Justin Madders MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I am sure that the shadow Minister and the whole Committee are delighted that I have the opportunity to respond. The shadow Minister asked some perfectly reasonable questions. On the first issue, it is a well-established principle that employment tribunals have the right to make declarations in a whole range of claims. Again, I can only refer him to my previous answers with regard to why that was not in the original Bill—we were up against a tight timetable. It is also worth bearing in mind that the Bill will not become law until it has passed through this House and received Royal Assent, so when it finally appears before the public, all those issues will be ironed out. I give him the same answer about regulations, because—as we are doing as we go along—the Bill can be amended here, on Report and in the other place. It may be that the final Bill does not entirely reflect what we have before us, so it would be premature to draw up regulations at this stage. However, part of our ongoing dialogue with businesses, workers’ representatives and trade unions is about what regulations we will look at.

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

  More

  We are not talking about the general running of a business, with reference to shift notice and cancellations; we are talking about a very specific set of circumstances in which an employer’s act is considered to be detrimental to the employee and gives rise to an employment tribunal claim. I am sure that there are insurance products that cover all employment tribunal claims, but this is about individual acts of penalisation against employees or workers. This is not a departure from existing legal principles; it is well set out and understood by lawyers and HR practitioners. I do not envisage that this is a provision that will be greatly used, but it is an important principle to have in the Bill. Amendment 48 agreed to. Amendment made: 49, in schedule 1, page 107, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 108 and insert— “(7A) Where— (a) the complaint is made under section 48(1BA), (b) the detriment to which the worker is subjected is the termination of the worker’s contract, and (c) that contract is not a contract of employment, any compensation must not exceed the compensation that would be payable under Chapter 2 of Part 10 if the worker had been an employee and had been dismissed for a reason specified in section 104BA.”— (Justin Madders.) This amendment relates to the maximum award of compensation by an employment tribunal in a detriment claim under section 48(1BA) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The change achieved by the amendment is that the maximum award in cases involving the termination of an arrangement that is not a worker’s contract is at the tribunal’s discretion. Ordered , That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin . )

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

  More

  I am afraid that I will not be able to tell the shadow Minister what will not be subject to the affirmative procedure. I think that the intention is actually for the amendment to bring everything that is in scope of the clause under the affirmative procedure, but I will endeavour to confirm that and come back to him, if that is okay. Amendment 42 agreed to. Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s support for the amendment. Amendment 43 agreed to. Amendments made: 44, in schedule 1, page 107, line 10, after “27BA(1)” insert “or 27BD(5A) or (5B)”. This amendment is consequential on amendments 11 and 14. Amendment 45, in schedule 1, page 107, line 10, after “27BA(1)” insert “or 27BEA(1) or (2)”.— (Justin Madders.) This amendment is consequential on amendment 13.

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

  More

  The hon. Member is trying to have it both ways. If we had set out too much detail in the Bill, he would no doubt have criticised us for not engaging and consulting, and for being too dogmatic in our approach. That is why we have taken the approach that we have. We want to engage, consult and get the detail absolutely right, because we are clear that the Bill will be effective only if it has buy-in from all concerned. That is why the detail will follow. Amendment 37 agreed to. Amendments made: 38, in clause 3, page 22, line 15, after “tribunal” insert “— (a) must make a declaration to that effect, and (b) ”. See the explanatory statement for amendment 37. Amendment 39, in clause 3, page 22, line 16, leave out “of a specified amount to the worker” and insert “to the worker of such amount, not exceeding the specified amount, as the tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances”. This amendment has the effect of providing an employment tribunal with discretion, up to an amount to be specified in regulations, as to the size of a monetary award in respect of a complaint under proposed section 27BS(1)(b) or (c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (rather than there only being discretion as to whether a monetary award is made, but not the amount). Amendment 40, in clause 3, page 22, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert “(2)(b) relating to a notice given in purported compliance with section 27BQ(2) if the tribunal makes an order under subsection (1)(b) relating to the same payment to which the notice related.” This amendment has the effect of removing from proposed section 27BT(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 reference to a scenario that could not arise (because an employment tribunal could not make an order under both section 27BT(1) and (2) if no notice had been given). Amendment 41, in clause 3, page 22, line 20, at end insert— “(4) In determining— (a) whether to make an order under subsection (2)(b), and (b) if so, how much to order the employer to pay, an employment tribunal must have regard, in particular, to the seriousness of the matter complained of.”— (Justin Madders.) This amendment supplements amendment 39.

