Jon Pearce MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 16 Dec 2024 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Today, we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the foundation of our national parks. The Peak District, where I live, the majority of which is in High Peak, is our original national park and still the best, but our beautiful nature-rich rivers that run through the Peak District and High Peak are being soiled by raw sewage. High Peak is one of the top 50 constituencies that have been worst affected by sewage being dumped into our rivers. In 2023, the River Derwent and the River Wye suffered thousands of sewage overflows, contributing to water pollution and ecological harm, yet the water company bosses responsible rewarded themselves with outrageous bonuses. In 2022, the United Utilities chief executive officer received £3.2 million of remuneration, including an annual bonus of nearly £1 million. Severn Trent, which was fined £2 million for reckless pollution, still lifted its bonuses to £3.36 million. We must stop rewarding failure. At the general election, ending the pollution of High Peak’s rivers and waters was a top priority. It was raised in all six—yes, six—hustings I did, often more than once. In High Peak, the pumping of raw sewage into our precious rivers has become emblematic of the utter chaos and failure of the past 14 years, so I greatly welcome the measures in the Bill. The independent monitoring of all outlets will provide greater transparency for my constituents and will enable the regulators to hold United Utilities and Severn Trent to account. Combined with the increased ability of the Environment Agency to bring forward criminal charges against lawbreaking water executives with tougher penalties, including up to two years’ imprisonment, and new powers for Ofwat to ban bonuses unless water bosses meet higher standards of protecting our precious environment, that should concentrate the minds of executives at Severn Trent and United Utilities. It was a Labour Government that created our national parks 75 years ago today, and it is a Labour Government that are taking the steps to protect the rivers that run through those parks for the next 75 years.

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

  More

  I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB. The hon. Gentleman is making the point that it would be impossible for an employer to reasonably avoid something so extreme and out of the ordinary, but that would actually fall directly in the test, because the tribunal would look at whether it was reasonable for the employer to have put in arrangements, procedures or preparations to avoid a likely, foreseeable scenario. His concerns are completely misplaced, because no employer could reasonably avoid a situation that was impossible to avoid. To go back to the fundamentals, as the hon. Gentleman said, we and employers should be taking all appropriate and reasonable steps, because 40% of women in the workplace suffer sexual harassment. These measures are reasonable in and of themselves, so I put it to him that he is worrying about something that is covered by the test.

