Justin Madders MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Dec 2024 · Royal Mail Takeover · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the biggest assets in the Royal Mail is the workforce itself. That is widely understood not just on the Labour Benches but by the EP Group. As I said, commitments have been made between the trade unions and the EP Group on job security. I hope that goes some way to dealing with her concerns.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Royal Mail Takeover · Hansard source

  More

  With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the ongoing takeover of Royal Mail Group’s parent company, International Distribution Services plc. Royal Mail is an iconic national institution, and this Government are committed to ensuring that it remains one. Since taking office in July, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and I have been clear that the Government will robustly scrutinise the proposed takeover of Royal Mail and ensure that there are safeguards for its future. While a takeover bid is still ongoing and subject to the relevant regulatory processes, the purpose of this statement is to update the House on the legally binding undertakings that have now been given to the Department for Business and Trade by the bidder, EP Group. I wish to be clear that this does not mark the conclusion of the takeover, and these undertakings will become effective only if the takeover goes through. Should the takeover complete, I am pleased to announce that the Department for Business and Trade has secured significant commitments to promote a long-term and financially sustainable future for Royal Mail in the United Kingdom. It will be helpful if at the outset I set out where Royal Mail was at the time the takeover bid was announced. Before the bid, Royal Mail’s financial position was challenging. In its financial year 2023-24, Royal Mail recorded a loss of £348 million. That loss was in part due to a long-term decline in letters, and the significant fixed costs of the universal service delivery network. At the same time, Royal Mail has not met its quality of service targets set by the independent regulator, Ofcom. Royal Mail’s performance for the 2023-24 financial year resulted in Ofcom fining it £10.5 million. While the previous Government were happy to accept decline, this Government have worked closely with the buyer to secure significant commitments to deliver the transformation of Royal Mail into a sustainable service, and hard-wired in stronger protections for Royal Mail’s identity. When the discussions with EP Group began, my Department’s objectives were: first, to strengthen the financial sustainability of this iconic and important British institution; and secondly, to protect the customers, workers and brand of Royal Mail. Today I can confirm that we have agreed a deed that customers and the workforce alike can welcome, with significant new commitments from the buyer to the Government. This deed is a clear example of the Government’s commitment to working hand-in-hand with business to generate reform and investment in public service. It is also yet another example of this Government fixing the foundations where the previous Government did not. I am proud to announce to the House that we have agreed that the Government will have a golden share in Royal Mail. This golden share will ensure that the Department for Business and Trade now has an ability to prevent Royal Mail from moving its headquarters abroad or moving its tax residency without Government permission. I should make it clear that that is an entirely new measure that was not in place at the time of Royal Mail’s privatisation. Except in very limited circumstances, that measure will remain in place in perpetuity, including when there is a subsequent change in ownership of Royal Mail. I want to be clear that the agreement will not give the Government any role in the day-to-day running of the business—Royal Mail remains a private entity. Not only have we agreed a golden share, but the EP Group has made a number of other commitments in addition, which I will set out at a high level. Those commitments include a commitment to prevent value extraction unless two tests are satisfied: first, a financial test that takes into account the debts of Royal Mail, so that value cannot be extracted if the company is heavily indebted; and secondly—this recognises a key concern of the public—a quality test to ensure that value is not extracted unless specific performance targets are met. All businesses need to adapt and improve in order to respond to change, and Royal Mail is no different. Recognising that there is a need for Royal Mail to modernise, there is a commitment from EP Group to ensure that Royal Mail has the financial means to fund the transformation of its business in the three-year period following completion of the acquisition. In addition, EP Group has agreed to take an immediate step to strengthen Royal Mail’s balance sheet by removing a significant intra-group debt, which is currently due to the remainder of the International Distribution Services group. The agreed undertakings also include a commitment to ensure that Royal Mail retains ownership or access on fair terms to those assets necessary to meet the universal service obligation. Next, EP Group has agreed to meet all the regulatory requirements that Royal Mail Group is subject to, including ensuring that it remains the universal service provider for as long as EP Group is in control. We all know—not just in this House, but across the UK—that Royal Mail is an iconic British brand, and that is why there is a commitment to the existing brand protections in place for Royal Mail. Royal Mail is a respected and revered operator, and not just in the UK—it has various international responsibilities at international fora and with the overseas territories. Those will be respected and continued, maintaining the UK’s prestigious international position. EP has stated its long-term commitment to Royal Mail, and the discussions have demonstrated the wide range of areas of public interest in the work of the company, so I am also pleased to confirm that EP has committed to taking steps to facilitate discussions between any future owner of the business and the Government, be that in 10 or 20 years’ time. These commitments have been offered by EP Group to the Department on a voluntary basis; nothing has been offered in exchange. I take this opportunity to thank EP Group. I am confident that we share the same objective of a reliable and financially sustainable universal service provider, while workers and consumers are placed at the heart of a sustainable Royal Mail. I am also pleased that, as well as reaching an agreement with the Department, EP Group has today announced that it has in-principle negotiated agreements with both unions representing the Royal Mail workforce. The Government welcome those agreements, and I am confident that the constructive and collegiate approach between the unions and the buyer can represent a restart for industrial relations in the Royal Mail Group. I have set out some of the key commitments, but there are further commitments from EP Group that I do not have time to set out in full today. I am therefore placing copies of the deed in the Libraries of both Houses. I will keep the House informed as much as I can as the takeover progresses. I commend this statement to the House.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Royal Mail Takeover · Hansard source