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

  More

  I am sure you always intend to be helpful, Mr Mundell. I will briefly go through the provisions of clause 3. I appreciate that we have covered a lot of the issues already, but I think it is important to set out what the clause does in the round, because after discussions on quite a few amendments, we may not have followed exactly where we are. It is obvious that predictability of income is a crucial part of a secure future. We need to address the scourge of insecurity at work. Equally, we understand that businesses want clarity about their obligations. The right to reasonable notice of shifts and of changes to them is important and will be enforceable at employment tribunals. While we regard the right to reasonable notice as appropriate, we also see a need for a rather speedier mechanism to provide some reimbursement to a worker when a shift is cancelled, moved or shortened at short notice. Of the 2.4 million people potentially eligible for these new rights, we estimate that around 600,000 have shifts cancelled at short notice. Clause 3 clearly sets out the obligations on both workers and employers, and I will go through the amendments that it will make to the Employment Rights Act 1996. New section 27BO of the 1996 Act outlines the new duty that will be placed on employers to make a payment to workers if they cancel, move or curtail shifts at short notice. The duty will apply to workers on zero-hours contracts and arrangements, and workers on contracts to be specified in regulations. When workers have the timing of their usual shifts set out in their contract but are sometimes asked to work extra or longer shifts, the duty will also apply to the additional hours. The new section also provides the power to set what period constitutes short notice; what the payment amount should be; how quickly the payment should be made; when notice is treated as having been given; and the maximum delay of a shift, or bringing forward of a shift, for which payment is not due. New section 27BP adds several supplementary details on the powers to make regulations provided in new section 27BO and therefore on the functioning of the right to payment. It restricts the period that can be set in regulations as “short notice” to no more than seven days, and it ensures that the payment due to a worker cannot be more than they would have been paid had they worked their original shift. It allows for regulations to vary the amount of the payment according to how short the notice of cancellation is. It also provides that the contracts in scope of the right to payment may be specified in regulations by setting an hours or pay cap. New section 27BQ provides a delegated power to make exceptions to the right to payment, and states that where an exception applies, the employer must notify the worker of it and explain why it is considered to apply. The section enables regulations to specify how the notice of the applicable exception should be given and when it is deemed to be received. New section 27BR ensures that a worker is not entitled to receive payment both under their contract and under new section 27BO in respect of the same hours. New section 27BS enables workers to complain to employment tribunals that their employer has failed to comply with the duties. New section 27BT establishes the remedies where a complaint to a tribunal is found to be well-founded. I commend the clause to the Committee.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 48, in schedule 1, page 107, line 37, at end insert— “(2A) In subsection (2), for ‘and (6)’ substitute ‘, (6), (7) and (7A)’.” This amendment makes technical changes to section 49 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The reference to subsection (7A) is consequential on amendment 49.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 3, page 19, leave out lines 5 to 18 and insert— “(a) where the shift is cancelled, the amount of remuneration to which the worker would have been entitled had they worked the hours that will not be worked because of the cancellation; (b) where the shift is moved, or moved and curtailed (at the same time), and no part of the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed, corresponds to the time of the shift (“the original shift”) before it was moved, or moved and curtailed, the amount of remuneration to which the worker would have been entitled had they worked the original shift; (c) where the shift is moved, or moved and curtailed (at the same time), and part of the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed, corresponds to the time of the original shift (but part does not), the amount of remuneration to which the worker would have been entitled had they worked the part of the original shift that does not correspond to the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed; (d) where the shift is— (i) curtailed but not moved, or (ii) moved and curtailed (at the same time) and the shift as moved and curtailed is to start and end within the time of the original shift, the amount of remuneration to which the worker would have been entitled had they worked the hours that will not be worked because of the curtailment, or the movement and curtailment.” This amendment has the effect of clarifying the maximum amount of a payment that can be specified in regulations under proposed section 27BO(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in cases where there is a combined short notice movement and curtailment of a shift and makes associated drafting changes to the amended provision.