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

  More

  I promise to keep my comments brief. Clause 15 will amend section 40A of the Equality Act 2010 to provide that an employer must take all reasonable steps to prevent the sexual harassment of employees in the course of their employment. The concept of “all reasonable steps” has been part of the Equality Act 2010 since its inception, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester referred to. Section 109 of the Act provides a defence for the employer in respect of the discriminatory acts of the employee. It is about vicarious liability: in effect, if the employer can show that it has taken all reasonable steps, it will not be liable for the acts of the employee. Exactly the same “all reasonable steps” test is being applied here. In my experience as an employment lawyer, employment tribunals are very well-versed in it and have a huge amount of experience with it. It would be a matter of fact for them to determine. It is important to understand that it will be, and always has been, a proportionate test that looks at the size and resources of the employer and the context of the employment situation. There will inevitably be guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission on how employers should take all reasonable steps and what those steps might be, but it will be fact-specific. It may well include steps to mitigate, such as some form of risk assessment, policies, training or means by which an employee who is at risk of or has suffered third-party harassment can report it and action can be taken. All those things are fairly standard. They happen already as a result of the vicarious liability element of the Equality Act; the clause would just extend them to third parties. All third-party harassment cases and issues arise from a case called Burton v. De Vere Hotels, in which Bernard Manning made racist comments to a waitress at a De Vere hotel and the waitress brought a claim. Both the original employment tribunal and the employment appeal tribunal held that it was harassment, but it was overturned on appeal because the right did not extend to protection from third-party harassment. That was the start of the process of trying to protect employees in such circumstances. The employment tribunal and the employment appeal tribunal said that the employer knew what was likely to be in Bernard Manning’s act—we can all imagine what might be in Bernard Manning’s act—but did not take the necessary steps to protect the employee in the circumstances. These are exactly the scenarios that the shadow Minister raised, in which we would expect the employer to consider very carefully who was staffing the event, what policies should be in place and how any issues should be managed—including, for example, by warning Bernard Manning that he might not wish to make racist remarks to members of staff. When we talk about risk assessments, we must remember that the biggest risk is that third-party harassment will continue. That is the most fundamental issue. I emphasise a point that the shadow Minister will find relevant: a 2023 Buckinghamshire healthcare NHS trust staff survey showed that there had been nearly 400 incidents of sexual harassment by third parties. Many of those incidents will have affected his constituents. It is vital that we make this legislation, because employee representatives at the trust have said that one thing that would help is a protection against third-party harassment. If we do not include this provision in the Bill, we will continue to leave his constituents exposed. I encourage the shadow Minister, who I genuinely believe cares about harassment, seriously to reconsider his opposition to the clause.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Protection from unfair dismissal is already a day one right in respect of certain carve-outs from the two-year qualifying period, including for dismissal relating to a protected disclosure—whistleblowing—refusal to allow somebody to undertake jury service, or refusal to allow somebody to take family leave. That protection, and the principle of unfair dismissal, is already in statute as a day one right. Let us look at other day one rights, which are worth exploring a bit further. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, employees have a whole raft of day one rights, including most of the discrimination acts under the Equality Act and protections for whistleblowing. I want to continue my hon. Friend’s argument in order to try to give employees reassurance, which I think will come with guidance and the statutory probation period. Certainty on this issue would help many employers. What I found in practice was that there would be a probation period in the contractual relationship, but smaller employers that I advised often did not have a policy; they just had a shortened notice period—often a month, rather than the three months after the probation period. There would be no structure in place. All too often, I found that many of those employers got themselves into difficulty because they believed that they did not have to follow any process whatsoever, due to the two-year qualifying period. More often than not, those employers were dismissing people for reasons of capability: the employee had not got up to the necessary standard, and there was an issue with their work. In those circumstances, the employer often did not have much of a structure or procedure in place, and would eventually get to the point at which it would, in effect, give up and decide that the employee was never going to get to the standard that it wanted within the probationary period. The employer would dismiss people without any process or meeting—even without speaking to the employee at all—and without taking any evidence. All too often in the cases that I dealt with, it would come to light that there was a reason for an employee’s lack of capability, which related to an impairment. Many of those impairments were protected under the Equality Act, and those employees had protections against discrimination on the basis of disability. They had a right to reasonable adjustments that the employer had not considered because it did not ask the question, and which had not been implemented. In those circumstances, the employer is exposed to uncapped discrimination claims, which are very serious and very difficult to respond to, because no process has been followed. It is really important that we seek to reassure small, medium and large employers that having a light-touch, clear structure will mean that no employer falls into that trap again, and that we will save a lot of employers unnecessary litigation.

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

  More

  I absolutely agree. Often, in those circumstances, it is extremely distressing for the employee, who, had the reasonable adjustment been in place to assist them with disability or to enable them to get to the required standard, would still be employed. They have to face the extra hurdle of declaring their particular impairment to the world. Reputationally, these claims can often be hugely damaging for employers that had never intended to discriminate and would never have discriminated against an employee, but for the lack of process. As I say, there is nothing new in day one rights—protection from unfair dismissal is already, in certain circumstances, a day one right; Equality Act claims are a day one right; whistleblowing is a day one right—but the Bill will help employers not to fall foul of those day one rights that already exist and give a far clearer structure to the employment sphere. With those reassurances and with guidance, there is nothing for employers to fear from this legislation.

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

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my membership of GMB. I will apologise now if I have an out-of-date amendment paper; the one that I have is dated Tuesday 3 December. Very early on in our discussions, we had the strange definition of a small or medium-sized businesses as one employing 500 people or more. I just want to check whether the proposed amendment is indeed accurate, because it refers to “the test of reasonableness in subsection (2)(b)(ii)”. I do not think that any such subsection exists—I think it should be (3)(b)(ii)—but I appreciate that that might be my misunderstanding.

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

  More

  The principle is, though, that with dependant leave in those emergencies, whether that is childcare or anything else, there is no right to pay; that is the point I am trying to make. The shadow Minister is saying that if there is an emergency for the business they should bear no cost of it. If there is an emergency for the employee, that employee will, under the statutory provisions on dependant leave, bear the cost of it. In both scenarios, the shadow Minister appears to be asking the employee to bear the cost. Is that correct?

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

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my membership of the GMB. I apologise to the shadow Minister for not taking his interventions yesterday. I did take two, if that assists. I wanted to build on the point that the shadow Minister was making. I actually agreed with some of the examples he gave, in that there are emergency situations where things do not work out for a business. I am interested in whether the shadow Minister would apply the same principle when the employee has an emergency, which builds on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby. For example, an emergency for the employee might be childcare, the illness of a family member, or the death of a family member—actually that may not be relevant because that would be a different type of leave. In those emergency situations, there is a right to dependant leave, but that dependant leave is unpaid. Would the shadow Minister accept the principle in those circumstances that the employer should equally bear the cost and pay the employee?

