Justin Madders MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise the important points made by hon. Members in this debate. This issue is being actively considered. Liability for damage caused by defective products is an important area of law, and we agree that there is scope for improvements to the legislation—or modernisation, if we want to describe it in that way—but they need to be made in a considered way. As hon. Members have said, technological advancements and the development of new supply chains since the passage of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 indicate the breadth of change since our liability regime was last updated. We therefore need to carefully consider the range and types of products that should now be in scope of liability claims, as well as who should be liable. It is important to note that one of the reasons why we cannot accept the new clause is that product liability extends beyond products in scope of the Bill—for example, it covers food and medical devices—so an alternative legislative vehicle may be more appropriate for making updates in this area. I can confirm to the Committee that we have asked the Law Commission to conduct a full and comprehensive review of product liability legislation and make suggestions for reform. We expect the commission to report back next year, and we will legislate if necessary to ensure that product liability laws are up to date and fit for the future. I hope that reassures hon. Members that we are alive to this issue and actively taking steps to ensure that when we update legislation, we consider the myriad developments in the world.

• 15 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for moving his new clause, although he is pushing his luck asking for another meeting straight off the back of his previous speech. We absolutely recognise the crucialness of the enforcement work done by local authorities. It has become clear that the existing framework of layered, complex legislation is part of the problem—part of the drain on resources—and one of the reasons why the Bill is necessary. The selective implementation of new tools such as civil monetary penalties should further assist in providing more proportionate routes for enforcement authorities to use their enforcement activities, which the Bill addresses. Clause 8 enables the implementation of cost-recovery powers for relevant authorities, and the Office for Product Safety and Standards, in its role as national regulator, supports local authority enforcement teams with training, access to experts, direct support on cases and ringfenced funding for specific projects. The regulator has a dedicated function in respect of communication with local authorities and takes its role extremely seriously. It will provide support on nationally significant cases if local authorities are faced with unco-operative businesses, be they existing supply chain actors or new ones. [ Interruption. ] Was that a request for an intervention? Perhaps it was agreement. Local authority enforcement is a much broader area of consumer protection than product regulation, which is of course the scope of the Bill. This legislation is not the right vehicle for a review because it is singly focused on product regulation, whereas local consumer protection is a much broader policy area. I invite the hon. Member for Wokingham to withdraw his new clause.

• 15 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As Opposition Members have articulated, the new clause would provide for a delay to the Secretary of State’s implementation of regulatory changes in Great Britain where Northern Ireland Assembly Members provide notification of triggering the Stormont brake on similar regulatory changes in Northern Ireland. That delay would persist until the Government make a determination on that notification. I am sorry that Opposition Members feel that the Windsor framework is not up to scratch any more, but we take our responsibilities under it extremely seriously. The Bill does not alter or restrict the Windsor framework scrutiny mechanisms given to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The shadow Minister questioned the Prime Minister’s commitment to Northern Ireland, and I would remind her that he was in fact Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland for a number of years before his election to this place. If the new clause were accepted and the Stormont brake were triggered by the Assembly on a particular EU regulation, it would delay the Government from providing certainty on the regulatory approach that we might take and it would cut across the devolution settlement, none of which is the intention of the Bill. The Stormont brake is about EU regulations, but this new clause would prevent UK Ministers from legislating on our own rules, which I am sure is not the shadow Minister’s intention. It is also worth saying that the new clause, as drafted, is inoperable. It refers to the incorrect provisions giving effect to the Stormont brake, which are contained in schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Again, we have had an awful lot of talk about the EU. We have had a little ride on the ghost train, and nothing that Opposition Members have said bears any relation to the reality of what is in this Bill. I therefore ask that the new clause be withdrawn.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendment 23 would prevent the naming in regulations of “relevant authorities”. That would render enforcement of the Bill impossible, so clearly it is not an amendment that we will accept. Local authority enforcement officers conduct the majority of product safety and metrology enforcement activities, and the Office for Product Safety and Standards is the national regulator. Other regulators are also responsible for enforcement, including the Health and Safety Executive, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the Office of Communications and the Office of Rail and Road. There is an indicative list in the explanatory notes to the Bill and the code of conduct. We need to be clear in clause 3 because it is important that the authorities are able to enforce in a targeted way when regulations are created. The Bill places sensible and important restrictions on those who may be named as a “relevant authority”. Only those who are fulfilling a public function will be given powers under the Bill. That is set out in subsections (2) and (3).

