Justin Madders MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I will not speak for long on clause 19, because it is a fairly straightforward clause and there are more detailed clauses and amendments that may generate further debate. Clause 19 introduces schedule 2, which will repeal section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, thereby removing the two-year qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal. An estimated 9 million employees have been working for their employer for less than two years and therefore have very limited protection against unfair dismissal. By removing the qualifying period, the Government will make basic protection against unfair dismissal a day one right for all employees, ensuring a baseline of security and predictability. It is about tackling insecurity. Unless there are automatically unfair grounds, an employer can lawfully sack a worker just by giving them their statutory or contractual notice pay and telling them not to come back to work. There is no entitlement to a fair process, nor even a right to a written statement explaining why they have been sacked. Think about what you can do with two years in your life, Mr Stringer—well, maybe we should not think too much about it. Someone can make an awful lot of commitments, including financial commitments. They can get married, buy a house, start a family and take out loans of all descriptions, but they have no protection at work and nothing to stop them being arbitrarily dismissed in that two-year period. We think that that is wrong: it creates a great deal of insecurity in the workplace, and it has to change. Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. We will ensure that businesses can hire with confidence. We will ensure that employers can operate contractual probation periods, which are separate from the new statutory probationary periods. During the statutory probationary periods, employers will have a lighter-touch standard to meet when they need to dismiss an employee who is not suitable for the job. Our changes will ensure that newly hired workers are not arbitrarily dismissed. We believe that that will help to drive up standards in the workplace. It will ensure that there is greater fairness and greater understanding between employees and businesses. It will drive up standards, quality and security—all things that we believe will improve our economy. We do not intend to bring in these measures in until autumn 2026 at the earliest. I commend the clause to the Committee.

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

  More

  We seem to have lost a few colleagues during the votes; hopefully, they are coming back. It seems a while since they were made, but I will pick up on comments and questions of —[Interruption.]