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

  More

  Will the shadow Minister allow me to clarify?

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

  More

  Will the shadow Minister give way?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  No. The message from this Government is that we are committed to farming, and to making it profitable and sustainable. That has to be the message that we send out to those young farmers. There is no doubt that farmers in my constituency have been struggling terribly for the past 14 years, working seven days a week, 12 hours a day, for very little reward. The last Government promised them the earth, but left them in the sheep dip. After all the Brexit promises, what they got was the Leader of the Opposition selling them out in trade deals with New Zealand and Australia. Boris Johnson promised farmers that subsidies would stay at 100%, but then the Government phased out the basic farm payment. The Opposition’s incompetence saw farmers miss out on £358 million that could have been in their back pockets when they desperately needed it, and then came Liz Truss. Her mini-Budget and all those unfunded tax cuts—a point that I will return to—crashed the economy, causing interest rates to rise and driving many farmers to the brink. Over 12,000 farmers and agricultural businesses were lost under the last Government, so we will not take any lectures from the Opposition about the farming industry.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not. Secondly, they were concerned about cuts to the farming budget. The Chancellor delivered £5 billion for the farming budget, the largest ever investment in sustainable food production and nature recovery, and she delivered in terms of protecting family farms in my constituency.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman mentions 5% of agricultural businesses being at risk. Is it not true that under the last Government, between 2019 and 2024, there was an 8% reduction in agricultural businesses in his constituency of North Cotswolds, thanks to the policies of his party when they were in government?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I live in one of the rural villages and speak to the farmers in my villages all the time. The fact is that those farmers voted for me because they were so let down by the last Government.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  To misquote Brian Clough, I would not say that my constituency is the most beautiful in the country, but it is certainly in the top one. We have generations of farmers to thank for that beauty—those who protected the land and nurtured nature long before the Peak District was designated Britain’s first national park. If I thought for one second that these changes to agricultural property relief threatened future generations of farmers in my constituency, I would not vote for them, but I do not.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way at this stage. Those estates over the threshold will have a 50% reduction in the amount they pay. We have already heard that the seven-year rule will continue to apply, so farming families will be able to make plans for the future.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  Sorry, I will not give way at this stage. This debate has, however, shone an important light on one issue, which I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for raising: the fact that our farmers are working day in, day out, for very little profit. The question is how we support them to be profitable again. Energy bills are one of the biggest costs farming businesses face. This Government will help bring down those costs through GB Energy and by introducing grid reform to allow farmers to plug renewables into the national grid. We must protect them from being undercut by foreign imports.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I will not take any more interventions at the moment. Before the Budget, I sat down with farmers in my constituency. They wanted to talk about two things. First, they were concerned about the effect of the changes to APR on family farms.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry, but I will not. We must create a greater marketplace for farming businesses by using the Government’s purchasing power to ensure that 50% of the food bought for our hospitals, prisons and army bases is produced by local farmers. Here is the most important point: we have to provide farming businesses with economic stability. The Leader of the Opposition has already failed to learn the lessons of the Liz Truss Budget, with £6.7 billion of unfunded tax cuts already announced in a matter of weeks. The Opposition need to tell us how they are going to pay for that. What are they going to cut? Are they going to cut the farming budget—are we going to lose the £5 billion from the farming budget?—or are they going to borrow and put us right back in the position we were in with Liz Truss, with interest rates rising and farms going out of business? I will not be voting for the Opposition motion; I will be supporting farmers in my constituency and providing the economic stability they need.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not give way at this stage. Let us be clear: only 4% of estates in this country pay inheritance tax. As we have repeatedly heard, these changes will mean that a couple will be able to leave £3 million-worth of estate to their children without paying a penny in inheritance tax. To put that in context, if a couple owned a £3 million mansion, they would be paying £940,000 in inheritance tax.

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

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

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

  More

  I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way so often. I want to address a principle: the Working Time Regulations 1998 established that if an employee, or indeed an employer, wishes to take holiday, the statutory notice period will be twice as much as the holiday taken. That is the same principle in the Bill, in that it is perfectly reasonable for a worker who does not have guaranteed hours to be given notice when work is not available. That statutory principle has been in place since the last century, so this is not outwith what every worker should expect. It is perfectly reasonable that if a worker has been told that work is available, they should be given reasonable notice if it is not. The shadow Minister’s Government kept to that principle, and it is perfectly applicable to employees and workers in this situation as well.

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

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?