  More

  We hope that the deal will lead to an improvement in service. Specific investment commitments are being made as part of the deal, which we hope will be used to drive up standards. I think that everyone is committed to seeing an improvement on where we are at the moment.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Royal Mail Takeover · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for his question. Is he now the rebellious Back Bencher, I wonder? We all share those concerns about the universal service obligation. This deal is not contingent on the universal service obligation. We have had discussions on how we improve the current state of affairs, because it is clearly not good enough. I hope that his constituents will see an improvement in service as a result of this deal.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Royal Mail Takeover · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his questions and his service in the Royal Mail. Clearly, arrangements for those currently in the Royal Mail are a matter for the new owners once the deal goes through, and I am sure that that point will be discussed. He is right that the performance has not been good enough, and we are very pleased to have secured a number of commitments in the deal that were not previously in place.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Royal Mail Takeover · Hansard source

  More

  When I visited my depot on Friday, we discussed the two-tier workforce and the variation in terms and conditions. I think it is generally recognised that it is not a helpful thing; I do not think it has helped Royal Mail with retention. My understanding is that there are agreements to be made between the Communication Workers Union and the EP Group on moving away from that. The detail has yet to be ratified by the union’s executive, but I hope that will mean there is a common basis to try to deal with the issue.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Royal Mail Takeover · Hansard source

  More

  I assure the hon. Lady that the universal service obligation is not contingent on this deal—that is an entirely separate matter for Ofcom to be considering—but a number of commitments that we have secured in this agreement will hopefully improve standards, which in any event have clearly not been as we would all want.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Royal Mail Takeover · Hansard source

  More

  I have no doubt that the Communication Workers Union and the Unite Communication Managers Association would not have spoken positively about the deals that they had struck had they not received sufficient guarantees about the workforce. As I said, the general secretary of the Communication Workers Union has been on the air today, speaking very positively about the commitments that he has received about not just job security but governance arrangements, and about workers having a “meaningful stake” in the success of the business moving forward. This is a really positive deal, and if the CWU is speaking positively about it, I think the hon. Member should be reassured.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Royal Mail Takeover · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member may have noticed that I was sitting next to the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), before the statement and we had a brief conversation about that, because we all agree on the importance of Royal Mail delivering our democracy. I assure him and his constituents that it is our intention to see that the universal service obligation is complied with and improved on in future.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Royal Mail Takeover · Hansard source