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 46, in schedule 1, page 107, line 16, at end insert— “(4A) A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by the worker’s employer done on the ground that— (a) the duty imposed by section 27BA(1) applies to the employer in relation to the worker and a particular reference period, or (b) the employer believes that that duty so applies.” This amendment ensures that a worker’s right not to be subjected to detriment includes a case of detriment on the ground that the worker is, or the employer believes the worker is, entitled to a guaranteed hours offer under proposed new section 27BA of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  Proposed new section 27BT of the 1996 Act makes provision for a payment to be made to the worker where an employment tribunal finds that the worker’s employer failed to make a payment for a qualifying cancelled, moved or curtailed shift, or where an exception was relied upon but notice of that either was not given or was inadequate or untrue. Amendment 37 will require the employment tribunal to additionally make a declaration in cases where the employer failed to make a payment for a qualifying shift, confirming that the worker’s rights have been violated. The declaration will be accessible not only to the directly affected worker but to others, including those working for the same employer. That will ensure that it is clear to other workers where and how such payments should apply if they have a shift cancelled, moved or curtailed in a similar way. Amendment 38 will require the employment tribunal to additionally make a declaration where an exception applied and a notice was not given or where the notice was inadequate or untrue, confirming that the worker’s rights have been violated. Again, that will ensure that workers always receive a remedy in such cases, even where the tribunal decides that an award of compensation is not justified in the circumstances. That should ensure that it is clear to other workers where exceptions do and do not apply if they have a shift cancelled, curtailed or moved in similar circumstances. Mandatory declarations of that nature are a common remedy across employment law. The amendments are in line with other similar provisions that concern complaints to the employment tribunal. Proposed new section 27BT also makes provision for the tribunal to order an employer to pay a worker where an employment tribunal finds that the worker’s employer failed to make a payment for a qualifying cancelled, moved or curtailed shift, or where an exception was relied upon but notice of that was either not given or was inadequate or untrue. Amendments 39 and 41 will allow an employment tribunal discretion to award an appropriate level of compensation in cases where an exception applied but the employer either failed to give notice or gave an inadequate or untrue notice. That will remove the need for a tribunal to take an all-or-nothing approach by awarding the full, maximum amount or nothing. The amendments will instruct an employment tribunal to consider the seriousness of the matter when determining what payment to award the worker, which might include, for example, considering whether the employer had acted in bad faith. That is a more appropriate approach than under the previous drafting, and there may be cases where the maximum award is not reasonable. For example, if a worker has a shift curtailed by an hour and their employer relied on an exception but did not give notice of that, it would not be logical for their award to be greater than the amount that would have been owed for the curtailment of a single hour. The award itself is discretionary and it is appropriate that the payment amount should equally be discretionary up to a specified amount, which will allow employment tribunals to make awards that are just and equitable to all parties. On amendment 40, proposed new section 27BT makes provision for a payment to be made to the worker where an employment tribunal finds that the worker’s employer failed to make a payment for a qualifying cancelled, moved or curtailed shift, or where an exception was relied upon but notice of that was either not given or was inadequate or untrue. The amendment is minor and technical, correcting drafting so that the provisions do not make reference to a scenario that could never arise. An employer cannot be found both to have unreasonably failed to give a worker notice of an applicable exception in relation to a payment, yet also to have been liable to make that payment and have failed to do so: either no exception applies and payment is due, or an exception applies and a notice should be given as no payment is due. The amendment removes the potential confusion caused by the drafting as introduced. I apologise for that, but as the Committee will appreciate that we have been working to a very swift timetable. We hope that brings some clarity to the situation.

