Chris Law MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Dec 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q6. These last months have shown that cruel Westminster Governments of whichever party continue to target the weakest in society while the Scottish Government will continue to protect them. While the Labour party has voted to continue the Conservatives’ two-child benefit cap, the SNP is abolishing it. While the Prime Minister picks the pockets of pensioners of their winter fuel allowance, Scotland’s First Minister, John Swinney, has reinstated it. Given that support for Labour is plummeting and support for Scottish independence is once again leading in the polls, who does the Prime Minister believe makes the best decisions for Scotland?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister. I would appreciate that.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I rise to speak in support of new clauses 39 and 40, which stand in the name of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). The new clauses follow the publication of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Amendment) Bill, a presentation Bill that the right hon. Member introduced in co-operation with the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and Rights of Women. They would address a critical gap in workplace safety by mandating proactive employer responsibilities to prevent all forms of violence and harassment, including gender-based violence. The Health and Safety Executive does not currently accept domestic abuse within its remit. That might come as a surprise to some Members, but the reason is that domestic abuse and other forms of gender-based violence are not explicitly covered in the 1974 Act, even though the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 underlines the fact that employers owe their employees a duty of care that covers protection from domestic abuse. Discrimination law inadequately protects workers from gender-based violence beyond sexual harassment, especially when such violence is not physical. The UK’s ratification in 2022 of the International Labour Organisation’s convention 190 means that the UK should take a comprehensive approach that addresses all forms and threats of gender-based violence in the workplace, psychological and emotional abuse, physical abuse and stalking, including with respect to people commuting to and from the workplace. New clauses 39 and 40 would address those issues. They would go further than the Bill’s provisions on protection from harassment, because new clause 39 would introduce clear, actionable duties for employers to safeguard employees from gender-based harm through risk assessments, policy development and training. New clause 40 would mandate that the Health and Safety Executive create an enforceable framework that holds employers accountable and fosters inclusive, violence-free work environments for workers. I understand that this may have been the Minister’s first opportunity to hear these points. I hope he will consider them, perhaps on Report.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for that advice, Sir Christopher. Based on that, I would consider coming back to this on Report, given the fact that I have not seen the consultation and I would like to work in the spirit that we have done so far in this room to try to bring about the best for all. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 158, in clause 9, page 26, line 17, leave out “the prescribed percentage of”.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is good to see you in your place, Sir Christopher. I will speak to an amendment on this issue shortly, but I will briefly say that everyone in this room, at some point in their working life, will be ill. It is not something that we would choose or desire, and most of us want to get back to work as soon as possible. The problem is that it happens, and when we are off ill we still have bills to pay, families to keep and mortgages or rents to pay. The level of statutory sick pay is frankly woeful in this country—in fact, for those hon. Members who do not know, it is the worst in the developed world. We should all be ashamed of that and we need to really think about it. I welcome the changes to ensure that everybody gets statutory sick pay, but I find it disgraceful that we have not even touched on its level: it is £116 a week, or £6,000 a year. At some point in our lives, all of us have worked in very low-paid jobs. We have all done that, particularly in the early years. We would never imagine that somebody could live on £6,000 a year. Not everybody is expected to be off for a year, but some are, due to prolonged illnesses. I will talk about this issue more on my amendment, but before I go into it in detail, I really want to hear from the Minister what changes the Government look to make so that we are no longer the sickest country in the world for being unreasonable, unfair and unjust to employees, and to ensure that statutory sick pay, which is about 17% of the average income—it was 35% when it was introduced—will start to restore the proper justice required for employees.