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chippenham for making a clear argument about the importance of the circular economy. The amendments she spoke to seek to mandate that all product regulations made under the Bill require an environmental impact assessment, as well as provisions related to the right to repair and the circular economy. As Members will be aware, under the duty set out in the Environment Act 2021, Ministers and policymakers must already consider the environmental impact of all new Government policies. That has been reflected on and set out in more detail in the code of conduct, to which I referred Members today and which was in response to suggestions from Members of the other place on the kinds of issues to put forward in that code. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has set moving to a zero-waste economy as one of the top five priorities of the Department. To support that, he has committed to work with a wide range of stakeholders to develop a circular economy strategy and a series of sectoral reform road maps to deliver a circular economy transition. It would therefore be inappropriate to introduce a definition of the circular economy in legislation at this time. Turning to the right to repair, it is important to note that product regulations made under the Bill will cover many types of products, some of which may be inappropriate to repair, such as cosmetics. The Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021 introduced measures including requirements for repairability for the first time in Great Britain. Those regulations contribute to our circular economy objectives by increasing the lifespan, maintenance and waste handling of energy-related products. The Government’s aim is to introduce further right to repair measures when regulating individual products under the ecodesign for energy-related products regulations where appropriate. As those powers exist, it is unnecessary to amend the Bill in the manner being suggested. I thank the hon. Member for Chippenham for her contributions, but hope that I have demonstrated why such amendments would be inappropriate and unnecessary due to existing legislation or work being done elsewhere across Government. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrat spokesperson tempts me to set out a statement of policy, which the Bill is not intended to do. We want to give ourselves maximum flexibility in our ability to deal with issues as they arise. He talked in his speech about online marketplaces, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) talked about unsafe toys and button batteries, citing the fact that investigations have discovered that up to 90% of products purchased in online marketplaces are unsafe. Because we recognise that online marketplaces are in desperate need of regulation, the Bill will give us powers to clarify and modernise responsibilities for online marketplaces in a flexible and proportionate way, to protect consumers and create a fair playing field for law-abiding businesses. It will enable the Government to modernise the responsibilities of online supply chain actors. While the growth of e-commerce has provided consumers with greater choice and convenience, it cannot be at the expense of consumer safety. We will continue to engage with consumer groups, businesses and online marketplaces in the development of specific online marketplace requirements to ensure that they are proportionate and to mitigate any costs to consumers. I can also confirm that it is the intention of the Government to consult on the duties for online marketplaces soon after Royal Assent and to bring forward subsequent regulations as soon as is practically possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) spoke with his customary passion about the ceramics industry in the Potteries. I acknowledge his ideas for protecting the industry. I am not sure whether this Bill is the right vehicle for his suggestion, but I will take it away and come back to him. It is probably worth talking about the issue that seemed to vex Opposition Members rather a lot, which is whether this Bill is in some way a reset to EU laws by the back door. It is about domestic regulation and we are not rejoining the EU by the back door. The Bill is about giving us flexibility to ensure product regulation, now and in the future, that is tailored to the needs of the UK. Of course, there will be some instances when we will want to take a similar approach to the EU, but there will be other times when we will want to take our own approach. Those decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 gave significant powers to the Executive, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham, quoted me on that Act. It reformed 7,000 regulations, ranging across every function of society. Its regulations were far broader than those proposed in this Bill and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee called it “hyper-skeletal”, which is some way beyond the criticisms it levelled against this Bill. Turning to the reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition, it is worth restating that the Bill is not about rejoining the EU. David Cameron commented that he wanted the Conservative party to “stop banging on about Europe”, but there seems to be some way to go before his words reach fruition, despite the fact that we left five years ago. The Bill gives us the necessary powers to ensure public regulation, now and in the future, meets the interests of the UK. The powers set out in the Bill will be used solely and exclusively in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers. I recognise that the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee raised concerns about this being a skeleton Bill, but the Government have considered those concerns and other representations made by Members in the other place. Our existing product regulations are necessary to keep consumers safe, and to provide clarity and a level playing field for businesses. They extend to many thousands of pages and cover a huge amount of technical detail. As the noble and learned Lord Pannick said in the other place, “the practical reality is that technical regulations of the breadth and complexity that will be produced cannot sensibly be enacted by primary legislation.” He went on to say that if we are required to use primary legislation every time we wanted to make a regulation on product safety, there would be “little, if any, time for anything else.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 2025; Vol. 843, c. 1716.] Conservative Members seem to have forgotten that since the Consumer Protection Act 1987, Governments of all stripes have recognised the need to make product safety regulations by secondary legislation. Since 1987, the Conservatives have been in power for 24 years, so they had more than enough time to find another way of dealing with product safety, but they did not choose to do that. We are taking a pragmatic approach. We have taken notice of some of the concerns raised about the powers of the Bill: we have removed a number of Henry VIII powers, introduced a consultation requirement, added additional affirmative resolution procedures and published a code of conduct that sets out the controls that we will have to ensure regulations are proportionate and evidence based. I am grateful to Members of the other place for setting out some of their concerns. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), pointed out, the Conservatives did not introduce the Bill in the last Parliament; I am happy to confirm that that was the case. That shows that there was a gap in the law that needed filling and the Conservatives failed to act on it. Some of the important consumer groups in this country, such as Which?, recognised that action was needed. Sue Davies, head of consumer rights, protections and food policy said: “It’s encouraging that the government is prioritising a Bill that should address the huge gap in consumer protections which allows online marketplaces to facilitate the sale of unsafe and illegal products without facing repercussions.” If Members vote for the reasoned amendment, we will not be having any of those protections. I do not think any responsible party would move an amendment along those lines. This Government are never going to compromise on safety. The Bill is essential to strengthening the rules and regulations needed to protect consumers, businesses and the public. I therefore commend the Bill to the House. