Greg Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I would like to add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater has proposed. The first duty of Government is to protect citizens from threats abroad and keep them safe at home. Given all the other rights and extensions of rights that the Government are pushing in the Bill, it would seem unusual if support for our special constables, whom I salute for all their hard work day in, day out as part of the mission to keep the British people safe, were not included. I urge the Minister to consider the new clause in a genuine spirit of trying to work together on this issue. I am tempted to rise to the bait set by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles. We have many differences of opinion about the Bill’s provisions, but, in the spirit of the Bill, surely we can find some cross-party consensus on extending employment rights to special constables going about their duty—the often dangerous duty that they carry out on behalf of us all.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Health and Social Care: Winter Update · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, the UK Health Security Agency warned of elderly people suffering from heart attacks, strokes and chest infections as a result of the recent severe cold weather. Is the Secretary of State any closer to admitting that taking away the winter fuel payment from some of our most vulnerable pensioners was not just cruel, but life threatening?

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

  More

  New clause 7, as the Minister outlined, will correct omissions of the word “ordinarily” in provisions of section 285 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Amendment 110 would bring new clause 7 into force two months after Royal Assent. The only real question that follows that is: could the Minister clarify why it is necessary to commence this measure earlier than the usual three months?

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

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I do not fully share his view of the world but, as he rightly says and similarly to the previous new clauses that we have proposed, we can come back to this on Report. For the time being, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. — (Anna McMorrin . )

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I wish you a happy new year, too. As the Minister said, we have debated schedule 7 in some depth through the various amendments to it, so I have nothing further to add. Question put and agreed to. Schedule 7, as amended, accordingly agreed to. Clause 111 Meaning of “non-compliance with relevant labour market legislation” Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  It is a shame that the Minister has taken that attitude towards proper consultation before commencement of part 4. We still think it should happen, but we will, in good faith, give the Minister time to reflect ahead of Report. For now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn . New Clause 21 Right to switch off in relation to trade union representatives “(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended in accordance with subsection (2). (2) After section 69 (right to terminate membership of trade union), insert— ‘Right to switch off in relation to trade union representatives 69A Right to switch off in relation to trade union representatives In every contract of membership of a trade union, whether made before or after the coming into force of this section, a term conferring a right on the member to refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact (or attempted contact) by a trade union representative outside their working hours shall be implied.’.” — (Greg Smith.) This new clause confers a right to switch off on trade union members in relation to contact from trade union representatives. Brought up, and read the First time.