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have already touched on the impact that illness has in our lives. Some of us have family members who have been long-term sick. If they have been in employment, £6,000 a year as an annual amount is clearly not going to be enough. I am glad that the Minister has raised the issue and addressed it, and I hope that the DWP can consider those levels. We are still the sickest country in the developed world, and I hope that that will change under this Government. I will leave my comments on that for the moment, apart from one, which is about the TUC. I am sure that those on the Government Benches will be well aware of this. Previously, the TUC campaigned for an increase in the weekly level of sick pay to at least £320 per week. That is something to consider. I advocate statutory sick pay being based on the national living wage in respect of each hour during which the worker would have worked, but for sickness. My amendment, however, is small and one that I hope will get cross-party support, largely because it is so modest and seeks to protect the lowest paid workers. I therefore hope to get to a conclusion today. This is not about a hammer to crack a nut, but about a small change that would help the most vulnerable and low-paid workers in our societies. According to the Centre for Progressive Change, the wording of the Bill will make up to 1.3 million employees worse off. The Bill’s wording specifies that employees should be paid either SSP or a prescribed percentage of their usual pay, whichever is lower. However, that creates a group of workers who will receive even less in sick pay under the new arrangements than they do now. After 14 years of austerity, I am sure that the new Government do not want that to get even worse. That is because although that group of workers might be earning above their lower earnings limit, reducing their earnings in line with the prescribed percentage would result in a weekly sick pay amount that is lower than statutory sick pay. For example, an employee earning £125 a week will currently get sick pay of £116.75. However, they would only receive £100 for the prescribed percentage of 80% or, worse, £75 for a prescribed percentage of 60%. The lower the replacement rate, the more employees will be affected, with a quarter of a million employees losing out on the 80% rate and 1.3 million employees losing out at the 60% rate. The amendment would allow for those earning less than statutory sick pay to have their full earnings replaced. Frankly, that is the bare minimum that this Government and this Bill should be doing. That should be a starting point for statutory sick pay, increasing to the point where it is in line with the national living wage. Employees earning less than statutory sick pay are by definition low earners. The evidence is clear that households with low incomes spend the vast majority of their earnings on essentials, such as rent and food. Cutting the incomes of those employees, even by a small percentage, risks them being unable to afford essential costs, pushing working families into hardship and deepening poverty. The changes in income may be especially difficult to bear during times of ill health, when the ability of households to adapt to budget losses is inevitably reduced. An example of modelling that has been mentioned already is by WPI Economics. It shows that the direct cost to businesses of providing full earnings replacement would be small, calculated at £125 million per year across the entire UK economy. That is equivalent to £15 per employee per year. Reducing the earnings replacement rate below 100% as proposed would save businesses a small fraction of that already small amount, providing trivial cost savings for businesses. Furthermore, modelling shows that full earnings replacement would generate economic gains to businesses, the Treasury and the wider economy. With direct business benefits expected to be £1.1 billion, businesses would see aggregate net gains of around £1 billion every year from providing 100% earnings replacement. I reiterate that the amendment makes a small change that should be regarded as the bare minimum. Further reform and increases to the sick pay system need to be implemented. As was mentioned earlier, we learned during the covid pandemic that employees coming into work when unwell can have a detrimental impact on public health and the economy. Those who come into physical contact with many people at work are often the least able to afford to self-isolate without pay or to have access to employer-provided sick pay, and are more likely to engage in presenteeism. The UK’s current sick pay system contributes to economic stagnation, exacerbates the spread of infectious disease, makes long-term sickness absence more likely and drives people out of the taxpaying workforce. Everything that the Committee has discussed so far, across all parties, is about getting people into the workplace. The increased ill health adds a significant extra cost to the NHS, adds many more patients to waiting lists and increases the UK benefits bill. Workers themselves face financial hardship. There is no upside to the current system. A meaningful increase to statutory sick pay would immediately turn the situation around. SSP reform would enable people to more proactively manage their health conditions, remain linked to their employers and stay off benefits when they fall ill. Modelling by WPI Economics shows that implementation of an increased SSP rate alongside the other changes put forward in the Bill would deliver substantial economic benefits for the UK, including net gains of up to £800 million for businesses, £1.7 billion for the Treasury and £2.1 billion for the wider economy—all upsides. The onus is therefore on the Government to either: substantially increase the basic rate of statutory sick pay—although I have heard already that it is the DWP that needs to consider that—benchmarking it to the national living wage rate for normal working hours; use the Bill to amend existing primary legislation to give the Secretary of State additional powers, via secondary legislation, to change how the statutory sick pay rate is calculated; or, at the least, hold a statutory consultation with a timeline to establish what the new benchmark rate for SSP should be. In the meantime, 100% replacement of earnings for employees earning below statutory sick pay is an easily affordable policy. It brings substantial net benefits to UK businesses, the Treasury and the wider economy. At the same time, it would avoid making over 1 million employees even worse off than they are today when forced to take time off sick. It would reduce hardship among employees with the lowest pay.