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Double British Summer Time · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing this debate. I am grateful for her insights and remarks on this important topic, which, as she explained, impacts on everyone’s lives in one way or another. She described the clocks changing as a bit of a faff, which I think we can all appreciate. She then went on to discuss the reasons she advocates for this change in great detail. In my remarks, I will go on to explain why there are also potential negatives to what is being proposed. As my hon. Friend mentioned, seasonal clock changes were first proposed in the early 1900s to extend daylight hours for recreation, to improve health and to save on lighting costs. At the time, clocks were set to Greenwich mean time all year round, resulting in early sunrises and sunsets in the summer. The idea gained traction during the first world war because of the need to conserve coal, which led to the adoption of changes in 1916. Biannual clock changes have continued ever since, with a brief deviation from the pattern during the second world war, when double British summer time was introduced, and between 1968 and 1972, when the clocks were put forward but not back as part of an experiment. I think those were also the first four years of my parents’ marriage, an experiment that thankfully has lasted much longer. It was eventually discontinued, however, due to inconclusive results regarding its effect on road casualties. About 70 countries worldwide currently adopt some form of daylight saving. British summer time is the UK’s version of European summer time, which follows the same pattern by changing the clocks twice a year by one hour. This synchronisation allows for smooth transactions in trade, travel and communication across Europe. The Government are aware that the issue of daylight saving has, at times, attracted extensive public and political debate, with suggestions to adopt British double summer time. British double summer time was introduced for a short period during the second world war, as I have mentioned. By extending daylight hours into the evening, it reduced the need for artificial lighting, thereby conserving fuel. Introducing British double summer time would result in clocks remaining one hour ahead of Greenwich mean time in the winter and moving two hours ahead in the summer. By observing British summer time, the UK maintains a one-hour difference with European countries throughout the year. This would not be the case under British double summer time. Using Germany as an example, the time difference with it would vary between winter and summer. In winter, both the UK and Germany would be one hour ahead of GMT, resulting in no time difference. During summer, the UK would be one hour ahead of Germany. The Government believe that the current daylight saving arrangements represent the optimal use of the available daylight across the UK. Changing the current arrangements would impact all citizens in the UK and Northern Ireland and would require public consultation and assessment of the impact on businesses across all sectors of the economy. As my hon. Friend has mentioned, there would of course be benefits to moving to double British summer time. We know that darker hours exacerbate mental health conditions, particularly seasonal affective disorder. The shorter days and reduced natural daylight, as a result of clock changes, can worsen symptoms according to the charity Change Mental Health. We also know that there is evidence that enforced clock changes can disrupt sleep health, especially in a forward direction such as that which currently occurs in March—and will be happening again in three days’ time. However, we also know from the British Sleep Society that natural daylight in the morning is critical for alignment of our internal body clocks. Moving to double British summer time would cause darker mornings, especially in winter. We are also aware of some evidence that abolishing clock changes would reduce road accidents. Analysis from the RAC Foundation and Road Safety Analysis shows that between 2012 and 2017 there was a 2% increase in road accidents over the two fortnightly periods when the clock changes took place. In terms of energy use, keeping to GMT plus 1 during the winter months might be expected to reduce overall energy use, as people use less artificial light in the evenings. However, the effects are likely to be small in magnitude, and may even be uncertain—there might be no effect at all. The most significant effects are likely to be associated with lighting demand as demand switches from the evening to the morning. While there might be some benefits, there would be a risk of the UK energy system being affected by the time zone choices of neighbouring countries with which it trades gas and electricity. For example, the time difference between the UK and France means that peak demand is staggered across the two countries and allows for interconnectors to play a role in meeting peak demand throughout the year. This results in lower energy generation required in Great Britain and lower prices for consumers. If the time difference were to change, that could have impacts across the energy system, including on the benefits assumed from interconnection. There might also be road safety impacts. Advancing the clock in spring creates a short-term disruption in sleeping patterns, which can cause fatigue. This can lead to inattention, poor decision making and delayed reaction times, all of which are contributing factors to road traffic accidents. Summer time arrangements have led to concerns about the disrupted biorhythms of animals, with respect to changing milking and feeding schedules, although of course these impacts are expected to be reduced due to the deployment of new equipment, artificial lighting and automated technologies. The approach to daylight saving is a complex area, given the importance of just-in-time supply chains to many industries. Many sectors and businesses, example in the aviation industry, would need considerable notice of any such change. There have been examinations of all this in the past. Following a call for evidence, the House of Lords report “Clock changes: is it time for change?” found that the abolition of seasonal changes of time in the UK in any circumstances would require adjustments in sectors ranging from transport to energy and software development. Such adjustments would bring some transition costs, which could be burdensome for industries when scheduling, especially internationally, which would be a concern, particularly for aviation. In that report, the European Union Committee concluded that it did not receive compelling evidence to suggest that the current system of seasonal changes is problematic for the UK, while noting that there is a lack of contemporary studies on the subject. Moving to double British summer time would create a time border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, if Ireland maintained its current approach to time. That non-alignment could cause problems for transport, particularly aviation, tourism, trade and business in general, with higher impacts if there was only a part-year alignment. This view is not only held by UK industries and representing bodies; it was also reported in EU and non-EU countries’ responses to a 2018 European Commission consultation. In the UK, seasonal changes of time facilitate lighter evenings for over half the year and reduce morning darkness in winter. The latter effect is particularly pronounced in northern parts of the UK, especially Scotland. Double British summer time in the north of