PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) - 5 December 2024 (Commons/Public Bill Committees)

I beg to move amendment 50, in schedule 1, page 108, line 34, at end insert—

“or the employer believes that that duty so applies, and”.

This amendment extends proposed section 104BA(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (dismissal is unfair if done to avoid giving a worker a guaranteed hours offer to which the worker is entitled under proposed section 27BA of that Act) to a case where an employer believes a worker is entitled to such an offer.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. As is now our custom, I will start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.

Government amendment 50 will expand the existing protections for employees who are dismissed as a result of employers seeking to avoid the new duty to offer guaranteed hours. It will ensure that an employee who is dismissed because their employer believes that the right to guaranteed hours applies will benefit from unfair dismissal protections. As drafted, the provisions apply only if the duty to offer guaranteed hours actually applies. That could leave a loophole whereby an employee who is dismissed because their employer mistakenly believes that the obligation applies would have no protection from unfair dismissal. All employees deserve protection from unfair dismissal, whether or not they are eligible for guaranteed hours. The amendment will ensure that equal protection is in place.

Government amendment 51 is a small amendment that will remove wording in the Bill about when the termination of a worker must take effect in order for them to be regarded as unfairly dismissed for the purpose of proposed new section 104BA(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Government have concluded that there is no need to set out when the termination occurred. The amendment will make the Bill’s meaning clearer, as it is logical from its provisions that that would be during a reference period or the corresponding offer period. Remaining silent on the effective date of termination also follows the precedent set for other rights under the 1996 Act.

Government amendment 52 is consequential on Government amendment 51.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I understand the Minister’s explanation of the amendment, which appears to be a logical consequence of the other provisions on guaranteed hours, although we have the old chestnut about why it was not in the Bill when it was first introduced. It seems a pretty straightforward measure that reflects where the Government have always said they are coming from, so it is peculiar that it is coming at this stage. I might go so far as to ask the Minister whether Government amendments 50 and 51 are in fact correcting mistakes, as opposed to adding to the original drafting of the Bill.

I have some specific questions about the amendments. How does the Minister envisage that it will be proven that an employer believes that a worker is entitled to an offer of guaranteed hours? Some clarification would be helpful, not just so that the Committee and the House can understand the scope of the amendment, but so that businesses can plan for what might be coming down the line.

May I also ask the Minister for clarity about what amendment 51 will mean for dismissal during the reference period? I am not sure that we have enough clarity on that point to satisfy the Committee. Given how the schedule and the amendments are drafted, there is a possibility of a legal opinion indicating that it is possible for employers to dismiss employees during the reference period. From everything else that the Minister has said, I would be surprised if that were the Government’s intent. When he sums up, it will be useful if he clarifies whether that is indeed his intent. Is that one of the many loopholes that he is seeking to shut down with the Government’s amendments, and does it need shutting down further? Or is it the Government’s intent that that should be possible for employers within the scope of the Bill?

I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s questions. I feel that we are embarking on an employment law masterclass, although I am not sure that I consider myself a master.

The first point was about how an individual would demonstrate that an employer had believed that they were entitled to particular rights and therefore had reason for dismissal. It is akin to existing case law and legal precedents from other jurisdictions: a set of facts can be presented to the employment tribunal to determine its judgment. I accept that it is not the easiest thing to prove, but that is how the law is currently structured and there will be no departure from that.

On the second point, clearly we would not want this to have the unintended consequence of not relating to a dismissal during the reference period. Proposed new section 104BA(3) logically demonstrates that if there is a termination during the reference period, the same protections would still apply. I am happy to seek further advice, but my understanding is that the Bill, as drafted, covers that situation. Clearly we would not want a loophole of that nature. I hope that that deals with the shadow’s Minister’s questions.

Amendment 50 agreed to.

Amendments made: 51, in schedule 1, page 108, leave out lines 39 to 41.

This amendment removes a requirement about the timing of a dismissal from proposed section 104BA(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Amendment 52, in schedule 1, page 109, leave out line 1. —(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 51.

I beg to move amendment 53, in schedule 1, page 109, line 30, leave out “last” and insert “latest”.

This amendment and amendment 54 concern the calculation of a week’s pay for the purposes of an award of compensation by an employment tribunal following a complaint under proposed section 27BF of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The amendments ensure that the rules work for all such complaints.

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

This is a minor and technical amendment that brings, on this specific point, the clarity that we have been asking for on so many other clauses and Government amendments. It appears to be correcting defective drafting in the version of the Bill originally presented to the House.

The need for such amendments suggests that the arbitrary target to publish the Bill in 100 days has once again been found wanting. As I have said before, I understand the political imperative for the Government to have done so, but it brings little comfort to employers or employees, who need certainty and clarity on the Bill. At least with Government amendments 53 and 54, that certainty and clarity has now come. I urge the Government to apply the same rigour to their other amendments so that businesses planning for the future can do so—perhaps not with jubilant support for the Bill, but with an understanding of what the Government are legislating for.

Amendment 53 agreed to.

Amendment made: 54, in schedule 1, page 109, line 31, at end insert

“on which the worker was employed by the employer under a worker’s contract”.—(Justin Madders.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 53.

Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.

Schedule 1 will make various amendments to the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Among those amendments, which are consequential on clauses 1 to 3, I highlight the insertion of proposed new section 47H of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to make provision for a worker not to be subject to detriment on various grounds relating to the right to guaranteed hours. The employer cannot penalise the worker for accepting an offer of a guaranteed hours contract, for example, or for challenging an offer that is not in compliance with the obligations on the employer regarding guaranteed hours.

Amendments have been made to extend these detriment provisions to situations in which a worker brings a claim or alleges the existence of a claim in relation to a breach of the duties relating to information rights and notice requirements. The detriment provisions are also extended to situations in which a worker suffers a detriment because they qualify for the right to guaranteed hours or the employer believes that they do. Whether a detriment has occurred in such instances will of course be for an employment tribunal to determine. Likewise, the employer cannot penalise the worker for declining to work a shift that the worker reasonably believed was offered with unreasonable notice. This is an important right that helps to address the potential power imbalance between an employer and a worker who is seeking to enforce their statutory rights.

Schedule 1 will also insert proposed new section 104BA of the Employment Rights Act, which makes provision for an employee to be treated as unfairly dismissed if the reason—or principal reason—for the dismissal is that the employee accepted or rejected, or proposed to accept or reject, an offer of guaranteed hours. Likewise, an employee will be treated as unfairly dismissed if the employer was under a duty to offer guaranteed hours but the employer dismissed the employee during the reference period to avoid having to comply with that duty. Amendments have been made to ensure that unfair dismissal protections extend to cases where a worker is dismissed because the employer believes they have a duty to offer guaranteed hours, even if that belief is mistaken.

My argument is similar to the arguments that we have had in substantive debates on previous groups of amendments to the schedule. With this Bill, we have consistently seen an approach of legislating first and consulting second. I understand why that might be appropriate in some circumstances, but certainly for many of the schedule 1 provisions that the Minister has outlined, businesses will find it inadequate. They will find it too difficult to start making their business plans, their plans for growth, their plans for new contracts or their plans to expand in the next financial year, the year after, or even the year after that. It is not unusual for businesses to engage in medium and long-term planning, but too many aspects of the schedule mean that they cannot. Real businesses in the real world are trying to scope out where their next capital investment, their next expansion or their next acquisition of another business is coming from.

Because of those holes, the Opposition are deeply concerned that the Bill, which was incredibly rushed to meet an arbitrary 100-day political rather than legislative objective, will bring too much uncertainty to the economy and to business. At the end of the day, judging from the evidence that we heard in last week’s four sittings, it is having the net effect that businesses will simply take a deep breath and draw back from employing more people. They will not take the risk of taking on new hires. Given our debates on Tuesday, I am thinking particularly of that all-important risk of giving a second chance in life to a marginal candidate.