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his intervention, but this is not a DWP issue. We are not talking about the level of SSP. We are talking about a sentence in the Bill that puts in a threshold that will make people on the lowest incomes worse off. That is an issue for the Minister for Employment to address rather than DWP. The level of SSP more widely has been discussed, and that may be an issue for DWP to consider. I think there will be disagreement over what that level should be. I have already quoted the TUC’s £320 a week, and I have suggested the national living wage. I look forward to that consultation, but this amendment seeks to strike a sentence out, nothing more.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have listened with great interest to the Minister. I thank him for his comments and for the consultation that concluded yesterday. It would be helpful to hear today what the conclusion of the consultation is. I have made it crystal clear that none of us present want to see those at the lowest end of earnings worse off than they currently are. The Bill has been brought forward in good faith and good will, I am sure, by the new incoming Government to improve the lives of everyone, most of all those at the most vulnerable end. I have spoken to employers and employees quite widely about this, and the feeling I hear constantly is that this is a no-brainer. Delaying would be very difficult.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I need to ask for your advice, Sir Christopher, because at this point I would press the amendment to a vote but I want to be charitable and open to understanding what we are expecting from this consultation and when we would be able to bring this issue back—perhaps even during this Committee.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will just probe a little further. All those points are valid, but they are the responsibility of the business, not the employee—most notably because they have no shares in the business and will not benefit from any profit. Why should they have only the rough end where they end up without income? A company might have five shareholders in a small company. A cabinet-making firm is a good example—I have one in my constituency in Dundee where they all have a stake in it and can equally share the risks and the rewards. The problem with what the hon. Member is suggesting is that the employees are burdened with the risks without any of the rewards. I cannot see where there is a benefit at all. That in many respects insulates the employer and puts all the burden on the employee.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am hearing this argument repeated again and again, but I am struggling. I need an example. Employers insure themselves against floods, fire and everything else. We talked on Tuesday about an empty restaurant giving notice if it was empty. So I am trying to find out what is the exceptional circumstance that the hon. Member is concerned about that he can see in real-life circumstances where the employee would have to lose out rather than the business.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 3 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have been both an employer and an employee in a number of situations, including in retail and hospitality, which we have been hearing about. The hon. Member talks about emergencies, and I understand that emergencies can happen—I have been an employer when we had an emergency situation. What usually happens in those circumstances is that people find other things to do. There is always stuff to do in a business—stuff that might otherwise get put to one side—so there will be an opportunity for employees to work with employers in emergency circumstances. What I do not understand is this. At what point, in the hon. Member’s mind, do employers notify employees? When do they say, “Look, there’s a situation—it’s an emergency. There is no chance at this time that I can help you come in. Would you consider not taking hours in this instance?” The hon. Member has talked about lived experience; I have spent many years in hospitality—I trained as a chef, and I know exactly what it is like working in restaurants and hotels. Lots of things happen, including empty restaurants, but there is also an onus on the employer to make sure that the restaurant has enough people in of an evening. If they are not there, it is not the employee’s fault; it is the responsibility of the business. If the business is on its knees, then frankly that is in no way the fault of employee—unless, of course, they are not turning up for work or something. In truth, is it not the case that a business in that position is just not viable?