  More

  A number of commitments have been made that were not previously in place, and there is no doubt that we are in a much better position than we were post privatisation. As I say, this groundbreaking deal between the unions and the company includes rights in terms of governance, a profit-sharing incentive and guarantees on job security. I am sure that Members will be pleased to hear that we really have made fantastic progress.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 55, in schedule 2, page 112, line 36, at end insert— “3A In section 15 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (power by order to increase or decrease limit of compensatory award), after subsection (5) insert— ‘(5A) The power conferred by subsection (1) includes power to provide that, in the case of the dismissal of an employee that meets the conditions in section 98ZZA(2) and (3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (dismissal during initial period of employment), the limit imposed for the time being by subsection (1) of section 124 of that Act is a different amount from that otherwise imposed by that subsection. (5B) Subsections (3), (4)(a) and (5) do not apply for the purposes of specifying the amount of the limit in such a case.’” This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to specify the maximum amount of the compensatory award available where an employment tribunal finds that an employee has been unfairly dismissed during the initial period of employment provided for by new section 98ZZA of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions. The shadow Minister has posed some questions that underlie amendment 156, which seeks to include redundancy as one of the reasons for dismissal to which the lighter-touch standards will apply during the statutory probationary period. As he has rightly identified, the Bill sets out that the reasons for dismissal to which the lighter-touch standards may apply are the statutory grounds of capability, conduct, illegality and some other substantial reason. It is important to note that those four areas relate to the individual employee, which is why redundancy is not included. Redundancy can affect entire workforces, whereas the other areas are included because of the overlap between the potentially fair reasons for dismissal in the legislation, particularly suitability for work, and the sorts of issues that might come up in a probationary period. A redundancy situation would not ordinarily come up within a probationary period, because it would be about the wider business condition rather than the individual employee’s performance or suitability for the job. I hope that explains why redundancy has not been included. I turn to the shadow Minister’s more general points. We are trying to strike a fair balance between strengthening employee protections against unfair dismissal and maintaining businesses’ ability to hire, assess and dismiss new employees. The Government are committed to ensuring that businesses retain the confidence to do so. We do not wish the new procedures to undermine existing fair dismissal processes for redundancy, which already provide a robust, straightforward and fair process for employees facing redundancy. We will work closely with ACAS, in consultation with businesses and trade unions, to ensure that there is clear, straightforward and easy-to-follow guidance on how to carry out a redundancy process under the new measures. It will be an easily accessible process. One of our concerns about including redundancy is that if an employer decided to make a significant number of their workforce redundant, it would be an additional administrative job for them to identify which employees they did not need to include within a redundancy process because they were part of a statutory probationary period, and which would be subject to the wider process. That would lead to unintended consequences and possibly risk of discrimination claims.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am not familiar with the particular case law the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I will take that away. It is fair to say that employment tribunals currently do not have the kind of inquiries into a business’s finances and general condition that we are trying to achieve with this legislation. At the moment, there is a fairly broadbrush approach, particularly in terms of redundancies, to inquiries about the business reasons. It is important to draw the hon. Member for Dundee Central’s attention to the words after “likely” in the Bill. It is about an “employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern”. That means the alternative is insolvency or redundancies, which is the eventuality that I am sure we all want to avoid. It will ultimately be a question of fact for an employment tribunal to determine whether it genuinely was the only option available to the employer, which is what the Bill will require the employer to demonstrate. There are a legion of examples of trade unions working constructively with businesses to avoid those kinds of insolvency situations, as a result of which terms and conditions have changed. The hon. Member for Dundee Central quoted Andy Prendergast who, in respect of what happened in the 2008 financial crisis, said in an evidence session: “It was heartbreaking, but we had to do it because it was the right thing to do.” –– [ Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 131, Q135.] He was talking about changing terms and conditions in agreement with employers to avoid redundancies and potential insolvencies. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would take out all of subsection (5) of proposed new section 104I, which is the requirement for the employer to engage with trade unions and have the dialogue that we think is so important in industrial relations. It would say, “That does not matter any more.” The dialogue we are seeking to develop—the tripartite approach—and the move to make the arbitrary take-it-or-leave-it approach that some employers have adopted in fire and rehire a thing of the past, would not matter. The hon. Gentleman has asked some important questions about what we would expect of employers; I think subsection (5) answers many of them. Further regulations and codes of practice will also deal with them, because we want to make sure we have a situation in which the bar for passing this test is extremely high, but in addition to that—in addition to there being no alternative but insolvency—the employer has to then demonstrate that they have carried out a full consultation with the trade union. That will involve a full explanation of the financial situation. As we develop the regulations and codes of practice, we will flesh that out in some more detail.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member may be conflating two slightly different issues. I say to him very clearly that existing laws on redundancy will not be changed as a result of the Bill. We expect employers to follow the same processes, regardless of the length of service of the employee. In that situation, I do not imagine that there would be a particularly lengthy process if it involved only one individual and a small employer. There would not need to be a pool for selection, for example, or selection criteria. We would expect the employer to comply with the law in those circumstances. Amendment 157 questions whether regulations should be able to set steps that an employer must follow for a dismissal to be considered fair when prescribing lighter-touch standards to apply during the statutory probationary period. We have set out clearly our intention to have a light-touch process, and we know that around 9 million employees will benefit from that. The intention behind setting out those steps in regulations is to ensure that we take account of further consultation, which we will undertake not just with employers but with trade unions and civil society, to ensure that we have the right balance of process and fairness in a statutory probationary period. We will be developing that in due course. As is often the case with the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures, there are already lots of examples of really practical guidance out there, which we intend to replicate. I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I take the shadow Minister’s point, but that presupposes that businesses bake into their business plans compensation for unfairly dismissing their staff, and I do not think any business would want to proceed on that basis. This is about a potential liability that might come in at a future point. Of course, we all want employers to retain their staff and have a productive working relationship, but if they do not, we want them to comply with the law and dismiss employees fairly. There will be a small number of cases where that does not happen, but I would not expect a business to be able to anticipate what might happen in two or three years’ time with an individual employee and whether a process was followed or not. That is probably not on a business’s desk at this point. Amendment 55 agreed to . Amendments made: 56, in schedule 2, page 114, line 20, at beginning insert— “(1) The Employment Relations Act 1999 is amended as follows.” See the explanatory statement for amendment 57 . Amendment 57, in schedule 2, page 114, line 23, at end insert— “(3) In section 34 (indexation of amounts, etc)— (a) in subsection (1)(c), for “124(1)” substitute “124”; (b) omit subsection (4); (c) in subsection (4A), for “124(1)” substitute “124”; (d) in subsection (4B)— (i) for “124(1)” substitute “124”; (ii) after “1996” insert “in relation to cases of any description”; (iii) for the words from “such a sum” to “that date” substitute “, with effect from a day within 12 months before that date, a sum specified in that section in relation to cases of that description”.”— (Justin Madders.) This amendment and amendment 56 are consequential on amendment 55 . Question proposed , That the schedule, as amended, be the Second schedule to the Bill.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will try to put the shadow Minister’s mind at ease. I point out that not just is there an overall impact assessment for the Bill, but there are 24 separate impact assessments for different measures. That shows the amount of work that has been put in. The RPC has approved two thirds of those assessments, and it was looking only at the evidence base, not the policies themselves. The impact assessment for day one rights covers everything we would expect an impact assessment to look at: the business environment, the wider economic impact, trade implications, wages, labour mobility, productivity, and sectoral and regional impacts. As the evidence base is firmed up, we will continue to refine and develop it. It deals comprehensively with many of the shadow Minister’s concerns, and I invite him not to press his amendments to a vote. Question put and agreed to. Schedule 2, as amended, accordingly agreed to . Clause 20 Dismissal during pregnancy Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the contributions in this debate, which deals with one of the central issues we have been grappling with. On this side of the Committee we certainly want to see fire and rehire consigned to the history books. Equally, we do not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles said, want to see businesses feel they have no option but to make people redundant because they do not feel they can take any other course of action. It is about trying to ensure that that is still available without opening a loophole, as it has been described, for abusive fire and rehire tactics to continue. There is an awful lot in the Bill as it stands that will make it a very high threshold indeed for any employer to want to take that step. There will, of course, be further guidance in regulations, where we will home in on the kinds of concerns that have been raised.