• 9 Dec 2024 · Fireworks: Sale and Use · Hansard source

  More

  This is the first time in several years that the campaign has taken place. Hopefully there will be a baseline of evidence that we can look to. I will commit to write to my hon. Friend to see what we can elicit from officials in that respect. As I say, UK fireworks retailers support the voluntary fireworks code, which contains advice on safety and considerate use. Many lower-noise firework products—those around 90 dB or below—are already on the market, with consumers recognising that as an option. I hope that market continues to grow. Intelligence has been shared that shows that some considerate supermarket retailers are now stocking lower-noise fireworks, and some refuse to stock fireworks altogether. Testing commissioned by the Office for Product Safety and Standards found that consumer firework products have a very high compliance with the 120 dB limit set out in law, so the issue is not with the products but with where the law sets the limit. Many Members raised concerns about the noise and disruption that fireworks cause, but acknowledged that displays have a contribution to make to community groups up and down the country as they often raise money for good causes. In 2019, the Petitions Committee noted that point and stated that “these community displays have widespread local support and increase community cohesion.” It also noted that a ban on fireworks could have unintended consequences, such as a “substantial economic effect” on the industry and the risk of a black market, which the National Fire Chiefs Council and the National Police Chiefs’ Council raised in their evidence to the inquiry. There is a lot to consider, but we recognise the strength of feeling about fireworks and their negative impact on some groups in society. I also recognise the need for effective regulation in this area. We must recognise the place of fireworks in cultural and community celebrations and consider carefully any unintended consequences. I acknowledge that, as has been said, there is a paucity of evidence about the effectiveness of the current regulations. I am committed to engaging with all stakeholders, including businesses, consumer groups and charities, to understand the issues and inform any future decisions in this policy area. The safety of the public and the impact on people and animals will be paramount in those considerations. I hope this dialogue will continue.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Fireworks: Sale and Use · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. As the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), said, this has been a good debate and a wide range of suggestions have been made. We had speeches from 20 Back-Benchers: my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge), the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), and my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), for Glasgow East (John Grady), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Southport (Patrick Hurley). That was quite a good spread across the isles: it shows that the issue affects everyone in this great nation of ours. Everyone spoke with great passion and insight into how fireworks affect individuals, and there were a range of suggestions about what might be done. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on leading this important debate. He set out well the balance of issues that we have to take into account when considering these matters. As he highlighted, fireworks can have a dreadful impact. The two petitions that we are debating are “Ban the sale of fireworks to the general public” and “Limit the sale and use of Fireworks to licence holders only”. I join the shadow Secretary of State in paying tribute to Chloe Brindley and Alan Smith for their work in helping to get the petitions debated today. The debate has shown that there is an appetite across the House to look at the issue. As a constituency MP and as a member of the Government, I know from my own postbag that it is an issue of widespread concern. I express my condolences to the family of Josephine Smith, who, as we know, sadly passed away following the placing of a firework through her letterbox. The tragic story, which was conveyed by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster, brings home the consequences of the deliberate misuse of fireworks. We heard from her about how the CCTV caught those responsible talking about what they might do, and I cannot imagine how difficult that must have been to view that irresponsible behaviour. The hon. Lady conveyed Mr Smith’s thoughts well. He asked for a sensible and respectful debate, and I certainly believe that we have had one today. I assure him that we will meet in the new year and that we will continue to engage in a sensible and respectful way. There are many things to explore in what he said. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North has caught the attention of a lot of Members with her private Member’s Bill. She highlighted what is arguably an illogical approach to licensing, and mentioned the challenge of enforcement, which all Members spoke about. Many Members clearly feel that the enforcement regime is not working as it should. There may be a number of reasons for that. She also mentioned the impact on children with special educational needs and on guide dogs, and the impact of online sales, which were not something of which we were cognisant when fireworks were last legislated for. Those were important points. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West is not in her place, but her constituency contains Edinburgh Zoo, where Roxie the panda cub sadly died. That graphically brings home the impact that fireworks can have on animals. She was right to highlight the irony of a zoo doing its utmost to protect an endangered species but losing an animal through the deliberate and possibly unthinking acts of humans. There are many elements to this. We must recognise that for many people and animals, noise and disruption can be challenging. That is why we have had this debate today and why many people have signed the petition. We must recognise that for the many people who use and enjoy fireworks responsibly, they are an important part of their life for enjoying celebrations with family and friends, and as part of the wider community. We know they are a popular product: the industry is valued at £200 million a year. Research published by the Social Market Foundation showed that 77% of the public like fireworks a lot or somewhat. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford said, about 14 million Britons—a significant number of people—plan to have their own displays each year. However, the research also showed that only 15% of people in Great Britain want the regulations to stay as they are. It was clear from the debate that a lot of Members share that view. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge mentioned, there is potential for alternatives, including the use of light displays, drones and lasers. The use of alternatives was also highlighted in the Social Market Foundation report. As Members have said, the Petitions Committee launched an inquiry into the sale and use of fireworks in 2019, which gave people the opportunity to raise their concerns. I believe it attracted more than 350 written submissions. The Committee made a number of recommendations but did not, in the end, advocate for a total ban on fireworks. I think it recognised the concern that doing so would create a black market. When we look at the possibility of a total ban, we must recognise that an extensive regulatory framework for fireworks already exists. We should also recognise that, particularly in Scotland, there have been a number of developments in trying to regulate them. I listened with great interest to what my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow South West and Edinburgh South West said about their experiences of that system. They both talked about the horrendous injuries that police officers and other public servants have received, and why it is so important for them to get control of the issue. When my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West said that a lot of this is just lawlessness, he hit the nail on the head. That feels such a long way away from the displays that many Members talked about from their youth. How we have gone from that innocent, joyful experience to downright anarchy is a sad indictment, I am afraid. I also noted my hon. Friend’s question about whether exclusion zones have been as effective as we would have liked. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East suggested that their application had not been as good as we would have liked. There are certainly things we need to look at from the experience of Glasgow and Edinburgh so far, to understand whether that tool is fit for purpose. Under the Fireworks Act 2003, the Fireworks Regulations 2004 introduced a package of measures to reduce the nuisance and injuries caused by the misuse of fireworks, which forms part of the broader public concern with the problems of antisocial behaviour. As we know, there is an 11 pm curfew for the use of fireworks, with later exceptions only for the traditional firework periods of 5 November, Diwali, new year’s eve and Chinese new year, as well as for local authority displays, celebrations and events. In addition, the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015 include a 120 dB noise limit on the fireworks available to consumers. It should be said that the majority of people who use fireworks do so appropriately and have a sensible and responsible attitude to them, but, as we have heard this afternoon, too many people use them in a dangerous, inconsiderate or antisocial manner. The police, local authorities and other local agencies have a range of tools and powers that they can use to respond to antisocial behaviour, including the antisocial use of fireworks offence through the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Going even further back, the Explosives Act 1875 made it an offence to throw, cast or fire a firework into a highway, street, thoroughfare or public place, demonstrating that it is sadly not a new problem. Members have referred to the different categories of fireworks. It is worth setting out the fact that retailers must not sell low or medium-hazard fireworks, known as F2 and F3 fireworks, to anyone under the age of 18. Category F1, classed as very low hazard, cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 16. F4 fireworks are the most hazardous and can be sold only to those with specialist knowledge who have undertaken training recognised in the fireworks business and who hold a valid liability insurance. It is also an offence for anyone under the age of 18 to possess an F2, F3 or F4 firework in a public place, or for anyone to possess an F4 firework unless it is for specified professional reasons. Those offences can attract a £90 on-the-spot fine or, on summary conviction, up to six months’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine. Retailers are restricted to selling consumer fireworks during a limited period around each of the seasonal celebrations that I have mentioned. Retailers may supply fireworks to the public outside of those periods only if they obtain a licence from their local licensing authority, so fireworks are less available to purchase outside those seasons. There are storage limits and strict rules around how and where fireworks are stored in business premises—the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth is not an example of how they should be adhered to.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Fireworks: Sale and Use · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I think I have already recognised and acknowledged that there is a slight incongruity about how it works, which is something we will consider as we move forward. Local authority trading standards work with retailers to ensure that fireworks are sold safely, and they have powers to enforce. Again, we have heard questions about whether that is currently sufficient. Trading standards can also enforce against those selling fireworks without an appropriate licence—for example, outside the normal selling period. But it is clear from the debate that some Members feel the current legislation is not only inadequate but is not being enforced properly. Some Members mentioned the issue of noise. We recognise the impact of fireworks on vulnerable people, including veterans and those with post-traumatic stress disorder, and animals. That, along with antisocial use, is a key concern, as I have heard on a number of occasions. This year I launched a fireworks campaign to provide guidance on minimising their negative impacts. The campaign was well received on social media and shared by our key enforcement partners. But of course those who were determined to cause trouble and those who do not have any respect for others will not take heed of that. Various animal charities have published guidance on how to protect animals during the fireworks season. We will continue to work collaboratively with animal welfare organisations, alongside other charities, to ensure that the messaging reaches the public.