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On new section 27BE, there is a lack of formality relating to the worker’s right to refuse an offer of a regular-hours contract. Indeed, the risk is that workers could be coerced into rejecting an offer if it is clear that the employer would prefer the existing arrangements to continue. There are similar arrangements in respect of the working time regulations on workers’ right to opt out of the 48-hour working week; by contrast with the Bill’s provisions on zero-hours contracts, the working time regulations do not apply to all workers, and those who opt-out may revoke their decision to do so, although there are arguably no adequate safeguards there either. The Secretary of State will have the power to make regulations about the form and manner of the notice under proposed new section 27BE, and reference is made to a response time that is undefined, but the question is whether it would be appropriate for Parliament to give the Minister stronger guidance by requiring that the response period should be at least one week; that the worker has a right to seek advice from an independent trade union before making a decision; that the worker has a right to be accompanied by a trade union official under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 in any meeting to discuss an offer; and that the worker may revoke a rejection of an offer at any time on giving one week’s notice to the employer. Does the Minister agree that those safeguards need to be incorporated into the Bill so that an employee is not coerced by their employer into rejecting a contract that is not in their best interest?

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  1. If she will make an assessment of the potential impact of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill on the cost of delivering public services.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  Labour’s national insurance increase will cost Dundee city council a minimum of £7.3 million, while across Scotland an additional £500 million will be incurred, rising to £750 million when indirect employers such as GP practices are included. Labour promised to reset the relationship with the devolved Administrations, so, ahead of Scotland’s Budget this week, will the Minister confirm that the full cost of the national insurance contributions increase to the delivery of public services in Scotland will be reimbursed?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to stop the Minister in his tracks, but it is quite an important point. There is in the Bill what I would consider to be a loophole, which enables employers to offer a guaranteed-hours contract where there is work of a short-term nature. There are some issues with that. I would like to know the justifications for it, and whether it is going to consultation. Does it mean that people engaged on such terms will be engaged on a zero-hours basis, or will they be employed on a guaranteed-hours basis? It is not clear in the Bill. If the former, why is it not possible for such workers to have a guaranteed-hours contract if they otherwise meet the proposed statutory criteria? What safeguards will there be to ensure that the power is not abused, in order to avoid a guaranteed-hours contract? I am sure that, in the spirit of the Bill, we want to ensure that that is tightened. There is nothing in the Bill for that, either. What is the difference between a short-term contract and a fixed-term contract? Will there be a legal status for someone engaged on a short-term contract? Are they an employee, a limb (b) worker, or neither? Lastly, will non-renewal of a short-term contract be a dismissal for the purposes of unfair dismissal in the case of workers who are employees? That is a lot of questions, but I want to know whether there will be further consultation that may result in amendments to the Bill.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have heard the Minister reference two-tier rights in employment law several times. I want to raise a fundamental issue in this Bill: zero-hours contracts and the different legal categories of a worker. It is a general principle that labour law should be universal in its application, and our labour rights should apply to everyone who works for others. I just wanted some clarification, as without clarification on the legal status of all those who work, the rights in the Bill are allocated piecemeal. I will give some examples: some rights are given to employees with contracts of employment; some rights are given to limb (b) workers, such as Deliveroo riders in Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v. Central Arbitration Committee and Deliveroo last year, or gig workers who are denied the status of employees; and some rights are given to other new ad hoc definitions of workers, such as workers on non-contractual zero-hours arrangements. The situation of the false self-employed, including those employed by umbrella companies or personal service companies, as well as anomalous workers such as foster carers, is not otherwise dealt with, and their rights are left opaque. Fundamentally, I am asking whether a new clause is required to ensure that all rights contained within the Bill apply to workers defined as “any individual who is engaged by another to provide labour and is not, in the provision of that labour, genuinely operating a business on his or her own account”.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q We have heard from each of you about what you would ideally like to see in the legislation. One thing we have heard is that it is going either too fast or too slow for businesses. What are your thoughts on how much time will be required for businesses and employees to be ready for this legislation? Professor Simms: Clearly, there will be a period of adjustment. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which represents human resources specialists in the UK, has indicated that a period of 12 to 18 months would probably be a sensible adjustment period. Business and managers in the UK tend to want to conform to whatever employment rights and regulation there is. The challenge is communication, and communicating clearly in a way that then allows them to access knowledge, skills, training and development for their capacity to do those things. It will take time—it always does—but the general trend, certainly over my lifetime, has been that where new rights have been introduced in this area, most UK companies want to come into line as promptly as they reasonably can. We are talking not decades. Professor Deakin: I think it would be really important to build a consensus on this issue, because what can be achieved in this Bill will begin a process that will have to be rolled out further if we are to have a modern system of labour market regulation, and that will require cross-party consensus. I very much hope that that will be possible.