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

  More

  Thank you, Mr Mundell. I am not sure whether that was directed at me, other members of the Committee, or maybe all of us.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 3, page 22, line 11, after “must” insert “— (a) make a declaration to that effect, and. (b) ”. This amendment and amendment 38 require an employment tribunal that finds a complaint under proposed section 27BS of the Employment Rights Act 1996 well-founded to make a declaration to that effect.

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

  More

  The amendments will ensure that the provisions on the maximum compensation awarded by a tribunal for detriment cases will be workable for cases involving the termination of an arrangement that is not a worker’s contract. Where there is no worker’s contract in place, it may be very difficult to determine the individual’s termination date. Let me clarify what I mean by that, if I can do so in such a technical area. A zero-hours contract is a contract in which the worker undertakes to work for the employer when the employer makes work available to them, but there is no obligation on the employer to make work available. It is a worker’s contract because it involves obligations on the worker to undertake work. A zero-hours arrangement is an arrangement under which the employer is not obliged to make work available, and the worker is under no obligation to accept work when offered. Zero-hours contracts are workers’ contracts because there is an undertaking to work, whereas zero-hours arrangements are not workers’ contracts because there is insufficient mutuality of obligation. There are particular complexities in applying legislation that involves a particular effective date of termination to those on zero-hours arrangements. The worker’s exact termination date may be difficult to determine and the calculation of compensation will therefore be circumstance-specific, meaning that it is more appropriate for the employment tribunal to use its discretion in arriving at such sums. The amendment will ensure that in such cases, the amount that a tribunal awards will be left to its discretion. While there will not be a set maximum compensation for an individual on a zero-hours arrangement, as opposed to an employee on a zero-hours or low-hours contract, that maximum will be left to the discretion of the employment tribunal, which has the expertise to draw from the existing thresholds in compensation and apply them specifically to these types of cases.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 4, page 23, leave out lines 34 to 39. This amendment is consequential on NC11.

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

  More

  The amendments relate to detriment claims only, whereas the shadow Minister’s question is a slightly broader one. The point about compensation in other situations would be far more detailed. As this is about people on irregular contracts who may have suffered a detriment that we cannot possibly predict in advance, it is normal to say at this stage that the usual principles of the just and equitable compensation that an employment tribunal would award will apply in those circumstances.

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

  More

  Amendment 46 will broaden the detriment provisions in respect of the right to guaranteed hours. It will ensure that a worker has a right not to be subjected to detriment on the grounds that the worker is, or the employer believes that the worker is, entitled to an offer of guaranteed hours. The existing provisions protect workers from detriment only where a worker accepts or rejects an offer of guaranteed hours or proposes to do so; where the worker declines to work a shift, as they believe their employer has failed to comply with their obligation in relation to notice of shifts; or because the worker alleges the existence of such grounds to take a case to an employment tribunal. Amendment 47 is a consequential amendment that clarifies the definition of “reference period” in amendment 46. The amendments will extend the protections to ensure that detriment to the worker arising from the right to guaranteed hours can be addressed. The detriment experienced by the worker may include cases in which a worker’s contract is terminated. Whether a worker experiences a detriment on those new grounds will be a matter for the employment tribunal to determine in the usual manner.

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

  More

  I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s questions. They cannot be answered in the round, as all cases will be very fact-specific. The maximum that a tribunal awards will be down to the circumstances in which workers find themselves. With a zero-hours contract, there will be a whole range of issues relating to the kind of work that they would have expected if the detriment had not taken place. It is a well-established principle that a tribunal will award what is just and equitable in the circumstances. Tribunals are well versed in understanding the factors that they would need to take into account in making such awards. The shadow Minister tempts me to get into details, but as this is a Bill Committee and not an employment tribunal, I cannot give him the kind of detail that he is looking for.

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

  More

  These amendments should be considered alongside amendment 30, because they clarify what happens when a shift is both moved and curtailed at the same time. The Bill provides a power to specify the amount that must be paid by employers when they cancel, curtail or move shifts at short notice. It cannot be used to specify a payment amount in excess of what the worker would have earned from working the original hours. However, the Bill was not clear whether the maximum payment due when a shift is both moved and curtailed at the same time should be calculated based on the provisions on movements or on curtailments, which would create different effects. For example, if a worker’s shift was due to be worked from 2 o’clock to 6 o’clock, but is moved and curtailed to 4 o’clock to 7 o’clock, the maximum payment could be based either on one or two hours of work, as the shift was moved by two hours but was curtailed by one hour. Amendment 31 clarifies what happens in such cases. The maximum payment in this scenario would be what they would have earned from two hours’ work, reflecting the maximum they would have earned had they worked their original four-hour shift. That will ensure that workers are compensated appropriately, and it will also provide clarity for employers. Amendment 32 clarifies for workers and employers how to calculate what amount of contractual payment can be offset against payments under clause 3 in cases where there is a combined short notice movement and curtailment of a shift. Again, the Bill is unclear whether the calculation should be based on the provisions on movements or on curtailments, which would create different effects. For example, if a worker’s shift was due to be worked from 2 o’clock to 6 o’clock, but is moved and curtailed to 4 o’clock to 7 o’clock, then after deducting the two hours in the shift that have stayed the same—4 o’clock to 6 o’clock—the remaining hours to be offset could be based on either one or two hours’ work. The amendment clarifies that the hours to be offset should be for two hours’ work, as the worker should be entitled to the payment under proposed new section 27BO of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for two hours. That will ensure that it is clear that an employer is not doubly liable for some hours in such scenarios. Although I appreciate that the amendments may appear complex, they will have the overall effect of simplifying the policy for employers and workers, so that it is very clear what happens when a shift is both curtailed and moved at the same time. They therefore prevent us from ending up with a whole load of litigation to decide what the correct outcome will be. I reassure the shadow Minister that the changes will not be rushed: they will not be implemented before 2026, which will give us time to consult further and provide some more information on how the measures will work in practice so that employers understand what is expected of them. We will provide clear guidance throughout. Many employers already guarantee hours, give reasonable notice of shifts, and make payments when they cancel shifts at short notice, so they will not need to alter their behaviour at all. In fact, data from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development suggests that around 33% of employers already pay some form of compensation for shifts cancelled with less than 24 hours’ notice.