Sometimes an employer is not entirely convinced that a candidate is the best fit for their workplace, for any of a number of reasons—they may be a rehabilitated former offender or they may have had a number of struggles in life—but is willing to give them a chance. We heard from witnesses that those employers who were going to give people in those circumstances that chance in life—that chance to better themselves—might not now do so. That would be an absolute tragedy for the individuals involved and a travesty of justice when it comes to employment numbers in this country.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the Bill were to go back to the Department as he suggests, the period in which changes to employment legislation are considered by Parliament would be extended and the uncertainty of which he speaks would be prolonged? Does he further accept that one of the business community’s key requests was for ongoing consultation as the Bill makes its way through its parliamentary stages, and that if we were to take the action he suggests, the Government would be breaking that commitment to business that business has asked for?

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I believe that it was the Deputy Prime Minister who, in the media over the weekend, could not name a single business that supports the Bill. I will gladly take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman if he can name a single business that supports the Bill. [Interruption.] Not an umbrella body, but an actual business.

We heard from the Co-op, in the evidence sessions that we all attended last week, that that support is there. Off the top of my head, I would add Octopus and Centrica, two examples of very significant businesses that have welcomed provisions in the Bill.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There are clearly thousands of businesses in this country; I notice that he did not name a single business from his constituency. I actually know Northfield very well: my late grandmother worked in Walter Smith butchers in Northfield for many years, well into her 80s.

I fully understand the need for any Government to have ongoing dialogue with business, but I gently say to the hon. Gentleman and all Government Members that there is a big political cost when any Government legislate too swiftly without fully thinking things through and without clarity of thought and of objectives. Yes, there are principles—they are clearly Labour principles—running through the Bill, but there is not that clarity of thought as to many measures in schedule 1.

I say gently, perhaps from bitter experience in the four and a half years prior to the general election, that I know what happens when legislation is rushed. From the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to the Illegal Migration Act 2023, there were multiple pieces of legislation, none of which hit the nail on the head. Perhaps they were a little bit too rushed. They failed to meet the objective that we, the previous Government, clearly set out to achieve of ending small boat crossings in the channel.

I raise that clearly very out-of-scope point only as a warning to the Government that if they insist on going too quickly and rushing the Bill through just to meet the headline of having published it in 100 days, it could turn out to be a very painful experience not just for them as a Government, but for the business community in this country. These are the businesses that will be the backbone of our economy and will actually create the jobs that I think the Government also want to see, but the Bill might have the unintended consequence of damping them down.

My irony meter has reached overload. I think it is fair to say that in the last four years of chaos under the previous Government, uncertainty was brought to a new level. That was not about legislation; it was just about the way that the Government operated, or failed to operate, as the case may be.

Let me try to put the shadow Minister’s mind at ease about the process. We consulted extensively in opposition, we consulted in government before the Bill was published, and we are continuing to consult. The Bill will set out the broad powers that the Government wish to take in respect of employment rights. There will then be more detailed consultation as we get into the secondary legislation, where the detail—the real meat and veg of this law—will be dealt with. There is not going to be a rush for this provision to be enacted, because we understand that it is important to get the details right. Many of these measures will not come into force until 2026, because we want to get this right.

We want to make sure that we take businesses with us and listen to their concerns, to workers’ concerns and to trade unions’ representations. The impact assessment is clear that there is no expected impact on the number of jobs available.

The Minister talks about further consultation. Can he give a commitment right here, on the record, to consultation on all the measures in schedule 1 and the rest of the Bill that go through to his 2026 deadline? First, can he commit that 2026 really is the deadline? Secondly, can he commit that consultation with trade unions and with business will have equal billing, and that one of the two will not outweigh the other?

I think there was a suggestion there that we may favour one stakeholder group over another. I assure the shadow Minister that when we tot up the engagements that we have had so far, the number of businesses and business organisations is far in excess of the number of trade unions. Actually, we want to consult with everyone, broadly: we do not think that there should be an arbitrary limit on who we discuss this with.

On the time limits, the “Next Steps” document is very clear about the timetable. If it takes more time, it takes more time. We do not want to rush the Bill through and create unintended consequences of the type that the shadow Minister is rightly concerned about. We want to get it right. That is why we are committed to consulting as we go forward.

On the point about process: at the point at which the Bill came before the House for a Second Reading, how many of its clauses were already subject to revision within the Department?

I was not privy to the drafting of individual clauses—the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel does that, and it is a separate organisation from the Department—but I can certainly write to the hon. Gentleman with details on which clauses we expected to be amended. It is fair to say that we expected a number of clauses to be amended when the Bill was published.

It is important that we get this right. The Bill is a Bill, not an Act, so it will continue to evolve; there will then be further detailed consultation on implementation and the regulations. That is why I believe that the shadow Minister’s concerns are ill-founded.

Question put, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.

Clause 5 is the first of several clauses that will repeal previous legislation, although it may not be the most controversial of our repeals. The clause will repeal the previous Government’s Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023, which if commenced would have brought in a right for workers to request a more predictable working pattern. Requests could still be turned down by the employer. That approach is clearly different from the right to guaranteed hours that we have set out in the Bill. We do not want to confuse employers and workers with two different models, so the Bill will repeal the 2023 Act entirely. Nevertheless, the work that was done to develop the 2023 Act has been useful in the drafting of our new measures and will continue to be taken into account as we evolve and develop our policies.

We want predictability and security to be the baseline in all jobs, creating an economy that works for all. We think responsibility for offering guaranteed hours should therefore rest with the employer. Without guaranteed hours, workers do not have any form of certainty as to their earnings, making it difficult for them to apply for credit or a mortgage, rent a flat, plan for major events such as weddings or holidays, or even manage day-to-day expenses.

In addition, when people have a better idea of how many hours they will be working, it is easier for them to organise their family and social life, plan time together and organise travel and childcare—all things that are just so important for the wider welfare of our society. These provisions of the Bill will apply to all employers, levelling the playing field so that best-practice employers are rewarded rather than placed at a competitive disadvantage against employers who want to place risk wholly on the worker.

On the one hand, the Minister says that he wants certainty. On the other hand, he is repealing legislation that is but a year old. I fully appreciate that a new Government will want go through the legislation that the previous Government put on the statute book: it is vital in our democracy that we maintain the principle that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament, and I fully acknowledge and accept that the Government have a mandate to deliver their manifesto. However, I gently put it on the record—I direct this point towards the Minister—that certainty does not come from abolishing year-old legislation that businesses have only just started thinking about, let alone implemented.

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Exclusivity terms in zero hours arrangements

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 will amend section 27B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to reflect the new definition of “zero hours arrangement” in clause 4, which will apply to the whole of part 2A. As has been discussed in relation to clause 4, the definition has been amended to ensure that it does not inadvertently exclude any zero-hours workers in cases where they have a contract with the employer but the contract does not, in itself, make them a worker. The definition of “zero hours arrangement” captures those who have an arrangement to work for their employer when work is provided but have no obligation to accept work, and the employer has no obligation to provide it. Such an arrangement between the employer and the individual could, however, include other obligations that amount to a contract, albeit that they are not a workers’ contract. The clause will ensure that individuals caught in that situation are also covered by the Bill.

On a technical point—I put this on the record for clarity—the definition of “non-contractual zero hours arrangements” in section 27B of the 1996 Act is amended by clause 6, but a new definition for the whole of part 2A will be inserted by clause 4. The definition of “non-contractual zero hours arrangements” in part 2A is being changed by clause 6, as well as being inserted by clause 4, which may well be commenced after clause 6 for the rest of the provisions. The changes in clause 6 will ensure that the definition in section 27B operates as intended before the commencement of other provisions on zero-hours arrangements. The definition in section 27B will then be repealed on commencement of the other provisions, as is provided for in schedule 1.

I hope that that was clear to everyone. I commend the clause to the Committee.

I feel that we have gone over those details multiple times, particularly on Tuesday, so I will not take up a great deal of time. However, it is important to put on the record the Opposition’s concern about cases such as the one that I outlined in this morning’s sitting. The Minister conceded that it probably was a zero-hours contract, but it did have an element of certainty of pay as that individual was contracted to be up at a certain time of day to find out whether he had work that day, so there was payment for it but not necessarily guaranteed hours. Such cases still need an answer, whether from the Government’s legal counsel or within the Department. I take the Minister at his word: he said this morning that he would look into such cases and test how the Bill will apply. That is as relevant to clause 6 as it is to other clauses that we have discussed.