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendment 55 will expand an existing delegated power to enable the Secretary of State to specify a different maximum compensatory award where an employment tribunal finds that an employee has been unfairly dismissed under the new light-touch standards during the statutory probation period. Amendments 56 and 57 will make consequential changes to the provisions for uprating maximum awards for inflation. In the event of any successful unfair dismissal claim, an employment tribunal will consider compensation as a remedy. Compensation will usually consist of a basic award and a compensatory award. The tribunal will determine the compensatory award by considering what it thinks is just and equitable, having regard to the financial loss suffered by the claimant that has been caused by the employer’s actions. This will include reference to salary and benefits, including pension, until the claimant finds alternative employment. The maximum compensatory award is currently the lower of 52 weeks’ pay or £115,115. The Government have listened to concerns that changes to unfair dismissal law could lead to an increase in unfair dismissal claims, even where there is no merit, and to an increased burden on businesses and tribunals in having to deal with those claims. We have heard that uncertainty of outcome makes it hard for businesses to judge how much to invest in either defending or settling a claim. The introduction of a lighter-touch standard for fair dismissal during the statutory probationary period aims to reduce burdens on businesses and to create certainty, but it will not apply to all dismissals during the statutory probation period. Having listened to those concerns, the Government committed in our “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document to consulting on what a compensation regime for successful unfair dismissal claims during the statutory probation period should be. Although we want employers to pause and make considered decisions about dismissing employees during probation, the Government do not think that employers should face the full potential liabilities of unfair dismissal remedies when dismissing an employee for reasons related to performance or suitability for the role during the statutory probation period. To have the option of implementing reform once we have consulted, it is necessary to introduce this delegated power. The power is limited to making changes to the compensatory award for unfair dismissal claims during the statutory probation period only, and only where the new lighter-touch standards apply. The Government recognise the importance of employers being able to assess new hires. We are committed to introducing a statutory probationary period in which there will be lighter-touch standards for an employer to meet in order to dismiss an employee fairly if they are not suitable for the job. The power will not enable the Secretary of State to make changes to the level of compensation for other day one unfair dismissal rights, such as automatically unfair reasons including maternity-related dismissals, or for “ordinary” unfair dismissals such as redundancy. The power will not enable the Secretary of State to make changes to reinstatement or re-engagement as a remedy available to tribunals for unfair dismissal during statutory probationary periods, nor will it allow changes to be made to the additional compensatory award where an employer does not comply with an order of reinstatement or re-engagement by the tribunal. There may be some concerns that the power could be used to undermine enforcement of the day one right to unfair dismissal, but I assure the Committee that this is not the intention. The Government are making basic protections against unfair dismissal a day one right for employees. They will be able to enforce their rights and take a claim to the tribunal if they have been unfairly dismissed. It is important, however, that employers are able to assess new hires and see whether they are suitable for the job without facing the full potential liabilities of unfair dismissal remedies during this period.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but subsection (5) does set out the requirements on an employer to consult. It would be normal for further detail about consultation to be considered to be in good time when proposals are at a formative stage, as has traditionally always been the case. I see no reason why it would not also take the same form in that instance. What we are really talking about is a situation in which there is a sudden change in a company’s financial circumstances and it has to act quickly. In that situation, we do not want to force it to go insolvent or make people redundant, if there is an opportunity to save jobs. That is why subsection (5) is so important: because it will encourage and compel the dialogue that we are seeking to achieve. I accept that there is more to be done in terms of honing some of the detail, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment because it would, I am afraid, have unintended consequences.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. Those are exactly the same arguments that we had about the minimum wage, and they did not bear examination in the end. Indeed, the Conservative party eventually decided to support the minimum wage too. The shadow Minister quoted from the evidence of Jane Gratton of the British Chamber of Commerce. She has actually said that she would favour a nine-month probationary period being set out in regulations, which I think is reflective of comments that I have made. It seems a little odd for her evidence to be used in support of an amendment that seeks a six-month period. We are committed to working with businesses and trade unions to finalise the period in regulations. Setting it out in the Bill would tie our hands somewhat. It would also go against the spirit of what we are trying to achieve, which is working in a tripartite manner. The shadow Minister has sometimes criticised me for rushing a little bit, so he will appreciate that we are taking our time with this measure because we want to get it right. I urge him and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson not to press their amendments.