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

  More

  At the all-party parliamentary beer group’s reception last night, the shadow Minister and I talked about pubs. His question sounds perfect for a pub quiz for retired employment lawyers: it is the sort of thing that might end up getting taken to a group of KCs to understand the precise relationship. My best guess is that it would be classed as a zero-hours arrangement and would therefore be covered by the legislation. However, I do not wish to set a precedent inadvertently, so I will take further advice and come back to the shadow Minister. I hope he has some more interesting teasers like that: I am sure the entire employment law community are furiously scrabbling through their books to find the answer to his conundrum. Question put and agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 1 Consequential amendments relating to sections 1 to 3

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

  More

  I will not detain the Committee too long on clause 4. It contains amendments to the Employment Rights Act 1996 related to clauses 1 to 3, which we have just debated. Proposed new section 27BU defines various terms used in clauses 1 to 3, and the rest of part 2A of the 1996 Act, relating to zero-hours workers and other similar workers. In particular, it copies across the definition of “zero hours contract” from section 27A of the 1996 Act. A zero-hours contract exists where the worker undertakes to work for the employer when the employer makes work available to them but there is no obligation on the employer to make work available. While that might be quite a lengthy explanation, I think that we all understand what we mean by that. New section 27BU also defines “zero hours arrangement” as an arrangement under which an individual works when the work is provided but “the employer is not required to make any work available to the individual, nor the individual required to accept it”.

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

  More

  I will address that point, which I am sure we will hear on numerous occasions from the shadow Minister. He will be aware that it was a manifesto commitment to introduce the Bill within 100 days, which we are very pleased to have been able to adhere to, but that meant that not every element of policy was ready. As we have continued to consult, engage and develop our thoughts in this area, it has become apparent that it is possible to add to the Bill at this stage, to close some loopholes and provide some clarity. That is why the amendment was tabled. Amendment 31 agreed to. Amendments made: 32, in clause 3, page 21, leave out lines 3 to 13 and insert— “(a) where a shift has been cancelled, the hours that would have been worked if the shift had not been cancelled; (b) where a shift has been moved, or moved and curtailed (at the same time), and no part of the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed, corresponds to the time of the shift (“the original shift”) before it was moved, or moved and curtailed, the hours that would have been worked during the original shift; (c) where a shift has been moved, or moved and curtailed (at the same time), and part of the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed, corresponds to the time of the original shift (but part does not), the hours that would have been worked during the part of the original shift that does not correspond to the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed; (d) where a shift has been— (i) curtailed but not moved, or (ii) moved and curtailed (at the same time) and the shift as moved and curtailed is to start and end within the time of the original shift, the hours that would have been worked if the shift had not been curtailed, or moved and curtailed.” This amendment has the effect of clarifying the hours to which a payment under proposed section 27BO(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 relates in cases where there is a combined short notice movement and curtailment of a shift and makes associated drafting changes to the amended provision. Amendment 33, in clause 3, page 21, line 26, leave out “three” and insert “six”. This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 27BS(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from three months to six months. Amendment 34, in clause 3, page 21, line 31, leave out “three” and insert “six”. This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 27BS(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from three months to six months. Amendment 35, in clause 3, page 21, line 36, leave out “three” and insert “six”. This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 27BS(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from three months to six months. Amendment 36, in clause 3, page 21, line 40, leave out “three” and insert “six”.— (Justin Madders.) This amendment is consequential on amendments 33, 34 and 35 .