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q We have heard a general consensus breaking out around fire and rehire, but part of one of the clauses in the Bill has a bit of a loophole, to put it bluntly—“likely” financial difficulties. We have heard already today, and we heard on Tuesday, that that could be a back door for employers. I would like to hear your views on that more generally, but, Andy, you raised the situation with statutory sick pay. The witness from the Resolution Foundation was asked earlier today whether the Government have gone far enough, and he said that they have only gone “halfway”, in particular because statutory sick pay currently stands at £116.75, which is less than one fifth of the average weekly wage, and it has halved since it was introduced. It is the lowest of all the OECD countries. I want to ask both of you if that is something you want to see improved in the Bill, because there is no mention of any increase whatsoever. Mike Clancy: I am sure we will both have our views on the subject, but on fire and rehire, this is the space in which some of the most egregious employer behaviour has played out—behaviour that probably most in the business community look away from, because it is not the way they want to conduct their business with their workforces. We therefore absolutely welcome the fact that the Bill focuses on that dynamic. It has no place in good employment relations. But of course there has to be a space in which you evaluate, if an employer has a genuine financial challenge, whether it has some form of defence in that regard. I cannot emphasise enough—in a way, this is not seen enough in the national media, on social media and so on—that day in, day out, trade unions solve problems with employers. They face difficult business circumstances at times, and they work with employers, communicate with their members and the workforce, and come out with some form of proposition that goes some way to resolving the issue. Therefore, the number of times that employers should fall foul of these provisions should be very small. If you conduct your engagement with your workforce either through a trade union or workforce representatives and in compliance with the law, and you are not seeking to evade your responsibilities—you see the importance of open book and sharing the finances, because that is all part of keeping the workforce engaged —this is really a minimum platform to deal with the employers who might sit on the extremes. I think it is very important that this has been addressed. It is sending a message about how we should do business around here.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Can I press a little bit further on that, Mike? I understand that there should be some room for employers who are under extreme financial stress, but the employers we have looked at so far—British Airways, P&O, British Gas, Douwe Egberts and Tesco—are not small companies. They have deep, deep pockets. They could exploit this loophole in the Bill. I wonder what you think about the language and whether it needs to be tightened or removed completely. Mike Clancy: We will be going through clause by clause, will we not? We will have to look at where there is potential for employers to exploit these sorts of loopholes. What you have to understand is that often in employment relations, sensible employers read the writing on the wall. The rights of access may or may not come in for some time, but employers will think, “Right, we are moving into an environment where we need to engage with our workforce differently.” Other employers will say, “Look, that sort of behaviour is frowned upon in public policy. We are not going to go near it.” I do not think we should lose sight of the direction that the Bill sets on these matters. Let us be clear about the context. This is a big endeavour, and there will be detail to work through for both employers and trade unions. I think we should set out on this in the way that we mean to go forward. Let us do it co-operatively where we can. Andy Prendergast: Just following up on fire and rehire, I was involved in resolving the British Gas dispute, where close to 500 members of ours got fired because they would not sign a new contract. At the time, it was roundly condemned across the House. The Prime Minister at the time got up and said that it was dishonourable, and that has very much been our view. The real concern for us, as Mike says, is that, as trade unions, we sometimes have to make very difficult decisions. Following 2008, I would go into factories to negotiate pay cuts to keep people in work. It was heartbreaking, but we had to do it because it was the right thing to do. Overwhelmingly, we had those conversations not because of fire and rehire, but because, ultimately, we could convince our members that that was the best way of securing their jobs. We did something similar during covid. The big issue for us is that if you look at British Gas, it is a highly profitable company and it went down a route that was, frankly, disastrous for it as a business and that it is still recovering from. We need to stop that behaviour happening. A contract is a contract. In this country it is almost your word, and if you are willing to break that it asks questions