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

  More

  New clause 48 introduces the schedule to be inserted by new schedule 3, which in turn amends the Seafarers Wages Act 2023 to give the Secretary of State power to make regulations specifying conditions relating to the wages and working conditions of seafarers who work on ships providing the services currently covered by that Act. Those conditions are enforceable in the same way as existing provisions of the Act. Amendment 208 is consequential on new schedule 3. Amendment 207 states the extent of the new chapter to be formed by new clause 48 and new schedule 3, extending it United Kingdom-wide. Amendment 206 is consequential. New clause 52 inserts into the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations to give effect to the maritime labour convention, adopted on 23 February 2006, to the work in fishing convention, adopted on 14 June 2007, and to future international agreements that relate to the employment of masters and seamen. Let me turn to the substance. As I said, the maritime labour convention was adopted on 23 February 2006, and the work in fishing convention on 14 June 2007, so the first question is why the then Labour Government did not see fit to introduce provision in legislation in the first place? Will the Minister explain why it is necessary to legislate to give the Secretary of State sweeping powers to “by regulations make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of giving effect” to those two conventions? Precisely what regulations are needed? Will the Minister give the Committee specific examples of the regulations that the Government intend to make under this power, and justify them? I do not think it is good enough for us to be in this position. Notwithstanding the usual comments the Minister makes about not predetermining consultations and about talking to stakeholders at a later point, this is one of those areas where we need concrete examples of where he expects to go. A key reason for my asking is that article IV of the maritime labour convention, on seafarers’ employment and social rights, states: “1. Every seafarer has the right to a safe and secure workplace that complies with safety standards. 2. Every seafarer has a right to fair terms of employment. 3. Every seafarer has a right to decent working and living conditions on board ship. 4. Every seafarer has a right to health protection, medical care, welfare measures and other forms of social protection.” Will the Minister explain which of the rights I just outlined are not already enforceable under United Kingdom law? Is there difficulty with implementing any of the implementation and enforcement responsibilities in article V? Will the Minister further explain whether any of the provisions of the work in fishing convention are currently unenforceable under United Kingdom law—I seek just one example—and if so, what specific changes would be needed to enforce them? I ask because I do not think that is clear from any of the new clauses, the new schedule or the amendments that we are considering in this group. New clause 52 also takes sweeping powers for the Secretary of State, who can make regulations that “may make provision in respect of the checking or monitoring of compliance with any provision of the regulations, including (among other things) provision for— (a) the making and keeping of records and the keeping of documents; (b) the issue of certificates; (c) the furnishing of information.” What on earth is encompassed by “the furnishing of information”? That seems like a very vague term to be put on to the statute book. To what intrusive or burdensome use is the Secretary of State planning to put this power? Precisely what does the Minister mean by it? To convince the Committee that these powers are necessary, can the Minister name one occasion on which the Government’s ability to enforce the provisions of the maritime labour convention has been found wanting, and in what respect? If such an example exists, could the Government better target the powers in proposed new section 84B(4) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to actually solve the problem, rather than allow a Government free-for-all? This is not a trivial matter, as proposed new section 84B(5) allows the Government to “provide for the detention of a ship in respect of which a contravention of the regulations is suspected to have occurred”. Will the Minister explain how long such a detention might last? How great an infraction would need to have been committed for a ship to be detained? As if the Government had not hoarded enough power through this new clause, proposed new section 84B(8) contains the real kicker, stating that regulations may “make different provision for different purposes”. Will the Minister explain the limits on this power? That language is far too woolly and loose to be contained in any piece of primary legislation in this country. I also do not think it is appropriate that regulations to “make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of giving effect to an international agreement that has been ratified by the United Kingdom, so far as the agreement relates to maritime employment” should be subject to the negative procedure. The regulations apply to international agreements that have not yet been entered into. Parliament should at least be guaranteed the ability to debate regulations that implementing such agreements. Otherwise, proposed new section 84B(13) is the very definition of a blank cheque. The Government tabled new clause 52 just in time for debate today; we have been given very little opportunity to scrutinise it. Given the powers it takes for Ministers, I gently suggest that that is discourteous to the House. The least the Minister can do is provide answers to each of the questions I have posed, so that we are able to understand a little better whether the new clause is even necessary and to what use Ministers actually intend to put the powers.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  I preface my comments by saying that I welcome anything that supports kinship carers. I had an inspirational meeting with a constituent who is a kinship carer over the summer, which certainly opened my eyes to many of the challenges faced by those who take on the heroic and wonderful mission in life of looking after those young people. New clause 14 sets out an entitlement to kinship care leave. That in its own right seems to me a very good, sensible and noble proposal. Where the clause falls a little short is that it appears to be very trusting of the Government. Some on the Committee might think that is equally a very sensible and good thing, but obviously Governments come and go. Anything set out in any legislation that leaves things open also leaves them open to misinterpretation and the risk that they will not necessarily deliver that which was intended. The entire eventual policy that new clause 14 would enable would be left up to Ministers, including the extent of an employee’s entitlement to leave, when leave may be taken and much more. I wonder whether the Liberal Democrats have a policy position on those matters; if they do, it seems rather trusting to just leave it up to the Government to determine, rather than setting it out in the new clause. New clause 15 defines what is meant by kinship care. There is some confusion here, because the Government have set out their definition of kinship care in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which specifies that a child is in kinship care if “the child lives with a relative, friend or other person connected with the child for all or part of the time”, or if the child lives with that person “for all of the time, or for more time than the child lives with a parent”, and that person provides “all of the care and support provided for the child, or more of that care and support than is provided for the child by a parent.” A child is also in kinship care if the child lives with two or more relatives, friends or other persons “all or most of the time (whether or not the child lives with those persons at the same time)”, and “those persons, taken together, provide all or most of the care and support provided for the child.” That definition was introduced after new clause 15 was tabled, so it would be interesting to know whether there are aspects of the Government’s definition that the Liberal Democrats support, or whether they prefer their own, and why. It seems to me that, now there is live Government legislation in this area providing a perfectly good and well-meaning definition of kinship care, we do not need the new clause. New clause 45, on additional leave for foster carers, would ensure that local authority foster parents are entitled to at least one extra week’s leave every 12 months. I would be interested to know whether the Liberal Democrats have undertaken any assessment of how businesses would be able to absorb the additional cost. That is not to say that we necessarily oppose the principle, but again, like with new clause 13, it would be important to know, before we could formally support any such change—well-meaning as it might be—whether that research has been done to understand the cost to business.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  This is quite a meaty grouping of proposals so, once more, I will get through my comments as quickly as I can. Amendment 128 paired with new clause 24 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact of the provisions on zero-hours workers before these clauses can be commenced. The Government’s impact assessment suggests that the provisions in the Bill on the right to guaranteed hours will cost businesses around £160 million a year in administration needed for compliance—that is something, but not much, in terms of business costs. The Government also say: “The extent to which the policy will provide a net positive impact for total welfare will depend on (i) how well targeted the policy is at those facing detriment whilst retaining flexibility for those that value it, and (ii) the extent that wellbeing impacts of the policy feed through to productivity improvements for employers. As such, at this stage of policy development we deem the net impact on society as uncertain.” In terms of the impact on employment tribunals, the Government estimate a “slight increase” of: “300 additional ET1 claims and 55 additional cases which require judicial time”. The justification for that assessment is: “The changes to Zero-Hour Contracts are expected to impact 2.4 million workers. The assessed impact of right to regular contract on the enforcement system is based on the frequency of cases within the jurisdictions of Part time worker regulations and written statement of terms and conditions. These jurisdictions represented 2.5% of all complaints to ETs in 22/23 and therefore an additional 2.4 million workers with the right to make a claim is expected to lead to a slight increase in cases.” I would like to question some of the assumptions underlying the Government’s analysis. What analysis has been undertaken of the increased likelihood of claims, now that the Bill is giving employees both more enforceable rights and a longer period of up to six months to make a claim? Given the importance to employers of claims brought to tribunal being quickly resolved, I would appreciate further reassurance from the Minister on that point. That is also why we have tabled new clause 24, because we wish to make sure—given the uncertainty about the costs and benefits of the provisions on guaranteed hours because, as the Department acknowledges, much is being left to regulations—that the Government are confident the tribunal system can cope before the legal changes are commenced. Amendment 129 paired with new clause 25 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact of the provisions on unfair dismissal before these clauses can be commenced. The Government admitted that they do not have robust data on the incidence of dismissal for those with under two years of employment. In other words, we do not know whether there is even the problem with unfair dismissal that the Bill seeks to solve.