Scotland would mean no daylight in the winter before 10 am, while in the rest of Scotland sunrise would be at 9 am. Opponents of change point out that in Scotland children would have to travel to and from school in darkness. As pointed out by the Scottish Government in their written evidence to the Lords Committee, farm vehicles and other large vehicles would spend more time on the roads during the hours of darkness, further adding to the risks. In 2012 the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills published a review of the scope, quality and robustness of available evidence regarding clock changes. The review found that there are challenges in looking at the overall picture of the impacts that might occur across a range of issues, including energy consumption and road traffic accidents. To conclude, this Government will always listen carefully to any arguments that are put forward around how to mitigate challenges and provide support, particularly in areas such as mental health. We appreciate the concerns raised about the potential impact of clock changes on mental health and road safety, and we will always welcome views on how we can enhance our existing measures and initiatives. As set out in our “Get Britain Working” White Paper, the Government are committed to expanding access to NHS talking therapies for adults with common mental health conditions such as depression, including seasonal affective disorder. This Government treat road safety with the utmost seriousness, and we are committed to reducing the numbers of those killed and injured on our roads. My ministerial colleagues at the Department for Transport are developing the first road safety strategy in over a decade, and will set out more details in due course. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard again for securing the debate. She has raised some interesting points, but the evidence for the case for change is not overwhelming. However, I will take this opportunity to remind everyone that the clocks go forward on Sunday, and it is also Mother’s Day. Question put and agreed to.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Competition and Markets Authority Chairman · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Unfortunately, transport funding—particularly in Wales—is well outside the CMA’s remit.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Competition and Markets Authority Chairman · Hansard source

  More

  That is a very important point. Consumers see the petrol prices every time they leave their home in their motor vehicle. There is a disparity there that sometimes needs explanation, and certainly needs transparency, so I will take that issue up on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf, and will come back to him on it.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  First, I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for moving the new clause. This is his clause 4 moment—the road to socialism is often a long one, but I am glad to see he is taking steps towards it. He raises an important topic on behalf of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran); indeed, a number of Members of the House have discussed it with me over a period of time, because the use of non-disclosure agreements presents challenges. As has been said, NDAs can be used quite legitimately in different contexts and contracts. As the responsible Department for the use of NDAs in employment relationships, we recognise that they can have a legitimate role, such as to protect trade secrets, intellectual property and commercially sensitive information. Of course their most common use is in allowing workers and employers to reach a settlement on a dispute or a claim. It goes without saying that a worker may want to settle a dispute and receive the confidentiality protections associated with a settlement agreement to avoid going through an employment tribunal, which can be a distressing experience in itself. Having a non-disclosure agreement can also increase the value of such an agreement, depending how negotiations go. There are existing legal limits to the use of NDAs in the employment context. For example, any clauses of an NDA that sought to stop a worker blowing the whistle to a lawyer or a prescribed person under the legislation would not be enforceable. The use of an NDA by an employer may amount to a criminal offence if it is an attempt by the employer to pervert the course of justice or conceal a criminal offence. A settlement agreement under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and any confidentiality clauses it contains is void if the worker did not receive independent advice on the terms and effect of the agreement. Speaking as one who has given such advice on countless occasions, I can assure the Committee that this a matter the legal profession takes very seriously. None the less, workers may not be aware of their rights. Both the Equality and Human Rights Commission and ACAS have published guidance on NDAs, but reports continue of improper use of NDAs, as the hon. Member for Torbay mentioned, particularly in relation to sexual harassment, discrimination and bullying in the workplace. Last year, the Women and Equalities Committee inquiry into misogyny in music and the Treasury Committee inquiry into sexism in the City reported on the misuse of NDAs in specific sectors and industries. Their reports highlighted how NDAs can have a silencing effect on some victims, who come under pressure to sign an NDA and are not aware of their existing rights, and how NDAs may be a part of wider organisational cultures and practices for some employers. We have heard a clear example of that today. The Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Legal Services Board have also recently conducted a call for evidence and a thematic review into the use of NDAs among the legal profession. Overall, those reports highlight that, while we have seen some progress and some positive developments, the issues in this space are multiple and persistent. The Government are live to the concerns about the misuse of NDAs to intimidate and silence victims of crime and other types of misconduct, particularly harassment, discrimination, and bullying. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 contains a measure that, when commenced, will ensure that victims can report a crime, co-operate with regulators and access confidential advice and support without fear of legal action. It does so by providing that any clauses in NDAs seeking to prevent those actions cannot legally be enforced. The Ministry of Justice is carefully considering plans to bring the relevant section of that Act into force and will be working closely with the victim support and business sectors to ensure that the new measure is implemented and deployed effectively. We continue to listen carefully to representations on further action needed to curb the misuse of NDAs. The specific wording that is proposed today would make any provision in an agreement precluding a worker from making a relevant disclosure that relates to harassment carried out by a fellow worker, or client of their employer, unenforceable. Under the consequential amendment, the measure would come into force on the day that this legislation is passed. I have some reservations about the amendment as drafted, as it would make a significant change from the current position and there might be unintended consequences. To render provisions related to disclosures on harassment unenforceable could have negative effects on both workers and employers. A worker may want to settle a dispute over harassment and receive the confidentiality protections associated with a settlement agreement. The proposal may also impact on their ability to reach a settlement and avoid going to an employment tribunal, or may indeed reduce the value of such an agreement. The amendment may also lead to uncertainty for both employers and workers who have entered into NDAs previously. The Government are looking into this. There is obviously some evidence, and there was a Government consultation, but that was some time ago, so we intend to look more closely at what we can do in this area. I have met some of the interested parties and there are other proposals to deal with this issue that might be slightly more workable than those in the new clause proposed by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I say to him that although we are aware of this issue and know it needs attention, we are not able to support the new clause.