Justin Madders MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 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.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  That is an interesting question. There is a great interplay with rights for self-employed people. We are committing to a review on that in due course, together with a wider look at the parental leave system. We will get back to the hon. Lady on that.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Paid Employment Leave: Kinship Carers · Hansard source

  More

  We recognise the vital role that kinship carers play in caring for vulnerable children, and the challenges that many face in balancing that care with employment. We recently announced the largest ever investment in support for kinship carers: £40 million to trial a kinship allowance in up to 10 local authorities. We will also review the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports all working families, and work is already under way to plan for that delivery.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Paid Employment Leave: Kinship Carers · Hansard source

  More

  I met a kinship carer in my constituency recently who told me about the challenges the hon. Lady has articulated. The carer said that the most important thing to her was getting respite care—a point that we can all recognise. We are looking at how the trial pans out. I have spoken in detail to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) about the proposals coming forward, but we think it is best to see how the trial works, and to look at the wider review of the parental leave system.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Parental Leave Take-up · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a number of points, which I am sure we will consider as part of the review we are undertaking. The Employment Rights Bill has a number of important measures to support working families, bringing 1.5 million parents into scope for parental leave and another 32,000 into scope for paternity leave. We are keen to build on that and we want to support families who are in work.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Parental Leave Take-up · Hansard source

  More

  The parental rights survey 2019 found that 89% of employee mothers took maternity leave and 70% of employee fathers took paternity leave, but take-up of shared parental leave is much lower. In fact, it is disappointingly low, which is why we are committed to a review of the parental leave system. Work is under way to deliver on that, and I will provide an update in due course.

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

  More

  I gently correct the shadow Minister: we did not forget to engage with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. We were making sure that we had agreement before we tabled amendments, which is why they have appeared as they have today.

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

  More

  I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. On that note, I commend the amendments to the Committee. Amendment 59 agreed to. Amendments made: 60, in clause 25, page 37, line 33, at end insert— “(2A) In section 2 (contracting authorities), after subsection (1) insert— ‘(1A) But see also section 83B(5)(b)(i) (which provides for “contracting authority” to have an extended meaning in relation to certain contracts regulated under Part 5A (outsourcing: protection of workers)).’” See the explanatory statement to amendment 59. Amendment 61, in clause 25, page 37, line 34, leave out subsection (3). See the explanatory statement to amendment 59 - because the new provisions are now being inserted as a new Part of the Procurement Act 2023, there is no longer any need to amend section 100 of that Act. Amendment 62, in clause 25, page 38, line 3, leave out subsection (4) and insert— “(4) In section 122 (regulations)— (a) in subsection (4) (regulations by Ministers of the Crown subject to affirmative procedure), after paragraph (i) insert— ‘(ia) section 83C (provision for inclusion in relevant outsourcing contracts);’ (b) in subsection (10) (regulations by Welsh Ministers subject to affirmative procedure), after paragraph (g) insert— ‘(ga) section 83C (provision for inclusion in relevant outsourcing contracts);’ (c) in subsection (14) (regulations by Scottish Ministers subject to affirmative procedure), before paragraph (a) insert— ‘(za) section 83C (provision to be included in relevant outsourcing contracts); (zb) section 83F (power to amend section 83A, 83B or 83E);’”. See the explanatory statement to amendment 59. Amendment 63, in clause 25, page 38, line 6, at end insert— “(4A) In section 123 (interpretation), in subsection (1), in the definition of ‘appropriate authority’, at the end insert— ‘(but see section 83A(2) for a different meaning of “appropriate authority” in Part 5A (outsourcing: protection of workers));’. (4B) In section 124 (index of defined expressions), for the entry for ‘appropriate authority’ substitute— “appropriate authority (except in Part 5A) section 123 appropriate authority (in Part 5A) section 83A” See the explanatory statement to amendment 59. Amendment 64, in clause 25, page 38, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert— “Part 5A (outsourcing: protection of workers)”.— (Justin Madders.) See the explanatory statement to amendment 59. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 58, in clause 23, page 34, line 27, at end insert— “(3A) In section 197 (power to vary provisions), in subsection (1)— (a) in paragraph (a), for “188(2)” substitute “188(1A)”; (b) in the words after paragraph (b), for “188(2)” substitute “188(1A)”.” This amendment would correct incorrect cross-references in section 197 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 . This is a purely technical amendment to fix an incorrect cross-reference in section 197(1)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 197(1)(a) provides that the Secretary of State may make secondary legislation to amend the minimum time period for collective consultations in section 188(2) of the same Act. However, as I am sure the shadow Minister had already noticed, that reference is incorrect: “section 188(2)” should read “section 188(1A)”. A consequential amendment was missed when section 188 was amended by the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1995. That instrument renumbered section 188(2) as section 188(1A). Of course, it should have also made a consequential amendment to section 197(1)(a), but did not. The amendment will not change the law, which can already be interpreted to refer to the correct cross-reference by way of the Interpretation Act 1978. The 1978 Act provides that where an instrument repeals and re-enacts a provision then, unless the contrary intention appears, any reference in any other enactment to the repealed provision is to be read as a reference to the re-enacted provision. The amendment will improve the clarity and accessibility of the law, which I am sure we will all be relieved to hear.