The worst-case scenario is that the Bill becomes too prescriptive and takes away arrangements that individuals enter into freely and want to enter into; perhaps it suits them to do so. I accept that that is probably not the majority of cases, but there will be people out there in the economy who perhaps do not need to work. Perhaps they do not need the money. There are such people, believe it or not—I am certainly not one of them. There are people who want to take on a zero-hours contract for something to do. I fully accept and place it on the record that that will be a very small number of people, but if they are completely wiped out by some of these prescriptions without flexibility, that will be a problem for the economy, much as it is if employers just take everybody on a zero-hours contract and offer them nothing further. That, equally, would be a tragedy.

I understand where the Government are coming from in clause 6. I understand the principles behind it. Again, however, I urge the Minister to double-kick the tyres and check that there will not be unintended consequences that have a negative impact on employment in this country.

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Right to request flexible working

I beg to move amendment 136, in clause 7, page 25, line 5, at end insert—

“(1AZA) But where the employer is—

(a) the Security Service;

(b) the Secret Intelligence Service, or

(c) the Government Communication Headquarters,

the test of reasonableness in subsection (2)(b)(ii) does not apply, and the notification under subsection 1(aa) need not explain why the employer considers that it is reasonable to refuse the application on that ground or those grounds.”

This amendment would exclude the security services from the Bill’s provisions on flexible working.

Amendment 136 is essentially a probing amendment—I make that clear from the outset—but one that should go to the nub of exactly where the Government want to go with this measure, not least bearing in mind the Minister’s comments at the end of the last debate about ensuring that everybody falls under the same set of rules. There may be organisations where it is impractical for their employees to be under the same set of rules. The amendment seeks to probe the matter of exempting those working in the security services from clause 7. We define the security services as MI5, GCHQ and the Secret Intelligence Service.

The Regulatory Policy Committee has explained that the Government have not proved that the measures on flexible working are necessary or undertaken any proper assessment of the costs to business. We therefore want to probe the Government’s thinking on how the provisions might apply in practice. There may be certain occupations, such as the security services, where it is harder for the employer to agree requests for flexible working. I am sure that everyone can see the practical realities and the potential consequences for national security and the safety of everyone in our great United Kingdom if the security services were to suddenly have flexible working arrangements.

Has the Minister given any consideration to which sectors may find these provisions either more difficult or completely impractical to comply with? The amendment takes the example of the security services, where irregular hours are worked. I am sure that hon. Members can think of other occupations, such as policing—and perhaps ours, if I may be so bold, Sir Christopher—where irregular hours are more than commonplace.

We would like to understand how the provisions of the Bill will apply to the security services and to understand the Minister’s thinking as to why. That is the critical question in politics—my early mentor in politics, the late, great Eric Forth, was clear that it is the only question that matters in politics—so I put it to the Minister. We want to understand the balance between the right to request flexible working and public protection. Again, I do not believe that any Member of this House wants to undermine public protection and the safety of our nation. The first duty of Government is the defence of the realm and the security of its citizens.

The security services will not be the only profession that might find the requirements difficult to administer. Will the Minister let us know, when he responds to what I repeat is a probing amendment, where the Government stand? What is his assessment of those areas that simply will not be able to comply with the provisions of the Bill? What safeguards will the Government put in place for them? We seek to understand the practicalities of the requirements that the Government are seeking to impose.

It is a pleasure to serve under your exemplary chairmanship, Sir Christopher.

Before I get into the clause, may I say that I enjoyed my discussion with the shadow Minister about the Northfield constituency? I am half tempted to cite my great grandparents, who were confectioners and newsagents, to burnish my small business credentials, but some on the Labour Benches can do it better. I appreciate that he said that the amendment is probing and that he is taking a particularly unique case in order to test the limits of the Bill.

Focusing on the words of the amendment rather than on the wider issues, because it is the words that matter, it is important to look at the history of employment rights as they relate to the intelligence services, because this is an area that was tested in the 1980s and 1990s in particular. The consequences of not extending these rights to the intelligence services speak to the argument against making the amendment.

For those of us who come from a trade union background, there is an uncomfortable reminder of the ban on trade union activity at GCHQ in the 1980s, which led to a number of skilled professionals leaving the employment of that service. It is important to remember the 14 trade unionists who were sacked because they did not give up their trade union membership. Many of them were re-employed 13 years later, because they still had their skills, which were in high demand.

The shadow Minister talked about the unique nature of flexible working in the intelligence services. I suspect that employees of those services have flexible working arrangements that are hard for any of us on the Committee to imagine, but when employees of the intelligence services did not have recourse to most of the normal procedures of employment law, it was an acknowledged problem that dissatisfaction among employees of the services in itself became a security risk. Some hon. Members may recall that there were a number of very high-profile cases of dissatisfied members of those services who went on the public record in breach of the Official Secrets Act. In some cases, that was attributed to dissatisfaction with employment situations. I can do no better than quote from the Intelligence and Security Committee’s annual report of 1997-98. At that time, the Committee was chaired by Baron King of Bridgwater, the predecessor of one of the Conservative Members who tabled the amendment. It stated:

“The Committee also believes that everything possible should be done to ensure that employees of the Agencies have the same rights as employees elsewhere.”

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for the universalism, or near-universalism, of employment rights and presumably, within that, trade union rights. The power to withdraw one’s labour is a very important part of modern employment practice. We are talking about the three security and intelligence agencies listed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, but I want to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to give his view about the universalism of these rights, including the right of the police, for example, to join a union and to strike.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. It is a shame that our Liberal Democrat colleagues are not able to join us, because we could have an interesting discussion about the consequences of the 1919 police strike, and the promises that Lloyd George made and subsequently broke, which led to the creation of the Police Federation rather than an independent trade union, but I will not detain the Committee on that matter. I will just say that we are operating under the international framework for employment law, which sets out very clearly that there are exemptions to the normal right of freedom of association—let us call it what it is—and that includes industrial action. I do not think that the Bill is the right place to diverge from that international framework.

I had reached the end of my points. As I say, there are good national security reasons for rejecting the amendment.

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. As this is my first time speaking today, I draw everyone’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my trade union memberships. I want to pick up very slightly on some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield.

I fully appreciate that we are talking about a probing amendment. I will not revisit my use of the word “ridiculous” on Tuesday—we stayed in that territory for long enough—but the shadow Minister perhaps underestimates the ability of different sectors to accommodate flexible working and to overcome the challenges that he believes the flexible working measures in the Bill might present. In fact, GCHQ already operates a flexible working policy. On its website it is proud to point out that

“Work-life balance is important to us”

and that its

“flexible working patterns…are designed to help work fit… alongside…personal lives.”

If anything, exclusions for entire services sectors would be a retrograde step in places where flexible working provisions are already working perfectly well.

Moving on to the broader point, as demonstrated, I believe that sectors, businesses and employers can cope with this change. There are adequate measures for reasonableness in the Bill. Access to flexible working is an incredibly important right for workers in a modern, evolving workplace. Measures such as these gear the world of work for the future by enabling people to enter the workforce and to stay in it—something that the shadow Minister has expressed a concern about. Anything like this amendment that would exclude sectors, groups or organisations wholesale feels unnecessary, especially in the light of how the measures would work in practice.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I want to refer to a couple of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment and that, as the MP for Gloucester, I perhaps have a vested interest, given that a number of my constituents work over the constituency border in Cheltenham.

Flexible working will not be available in every role, for some of the reasons listed in the Bill, but for many roles there would be the ability to start half an hour later and finish half an hour earlier, perhaps, or to work different hours over the course of a week. Those are results of flexible working requests. I think that, sometimes, there is a haste from the Conservative party to equate flexible working with working from home—and to put little notes on people’s desks saying that they are not working hard enough. It is really important that we look at flexible working as a whole.