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

  More

  I heard what the Minister said. The cost is important because it is ultimately both cost to the taxpayer and cost to our businesses which create all the wealth in the first place, which then gets taxed and pays for our public services. I invite the Minister to reflect on that, going forward. It is absolutely vital that the Government understand what things will cost before we make them happen, whether that is a Labour, Conservative or coalition Government—or whatever it might be. Once more, in a developing theme with the earlier new clauses that we proposed, I invite the Minister to reflect on that point ahead of Report, and we certainly intend to return to that on a future occasion, but for now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 24 Impact assessment: sections 1 to 6 “(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of— (a) the impact of those sections on the operation of employment tribunals, and (b) the ability of employment tribunals to manage any increase in applications resulting from those sections. (2) The Secretary of State must lay the review made under subsection (1) and the Government’s response to the review before Parliament.”— (Greg Smith.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact on the employment tribunals of the Bill’s provisions on zero hours workers. Brought up, and read the First time.

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

  More

  I rise to speak to new clause 21 and amendment 20, standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends. The new clause would confer a right on trade union members to switch off from contact by their union representatives. Amendment 120 provides that new clause 21 must have effect within one year of the passing of this Act. We know that the Government would like to give employees the legal entitlement to disconnect from work-related communications during non-working hours, to ensure a healthier work-life balance. My understanding, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation, is that this would apply to all forms of communication, including emails, phone calls and instant messaging. That is a burdensome requirement for employers. To ensure that they are complying with the eventual law, they are likely to need to establish clear boundaries for out-of-hours communication to protect employees’ rights and avoid legal risks. In other words, they need another policy and then to enforce it. I accept that I am speculating a little, because we do not know whether the Government will impose a code of practice or legislation and exactly what that would contain, but I have made an educated guess, allowing for the Government’s pronouncements so far. We think that any requirement placed on employers that restricts the contact that can be made with their employees should also apply to trade unions. Surely, it is damaging for employees’ mental health to be contacted by their trade union reps around the clock. We have adopted our own definition of the right to switch off, in the absence of any clear definition yet from the Government. It amounts to this: “In every contract of membership of a trade union, whether made before or after the coming into force of this section, a term conferring a right on the member to refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact (or attempted contact) by a trade union representative outside their working hours shall be implied.” It is only fair to secure a balance between the requirements on employers and trade unions to respect mental health and wellbeing, and to allow employees and trade union members alike to secure a healthy work-life balance.