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Schedule 2 amends the Employment Rights Act 1996, including the introduction of a statutory probation period. It also removes the qualifying period for the right to written reasons, replacing it with a requirement for the dismissal to have occurred after the statutory probation period ends. By removing the qualifying period, schedule 2 makes basic protection against unfair dismissal a day one right for all employees, ensuring that employees receive a baseline of security and predictability. By introducing a statutory probation period in legislation, the schedule ensures that employers can continue to assess new hires. It allows the duration of the statutory probation period to be set out in regulation by the Secretary of State, which will follow public consultation. I will take Members briefly through the elements of schedule 2. Paragraph 1 repeals the two-year qualifying period. Paragraph 2 makes it clear that the right to be unfairly dismissed does not apply to those who have not yet started employment. Paragraph 3 makes provision about dismissal during the initial period of employment, which we have already discussed. It will ensure that the “potentially fair” reasons in section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 will be subject to the light-touch regime where they relate to the employee with the exception of redundancy. As we have already discussed, the Government intend to consult on the standards, and the schedule repeals the two-year qualifying period. A Government amendment has been made to schedule 2 to include a delegated power to change the maximum compensatory award available during the statutory probation period where the lighter-touch standards apply, as we have just discussed. We will consult on that.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I take on board the comments that the Opposition spokespersons have made, but if we put something in the Bill now, we would be pre-empting the consultation. It is very important to get this right, acknowledging the balance that needs to be struck and the points that have been made. It is worth bearing in mind that this measure will not be implemented until autumn 2026 at the earliest, which is still a considerable time off. The reason we want to take the time between now and then to engage and consult with businesses is to ensure that we get that figure to a spot that gives justice to individuals and certainty to businesses about the potential liability they may face.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to Opposition Members for tabling their amendments and asking a series of questions. The hon. Member for Chippenham seeks to set the boundaries for the statutory probation period at three and nine months. The hon. Member for Torbay seemed to argue for a lengthier period; I do not know whether he was asking for nine months or beyond, but I take his point. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked us to put six months on the face of the Bill, so there is quite a range of options. We have decided that the best thing to do is work with businesses and consult with them on the detail of the proposal as we move forward. We have expressed a preference for nine months as a result of the engagement that we have undertaken. As the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire indicated, businesses have said that generally six months is about the right period, but in some circumstances they may need a bit longer to ensure that the person is the right fit. That is why we alighted on the proposal for nine months, but we do not want to tie our hands by putting it on the face of the Bill; we want to continue to work with businesses and trade unions to understand whether that is the right figure. Putting a number in the Bill would be premature, because we will have further conversations. As we develop the light-touch process in our deliberations, that may help people to firm up their views about whether nine months is indeed the right amount of time. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire questioned the evidence base. Of course there can be no evidence base for people being unfairly dismissed under two years’ employment, because there is no right protecting them from unfair dismissal before then, except for those who may seek to hang their hat on an automatically unfair dismissal. As we have discussed at length, people sometimes do that because they have a sense of grievance about the way they have been treated, and they may well have a legitimate claim. Hon. Members generally accepted that the labour force survey statistics are not particularly helpful, but there is quite a lot of evidence about the impact of job insecurity more generally and the fact that the two-year qualification period creates uncertainty for individuals. Business in the Community surveyed 4,000 employees, of whom 66% say that their mental health and wellbeing is affected by their personal job insecurity. In written evidence to this Committee, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers notes: “Being dismissed on spurious conduct or capability grounds, without a fair investigation”— as can happen at the moment under two years of employment— “can have devastating consequences for an employee. It can destroy the individual’s morale and confidence and…living standards”. This is happening to people already, and it is having an impact. There is also evidence to suggest that there are further advantages for the wider economy. The Resolution Foundation has done some research on the cooling effect of people not moving jobs because they do not have job security. Someone who is considering moving from one job to another may be more likely to take the leap if they have that window of protection, so it is important for individuals as well.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, the regulation comes into force tomorrow. Actually, it covers things that most businesses are doing already, but we have provided guidance for businesses, including online marketplaces, on how the regulation will apply in Northern Ireland. We will continue to engage with businesses and online marketplaces to ensure that we are supporting them in dealing with this new regulation.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Hopefully, we will make an announcement very shortly about plans in that area.