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

  More

  I think it is fair to say that we signalled our intention to repeal the 2023 Act shortly after taking office. It had not actually been implemented, so it is not a case of creating additional burdens. I am sure the shadow Minister will concede that if we had allowed it to take its course, it would have created a set of regulations, involving time and expense, that would only have been replaced in short order with another set of rules. The problem with the 2023 Act is that it would still create a huge power imbalance for the employer, as the Low Pay Commission recognised when it expressed its concerns. Question put and agreed to. Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 Exclusivity terms in zero hours arrangements Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  Schedule 1 will make various amendments to the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Among those amendments, which are consequential on clauses 1 to 3, I highlight the insertion of proposed new section 47H of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to make provision for a worker not to be subject to detriment on various grounds relating to the right to guaranteed hours. The employer cannot penalise the worker for accepting an offer of a guaranteed hours contract, for example, or for challenging an offer that is not in compliance with the obligations on the employer regarding guaranteed hours. Amendments have been made to extend these detriment provisions to situations in which a worker brings a claim or alleges the existence of a claim in relation to a breach of the duties relating to information rights and notice requirements. The detriment provisions are also extended to situations in which a worker suffers a detriment because they qualify for the right to guaranteed hours or the employer believes that they do. Whether a detriment has occurred in such instances will of course be for an employment tribunal to determine. Likewise, the employer cannot penalise the worker for declining to work a shift that the worker reasonably believed was offered with unreasonable notice. This is an important right that helps to address the potential power imbalance between an employer and a worker who is seeking to enforce their statutory rights. Schedule 1 will also insert proposed new section 104BA of the Employment Rights Act, which makes provision for an employee to be treated as unfairly dismissed if the reason—or principal reason—for the dismissal is that the employee accepted or rejected, or proposed to accept or reject, an offer of guaranteed hours. Likewise, an employee will be treated as unfairly dismissed if the employer was under a duty to offer guaranteed hours but the employer dismissed the employee during the reference period to avoid having to comply with that duty. Amendments have been made to ensure that unfair dismissal protections extend to cases where a worker is dismissed because the employer believes they have a duty to offer guaranteed hours, even if that belief is mistaken.

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

  More

  We have had a good debate. Most Members have spoken positively about the need for this change. Obviously, this was a measure brought in temporarily by the previous Government, during covid. They recognised the particular issue at the time. Before I turn to the shadow Minister’s comments, I wish him the best of luck in the Mid-Buckinghamshire pantomime. I hope he does not become the George Lazenby of the Conservative party as a result. He raised two perfectly reasonable questions. The first was on Northern Ireland. I can assure him that it was not an oversight. It has been introduced as an amendment because, as this is a transferred power to Northern Ireland, we need their consent before it can be included. I think he will understand that putting it in without getting that agreement might have been counterproductive. On the second point that the shadow Minister made, about abuse of the provision, of course employers already have the power to deal with employees whom they feel are falsely taking time off sick. Whether that is day four or day one, those powers are already there. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby made a very powerful speech to highlight the impact on particular groups. The evidence we heard from the Women’s Budget Group last week was particularly important in that respect. Other Members who spoke, my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Northfield and for Stratford and Bow, raised a whole plethora of examples with pieces of evidence in support of the policy. I think it is one that is generally supported. To deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee Central about the level of statutory sick pay, he may not have seen my opining on SSP at the evidence session last week, or the famous comments from the former Health Secretary about it not being enough to live on. I recognise that. Unfortunately, however, I have to give him the stock answer, which is that the actual level is set by the Department for Work and Pensions. He made a fair point about people on long-term sick, because there is a huge interplay between people on long-term sick and the benefits system, but it is in the Department’s gift to set the rate and to look at how it interplays with accessibility to other benefits, which of course depends on people’s individual circumstances. Question put and agreed to . Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 9 Statutory sick pay: lower earnings limit etc

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

  More

  Clause 8 provides for the removal of the waiting period from the statutory sick pay system, meaning that all eligible employees are able to access statutory sick pay from the first day of sickness absence. The current system of waiting until the fourth day of sickness before SSP is paid means that many people are forced to make the difficult choice between going into work when they are unwell or receiving no income. That is bad for individuals but also bad for business. Removing the waiting period will support employees in taking the time off they need to recover from illness and reduce the spread of infection. Under the current rules, the system encourages workers to drag themselves into work when they are unwell. The TUC gave an example of workers in a mental health hospital in Blackpool who had to go on strike because they did not have access to day one sick pay and could not afford to take the day off. Those NHS workers felt that they were being forced to go into work. Obviously, they work in a clinical environment, so they were also putting patients at risk.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 53, in schedule 1, page 109, line 30, leave out “last” and insert “latest”. This amendment and amendment 54 concern the calculation of a week’s pay for the purposes of an award of compensation by an employment tribunal following a complaint under proposed section 27BF of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The amendments ensure that the rules work for all such complaints.