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

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the points he makes could equally be applied to employers needing, in those special circumstances, to make contact with an employee or a representative of an employee, but the Government are not making those exemptions on that side of the fence. They would seem—we are yet to hear from the Minister, but what the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield has said is indicative—to be resisting those same provisions applying to trade unions. It seems to be a bit of a double standard, and it is one that the amendment and the new clause seek to address. There cannot be one rule for employers and another rule for the trade unions. It is a matter of fairness that we are proposing the new clause and the amendment, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.

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

  More

  I would be delighted to give way. The Government Back Benchers have been so quiet today. It would be wonderful to hear from the hon. Gentleman.

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

  More

  I commend my hon. Friend for proposing new clause 12 and amendment 111. He has just outlined a very serious and live concern in our economy today. I cannot believe that any Government Member, having heard the evidence that my hon. Friend has outlined, would want those practices to continue in our economy, not least given the grave and worrying evidence presented about sexual harassment, sexual offences and rape. Those facts cannot be ignored. Even if the Government will not take action off the back of my hon. Friend’s new clause, I call on the Minister to take very seriously the evidence that he has outlined and come up with another vehicle in which to get protections into legislation. My hon. Friend has explained the situation at some length, so I will conclude by saying that the Government have a clear choice here. They can go down the political route and, having heard compelling evidence, still say, “We do not want to do this because it has come from a Conservative Member,” or find some language to say that in a different way. Alternatively, we can do something all too rare in this place: we can take a real and live problem identified by my hon. Friend and reach cross-party consensus on the need to tackle it, and acknowledge that tackling it fits very neatly with the aims and objectives of the Bill we have been considering for some weeks in Committee. We all make political choices in this place. It is now incumbent on the Minister to give us the political choice that he and the Government wish to make on this: stand with the victims whom my hon. Friend’s new clause aims to protect, or go down the political route.

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

  More

  The clauses give some rare clarity to the Bill. Clause 112, in particular, goes into significant detail, which His Majesty’s loyal Opposition of course welcome. Question put and agreed to. Clause 111 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 112 Interpretation: general Amendment made: 205, in clause 112, page 102, line 7, at end insert— “‘GCHQ’ has the same meaning as in the Intelligence Services Act 1994; ‘intelligence service’ means— (a) the Security Service; (b) the Secret Intelligence Service; (c) GCHQ;”. —(Justin Madders.) This amendment defines “GCHQ” and “intelligence service” for the purposes of Part 5 of the Bill. Clause 112, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause 5 Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: removal of waiting period “(1) Part 11 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (statutory sick pay) is amended as follows. (2) In section 147(1) (employer’s liability), for ‘sections 148 to 150’ substitute ‘sections 149 and 150’. (3) In section 148 (period of incapacity for work)— (a) omit subsection (1); (b) in subsection (2), for the words from ‘any’ to ‘is’ substitute ‘a period of one day which is, or of two or more consecutive days each of which is,’. (4) In section 149(1) (period of entitlement), for ‘second’ substitute ‘first’. (5) In section 150(1) (qualifying days), for ‘third’ substitute ‘second’. (6) In section 151 (limitations on entitlement), omit subsection (1). (7) In section 152(2) (notification of incapacity for work), omit paragraph (b) (and the ‘or’ at the end of paragraph (a)).” —(Justin Madders.) This new clause makes the same provision for Northern Ireland as is made by clause 8 of the Bill for Great Britain. It is intended that this new clause and NC6 be inserted after clause 9. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 6 Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: lower earnings limit etc “(1) Part 11 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (statutory sick pay) is amended as follows. (2) In section 153 (rate of payment)— (a) for subsection (1) substitute— ‘(1) The weekly rate of statutory sick pay that an employer must pay to an employee is the lower of— (a) £116.75, and (b) the prescribed percentage of the employee’s normal weekly earnings.’; (b) in subsection (2)— (i) omit the ‘and’ at the end of paragraph (a); (ii) after paragraph (a) insert— ‘(aa) prescribe a percentage, or percentages, for the purposes of subsection (1)(b);’. (3) In Schedule 11 (circumstances in which periods of entitlement to statutory sick pay do not arise), in paragraph 2, omit paragraph (c) (lower earnings limit).”— (Justin Madders.) This new clause makes the same provision for Northern Ireland as is made by clause 9 of the Bill for Great Britain. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 7 Employment outside Great Britain “In section 285 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (employment outside Great Britain)— (a) in subsection (1), before ‘works’ insert ‘ordinarily’; (b) in subsection (1A), before ‘works’ insert ‘ordinarily’.” — (Justin Madders.) This new clause would correct omissions of the word “ordinarily” in provisions of section 285 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Brought up, and read the First time.