In my experience as an employment solicitor, the Bill is welcome, because the “reasonable” test is important in making sure that we are encouraging employers to think properly about flexible working requests. This measure is also very business friendly, because there is a long list of exemptions that will allow an employer to say, “Because of x, y and z, flexible working is not appropriate.” There is no requirement to accept a request; there is only a requirement to think about it, and to think about those exemptions reasonably. In the context of what we are trying to do, and that balancing act between rights for employees and rights for businesses, I think this lands in about the right place.

The shadow Minister is right that this change will not apply evenly in every sector; it cannot in every business, because of the reasons listed in the exemptions. Each business will have different requirements regarding customer demands, performance and quality. It would be quite difficult for a dentist to work from home, I suggest, but it might be quite easy for them to come in at half-past 9 two days a week. Again, that is a flexible working request. The reasonableness test deals with the purpose of the shadow Minister’s amendment, which is to look at how different sectors might approach the change rather than having a one-size-fits-all approach.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my membership of GMB.

I will apologise now if I have an out-of-date amendment paper; the one that I have is dated Tuesday 3 December. Very early on in our discussions, we had the strange definition of a small or medium-sized businesses as one employing 500 people or more. I just want to check whether the proposed amendment is indeed accurate, because it refers to

“the test of reasonableness in subsection (2)(b)(ii)”.

I do not think that any such subsection exists—I think it should be (3)(b)(ii)—but I appreciate that that might be my misunderstanding.

I draw the Committee’s attention to my interests, and to my membership of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the National Education Union.

The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire seeks to amend clause 7 in order to commit the Government to exempting the security services from the requirement to refuse a flexible working request only when it is reasonable to do so against one of the eight reasons set out in legislation. His amendment would also exempt the security services from having to explain to an employee why their request for flexible working could not be met. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Northfield, for Worsley and Eccles and for Gloucester have pointed out many good reasons why that is unnecessary, and I will explain why I think the same.

The grounds for refusing a flexible working request are intentionally broad, so that they capture all the business reasons that may make such a request unfeasible. That applies to the security services as it does to any other employer. I will not read out all eight reasons, but I will give some examples. The work may not be able to be reorganised among other staff, or quality or performance may be negatively affected. There may be a lack of work at a particular proposed time, or the business’s ability to meet the demand of customers—we have mentioned the Home Office—may be negatively affected. There is a huge range of reasons that could be used, and they would surely cover—

I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what conversations she has had with MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to understand whether, given their unusual, specific, specialist operations, there are any circumstances that might go beyond those already set out.

If I may continue, the point is that there is significant leeway. Basically, the way the provision is worded takes into account the context of the particular type of business. There are many different types of roles in the security services, as has been pointed out, and different things will apply in different circumstances. There is plenty of opportunity there.

I think the answer to the question must be no. That may be fair enough, but can the Minister tell us whether she has had any conversations with her opposite numbers in the Home Office, which sponsors MI5, or the Foreign Office, which sponsors GCHQ and MI6?

What really matters is that flexibility is in-built, and I am sure that colleagues in the Home Office will be able to use it.

The other point that the hon. Member for West Suffolk might like me to address is whether giving a reason could expose something that it would be undesirable to expose—in other words, whether any explanation given would incur a breach of security. In many cases—probably the majority—the reason for refusing a flexible working request will not involve matters of national security. It might be a matter of not being able to reorganise the work among existing staff to facilitate a requested working pattern, or there being insufficient work during the period someone has asked to work. Those reasons will be no different from what other employers are considering. In most cases, it will be possible for an employer to give reasons for their refusal without disclosing any sensitive information.

There will certainly be cases where matters of national security come into play, but there are already protections in place. The grounds for refusal given by the employer have to be made public only at the point at which legal proceedings are started. In the unlikely event that an employee makes a claim in the employment tribunal, the tribunal is able to conduct all or part of the proceedings in private, or to order a person not to disclose any document. I therefore invite the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire to withdraw his amendment.

I am grateful to the Minister for her responses. I highlight that this is a probing amendment designed to test the Government’s thinking. I appreciate the flexibilities that she has outlined, but as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk set out, the security services are a particularly unique element within public service.

I can see a multitude of reasons why some of those flexibilities will not be good enough to ensure that those predominantly charged with our national security can comply with every measure in the Bill. I urge the Minister to have those conversations with relevant Ministers in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office, who are responsible for our security services, to double-check that they are entirely comfortable with the provisions in the Bill, which I dare say has been through the write-around process. Sometimes minutiae and detail can be lost in that process, and it is vital for our national security that the Bill should be properly road-tested to the nth degree.

Will the shadow Minister give way on that point?

I will finish the line, and then I will. I make that point just to highlight that there are sometimes circumstances in which the flexibilities that the Minister spoke of may not fully apply. I am sure a witticism is coming.

Sadly, I am not very funny. Would M’s HR adviser not say, “That might have a detrimental impact on your performance, Mr Bond”? That flexible working request could therefore be reasonably denied.

I am sure that was in “GoldenEye”!

I think that has probably been a plot line already. The hon. Member for Gloucester understands the point that I am making here within certain elements of employment in this country. This was a probing amendment, and we will come back to the principle of this discussion—although maybe not the detail of the Bond example—later in the Bill’s passage. For the time being, I urge the Minister to have those conversations with colleagues in other parts of Government to double-check that they are fully appreciative of the measures in this Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Flexible working is essential to helping people achieve a better work-life balance. It can lead to employees being happier, healthier and more productive. Having the ability to vary the time, hours and place of work is also key to the functioning of the UK’s flexible labour market. Improving access to flexible working is therefore good for employees and good for business. That is why we have committed to making flexible working the default, unless it is not reasonably feasible.

I reassure members of the Committee that my team has fully engaged with members of the Security Service, particularly on amendment 132 and not just the write-around, which is quite important. I am, of course, looking forward to this year’s Mid Buckinghamshire pantomime—I assume the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire will play the role of a secret service special agent.

To return to the clause, the Government accept that employers must be allowed to make decisions about what is and is not reasonably feasible so that they can ensure that business operations are able to run effectively. We are therefore retaining the existing legal framework, which allows employers to reject flexible working requests on one of eight specified business grounds. The Bill makes it more likely that requests will be accepted and that flexible working will become the default. It contains the three following measures. First, it creates a new requirement that employers may refuse a flexible working request only if it is reasonable to do so on the basis of at least one of the eight specified business grounds.

Secondly, the Bill requires employers to state the ground or grounds for refusing requests and explain why they consider it reasonable to do so. Under the current framework, an employer must only notify the employee of the decision; there is no requirement for an employer to explain the basis of a decision, which can mean a lack of clarity and transparency for the employee if their application is refused. While these measures do not remove the employer’s ability to make a decision on whether a flexible working request is reasonable, they do require the employer to explain and justify that decision and, in turn, the measures open up that decision for scrutiny by an employment tribunal.

Finally, the current legislation is silent on how to meet the requirement to consult when rejecting a request. We think it is important to provide employers and employees with greater clarity around the process if the employer intends to reject a request, so we are inserting a new power for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the steps that employers must take when consulting with the employee before deciding to refuse a flexible working application. We do not want to create bureaucracy for the sake of it. To ensure we get the balance right, we will work with stakeholders and undertake a full public consultation in partnership with business, trade unions and third sector bodies. The consultation will consider what the process should be, and that will ensure we get the balance right before we lay regulations.

Taken together, these measures are designed to encourage the acceptance of more requests, to improve clarity on decisions, to encourage more careful consideration of requests and to encourage constructive dialogue between employers and employees. We believe that this will help to make flexible working the default in a sensible and pragmatic way.

There is strong evidence to support our approach. Research by the equal parenting project, for example, found that 75% of UK managers believe that flexible working increases productivity and that 62.5% believe that it boosts motivation. Yet, according to the flexible jobs index 2023, although nine in 10 people want to work flexibly, only six in 10 employees are currently working flexibly and only three in 10 jobs are advertised with flexible working.

I will stop with the Bond jokes for now, but “Never Say Never Again”—Members know that laughter is one of the best medicines, certainly for our mental health and for the mental health of workers. Research from the Centre for Mental Health cites strong evidence that Government policies to boost workplace rights, such as on flexible working and job security, can positively impact workers’ mental health.