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Eighteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. As always, I will start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Following the reference to illumination, I hope to shed light on the advantages of a fair work agency. We have heard a fair amount of criticism from the Opposition Benches about the suggestion that we set up an advisory board. The shadow Minister asked whether a Member of Parliament could apply to be on it. I do not think that it is entirely clear whether they could. I do not know whether the prohibitions on second jobs for MPs have that scenario in mind, but I imagine that it could fall within the prohibition relating to advising on areas of policy. I also hope that all Members are fully engaged in their day-to-day work of representing their constituents and will not feel it necessary to apply. Indeed, we will play a role here in scrutinising the work of the fair work agency. Given the comments of the hon. Member for Bridgwater, he will not be making an application, in any event. On the point that academics could also be members of a trade union and could therefore fit into more than one category, anyone in a free society is entitled to join a trade union should they wish to do so. We would not want to make it a condition for job applicants to have to state their trade union membership—that is a slightly McCarthyist road to go down—but members of the Low Pay Commission are already required to declare any interests, including membership of trade unions or political parties. There is an opportunity for transparency in that sense. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield says, the pro forma definitions in the Bill are not novel interpretations. They are tried and tested definitions—I would like to say “trusted” as well, but it is clear that the hon. Member for Bridgwater does not trust us to operate them in the way they have operated in the past—of how people are appointed to such bodies. As has been noted, they have worked successfully for the Low Pay Commission for a quarter of a century. The shadow Minister was accused of over-egging the pudding, but the hon. Member for Bridgwater broke enough eggs in his criticisms to feed us all for the next month. I think he suggested that we did not need an advisory board at all, which suggests that he does not believe it important that the voice of business have input into the work of the fair work agency. He also said that we did not need more reports, which is one of the roles of the advisory board, and yet only a couple of hours ago he voted for a report into the application of the fair work agency. What he was getting at is that if we have to have this, we need to be assured that there is no jiggery-pokery about who will be appointed to it.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The working time regulations have had a relatively long history in our legal framework. They provide vital rights: a maximum working week of 48 hours, rest breaks of 20 minutes every six hours, rest periods of 11 hours each day and at least 24 hours each week, and 28 days of annual leave each year. The regulations implement the EU working time directive; the then Government deliberately designed them to provide maximum flexibility for both employers and workers. For example, workers can choose to opt out in writing from the 48-hour week maximum. We believe that the regulations have benefited millions of workers and their families over the years. They afford workers a better balance between work and other responsibilities, as well as improvements in health and wellbeing. A 2014 review by the previous Government of the impact of the working time regulations on the UK labour market found that since 1998 there had been a decline in long-hours working in the UK and a general trend towards shorter working hours, which is probably not a surprise. The findings also suggested that the impact of the regulations was mainly through increased employment of workers doing shorter working weeks, rather than through a reduction in total hours worked. Annual leave entitlements have increased since the introduction of the working time regulations; many workers now enjoy a more generous leave entitlement than is prescribed by law. Limitations on working hours and entitlement to a minimum number of days’ holiday can contribute to improvements in health and safety. Most employers accept that a minimum holiday entitlement contributes to physical and psychological wellbeing. Reductions in stress and fatigue caused by excess hours can provide many benefits, including less pressure on health services and better performance at work, with fewer accidents. By establishing minimum standards, the working time regulations also support a level playing field that discourages competition that relies on poor working conditions and a race to the bottom. New clause 20 would revoke the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018, which provide for adequate rest for seafarers and support the management of onboard fatigue and the wellbeing of seafarers. Revoking the regulations would negatively affect the ability of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to enforce safe and healthy working conditions for seafarers. The new clause would also revoke the Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea-fishermen) Regulations 2004, which require the UK to implement the International Labour Organisation’s work in fishing convention, which underpins the safe operation of vessels. Fishing is one of the most dangerous sectors in the UK, with 50 injuries per 100,000 workers compared with a UK average of 0.4. We believe that the 2004 regulations are critical to ensuring that workers take the appropriate hours of rest to prevent fatigue-related incidents. The new clause would also revoke the Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is in the process of conducting a post-implementation review of those regulations. The initial responses to the consultation have indicated a generally positive view from stakeholders. The new clause would also revoke the Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008, which provide enhanced rights and worker protections for those engaged in cross-border rail services, such as train crew for Eurostar services through the channel tunnel. The revocation of the regulations would erode those enhanced protections. The Government believe that the minimum standards in the Working Time Regulations 1998 and other sector-specific working time regulations have supported millions of workers and their families by enabling them to better balance work and other responsibilities. The Government have no plans to revoke the working time regulations or any of the other sector-specific regulations. I understand what the shadow Minister says about whether we consider the regulations to be beneficial to businesses, but he will know that there was ample time under his Government to undertake those reviews. Indeed, one was undertaken just over a decade ago, as I said. We have no plans to erode workers’ rights in this area; indeed, one of the fair work agency’s main functions will be to enforce rights to holiday pay, which evidence to the Committee suggests are not being enforced properly. The shadow Minister says that he has no intention of revoking the working time regulations and that his amendment is probing, but I can only speak to what is before the Committee. If he had tabled an amendment seeking a review of the operation of the working time regulations, that might have been more appropriate in the circumstances. This feels to me like a dog-whistle amendment, so I am pleased to hear that he will not be pressing it.