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

  More

  The very issue that the hon. Member is putting forward in his amendment is the issue that the Department for Work and Pensions is consulting on at the moment, which is why it would be premature to make a decision at this stage.

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

  More

  I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s comments. I have been reflecting on his scenario from this morning. Actually, the first thing I thought about over lunch was how the employer would be checking that the individual was up and dressed at 5 o’clock in the morning to make sure he had complied with the terms of his contract. However, the intention behind the Bill is to make sure that we do not get into lots of debates about whether someone is covered by this legislation or whether everyone who is in some sort of arrangement or contract is covered by it. Of course, if they do not wish to have an offer of guaranteed hours, they are entitled under the legislation not to accept it. I think that this clause will bring clarity and consistency across the board in that respect. Question put and agreed to. Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 Right to request flexible working

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

  More

  I think there was a suggestion there that we may favour one stakeholder group over another. I assure the shadow Minister that when we tot up the engagements that we have had so far, the number of businesses and business organisations is far in excess of the number of trade unions. Actually, we want to consult with everyone, broadly: we do not think that there should be an arbitrary limit on who we discuss this with. On the time limits, the “Next Steps” document is very clear about the timetable. If it takes more time, it takes more time. We do not want to rush the Bill through and create unintended consequences of the type that the shadow Minister is rightly concerned about. We want to get it right. That is why we are committed to consulting as we go forward.

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

  More

  I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s questions. I feel that we are embarking on an employment law masterclass, although I am not sure that I consider myself a master. The first point was about how an individual would demonstrate that an employer had believed that they were entitled to particular rights and therefore had reason for dismissal. It is akin to existing case law and legal precedents from other jurisdictions: a set of facts can be presented to the employment tribunal to determine its judgment. I accept that it is not the easiest thing to prove, but that is how the law is currently structured and there will be no departure from that. On the second point, clearly we would not want this to have the unintended consequence of not relating to a dismissal during the reference period. Proposed new section 104BA(3) logically demonstrates that if there is a termination during the reference period, the same protections would still apply. I am happy to seek further advice, but my understanding is that the Bill, as drafted, covers that situation. Clearly we would not want a loophole of that nature. I hope that that deals with the shadow’s Minister’s questions. Amendment 50 agreed to . Amendments made: 51, in schedule 1, page 108, leave out lines 39 to 41. This amendment removes a requirement about the timing of a dismissal from proposed section 104BA(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Amendment 52, in schedule 1, page 109, leave out line 1. — (Justin Madders.) This amendment is consequential on amendment 51.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 50, in schedule 1, page 108, line 34, at end insert— “or the employer believes that that duty so applies, and”. This amendment extends proposed section 104BA(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (dismissal is unfair if done to avoid giving a worker a guaranteed hours offer to which the worker is entitled under proposed section 27BA of that Act) to a case where an employer believes a worker is entitled to such an offer.

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

  More

  Amendment 53 will ensure that the provisions in section 225 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 on the calculation date for the purposes of calculating a week’s pay will work in relation to the new right to guaranteed hours. It is a small amendment: it will replace the word “last” with “latest” to reflect the fact that the date of termination will not necessarily correspond with the final day of the reference period. It sits alongside Government amendment 54; combined, the amendments will ensure that there is clarity for employment tribunals on calculating a week’s pay for the purpose of determining compensation for a well-founded complaint brought under proposed new section 27BF. The maximum number of weeks’ pay that may be awarded by a tribunal for a claim brought under proposed new section 27BF is to be defined in regulations.