Flexibility is crucial to the workplace participation of those with long-term chronic health conditions and those with mental health problems, and it is good for workers. In the oral evidence sessions, we heard that good employment conditions support productivity, employers and the economy, and that good flexible working policies generally go down very well with employees: it can help staff to feel engaged in their work and to feel valued by their managers. I am sure Opposition Members want to feel valued, but—

I apologise, Sir Christopher.

I thank my hon. Friend for her valuable contribution; she reminds us that flexible working can often be a real help in getting people into work.

The changes in the Bill will support employers and employees to agree solutions that work for both parties and increase the take-up of flexible working. The Opposition amendments, new clause 26 and amendment 132, proposed by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, include a requirement for an assessment of the impact of the Bill’s provisions on flexible working to be produced before the provisions can be commenced. The Government resist those amendments. They have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments, which was published alongside Second Reading and based on the best available evidence on the potential impact of the Bill’s measures on business, workers and the wider economy.

Our proportionate assessment included labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis considering the impact of these changes on individuals and businesses. It also provided a breakdown of the impacts on employment tribunals, small business and individuals with protected characteristics. We intend to refine that analysis over time, working closely with businesses, trade unions, academics and think-tanks. The analysis published alongside the Bill describes the overall business impact as neutral. Businesses may see benefits in improved productivity, employee loyalty, worker satisfaction, staff retention and the ability to attract a wider range of employees. It is important to remember that businesses can still reject flexible working requests on eight valid business grounds, including the burden of costs.

As is standard practice, the Government will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill reaches Royal Assent, in line with the requirements of the better regulation framework. That will account for where the primary legislation in the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament in such a way as to change the impacts of the policy on business significantly. That impact assessment will be published alongside the enacted legislation. We will then publish further analysis alongside future consultations, ahead of secondary legislation to meet our better regulation requirements. I therefore ask Opposition Members to withdraw their amendments.

New clause 26 and amendment 132 are about impact assessments of flexible working. Amid her speculation about the Mid Buckinghamshire pantomime, to which I trust she will be buying a ticket, the Minister talked about impact assessments that have already been made. But we know what the Regulatory Policy Committee has said about those impact assessments:

“there is little evidence presented that employers are rejecting requests”

for flexible working “unreasonably”.

We should remember that the previous Conservative Government, although they want to repeal it, introduced the right to request flexible working from the first day of employment through the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Act) 2023, which came into force in April. The RPC has said that the Government have not considered the effectiveness of the previous Bill—it might be difficult to do so given how recently it has come into force—and that it is therefore

“difficult to assess the justification for the additional measures”

in the Bill. The RPC also says that the Government have not considered the effectiveness of non-regulatory options such as raising awareness of the right to request flexible working. So the Government have not made the case for why this is necessary. I do not believe the Minister gave a clear explanation either. I am sure she will have a second chance to do so in summing up.

The RPC rebukes the Government for failing to take into account the costs this measure will impose on business, namely

“the costs to employers of engaging with more ET cases and hearings taking longer because they will now be considering wider and more subjective factors”

and that the Government’s own impact assessment

“assumes that there are no net costs to employers of accepting requests, on the basis that they would do so only if the benefits at least matched the costs. However, this does not necessarily hold as rational, risk averse employers will also factor in the increased cost/risk of rejecting requests under the proposal, seeking to avoid costly employment tribunals and, especially for SMBs”—

The hon. Member is talking about costs, but does he not agree that the lack of flexible work locks out far too many women? Some 40% of women who are not currently working say that access to flexible work would mean that they could take paid work. If we are talking about the cost to the economy, does he not agree that guaranteeing flexible working would boost the economy?

The Opposition are not against flexible working; as I said, we actually legislated for it in the previous Parliament. We can see the benefits of it, as we discussed this morning, for anyone with childcare responsibilities—I count myself and my wife in that; I do not think it is quite a declarable interest—a caring responsibility or a need to have those flexible hours.

We fully recognise and accept the challenges around the nuts and bolts of the details proposed in this legislation, but I gently put it to the hon. Lady that it is our job, as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, to road-test any legislation that the Government bring forward, which is what we are seeking to do. We are not against flexible working, but we are focused on the potential unintended consequences, the potential cost to business and the potential cost to jobs in the overall workforce, as I argued in a debate on an amendment this morning.

If employers do not have confidence—if they think that something will go wrong or that it will lead to countless days and months in employment tribunals—they may not make those hires in the first place, and then everyone and the whole economy will suffer. Opposition Members cannot stand by and not challenge or test that to ensure that the Government have got it right. To return to what I was saying before the intervention, for SMEs, the opportunity cost of their chief executive officer or another senior director spending time on employment tribunals is also considerable.

New clause 26 in my name and the name of my hon. Friends merely gives the Government an opportunity to do their homework and test whether the provision will work. We do not believe that they should casually pile more regulation on to business without knowing whether these specific measures—the detailed measures in the Bill—are actually needed to achieve their objectives.

We are asking the Government to consult on the impact of the measure and to report on it, and for the House of Commons to approve that report before the measure comes into force. Given the RPC’s verdict on the Bill’s impact assessments, business would find it reassuring if the impact assessment could be done and placed before the House so that we could study it and debate it, and so that Members on both sides of the House—Government Back Benchers and Opposition Back Benchers, as well as those in the smaller parties—can fully understand it. We believe that it is important for the Government to have to come back again for the approval of the House before the measure comes into effect.

The hon. Gentleman seems to be looking for statistical evidence about employers unreasonably refusing flexible working requests. I must say that it is a shame that the workplace employment relations study was last carried out in 2011. The Government at the time declined to repeat the exercise; had they not, we might have the information in front of us that he is looking for.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are precedents—blacklisting, for example—in which there were widespread but anecdotal reports that the practice was occurring? It was difficult to prove, and on that basis, the regulations on blacklisting were not enacted. Then, lo and behold, it became apparent years later that the practice was not just widespread but had been carried out on an industrial scale. Had the measures been put in place at the time, many lives would have been left unbroken.

I will take on the chin the hon. Gentleman’s point about the 2011 dataset, which was published under the coalition Government, led by my noble friend Lord Cameron. The current Government is seeking to make this legislation, however, so the onus is on them—right here, right now—to provide the datasets, evidence, proper analysis and impact assessments for the legislation that they are putting before the House of Commons and, later, the House of Lords in this Session of this Parliament. I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts the good will with which that comment is made—it is not a political attack. It is the duty of any Government at any time, as they seek to legislate on any matter, to provide the impact assessments, the real data and the real-world evidence of why it is necessary to put that legislation in place.

As I said earlier, it is simply a case of asking the Government to do their homework properly, and to provide, not just to Parliament but to businesses and employees up and down the land, the basis for which they are seeking to change our statute book.

I will return briefly to a couple of the shadow Minister’s comments. I take some quantum of solace in the fact that he now seems to be accepting the principle of consultation. Over the past couple of weeks, we have often heard that he would prefer there to be certainty for business in some of the provisions, and now there is some certainty.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but my argument throughout our debates on the amendments has been that it is normal practice to consult first, legislate second, but in many parts of the Bill the practice is to legislate first, consult second. That, I gently suggest to him, is probably the wrong way round.

The “cake and eat it” argument is the point I was trying to make. I advised on flexible working requests regularly when in private practice, where individuals and, in particular, employers were asking what their rights were in respect of a request.

The hon. Gentleman raised two points, the first of which was about costs. Again, I point to the exemptions. The burden of additional costs is one of the exemptions by which an employer can say that it is not reasonable to accept a flexible working request. The balance between having rights for employees and making sure that they are not too much of a burden on business is important. The burden of additional costs is already explicitly covered in the legislation.

Secondly, in relation to tribunals, one of the issues with the current system is the lack of explanation provided. Employees often believe the worst, even if that is not always the case. They might make their request, with valid reasons, and if their employer tells them a flat no, with no further explanation, they often believe the worst and bring a tribunal claim.