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I hear what the shadow Minister says. He is possibly over-egging the pudding or taking us on a ride on the ghost train in terms of what clause 74(5) means. It simply means that if the Secretary of State delegates powers to another body, they are still the responsible person for the overall operation. This is not about overruling different bodies; it is about where the final responsibility lies. I hope I have put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest to some extent. Question put and agreed to. Clause 73 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 75 Advisory Board Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Sixteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that would be out of scope of the Bill Committee. I hear what the shadow Minister says. His essential argument is that we should be able to judge the actions of trade unions in terms of the damage or disruption they cause to the UK economy. Of course, we want to see growth and we want to see industrial action minimised. We believe that by having a more harmonious set of industrial relations, we will see that. Unfortunately, the shadow Minister’s new clause really mischaracterises the Certification Officer’s role. He is not, as the hon. Gentleman said, there to preside over strikes; he is there to preside over the governance, finances, reporting requirements and statutory obligations of trade unions and employers’ associations—I noted that the hon. Gentleman did not mention employers’ associations. The Certification Officer is not there to preside over industrial disputes and strikes. There are courts to intervene if a party feels aggrieved about the way industrial action has been observed, whether lawfully or not. I can see the intention of the new clause: the shadow Minister wants the Government to succeed in their growth mission. We all do, but I do not think the Certification Officer is the right or appropriate vehicle for that to take place. Question put and agreed to. Clause 62 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 63 to 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 70 Regulations subject to affirmative resolution procedure Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz, and as always 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 will not be surprised to hear that we are not going to accept the amendment, as it would drive a coach and horses through what we are trying to achieve. The remit in the Bill gives the negotiating body the scope necessary to negotiate and reach agreements on pay and conditions, and advise on training and career progression for all school support staff. The Secretary of State may then incorporate agreements reached in support staff contracts through secondary legislation. As has been pointed out, that would be a floor. It will be possible for schools to innovate above that, and the detail will be worked out in due course. This is about creating a baseline for terms and conditions, not a ceiling. As the shadow Minister knows, as roughly half of the 24,000 state-funded schools are academies the amendment would seriously undermine the policy intention of the SSSNB. We believe that about 800,000 employees would be positively impacted by the Bill, but the amendment would mean that school support staff in academies would have no voice, and no opportunity to raise their concerns about pay, career progression and training prospects, which we know are real issues, particularly in the SEN sectors. There would no vehicle for them, because they would not be part of this body. Of course their employers would have to have regard to what the SSSNB decided, but there would be no legal requirement for those terms to be incorporated into individual contracts. I think that misses the point of what we are trying to achieve here. I do not accept that there is a connection between good educational outcomes and low pay for teaching assistants, which seems to be the thrust of the argument from the Opposition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, the references in the amendment to a framework are not particularly helpful, as it is not defined and would create more confusion. We should say that it is not just academies that can demonstrate excellence in innovation. All schools have the ability to do that, and there will be room for all schools to continue to innovate under the legislation and meet their local recruitment needs.

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

  More

  I will not detain the Committee too long, because it feels like we have had the clause stand part debate already. I will briefly go through the provisions of clause 2, which creates the right to reasonable notice of shifts. As I set out when we discussed clause 1, we must tackle one-sided flexibility. Guaranteed hours is an important part of that, but we must also ensure that workers have reasonable notice of their shifts, so that they are enable to effectively plan their work and personal lives. If someone’s shift is moved but their pay is less than the cost of the babysitter, that is obviously a negative. If someone is offered a last-minute shift but it is 60 minutes away by bus and they have no car, they should not be penalised or have a black mark put against them if they are not able to take it up. We can do better than this. We want to establish a more balanced partnership between workers and employers, and we hope to do that with clause 2. It will still allow employers to make changes to shifts, but it will also provide incentives for employers to meet the standard of the best employers, encouraging better planning and engagement with their workers. These provisions to introduce a right to reasonable notice of shifts and to changes in them are a small but important step towards making the lives of many shift workers and their families feel a little more secure. Clause 2 creates several new sections in the Employment Rights Act 1996. New section 27BI outlines the duty that will be placed on employers to give reasonable notice of shifts. That duty will apply to workers on zero-hours contracts and arrangements, as well as workers on other contracts that will be specified in regulations but are likely to be low-hours contracts. New section 27BJ specifies that employers must also give reasonable notice of any moves or changes of shifts. New section 27BK notes that, as for other sections, agency workers are not covered by this measure—new section 27BV provides a delegated power to make corresponding or similar provision in relation to agency workers. In addition, section 27BK specifies that workers are not entitled to reasonable notice of shifts that they themselves suggested they work. For example, they would not be entitled to reasonable notice of overtime that they themselves had suggested. That right does, however, apply where the employer agrees to a suggested shift and then later changes or cancels the shift. Finally, the section contains a power to make regulations about how the notice should be given and when it is treated as being given. New section 27BL explains that, where an employer is required to make a payment to a worker because the employer has cancelled, moved or curtailed a shift at short notice, the worker cannot get compensation for lack of reasonable notice for the same cancellation, movement or curtailment. New section 27BM enables workers to complain to employment tribunals that their employer has failed to comply with the duties to give reasonable notice. New section 27BN provides that tribunals must make a declaration where they find for a complainant and may award compensation they consider appropriate to compensate the worker for financial loss suffered as a result of the failure to give reasonable notice. This compensation will be capped in regulations and, in line with common law on recoverable damages, compensation will also take account of the duty on the claimant to mitigate their losses.