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

  More

  That is a reasonable question. It is another Department’s consultation so there are only so many levers I can pull, but I envisage that the amendment will be tabled at Report stage at the latest. I hope that is sufficiently clear. Question put and agreed to. Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)

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

  More

  Clause 6 will amend section 27B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to reflect the new definition of “zero hours arrangement” in clause 4, which will apply to the whole of part 2A. As has been discussed in relation to clause 4, the definition has been amended to ensure that it does not inadvertently exclude any zero-hours workers in cases where they have a contract with the employer but the contract does not, in itself, make them a worker. The definition of “zero hours arrangement” captures those who have an arrangement to work for their employer when work is provided but have no obligation to accept work, and the employer has no obligation to provide it. Such an arrangement between the employer and the individual could, however, include other obligations that amount to a contract, albeit that they are not a workers’ contract. The clause will ensure that individuals caught in that situation are also covered by the Bill. On a technical point—I put this on the record for clarity—the definition of “non-contractual zero hours arrangements” in section 27B of the 1996 Act is amended by clause 6, but a new definition for the whole of part 2A will be inserted by clause 4. The definition of “non-contractual zero hours arrangements” in part 2A is being changed by clause 6, as well as being inserted by clause 4, which may well be commenced after clause 6 for the rest of the provisions. The changes in clause 6 will ensure that the definition in section 27B operates as intended before the commencement of other provisions on zero-hours arrangements. The definition in section 27B will then be repealed on commencement of the other provisions, as is provided for in schedule 1. I hope that that was clear to everyone. I commend the clause to the Committee.

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

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for that helpful run-through of some of the issues that we are actively considering. He will be aware that a consultation on the issue closed only yesterday, so I would not want to pre-empt the outcome by accepting the amendment today. We understand the various arguments he has advanced that the level should be higher. He will not be surprised to hear that contrary arguments are put forward by some groups around having an incentive to take sick days when they are not needed. Some of the modelling figures that the hon. Gentleman has come up with do not quite fit with the ones we have on where people would lose out at certain rates, but that will be considered in the round when we formally respond to the consultation. We hope to do so early in the new year, because we wish to put this into the Bill before it finishes its progress. It is something we are actively considering at the moment. I should be grateful if he would withdraw the amendment, so that we can take full account of the consultation that we have just completed.

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

  More

  I am sure that was in “GoldenEye”!

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. As is now our custom, I will start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions. Government amendment 50 will expand the existing protections for employees who are dismissed as a result of employers seeking to avoid the new duty to offer guaranteed hours. It will ensure that an employee who is dismissed because their employer believes that the right to guaranteed hours applies will benefit from unfair dismissal protections. As drafted, the provisions apply only if the duty to offer guaranteed hours actually applies. That could leave a loophole whereby an employee who is dismissed because their employer mistakenly believes that the obligation applies would have no protection from unfair dismissal. All employees deserve protection from unfair dismissal, whether or not they are eligible for guaranteed hours. The amendment will ensure that equal protection is in place. Government amendment 51 is a small amendment that will remove wording in the Bill about when the termination of a worker must take effect in order for them to be regarded as unfairly dismissed for the purpose of proposed new section 104BA(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Government have concluded that there is no need to set out when the termination occurred. The amendment will make the Bill’s meaning clearer, as it is logical from its provisions that that would be during a reference period or the corresponding offer period. Remaining silent on the effective date of termination also follows the precedent set for other rights under the 1996 Act. Government amendment 52 is consequential on Government amendment 51.