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

  More

  I am deeply hurt that the Minister will not take our new clause seriously. It is part of debate in this place, and our job as the Opposition, to test the boundaries of Government legislation. The new clause has exposed a double standard within the Labour Government’s approach to working practices, in that they seek to exempt trade unions but not employers. I invite the Minister to reflect on that point in the coming weeks, before we get to Report. Perhaps we can debate it on Report, when he has had more time to consider it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 22 Assessment of the costs of establishing a single labour market enforcement body “(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the costs of establishing a single labour market enforcement body. (2) A report under subsection (1) must be published no earlier than a year and no later than 18 months after the passing of this Act.”— (Greg Smith.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the costs of establishing a single labour market enforcement body and to report its findings to Parliament. Brought up, and read the First time .

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

  More

  I had not sat down, so I will be generous.

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

  More

  Just so that I can formally get it on the record, I can assure the Minister that I have never been a member of a trade union.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  Amendment 154, which is consequential on new clause 31, would require the Government to publish an impact assessment on the impact of clauses 1 to 6 on the hospitality, retail and health and social care sectors. The Government’s impact assessment states that zero-hours contracts are most frequently used in the hospitality, retail and health and social care sectors, which is why new clause 31 would require the Government to conduct an impact assessment to understand how well those sectors are able to cope with the provisions before they come into force. In the social care sector, given the workforce challenges that we all know about, that is particularly acute, especially if the provisions are also extended to agency workers, as it is not clear how that would be workable. The impact assessment provided by the Government is for the guaranteed hours provisions across the economy as a whole, but we know that the impact will be more severe in particular sectors. The Government estimate that the administrative costs of facilitating the right to guaranteed hours will be around £160 million. Since healthcare and education are large employers of zero-hours contracts and agency workers, some of the impact will fall on His Majesty’s Treasury. Has that been accounted for in the departmental headroom left after the Chancellor’s disastrous 2024 Budget? On the provision of reasonable notice of shifts, the Government estimate that business behaviour will change so that fewer shifts are cancelled, but the value of unavoidable cancellations could still be as high as £120 million a year, although that will depend on the detail of the policy further down the line. That is a fairly cavalier attitude to take towards business costs, particularly, as we discussed earlier, given the requirements of some shift work in the sectors mentioned in new clause 31. Our new clause therefore attempts to encourage the Government to do the job properly and set out the costs to hospitality, retail and health and care sectors from clause 1 on the right to guaranteed hours; clause 2 on rights to reasonable notice for shifts; clause 3 on the right to payment for cancelled, moved and curtailed shifts; clause 4 on amendments relating to sections 1 to 3; clause 5 on the repeal of the Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023; and clause 6 on exclusivity terms in zero-hours arrangements. Given that so much of this policy is still to be determined by regulations, we do not think it unreasonable that this assessment should take place before the relevant clauses of the Bill can be commenced.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  I hear what the Minister says. I am grateful for his comments about his desire not to repeat the mistakes of the early 2000s. I still think that the new clauses and amendments that we tabled would be important for business and for employees. We will seek to return to them on Report, as with the other new clauses. For the time being, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn . New Clause 31 Sections 1 to 6: impact assessment “The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the expected impact of sections 1 to 6 on— (a) the hospitality sector, (b) the retail sector, and (c) the health and social care sector.”— (Greg Smith.) This new clause requires the Government to publish an impact assessment on the impact of sections 1-6. Brought up, and read the First time .

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

  More

  I shall speak briefly to new clause 4, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Of course, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support all practical measures to combat harassment and sexual harassment wherever it occurs. Our challenge to the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Torbay on behalf of the third party is about understanding where the shortfalls are in existing whistleblower legislation that make the amendment necessary. I heard what he said about his personal experience, but our analysis of the provisions of legislation that is active and live now, as we consider the new clause in Committee, shows that whistleblowing legislation already covers what he is trying to achieve. We are not certain why it is necessary, on a practical level, to add the new clause to the Bill.