about whether you went into it honourably in the first place. Some of the points you make are right. We have seen lots of financial engineering. We see inter-company debt. I think there is a concern long term that we may find cases where companies have engineered a financial position that allows them to do something they otherwise would not. That will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Where we have collective rights, we can still take action on that when we need to. This Bill takes a significant step in the right direction towards a point where the expectation is that contracts are honoured and that companies are prevented from boosting profits at the cost of their workforce. On the SSP point, as a trade union we are used to negotiating improvements. Occasionally we cannot let perfect get in the way of good. I am pleased that we are talking about an improvement on SSP. Does it go far enough? I do not believe it does. I think that will have to be looked at long term. There are huge areas, such as care, where it is catastrophic that people do not feel that they can take time off, and, as I said before, that has a real impact, but at the moment I am happy that, for once, we are talking about an improvement to this. Personally, I am always of the view that we bank it and move forward.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am sure you welcome some of the proposed changes to statutory sick pay. One key problem with it is the level of sick pay. People still go to work ill because the level of sick pay is simply not enough: £116.75 averages 18% of the average weekly wage at the moment. That is half the equivalent percentage when it was introduced in the 1970s, and it is the lowest of all OECD countries. Would you like to see a threshold put into the Bill by which that is measured, so that we can get statutory sick pay that stops people going to work when they are ill? Nye Cominetti: Thank you for the question. I was hoping to get the chance to talk about sick pay specifically. That is one area where the Government have gone halfway to addressing an area of insecurity. Removing the lower earnings limit is great; the lowest earners, mainly women working few hours, all have access to SSP now, which is excellent. Removing waiting days is an important change as well. It will no longer be the case that you have to wait four days to receive anything and, as you know, for most people who are off sick for a few days with a cold, that is a one or two-day situation, not a week. Those measures are good, but what they do is extend a very low level of coverage to more workers. As you say, we have not resolved the fundamental problem that if SSP is what you rely on, as is the case for a majority of low-paid workers, you will still face a very serious income shock if that is what your employer ends up paying you when you do that. Raising the level of SSP comes with a much bigger cost. First, it would be employers that would pay it, and then the Government would face a decision about whether to reimburse, perhaps, smaller employers facing the largest cost, as has happened in the past. It is a more costly measure, which is why the Government have not done it, but I hope that they have it on their list to address it soon because, as you say, it remains the case that for our low-paid workers, falling sick means earning less and facing an income shock. I do not think that is right. You can either look at high-paid workers who do not experience that shock, or you can look at the vast majority of rich countries who have set in place a statutory minimum much higher than we have in the UK. That is not the case in the US, but almost all European countries—not just the Scandinavian countries that we look to as the far end of the scale in terms of welfare state provision, but the vast majority of countries across Europe—have a sick pay system that is much more generous and offers much more protection to workers than does the system in the UK. So yes, I would agree that that remains a glaring unaddressed problem.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to ask Joanne a little bit about USDAW’s experience dealing with Tesco. Tesco is one of the biggest employers in my constituency and it has a live case in the Livingston distribution centre regarding fire and rehire. I know that USDAW has put a lot of resources into taking Tesco to court over its distribution centres elsewhere—it won and then unfortunately lost on appeal. In our attempt to ban fire and rehire, do you think it is reasonable to include in this Bill a clause that basically allows a “get out of jail free” card? If we look at those who have tried to exploit fire and rehire so far, it is P&O, British Gas, Tesco, British Airways—they are not small companies. The clause says that if the company is in financial difficulties then fire and rehire could be continued. Do you think that should be taken out of the Bill altogether? Joanne Cairns: We welcome the Government’s commitment to tackling fire and rehire. It is an issue not only when fire and rehire tactics are used, but when they are used by employers in negotiations as a form of threat to try to force unions or individuals to accept terms that they may not be happy with. Around a third of our members have been asked to change their contracted hours to support business need in the last 12 months, and one in five of them said that they felt forced into agreeing to the change, having been threatened with fire and rehire. It is a major issue. You referenced our legal case against Tesco, which demonstrates that this issue affects members in all sorts of workplaces. Our preference would be for an outright ban on fire and rehire, and we would prefer the provision to be removed. If that provision