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

  More

  I am grateful for the details of the shadow Minister’s dietary exploits today. We are looking in quite close detail at that situation, because there are a number of knock-on consequences, but we do not envisage that, in a situation where two workers agree of their own volition to swap shifts, the employer should in any way be penalised. We do not think that is in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve here. I return to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh made about particular workplaces. The Director of Labour Market Enforcement has undertaken quite a lot of work in respect of those issues; considerable evidence is emerging about concerns in those sectors, and I encourage him to undertake some further reading on that. There will be further consultation on what reasonable means. We all understand that there could be different factors applying, but what we want at the end of this process is for businesses to be clear about their obligations. That could mean a particular time period, but it could be different depending on the industry or the circumstances. It is right for us to take our time to consult and engage on that. The shadow Minister referred to the force majeure issue; there is a power in the Bill for us to provide for exemptions for short-notice shift cancellation—that is always a tricky phrase to get out—but in some of the examples he gave where a huge contract was lost, a notice cancellation payment was probably the least of the employee’s and the employer’s problems in that situation; there may be bigger questions about whether there is enough work at all. Those are the kinds of things we will be looking at, as the power in the Bill gives us that opportunity. Amendment 30 agreed to.

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

  More

  Amendment 42 is another technical amendment that concerns not the function of the Bill but parliamentary procedure, so if we want another dry, technical debate, we certainly have the opportunity. Clause 4 makes provision for new section 27BW to be inserted into the Employment Rights Act 1996. New section 27BW(3) would allow regulations made under part 2A of the 1996 Act, relating to the provisions concerning zero hours, that are subject to different or no parliamentary procedure to be included in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. New clause 11 amends section 236 of the 1996 Act and makes the same provision to allow the combining of instruments, but applies to any orders and regulations made under that Act, rather than to only those made using powers in part 2A. This is a technical amendment intended to ensure that implementation can be undertaken as efficiently as possible. On what instruments might need to be combined, we will be setting out further details required to implement zero-hours provisions through secondary legislation, but existing powers in the 1996 Act, such as the power in section 10 regarding pay statements, may play a part in supporting implementation. It may be that it would be appropriate to exercise that power to prescribe that pay statements must specify where payment has been made under proposed new section 27BO for the short-notice cancellation, movement or curtailment of a shift. Should that be the case, this provision would allow that amendment to be made in the same regulations as others to be made under new powers being inserted by this Bill that are—I am sure that the shadow Minister will be pleased to hear this—subject to the affirmative procedure. That will mean that provisions to be detailed in regulations that would have been subject to the negative procedure, or no procedure, receive greater scrutiny from Parliament before becoming law. In the light of the amendment made to section 236, amendment 42 removes the provisions that apply only to part 2A of the 1996 Act, as they will be redundant.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 43, in schedule 1, page 106, line 8, at end insert— “In section 27 (meaning of ‘wages’ for purposes of Part 2 of the Act), in subsection (1)— (a) after the paragraph (ce) inserted by the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 insert— ‘(cf) a payment under section 27BO(1) of this Act (payment for a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift),’; (b) renumber the paragraph (ce) inserted by the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 as paragraph (cg).” This amendment provides for a payment under proposed section 27BO(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of a short-notice cancellation, movement or curtailment of a shift to be treated as “wages” for the purposes of the provision about protection of wages in Part 2 of that Act. The right of a worker to bring a claim for unlawful deduction of wages is an important principle in employment law. It is right that payments for cancelled, moved and curtailed shifts are included in this provision. Although a worker can already claim through the employment tribunal that their employer has not made a payment for a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift, in some cases it may be more appropriate for workers to bring a claim under the unlawful deduction of wages provisions, for example if there are instances of non-payment covering a period of months or years; if they want to claim for financial loss as a result of non-payment, for instance because of bank charges; or if a claim covers non-payment of cancellation payments and other wages. The amendment will provide workers with an alternative remedy for non-payment, in addition to the new provisions in proposed new sections 27BS and 27BT of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That is in line with other statutory rights to payment, such as remuneration during suspension of work on medical grounds. I hope that that is a clear explanation.