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

  More

  We are back on fire and rehire again; I should probably count up how many times I have spoken in debates on this issue in the last few years. It has taken a lot of parliamentary time, and rightly so. We all remember the obloquy directed towards P&O when it took those actions, several years ago, and I am afraid that fire and rehire has become far more prevalent in our economy than anyone would want to see. Investigations by the Trades Union Congress found that around 38,000 employers were using fire and rehire as a tactic. Research from the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development found that, between August 2021 and 2023, the proportion of firms that had used fire and rehire had almost doubled. The impact assessment estimates that there are around 178,000 workers facing the threat of fire and rehire at this very moment, so the problem is not going away—indeed, because of the way that P&O has been allowed to get away with it, employers see it as a golden opportunity to take a sword to hard-fought terms and conditions. Other Members have spoken about the household names that have attempted to do that, and USDAW’s written evidence included some notable household names. Once upon a time, fire and rehire was a seldom-used part of the employment law and industrial relations landscape but, as part of the wider pattern of insecurity at work, it has become a much more common tool. I am afraid, as we have seen, it is far too often an act of first—rather than last—resort, and the Government are committed to ending that practice. The solution to dealing with many of the concerns raised by the shadow Minister and others is to point to what good and bad industrial relations look like, and to say, “This is what bad employer practice looks like.” Good employers and industrial relations will take workers with them. Again I refer to USDAW’s written evidence, which noted occasions where negotiations had begun with fire and rehire on the table almost from the start. That is not a healthy place to have sometimes very difficult discussions about changes to terms and conditions. The impact assessment notes that the power asymmetry can provide incentives for the more powerful party, in this case the employer, to act in a strategic manner to suppress wages and conditions. Such tactics are why we have seen such a slump in wage growth over recent years.