stays in the Bill, our concern would be about the use of the word “likely”. We would like either for the word “likely” to be removed in reference to financial problems, or, at the very least, for there to be stringent guidance and a high bar set for the definition of “likely”. Liron Velleman: At Community we had a similar case on fire and rehire back in 2021 with Clarks shoes. Our members at a distribution centre in Street in Somerset were threatened with a huge reduction in their hourly wage and the removal of their sick pay and coffee breaks. After a long campaign from our members in the union, and solidarity from across the UK, we managed to force the company to reverse its decision through ACAS mediation, but it clearly should not have been allowed to happen in that way at all. Our general secretary said at the time that, until fire and rehire is outlawed, no worker is safe from the harms that it can cause. We hugely welcome the Government’s efforts to end fire and rehire, but we have similar concerns to USDAW about how the language about “likely” financial distress will be used in reality, given that it is rarely good-faith employers that use tactics such as fire and rehire in their workplaces. We do understand that there might be absolutely exceptional circumstances where the business would otherwise close. The question is whether the word “likely” will cast the net too wide and allow bad-faith employers to continue fire and rehire, even if the stated intention is for that not to happen.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am focusing still on fire and rehire. Listening to the comments made in the last five minutes, I think the consensus is that we want to see the end of fire and rehire, and I completely support that. However, when you look at the detail of the Bill, there could well be a loophole to allow it to continue. There is a clause that says that there is an exception for those in “financial difficulties”. What are your thoughts on that? For example, who defines what the financial difficulties are and who decides how that is to be negotiated? For me, using the term “financial difficulties” is a loophole to enable any employer to say, “We are going to have to let you go in this circumstance.” Do you agree with that, or do you think more work needs to be done on it? Mick Lynch: I think we have to be very careful, because companies are very good at creating entities that are subsidiaries of subsidiaries that are based in other jurisdictions, with all sorts of measures that are far too complicated for a simple soul like me. I would like the reporting of a business to be very straightforward. Everyone will know whether a business is failing, and fire and rehire for a failing business is not going to work in many instances. Certainly on the onshore side, it is likely that the business will fold before such measures can be brought. And of course it is very difficult to do what P&O did because it relies on bringing people from overseas to replace people. Grant Shapps, last year, or the year before, said at one stage that he was going to replace all the railway workers in Britain, so there was actually a Government Minister promoting fire and rehire during our dispute. So I think we have to be very careful not to allow loopholes. I know that accountants and auditors are very good at creating loopholes, but as far as possible it has got to be plain for the layperson to see whether a business is struggling and has genuine business needs to get any hint of an exemption, and they should be very rare indeed if they are to exist. Martyn Gray: Quite simply, if directors can sign off the business as still remaining as a going concern, fire and rehire should not be an option. If we are looking at a scenario where directors are happy to say under companies legislation that it is a going concern but they need to do a complete restructure, strip away the employment rights, strip away the benefits, strip away working conditions—things that have been long fought over for many years of negotiation or long thought over for many years of discussions: all the benefits that sit within employment contracts—and strip them back to a minimum, that business is not in a position where it can consider itself a going concern. So I would set a really high threshold and then allow for scrutiny from the relevant bodies. If it turns out that that could have been avoided—fire and rehire in those scenarios—it is clear that those directors should not have gone through that and there must be consequences. So there is probably room for improvement, some tweaks and changes, but I would put it quite simply. Gemma Griffin: A classic example is that during covid, overnight 80% of our business was gone and we had vessels that were worth a lot of money and a lot of crew. There were the inevitable discussions on redundancies or just stopping and what was going to happen. We made a deal with Nautilus and RMT that we would work on this together, because we were hoping things would come back. It was only in year two that we really had some sense that things would come back. But one of the things that we did was collectively go out to our workforce and say, “It is these jobs versus how about if we work together and we do a pay freeze for the two years and we just take that pain together so that we can have the jobs at the end of it.” And we did that together. If something is going to go bust, it is going to go bust. But if there was a way of keeping the money in a better way—suspending the training and non-essential stuff—we made operational changes. It is too easy to leave it in as a loophole. That loophole is like you are just taking the profits out of the pockets of your people. So I think we need to be careful there.