Providing that explanation at the beginning requires the employer to think about the request. Not every employer is an excellent, flexible employer; some employers think that by offering flexible working, they will somehow lose productivity, whereas lots of studies have shown the opposite. Through that provision, employers will think about the request, engage with the process and the exemptions, think about what that means for their business, and provide a reasoned explanation.

That will not take as long as we might think, because there are only eight exemptions and people know their business very well. When they give that written explanation, it can be relatively short. It does not have to be “War and Peace”—I should have mentioned another James Bond novel—because it is just to give some background. We will then have an explanation that can be used in a tribunal. That will really assist tribunals in dealing with these cases, because there will be a written explanation of why the decision has been taken.

There are loads of cases in which people bring claims of discrimination because their flexible working requests have been rejected. Those can take up lots of time, when there has been just a misunderstanding between the employer and the employee. By introducing the requirement to provide an explanation, and for the employer to think through the reasonableness of it, there might hopefully be fewer claims in the employment tribunal.

Let me make a couple of quick points to sum up. The Opposition are trying to say that most businesses already do this, but this is not about the principle of introducing flexible working; it is about making the process straightforward, clear and consistent across businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, by ensuring that clarity, it may well reduce the number of cases that get taken to tribunal.

If most businesses are already doing this, why do we want to legislate? Well, we do not want those businesses to be penalised for doing the right thing. We want everybody to be offered the opportunity of flexible working within the reasonableness of their working situation, and with the opportunity for employers to refuse on the eight specified grounds. That will spread best practice not only in it being offered in all places of employment, but in the way that any request for flexible working is dealt with. That is an explanation of the context.

As we have clearly said, our impact assessment has provided an initial analysis of the impacts that can follow, but we will update and define them as we further develop the policy. In fact, part of the clause is specifically about the Secretary of State having the power to provide further detail. We are confident that as most businesses already participate in this process, make the appropriate responses to their employees and understand the system, it will be not a huge new burden to them in any way. I remind Committee members yet again that dealing appropriately with requests for flexible working can considerably help recruitment and retention for businesses. On that note, we reject the amendments tabled by the Opposition.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Statutory sick pay: removal of waiting period

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 provides for the removal of the waiting period from the statutory sick pay system, meaning that all eligible employees are able to access statutory sick pay from the first day of sickness absence. The current system of waiting until the fourth day of sickness before SSP is paid means that many people are forced to make the difficult choice between going into work when they are unwell or receiving no income. That is bad for individuals but also bad for business.

Removing the waiting period will support employees in taking the time off they need to recover from illness and reduce the spread of infection. Under the current rules, the system encourages workers to drag themselves into work when they are unwell. The TUC gave an example of workers in a mental health hospital in Blackpool who had to go on strike because they did not have access to day one sick pay and could not afford to take the day off. Those NHS workers felt that they were being forced to go into work. Obviously, they work in a clinical environment, so they were also putting patients at risk.

I will not take long. I understand the principle that the Minister has outlined and accept his arguments about workplace sickness and the evidence that the Committee has heard, but I want to reflect for a moment on the challenge that he raised about the potential—I emphasise the word “potential”—for abuse of day one sick pay.

The Government need to put in place safeguards, rather than just saying, “It’s up to businesses to manage their own practices.” Of course it is up to businesses to manage their own practices for the vast majority of things, but if a clear and unambiguous case of abusing day one provisions is found, we need protections for businesses as they seek to deal with those staff members. I have no doubt that the vast majority will not seek to abuse them, but there is always that scope, as in any walk of life.

I will ask the Minister for some clarity about new clause 5. On one level, it is perfectly sensible to make sure that there is a united policy approach to this issue across the whole of our United Kingdom, but why has it taken a new clause in the Bill for the Government to remember that Northern Ireland is part of our country? I sense the hon. Member for Dundee Central potentially tingling at the mention of our United Kingdom, but I thought that one thing that could unite the Conservative and Labour parties was that we are both Unionist parties—we both believe in keeping the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland together.

I hope that the answer is that, like many other things in relation to this rushed, 100-day Bill, the reference to Northern Ireland was simply left out. I think the Committee needs an explanation, however, as to why, rather than a reference to Northern Ireland being put straightforwardly in the first version of the Bill, a new clause was needed to show that the Government remember that Northern Ireland is part of our great United Kingdom.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher.

We in this place enjoy the employment rights that come with our job, which is to serve our constituents to the best of our ability. When we are unwell, we can take time off but we are still paid. Before I arrived here, I spent a considerable number of years working as a freelancer while bringing up my family; I believe that is now called being a worker in the gig economy. I understand all too well the pressure for people to work when they are unwell, as they juggle work around caring responsibilities, as I had to for my disabled son, and worry about money, as our family worried about how we would pay the rent and the other bills if I did not work.

At present, large numbers of workers either rely on statutory sick pay or receive nothing at all if they are absent from work due to illness. Those workers are more likely to be low paid than others. We also heard in the evidence sessions last week that women are currently more likely to miss out on statutory sick pay than men, because they do not earn enough to meet the threshold or have not been in their jobs for long enough. It is estimated that 1.1 million workers earn less than £123 a week and most of them are women who are not eligible for statutory sick pay at all.

In practice, as we heard in the evidence sessions last week and as Minister just referred to, that means that people drag themselves into work despite the fact that they are ill. As it stands, our sick pay system pushes far too many people to go to work when they are ill. Working while in poor health is more common among those from marginalised ethnic groups, people in lower-quality jobs and workers lacking formal qualifications.

Under the Bill, hundreds of thousands of people will qualify for sick pay from the first day that they are ill. That change and other changes will help to increase productivity, reduce prolonged illness due to exacerbating existing conditions, and lead to better public health outcomes. Lower-paid workers will no longer have to face the unpalatable choice between coming to work and risking spreading infection, or struggling to put food on the table and to pay bills. Those are very real concerns that, as I mentioned, I have faced.

In conclusion, I believe that the Bill will transform the world of work for millions of people across the country. If I may say so, it is a privilege to have played a small part in scrutinising it.

It is good to see you in your place, Sir Christopher. I will speak to an amendment on this issue shortly, but I will briefly say that everyone in this room, at some point in their working life, will be ill. It is not something that we would choose or desire, and most of us want to get back to work as soon as possible. The problem is that it happens, and when we are off ill we still have bills to pay, families to keep and mortgages or rents to pay. The level of statutory sick pay is frankly woeful in this country—in fact, for those hon. Members who do not know, it is the worst in the developed world. We should all be ashamed of that and we need to really think about it.

I welcome the changes to ensure that everybody gets statutory sick pay, but I find it disgraceful that we have not even touched on its level: it is £116 a week, or £6,000 a year. At some point in our lives, all of us have worked in very low-paid jobs. We have all done that, particularly in the early years. We would never imagine that somebody could live on £6,000 a year. Not everybody is expected to be off for a year, but some are, due to prolonged illnesses.

I will talk about this issue more on my amendment, but before I go into it in detail, I really want to hear from the Minister what changes the Government look to make so that we are no longer the sickest country in the world for being unreasonable, unfair and unjust to employees, and to ensure that statutory sick pay, which is about 17% of the average income—it was 35% when it was introduced—will start to restore the proper justice required for employees.

The shadow Minister’s comments to the effect that he accepted in practice the arguments on the workplace and presenteeism were welcome. If, through this Committee, we can reach some degree of cross-party consensus on the issue, it would be a real advance and proof of the value of this process. I mean that sincerely.

I turn to the measures. The question of waiting days is as old as the national insurance system. Although many of the incremental changes made in the Bill are welcome, it is time to take a step forward. The case for that step was proven during the pandemic. The Minister quoted USDAW research, and I am obliged to quote GMB research, which found that 90% of care workers could not afford to take time off if they became ill. That meant that during the pandemic, many people were presenting at work either for the duration of their illness or for the waiting period, and we have very good evidence of that. I will quote one example. A study by Dr Laura Shallcross and other authors in The Lancet found that the odds of covid infection in care home residents and staff and of large outbreaks

“were significantly lower in LTCFs”—

long-term care facilities—

“that paid staff statutory sick pay compared with those that did not.”