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

  More

  Clause 9 provides for the removal of the requirement for an employee to earn at or above the lower earnings limit to be eligible for SSP. This requirement means that currently up to 1.3 million people, primarily women, are not entitled to receive SSP from their employer. This group are some of the lowest-paid in society, meaning that they and their families are most at risk of financial hardship if they cannot work. The clause ensures that all eligible employees can access statutory sick pay and the peace of mind it brings when they need to take time off due to illness. However, we do not want to create a situation where anyone is entitled to receive more through SSP than they would otherwise earn. The clause therefore provides that an employee will be entitled to a certain percentage of their average weekly earnings or the current flat rate of SSP, whichever is lower. The clause therefore includes a power for the Secretary of State to determine that percentage rate by secondary legislation. However, it is our intention that the percentage rate is enshrined in primary legislation. I hope that gives the hon. Member for Dundee Central some comfort. We therefore published a consultation, which closed on 4 December, asking respondents what that percentage rate should be. We will now take time to carefully consider the responses we have received, before tabling an amendment to the Bill. The changes that we are bringing in through the Bill will mean that up to 1.3 million low-paid employees will now be entitled to statutory sick pay and all eligible employees will be paid from the first day of sickness absence irrespective of their income, which will of course benefit millions of employees. It is important to highlight that many employers choose to go further and provide more financial support to their employees during a sickness absence, with around 60% of all eligible employees being entitled to contractual sick pay. Those who need additional financial support while off sick are able to claim additional benefits through the welfare system, depending on their individual circumstances. New clause 6 extends to Northern Ireland the benefits of strengthening statutory sick pay by removing the requirement to earn at least the lower earnings limit and creating a new percentage rate. These measures will ensure that all eligible employees have access to statutory sick pay irrespective of their income level, with the peace of mind that this brings when they need to take time off work due to sickness. The clause includes a power for the Minister for Communities to determine that percentage rate by secondary legislation. Statutory sick pay is, as we have discussed, a transferred matter in relation to Northern Ireland. However, Northern Ireland has historically maintained parity with Great Britain on social security matters, including statutory sick pay. The Minister for Communities, Gordon Lyons MLA, has agreed to ask Westminster to legislate on the Northern Ireland Assembly’s behalf and to seek a legislative consent motion for the proposed changes in order to maintain parity in relation to statutory sick pay. Finally, amendment 107 is consequential on new clauses 5 and 6; it limits the extent of the new clauses to Northern Ireland only.

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

  More

  I was not privy to the drafting of individual clauses—the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel does that, and it is a separate organisation from the Department—but I can certainly write to the hon. Gentleman with details on which clauses we expected to be amended. It is fair to say that we expected a number of clauses to be amended when the Bill was published. It is important that we get this right. The Bill is a Bill, not an Act, so it will continue to evolve; there will then be further detailed consultation on implementation and the regulations. That is why I believe that the shadow Minister’s concerns are ill-founded. Question put, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.

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

  More

  I understand the point the hon. Member is making, but he will understand that when a Government Department—in this case the Department for Work and Pensions—undertakes a formal consultation, it is obliged to consider all responses before coming to a conclusion. That is why it is premature to agree to his amendment.

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

  More

  Clause 5 is the first of several clauses that will repeal previous legislation, although it may not be the most controversial of our repeals. The clause will repeal the previous Government’s Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023, which if commenced would have brought in a right for workers to request a more predictable working pattern. Requests could still be turned down by the employer. That approach is clearly different from the right to guaranteed hours that we have set out in the Bill. We do not want to confuse employers and workers with two different models, so the Bill will repeal the 2023 Act entirely. Nevertheless, the work that was done to develop the 2023 Act has been useful in the drafting of our new measures and will continue to be taken into account as we evolve and develop our policies. We want predictability and security to be the baseline in all jobs, creating an economy that works for all. We think responsibility for offering guaranteed hours should therefore rest with the employer. Without guaranteed hours, workers do not have any form of certainty as to their earnings, making it difficult for them to apply for credit or a mortgage, rent a flat, plan for major events such as weddings or holidays, or even manage day-to-day expenses. In addition, when people have a better idea of how many hours they will be working, it is easier for them to organise their family and social life, plan time together and organise travel and childcare—all things that are just so important for the wider welfare of our society. These provisions of the Bill will apply to all employers, levelling the playing field so that best-practice employers are rewarded rather than placed at a competitive disadvantage against employers who want to place risk wholly on the worker.