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

  More

  Employers are currently obliged to collectively consult when they propose to make 20 or more employees redundant at one establishment. Collective consultations are an important part of ensuring fairness and transparency between employers and employees. In the year to November 2024, approximately 3,500 employers in Great Britain gave notification that they were initiating a collective redundancy process at a single establishment. The benefits of consultation are felt by both employees and employers. Consultation ensures that affected employees can input into the process with a view to avoiding or mitigating redundancies wherever possible, and it helps employers to retain skilled workers and reduce the risk of disputes. That is why the Government intend to strengthen the collective redundancy framework. The clause will amend the framework to ensure that employers must fulfil collective consultation obligations whenever they are proposing 20 or more redundancies, regardless of whether the redundancies take place at one establishment or not. This will ensure that more employees—many of them in vulnerable positions—will now benefit from redundancy consultation, and that affected employees can participate meaningfully in the redundancy process, regardless of how they might be dispersed across an employer’s business. The clause will also make it easier for employers to understand when they have to comply with these obligations. I know that businesses have raised some concerns about the practical implications of the clause and I will take this opportunity to clarify its scope. First, the clause does not mean that employers will need to consult with the entire workforce in their organisation whenever they propose 20 or more redundancies. As is currently the case, they must consult only the relevant trade union or employee representatives of employees being proposed to be made redundant, or those who may be affected by measures implemented as a result of the proposed redundancies, such as relevant line managers. Secondly, when an employer is required to undertake collective consultation with employees across different establishments, they have the flexibility to tailor the process to suit each location. For example, they are not required to undertake a single, uniform consultation across affected locations, but can hold separate consultation activities with each group of affected employees to ensure that discussions are both localised and meaningful.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 59, in clause 25, page 36, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert— “(2) After Part 5 insert— ‘Part 5A Outsourcing: protection of workers 83A Application of this Part (1) This Part provides for a Minister of the Crown, the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers to make provision for the protection of workers in relation to relevant outsourcing contracts (see section 83B). (2) Accordingly, in this Part, “appropriate authority”— (a) means— (i) a Minister of the Crown, (ii) the Scottish Ministers, or (iii) the Welsh Ministers, and (b) does not include a Northern Ireland department. (3) In addition to the restrictions in section 113, a Minister of the Crown— (a) may exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating devolved Scottish authorities only in relation to joint or centralised procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement; (b) may not exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement. (4) The Scottish Ministers— (a) may only exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating— (i) devolved Scottish authorities, or (ii) procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement; (b) may not exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating— (i) joint or centralised procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement, or (ii) joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement. (5) In addition to the restrictions in section 111, the Welsh Ministers— (a) may exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating devolved Scottish authorities only in relation to joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement; (b) may not exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement. (6) This Part does not apply in relation to— (a) a private utility; (b) a person referred to in regulation 4(1)(b) of the Utilities Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2016 (S.S.I. 2016/49); (c) a devolved Welsh authority listed in Schedule 1 of the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023 (asc 1); (d) procurement under a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement, except to the extent that the procurement— (i) is carried out by a devolved Scottish authority, and (ii) is not joint or centralised; (e) a transferred Northern Ireland authority, except in relation to— (i) procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement, (ii) procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement, or (iii) procurement under a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement. (7) For the purposes of this section, procurement under a procurement arrangement is “joint or centralised” if as part of that procurement arrangement a contract is to be awarded following a procedure or other selection process carried out— (a) jointly by a devolved Scottish authority and another contracting authority which is not a devolved Scottish authority, or (b) by a centralised procurement authority or equivalent body. 83B Relevant outsourcing contracts (1) In this Part, “relevant outsourcing contract” means a contract in relation to which conditions A to C are met. (2) Condition A is met where the contract— (a) is a public contract under this Act, or (b) is a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation. (3) Condition B is met where the contract— (a) is a contract for the supply of services that include the performance of functions that are or have previously been performed by the contracting authority, or (b) is— (i) in the case of a public contract, a framework for the future award of a contract referred to in paragraph (a), or (ii) in the case of a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation, a framework agreement the purpose of which is to establish the terms governing a contract referred to in paragraph (a). (4) Condition C is met where the functions referred to in subsection (3)(a) are, or are expected to be, performed by individuals (“transferring workers”) who— (a) in performing the functions, are employed by the supplier or a sub-contractor under a worker’s contract, and (b) were employed by the contracting authority under a worker’s contract in performing functions of the same kind. (5) For the purposes of this Part— (a) “contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation” means a contract the procurement of which by a devolved Scottish authority is regulated by Scottish procurement legislation; (b) in relation to a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation— (i) “contracting authority” means a devolved Scottish authority that is a contracting authority within the meaning of the relevant Scottish procurement legislation; (ii) “framework agreement” has the same meaning as in the relevant Scottish procurement legislation; (iii) “supplier” means an economic operator within the meaning of the relevant Scottish procurement legislation; (iv) “the relevant Scottish procurement legislation” means the Scottish procurement legislation regulating the procurement of the contract. 83C Power to specify provision for inclusion in relevant outsourcing contracts (1) An appropriate authority may by regulations specify provision to be included in a relevant outsourcing contract for the purpose of ensuring that— (a) transferring workers of a specified description are treated no less favourably as workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor than they were as workers of the contracting authority, and (b) workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor who are not transferring workers and are of a specified description are treated no less favourably than those transferring workers. (2) In carrying out the procurement of a relevant outsourcing contract, the contracting authority must— (a) take all reasonable steps to ensure that provision specified under subsection (1) is included in the contract; (b) where provision specified under subsection (1) is included in the contract, take all reasonable steps to secure that such provision is complied with. (3) Subsection (2) does not apply— (a) where the contracting authority or the relevant outsourcing contract is of a specified description, or (b) in specified circumstances. (4) In this section, “specified” means specified in regulations made by an appropriate authority. 83D Code of practice on relevant outsourcing contracts (1) An appropriate authority must prepare and publish a code of practice containing guidance to contracting authorities for the purpose of ensuring that, where a contracting authority carries out the procurement of a relevant outsourcing contract— (a) transferring workers of a description specified in the code are treated no less favourably as workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor than they were as workers of the contracting authority, and (b) workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor who are not transferring workers and are of a description specified in the code are treated no less favourably than those transferring workers. (2) An appropriate authority— (a) may amend or replace a code published by it under subsection (1), and (b) must publish any amended or replacement code. (3) A code published under subsection (1) or (2) must— (a) in the case of a code published by a Minister of the Crown, be laid before Parliament; (b) in the case of a code published by the Scottish Ministers, be laid before the Scottish Parliament; (c) in the case of a code published by the Welsh Ministers, be laid before Senedd Cymru. (4) In carrying out the procurement of a relevant outsourcing contract, the contracting authority must have regard to the code of practice for the time being published under subsection (1) or (2). (5) This section does not require an appropriate authority to do anything which the authority does not have power to do (see section 83A and Part 11). 83E Interpretation of this Part (1) In this Part— “appropriate authority” has the meaning given in section 83A(2); “contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation” has the meaning given in section 83B(5)(a); “relevant outsourcing contract” has the meaning given in section 83B; “transferring worker”, in relation to a relevant outsourcing contract, has the meaning given in section 83B(4); “worker” and “worker’s contract” have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (see section 230 of that Act). (2) For the purposes of this Part, in relation to a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation, “contracting authority”, “framework agreement”, “supplier” and “the relevant Scottish procurement legislation” have the meaning given in section 83B(5)(b). 83F Power of Scottish Ministers to amend this Part The Scottish Ministers may by regulations modify section 83A, 83B or 83E in consequence of a modification of Scottish procurement legislation.’” This amendment would restructure the new provisions to be inserted into the Procurement Act 2023 so that the powers and duties extend to the Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers and devolved Scottish and Welsh authorities. The amendment also clarifies that the duty to publish a code of practice does not depend on the making of the regulations.

