to by the Resolution Foundation as a body that believes that greater workers’ rights actually improve the economic outcome of the country is a really important factor that we need to emphasise.
Michael Wheeler
Q
Justin Madders: There are an awful lot of people who will benefit if we get this right. I am talking about people who do not know from one week to the next how many hours they will have or whether they will be paid enough to put food on the table. Our reforms on zero-hours contracts will really help with that. People who can be arbitrarily sacked for no reason for the first two years of their employment—about 9 million people—will benefit from that. The 1.6 million people in the social care sector will benefit. There are 900,000 people a year who will benefit from bereavement leave entitlements. Overall, as ACAS has suggested, the cost of disputes to the economy can be up to £30 billion a year. Just imagine what a difference it would make if we could shave a fraction off that. I think that the Bill is setting a new culture in our country about how we do workplace relations. It is putting the value of the worker/employee relationship with businesses at the heart of everything we do.