That was one of the key determinants or predictors of where outbreaks might occur.

To perhaps quote a more human voice, a social worker and member of the GMB said:

“For me, being on a zero-hours contract, I don’t always get work. If I become ill, I don’t get paid. If I get a cold or flu-related illness, I am expected to stay at home without pay, because I may pass the illness on to our service users. It is a very, very stressful life.”

When the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals surveyed its members, 47% agreed with the abolition of the waiting days period, so there is support in this area among private sector practitioners. When the Fabian Society, of which I declare I am a member, looked at this question, it found that the cost to business of adopting that measure would be very low—somewhere in the region of £15 per year for each employee.

As matters of cost have been raised in Committee on several occasions, I shall finish by quoting from the 2010 Black review, commissioned by the then incoming Government, which I think is still the best evidence we have of the cost of the statutory sick pay regime. It said:

“Great Britain has a mixed approach to sickness absence. Although employers in theory bear the cost of Statutory Sick Pay (SSP), the cost itself is not very high. Barriers to dismissal are relatively low (although it should be noted that dismissing someone specifically to avoid paying SSP is illegal). Employers are therefore obliged to bear little cost or accountability for sickness absence, albeit many employers choose to pay more in occupational sick pay (OSP) than the statutory obligation.”

There are many cases where occupational sick pay is paid at a rate higher than the SSP rate. That is of course welcome, and accounts for the majority of employers. For those employers who are being brought into paying SSP earlier, as we have heard, the cost is low, but the changes could make a really significant difference to the lives of some of the lowest paid workers in the economy. This measure is extremely welcome.

I would like to highlight a few examples in addition to those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield.

According to the Nuffield Trust, these changes will greatly benefit social care workers and workers on zero-hours contracts who, as has been highlighted, have inconsistent access to statutory sick pay, let alone occupational sick pay schemes, to cover costs such as rent and bills. As we have heard, and we have seen in our constituencies, many of those workers worked through the pandemic, risking their own lives and risking infection, putting themselves in harm’s way, because they did not have a fallback—they did not have statutory sick pay.

A more generous system of statutory sick pay should be seen not only as a right for workers, but as part of our national defences, including against pandemics. In particular, the changes will benefit low and outsourced workers such as porters, cleaners and housekeepers. I recently visited Newham General hospital in my constituency, where I saw at first hand the impact that porters and cleaning staff are having. I heard from the hospital’s chief executive officer how the hospital is unable to function without those essential staff.

Health Equals found that 28% of employees are reliant on statutory sick pay, one in 10 workers get nothing at all if they are sick and 82% of workers reported that flexible working arrangements allowed them to maintain a good level of personal health and wellbeing. I spoke earlier about mental health provisions. Evidence from Mind has shown us that employees with mental health issues are reliant on SSP. Without access to it, they are forced into debt, increasing the strain on their mental health.

The Centre for Progressive Change highlighted a recent study that shows that the cost of presenteeism for the private sector for mental health alone is around £23 billion a year to our economy, which is more than the cost of absenteeism, which is around £5 billion a year. The Institute of Public Policy Research has shown that workers in the UK are among the least likely to take sick days and that the presenteeism culture costs our economy £25 billion annually, due to the impact on productivity. We are speaking about workers today, but highlighting the impact on business and our economy helps to demonstrate why these measures are so important.

I will finish with one final statistic. The Centre for Progressive Change highlighted modelling by WPI Economics that shows that the implementation of an increased SSP rate, alongside other changes put forward in the Bill, such as the removal of waiting days and lower earnings limits, would deliver substantial economic benefits to the UK, including net gains of up to £800 million for businesses. That is £1.7 billion for the Treasury and £2.1 billion for the wider economy. Those are not small sums of money. Those would have a huge impact on our economy, through measures that put workers at the heart.

We have had a good debate. Most Members have spoken positively about the need for this change. Obviously, this was a measure brought in temporarily by the previous Government, during covid. They recognised the particular issue at the time.

Before I turn to the shadow Minister’s comments, I wish him the best of luck in the Mid-Buckinghamshire pantomime. I hope he does not become the George Lazenby of the Conservative party as a result. He raised two perfectly reasonable questions. The first was on Northern Ireland. I can assure him that it was not an oversight. It has been introduced as an amendment because, as this is a transferred power to Northern Ireland, we need their consent before it can be included. I think he will understand that putting it in without getting that agreement might have been counterproductive.

On the second point that the shadow Minister made, about abuse of the provision, of course employers already have the power to deal with employees whom they feel are falsely taking time off sick. Whether that is day four or day one, those powers are already there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby made a very powerful speech to highlight the impact on particular groups. The evidence we heard from the Women’s Budget Group last week was particularly important in that respect. Other Members who spoke, my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Northfield and for Stratford and Bow, raised a whole plethora of examples with pieces of evidence in support of the policy. I think it is one that is generally supported.

To deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee Central about the level of statutory sick pay, he may not have seen my opining on SSP at the evidence session last week, or the famous comments from the former Health Secretary about it not being enough to live on. I recognise that. Unfortunately, however, I have to give him the stock answer, which is that the actual level is set by the Department for Work and Pensions. He made a fair point about people on long-term sick, because there is a huge interplay between people on long-term sick and the benefits system, but it is in the Department’s gift to set the rate and to look at how it interplays with accessibility to other benefits, which of course depends on people’s individual circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Statutory sick pay: lower earnings limit etc

I beg to move amendment 158, in clause 9, page 26, line 17, leave out “the prescribed percentage of”.

I have already touched on the impact that illness has in our lives. Some of us have family members who have been long-term sick. If they have been in employment, £6,000 a year as an annual amount is clearly not going to be enough. I am glad that the Minister has raised the issue and addressed it, and I hope that the DWP can consider those levels. We are still the sickest country in the developed world, and I hope that that will change under this Government.

I will leave my comments on that for the moment, apart from one, which is about the TUC. I am sure that those on the Government Benches will be well aware of this. Previously, the TUC campaigned for an increase in the weekly level of sick pay to at least £320 per week. That is something to consider. I advocate statutory sick pay being based on the national living wage in respect of each hour during which the worker would have worked, but for sickness.

My amendment, however, is small and one that I hope will get cross-party support, largely because it is so modest and seeks to protect the lowest paid workers. I therefore hope to get to a conclusion today. This is not about a hammer to crack a nut, but about a small change that would help the most vulnerable and low-paid workers in our societies.

According to the Centre for Progressive Change, the wording of the Bill will make up to 1.3 million employees worse off. The Bill’s wording specifies that employees should be paid either SSP or a prescribed percentage of their usual pay, whichever is lower. However, that creates a group of workers who will receive even less in sick pay under the new arrangements than they do now. After 14 years of austerity, I am sure that the new Government do not want that to get even worse.

That is because although that group of workers might be earning above their lower earnings limit, reducing their earnings in line with the prescribed percentage would result in a weekly sick pay amount that is lower than statutory sick pay. For example, an employee earning £125 a week will currently get sick pay of £116.75. However, they would only receive £100 for the prescribed percentage of 80% or, worse, £75 for a prescribed percentage of 60%. The lower the replacement rate, the more employees will be affected, with a quarter of a million employees losing out on the 80% rate and 1.3 million employees losing out at the 60% rate.

The amendment would allow for those earning less than statutory sick pay to have their full earnings replaced. Frankly, that is the bare minimum that this Government and this Bill should be doing. That should be a starting point for statutory sick pay, increasing to the point where it is in line with the national living wage.

Employees earning less than statutory sick pay are by definition low earners. The evidence is clear that households with low incomes spend the vast majority of their earnings on essentials, such as rent and food. Cutting the incomes of those employees, even by a small percentage, risks them being unable to afford essential costs, pushing working families into hardship and deepening poverty. The changes in income may be especially difficult to bear during times of ill health, when the ability of households to adapt to budget losses is inevitably reduced.