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

  More

  I am pleased to see that we have support all round. Question put and agreed to. Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 25 Public sector outsourcing: protection of workers

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

  More

  The shadow Minister will be pleased to hear that we have picked the error up at this stage, so that when the Bill is enacted it will of course be absolutely correct. Amendment 58 agreed to. Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I recognise that the shadow Minister welcomed the clarification I provided. No doubt there will be debate to come, as is often the case with legal issues, but the Government are fairly clear and confident that the clause will not have the unintended consequences we heard raised in evidence. The shadow Minister asked, “Why 20?” He will pleased to know that that was a product of EU regulation. It is in existing law as part of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which has been amended many times, so I could not say exactly when it came into force, but—

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

  More

  Yes, they do get worse—it is Thursday afternoon. The shadow Minister did raise some important points, though. He gave the example of a dairy and its changing practices. Of course, a change in job function does not necessarily mean that terms and conditions have to change or indeed become worse. History is full of examples where technology has come in and made jobs different. As we look forward to the advent of automation and AI in our economy, I hope that people find new jobs and new roles and that those jobs are more fulfilling as a result of technological development. I will say a few words about the comments from the hon. Member for Bridgwater. We are talking about overall impacts in this Bill of 0.4% of employers’ total costs—a very small price to pay for a comprehensive set of reforms that really are needed for workers. It is about rooting out bad practices and making sure that those bad employers, who we all rightly condemn, are not able to exploit existing loopholes. It is about stopping the race to the bottom. It is about creating a level playing field. One reason why P&O said that it took the action that it did was that its competitors were undercutting it. We do not want to see that race to the bottom continue. We want to see good employers rewarded for respecting and rewarding their employees well by being able to compete on a level playing field. The general thrust of the shadow Minister’s remarks was interesting. There is nothing to stop an employee agreeing to changes to terms and conditions. Indeed, proposed new section 104I(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 makes it clear that these provisions will not apply if the employee agrees to the changes. Changes and discussions happen every day of the week in industry—that is called negotiation, and that is what good industrial relations looks like. That is the sort of thing that we want to encourage. We are trying to stop a situation that we have seen far too often, where an employer might just say, “Well, here are your new terms and conditions. If you don’t like it, there’s the door.” That, I am afraid, has become far too prevalent in our country. We have heard plenty of evidence about how many employers have been doing that. It is about recognising that there is a loophole in the law. This may be a probing amendment, but it would certainly make this clause ineffective, and arguably, it would make the situation worse than the status quo, because it would effectively legitimise some of those actions by employers. They could point to this legislation and say, “Well, the law says that we are able to do it.” The way the amendment worded is quite broad. There is a reference to “outdated” terms and conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield gave a good example of where reasonable dialogue between the trade union and the employer would see that change. The shadow Minister’s old colleague, Jacob Rees-Mogg, might have a different view about what “outdated” means. He might think anything after 1874 could be considered modern — [Interruption.] He probably does, yes. There would be very broad latitude for an employer to say that something was outdated. That is why I am concerned that the amendment would make things worse than they are now. The Bill as drafted makes it very clear what the obligations of a responsible employer are. They are the sort of things that responsible employers do already. We recognise that there will be unfortunate situations in which an employer has no alternative but to change terms and conditions, but the Bill makes sure that, if there is a positive for the employees—there often is from a change in terms of conditions; that is what negotiations often involve—there is a way for that to continue. We are not going to stop that. If employees consent to changes, they will be able to be made under this Bill. I urge the shadow Minister not to press the amendment to a vote.