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

  More

  We have had a pretty wide-ranging debate. Generally, there has been support for the amendments. I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ support and hope they carry on in the same spirit for the rest of the Bill—we will see about that. On the principle of what we are trying to achieve, let me take the Committee back to a time before the advent of the employment lawyer, when we had a thing called industrial tribunals. Industrial tribunals were about having a speedy and informal way to resolve industrial disputes where there was an individual issue. As time has passed, employment law has grown and industrial tribunals have become employment tribunals, and the original time limits have not been able to keep pace with the range of developments. A number of examples have been given for why some people will not be able to enforce their rights, because of the strict time limits. Equally, there is evidence that enabling a longer period between a claim being discovered and a tribunal deadline being set means that there is more opportunity for parties to try to resolve their differences. On maternity leave in particular, I recall many occasions when a woman has returned to work and tried to crack on with things but been discriminated against all the time, yet because of the understandable pressures and her eagerness to try to get on, she has not acted as quickly as she should have done. I will give a recent practical example of a constituent who came into my surgery. He had been involved in a road traffic accident while he was working, and he had been dismissed for that. He was not a member of a trade union and had taken no legal advice on his situation. Clearly, I am not in a position to give him legal advice, because I am not insured to do so, but I pointed out to him that he might want to think about talking to someone about his rights with respect to unfair dismissal. The point I am trying to make is that I was having that conversation two months after he was dismissed, which does not give him—or, indeed, the employer—much time to try to resolve things. It would be preferable for that individual to have the opportunity to have a dialogue with his employer, possibly get a process done correctly, and be reinstated. Because the time limits are so pressured, though, if he did go away and take legal advice, he will probably have been told that the only realistic avenue for him was to put a claim in as soon as possible. There will be real benefits to the amendments, not just for making sure that people are able to enforce their rights, but in giving people more opportunity and time to resolve their differences before proceeding to litigation. For that reason, the impact assessment has not really been able to pin down a particular figure for the impact of these measures. It is probably fair to say that there are a number of other measures in the Bill that may impact tribunal claims, not least the introduction of the fair work agency. The possibility for that agency to enforce holiday pay claims and wages claims, for example, could take a significant burden off the tribunal. Let me return to the original point of the amendments. They are about removing anomalies and giving people more time to resolve their differences. It has been an anomaly in the law for many years that equal pay claims and redundancy pay claims can be brought up to six months after the termination of employment, but most other claims cannot. Indeed, there are some claims that, depending on where they are progressed, can take even longer, such as certain types of employment-related claims that go through county court. This is about ensuring consistency.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Mr Simpson, can I take you back to your traffic light? We will go to amber, because you mentioned the notice of shift as an issue in the amber section. I am aware from the UKHospitality workforce strategy that there is a general view that the hoteliers charter is a model of good practice, which does require reasonable notice of shift. Could you explain a little more what your concerns are on that? Allen Simpson: It is more about the unknown. Again, reasonable notice is an important principle and there should be protections. I think that the challenge will be—I notice, by the way, from what I understand from having read what is, again, a complex and lengthy piece of work, that the Government are intending to leave it to case law and employment tribunal systems to figure out what “reasonable notice” means. In general, with different sorts of work, it is reasonable to say that there are different versions of what “reasonable notice” means. If I were going to go and work on an oil rig for three months, I would want more notice of a change of shifts than if I was going to work in the local pub. Therefore, I think it is partly about figuring out what the right starting position for notice is. It is partly about reflecting differences in things, such as whether it comes with a residential element; there are questions around that. Then there are some practical things that I think will come out in the wash, but do need considering, such as shift swapping. What if two chefs say, “Do you mind covering Saturday, because I want to go out with my friends?” “Yes, of course; that’s fine.” Is that allowed, or can that decision only be taken outwith that notice period? There are also questions around other things. What if you put out a message saying, “There is a shift available; does anybody want it?” Have you made an offer of employment to everybody you have put that message out to? Is there a time after which you are not allowed to do that? One last thing: what if somebody agrees to move their shifts around—so you say on the Friday, “Do you mind coming in this Saturday and you can have next Saturday off?” “Yes, absolutely. Fine.” Is that acceptable? Therefore, there are there are some practical questions about, first of all, the principle of different suitable notices of shifts depending on different forms of work, and about some practicalities, which I am sure are solvable, around the management of it.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q That is helpful; thank you. I appreciate that we have not got much time, so I will ask just one more question, if that is all right, of Mr Carberry. Obviously your organisation prides itself on having members who absolutely comply with the standards set by law. Do you feel that the fair work agency will be a good vehicle to help drive up standards, and is there anything in particular that you would like to see it focus on? Neil Carberry: I think it is reasonably well noted that we were disappointed that an employment Bill was not brought forward in the last Parliament. It is time to raise enforcement standards. One of the most common worries that I hear about this Bill, for which I will not hold you accountable, Minister, is the experience that businesses have had of being the ones who comply and take on the on-costs—there are quite significant costs associated with this Bill—and then watching people flout the law and not face enforcement, so a fair work agency is a good idea. If I may, I have a couple of guide points that we have heard from our members. One is that we are great fans of the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate. We think it does excellent work as our regulator. It sometimes annoys the hell out of me, but that is what it is for. The team there are deeply expert, and, in the creation of the fair work agency, I would be—if you would forgive a Scottishism—scunnered if we lost that expertise. Maintaining expertise as we move into the FWA is really important, and that goes with properly resourcing the FWA and giving it the capacity to maybe draw down some of the claims that currently take two years to go to employment tribunal. The other thing, which is maybe a bit more challenging, is that, when we have done this in the past, success has been delivered by making these bodies of the labour market, not of the Government. If you go back to the 1970s, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 was guided into existence for its first two decades by the Health and Safety Commission. As a former low pay commissioner, I will say that we hear a lot about businesses’ views of the minimum wage in the ’90s; they were against the minimum wage at £7.20 an hour in 1999, and that is why it was not introduced. They were in favour of one at the introductory rate, which was developed by the Low Pay Commission. I would really like to see the FWA have that kind of tripartite guiding force to make sure that it is as much of us and our union colleagues as it is of the Government.