An example of modelling that has been mentioned already is by WPI Economics. It shows that the direct cost to businesses of providing full earnings replacement would be small, calculated at £125 million per year across the entire UK economy. That is equivalent to £15 per employee per year. Reducing the earnings replacement rate below 100% as proposed would save businesses a small fraction of that already small amount, providing trivial cost savings for businesses. Furthermore, modelling shows that full earnings replacement would generate economic gains to businesses, the Treasury and the wider economy. With direct business benefits expected to be £1.1 billion, businesses would see aggregate net gains of around £1 billion every year from providing 100% earnings replacement.

I reiterate that the amendment makes a small change that should be regarded as the bare minimum. Further reform and increases to the sick pay system need to be implemented. As was mentioned earlier, we learned during the covid pandemic that employees coming into work when unwell can have a detrimental impact on public health and the economy. Those who come into physical contact with many people at work are often the least able to afford to self-isolate without pay or to have access to employer-provided sick pay, and are more likely to engage in presenteeism.

The UK’s current sick pay system contributes to economic stagnation, exacerbates the spread of infectious disease, makes long-term sickness absence more likely and drives people out of the taxpaying workforce. Everything that the Committee has discussed so far, across all parties, is about getting people into the workplace. The increased ill health adds a significant extra cost to the NHS, adds many more patients to waiting lists and increases the UK benefits bill. Workers themselves face financial hardship. There is no upside to the current system.

A meaningful increase to statutory sick pay would immediately turn the situation around. SSP reform would enable people to more proactively manage their health conditions, remain linked to their employers and stay off benefits when they fall ill. Modelling by WPI Economics shows that implementation of an increased SSP rate alongside the other changes put forward in the Bill would deliver substantial economic benefits for the UK, including net gains of up to £800 million for businesses, £1.7 billion for the Treasury and £2.1 billion for the wider economy—all upsides.

The onus is therefore on the Government to either: substantially increase the basic rate of statutory sick pay—although I have heard already that it is the DWP that needs to consider that—benchmarking it to the national living wage rate for normal working hours; use the Bill to amend existing primary legislation to give the Secretary of State additional powers, via secondary legislation, to change how the statutory sick pay rate is calculated; or, at the least, hold a statutory consultation with a timeline to establish what the new benchmark rate for SSP should be.

In the meantime, 100% replacement of earnings for employees earning below statutory sick pay is an easily affordable policy. It brings substantial net benefits to UK businesses, the Treasury and the wider economy. At the same time, it would avoid making over 1 million employees even worse off than they are today when forced to take time off sick. It would reduce hardship among employees with the lowest pay.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that helpful run-through of some of the issues that we are actively considering. He will be aware that a consultation on the issue closed only yesterday, so I would not want to pre-empt the outcome by accepting the amendment today. We understand the various arguments he has advanced that the level should be higher. He will not be surprised to hear that contrary arguments are put forward by some groups around having an incentive to take sick days when they are not needed.

Some of the modelling figures that the hon. Gentleman has come up with do not quite fit with the ones we have on where people would lose out at certain rates, but that will be considered in the round when we formally respond to the consultation. We hope to do so early in the new year, because we wish to put this into the Bill before it finishes its progress. It is something we are actively considering at the moment. I should be grateful if he would withdraw the amendment, so that we can take full account of the consultation that we have just completed.

I have listened with great interest to the Minister. I thank him for his comments and for the consultation that concluded yesterday. It would be helpful to hear today what the conclusion of the consultation is. I have made it crystal clear that none of us present want to see those at the lowest end of earnings worse off than they currently are. The Bill has been brought forward in good faith and good will, I am sure, by the new incoming Government to improve the lives of everyone, most of all those at the most vulnerable end. I have spoken to employers and employees quite widely about this, and the feeling I hear constantly is that this is a no-brainer. Delaying would be very difficult.

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

I thank the Minister for his intervention, but this is not a DWP issue. We are not talking about the level of SSP. We are talking about a sentence in the Bill that puts in a threshold that will make people on the lowest incomes worse off. That is an issue for the Minister for Employment to address rather than DWP. The level of SSP more widely has been discussed, and that may be an issue for DWP to consider. I think there will be disagreement over what that level should be. I have already quoted the TUC’s £320 a week, and I have suggested the national living wage. I look forward to that consultation, but this amendment seeks to strike a sentence out, nothing more.

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

I need to ask for your advice, Sir Christopher, because at this point I would press the amendment to a vote but I want to be charitable and open to understanding what we are expecting from this consultation and when we would be able to bring this issue back—perhaps even during this Committee.

Thank you for that advice, Sir Christopher. Based on that, I would consider coming back to this on Report, given the fact that I have not seen the consultation and I would like to work in the spirit that we have done so far in this room to try to bring about the best for all. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 provides for the removal of the requirement for an employee to earn at or above the lower earnings limit to be eligible for SSP. This requirement means that currently up to 1.3 million people, primarily women, are not entitled to receive SSP from their employer. This group are some of the lowest-paid in society, meaning that they and their families are most at risk of financial hardship if they cannot work. The clause ensures that all eligible employees can access statutory sick pay and the peace of mind it brings when they need to take time off due to illness.

However, we do not want to create a situation where anyone is entitled to receive more through SSP than they would otherwise earn. The clause therefore provides that an employee will be entitled to a certain percentage of their average weekly earnings or the current flat rate of SSP, whichever is lower. The clause therefore includes a power for the Secretary of State to determine that percentage rate by secondary legislation. However, it is our intention that the percentage rate is enshrined in primary legislation. I hope that gives the hon. Member for Dundee Central some comfort. We therefore published a consultation, which closed on 4 December, asking respondents what that percentage rate should be. We will now take time to carefully consider the responses we have received, before tabling an amendment to the Bill.

The changes that we are bringing in through the Bill will mean that up to 1.3 million low-paid employees will now be entitled to statutory sick pay and all eligible employees will be paid from the first day of sickness absence irrespective of their income, which will of course benefit millions of employees.

It is important to highlight that many employers choose to go further and provide more financial support to their employees during a sickness absence, with around 60% of all eligible employees being entitled to contractual sick pay. Those who need additional financial support while off sick are able to claim additional benefits through the welfare system, depending on their individual circumstances.

New clause 6 extends to Northern Ireland the benefits of strengthening statutory sick pay by removing the requirement to earn at least the lower earnings limit and creating a new percentage rate. These measures will ensure that all eligible employees have access to statutory sick pay irrespective of their income level, with the peace of mind that this brings when they need to take time off work due to sickness. The clause includes a power for the Minister for Communities to determine that percentage rate by secondary legislation.

Statutory sick pay is, as we have discussed, a transferred matter in relation to Northern Ireland. However, Northern Ireland has historically maintained parity with Great Britain on social security matters, including statutory sick pay. The Minister for Communities, Gordon Lyons MLA, has agreed to ask Westminster to legislate on the Northern Ireland Assembly’s behalf and to seek a legislative consent motion for the proposed changes in order to maintain parity in relation to statutory sick pay.

Finally, amendment 107 is consequential on new clauses 5 and 6; it limits the extent of the new clauses to Northern Ireland only.

I shall be brief. On the Northern Ireland issues, I accept the Minister’s earlier explanation.

I have one straightforward question. The Minister says he has consulted and will consider the responses around the percentage rate going forward, and has said he will seek to amend the Bill to lock the percentage rate into the face of the Bill. The question remains when that amendment is likely to come. I appreciate it takes time to go through responses; it is unlikely to be done overnight, and potentially with Christmas coming up that will get in the way of any chance of the matter’s being considered by this Bill Committee. Therefore, is the Minister envisaging such an amendment on Report? Does he anticipate that it may come forward when the legislation is in the House of Lords? At what point will we see the detail? I do welcome the Minister’s commitment to get it into primary legislation, because that is important and is consistent with some of the things that I have been arguing for in relation to other amendments, but in order for Parliament to take a considered decision, it is important that we know when the amendment is likely to come—later in Committee, on Report in the House of Commons, or in the other place.

That is a reasonable question. It is another Department’s consultation so there are only so many levers I can pull, but I envisage that the amendment will be tabled at Report stage at the latest. I hope that is sufficiently clear.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)