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I think you said you had the largest collective agreement in the country—congratulations on that. Could you tell us a bit more about what your members see as the advantages of that? Alasdair Reisner: It is a cliché, but we rely on the people we work with, and they must be represented. Having good, positive relationships with the employees’ representatives is crucial. The CIJC has for decades provided us with that vehicle—I should say that it is not the largest overall; it is just the largest in the construction sector. I think back to covid, when we needed a relationship with the workforce that provided us with the independence —I have to say that Unite was brilliant at that time—to engage with the rest of the industry to say, “We’re all working collectively towards a common good.” From discussing the Bill with members over the past few days, I know that one of the potential concerns is that it might in some way undermine existing collective agreements. I do not think that is written in the Bill; it is more in the discussion that has happened prior to the Bill. That is something we would like to protect. I am not going to pretend it is all sunshine and roses—sometimes it can be quite challenging—but I think we would want to ensure that whatever the outcome of the Bill, there is a strong, positive partnership between the employers’ representatives and the employees’ representatives.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you, Ms Vaz. Good afternoon, everyone. Obviously we were all horrified at the way people were treated by P&O, and I think we share your critique that the previous Government’s response to that was not sufficient. Clearly, we are trying to address those issues in the Bill. Do you feel that it will be a good deterrent against employers basically calculating a financial issue as a way of trying to avoid their legal obligations on consultation? Mick Lynch: I am hoping it will be, Minister. I am hoping that bad employers will have to think twice about being badder again, in P&O’s terms. I have to emphasise that we were on good terms with P&O. We— both unions—were negotiating their new vessels. They deceived us deliberately. They took legal advice that, rather than negotiate with us the new-technology vessels that were coming in, they would rather sack all their people and break the law, and use security guards to get our people out. We need good enforcement, a powerful agency that knows what it is doing and has a clear remit, and the right deterrents. I think that goes into company law in some ways. I do not think any of those people were worried about being disbarred as directors, as fit and proper persons and all the rest of it, and I do not think they were worried about their profits being affected by any fine they would get. As it happens, I do not think anything has happened to them at all. As a director, you have got to think about whether you are going to pay your VAT, whether you are going to pass on the national insurance, and whether you are going to pay the rates and all the bills from your suppliers. You should be thinking very seriously about the consequences for you in employment law, and other laws related to employment. But as trade unions—as representatives of the workers —we have got to have the power to intervene where we know employers are breaking the law. That is a real shortcoming. The power is all with the employers. They can injunct me personally. They can injunct my trade union. They can close us down for making clerical errors on ballots—just misnaming or misbranding the grades in a dispute—and they will do it if they get any chance. We have no power to injunct them on behalf of our members, it seems. I think that needs to be considered. The fair work agency and its enforcement powers should be at the level of injunction to stop these rogues getting away with it in the future. Martyn Gray: I agree with that. I would add that what is quite helpful is the Bill’s removal of vessels being treated as individual establishments. That is particularly helpful when it comes to redundancy consultations, and what we saw with previous case law under previous legislation. In the case of Seahorse Maritime v. Nautilus International it was determined that each individual vessel had to be treated as a single establishment. That removed the right for operators with significant GB links anyway—in those particular circumstances—to circumvent the need to consult with recognised trade unions on what amounted to mass redundancies. There were more than 20 people being made redundant from that particular employer, but they were able to circumvent that, because each individual vessel was treated as a single establishment. That is a really helpful feature of the Bill, and something that I think should be celebrated and praised. It is going to be very helpful in our being able to defend our members’ rights and hold companies to account for their responsibilities when going through a redundancy process or collective consultation on business restructuring in organisations. Linking that point to P&O Ferries, it would not have made a difference there; each of the P&O Ferries establishments was more than 20, so there would have been a requirement for the collective consultation anyway. Indeed, two of the P&O Ferries operations would have been more than 100 people, so they would have required slightly lengthier consultation periods under the legislation. However, this Bill will be helpful in a wider maritime context, where there are smaller numbers of seafarers engaged, in being able to defend their rights and interests and really hold a company to account over the need to make those redundancies. The change to fire and rehire is quite helpful as well, with businesses needing to demonstrate a clear and identifiable need instead of seemingly being able to operate on a whim. Gemma Griffin: I do not disagree with any of that. Talking about significant ties to the UK, this is something that you have to keep in your mind. Often in shipping there are myriad different employers based outside the UK—the flag of the vessel can be EU, in many cases, or UK or whatever. When you look at the Dover straits, yes, DFDS has both UK and French flagged vessels, but our vessels are doing 42 sailings a day in and out of Dover port, and up to 54 in the summertime. Other operators are doing more or less the same. If that is not a clear link to the UK, I would like to know what is. It is not the same as one sailing every day out of a port in the North sea. As an operator that holds our seafarers in good stead as the absolute backbone of our organisation, I would like to be able to see a way of capturing that in UK law, so that we will not find yet another loophole, with the flag state being responsible but doing nothing and the port state, in this case the UK, wanting to do something but not capable of doing it. That sounded like a bit of a riddle—I do apologise.