Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency
Chris Law Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Jones
Yes, within the parameters of what we can do legally, in terms of subsidies. We are ensuring, and the Cabinet Office is keen to ensure, that when we spend public money, we buy British. The value of that, and of British jobs around the country, is recognised in the contracts that we pursue. My hon. Friend talks about the importance of steel in his area. I have talked with colleagues about developing a steel corridor, which I think is important. We are pursuing that through the steel strategy.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The Minister was right to come here today to make a statement on such an important part of the national infrastructure. It is just a shame that no Minister has ever made a statement in this House on Grangemouth. We have now learned that the Chancellor met INEOS chair Jim Ratcliffe just three weeks ago—just three weeks before Petroineos Grangemouth closed—but she did not do so much as raise the refinery with him. In her statement, the Minister said: “the Government stand with the affected steelworkers in Rotherham, in Sheffield and in Wednesbury. We stand with their families”. That is quite right; so do we in the SNP. But why have this Labour Government never stood with the workers of Grangemouth?
Mr Speaker
It is up to the Minister to answer that question if she wants to, but the statement is about steel, rather than petroleum.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Law Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alexander
I saw that the general secretary of the GMB was focused on exactly those issues in relation to the ceramics industry this week, and I applaud the concern he has shown for a key part of many local economies across the country. I assure my hon. Friend that we have given regard to every sector of the UK economy when negotiating the three trade deals secured by the Government—with the United States, as we just discussed, as well as with the European Union and, critically, with India.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is a restrictive piece of legislation that centralises power to the UK Government and allows them to override the Scottish Parliament. Yesterday, the Labour Government confirmed they would not repeal or amend that Tory Act. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland previously said that the Act was “bad and damaging” and undermined devolution, and the Business and Trade Secretary voted against it when in opposition. Will the Business and Trade Secretary confirm whether he would vote against it again now? Does he agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland that this Tory Act is an attack on the integrity of the Scottish Parliament?
Mr Alexander
Well, well, well; the grievance machine is being fired up again by the Scottish National party, even at the last Business and Trade questions. The reality is that the changes made to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act are proportionate, targeted and focused critically on supporting the many Scottish businesses that contributed to the consultation. I respectfully suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should listen to Scottish business, which disproportionately benefits from the removal of barriers and the avoidance of new barriers going up in the critical single market that is the United Kingdom.
Post Office Horizon Inquiry: Volume 1
Chris Law Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend raises a significant issue, and one that I have no doubt had a bearing on the way in which the scandal unfolded. She will understand that for a formal view on who was responsible and what went wrong, we need to wait for the final report from Sir Wyn Williams. But it is quite clear that a significant number of sub-postmasters from an ethnic minority are still waiting for compensation, as indeed a generally significant number of postmasters are waiting for compensation. We need to ensure that all those from an ethnic minority receive compensation, as equally we must give priority to every single person who has yet to receive compensation.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The Government have been told routinely by organisations such as Scottish Postmasters for Justice and Redress that compensation for victims of the Horizon scandal is taking too long and that the application process is akin to the trauma of a second trial for victims. We have also heard today that Sir Wyn Williams’ report illustrates that victims continue to face an “unnecessarily adversarial attitude” from the Post Office and that the UK Government continue to drag their feet in offering full and swift redress. Given that the Minister previously stood at the Dispatch Box and said that
“justice delayed is justice denied”,—[Official Report, 18 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 373.]
and given the human toll of the scandal revealed today, will this Government finally and immediately end these obstructive processes so that redress can be tackled straight on without waiting for the second volume?
Gareth Thomas
There is no question but that the compensation process has taken far too long. The scandal could have been stopped a lot earlier. Everybody who was a victim of the scandal should have had compensation—certainly by the time we took office. Having said that, we have set out to speed up the delivery of compensation. We have quadrupled the amount of compensation paid out to victims of the scandal. We have moved at pace to plug some of the obvious gaps in the compensation process. I completely accept the challenge made by the hon. Gentleman, by others across the House, and indeed by sub-postmasters who have yet to receive compensation, that there is still a lot more to do.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Law Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds
My hon. Friend knows that I believe the workers at that mill in her constituency are a national asset and that I want them to have a strong future as part of our overall steel strategy. We are closely monitoring the specific situation there, which colleagues will be aware of, and are determined to find the outcome that she and I would want to see.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The Prime Minister routinely states his unwavering support for Ukraine, yet as a result of UK Government inaction, British businesses continue to bankroll Putin’s brutal war on a colossal scale. Since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, a whopping £205 billion of Russian fossil fuel exports have been shipped by our own UK-based maritime companies or by ships with our own UK-issued insurance. Astonishingly, one company, Seapeak, has carried almost a quarter of Russia’s liquefied natural gas exports. Can the Secretary of State give us an update on what the Government are doing, and deal with this immediately?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am concerned by the figures the hon. Gentleman raises; if he writes to me, I will look into that immediately. We have taken extensive action to sanction not just individuals, but the shadow fleet, as it is described, transporting Russian fossil fuels, and are willing to take any action necessary.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Law Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alexander
Having worked so closely with former Prime Minister Gordon Brown over a number of years, I am probably the last person in this Chamber who needs to be convinced of the economic significance of the Rosyth dockyard. As my hon. Friend knows, I have recently had meetings with Babcock’s executive team, both in London and abroad. Due to commercial sensitivities, I cannot discuss details of the deal to which he has referred. I am grateful for his recent letter to the Secretary of State on this matter; a response was issued yesterday. He can be fully assured that the Government value the defence relationship with Sweden and fully recognise the importance of defence industrial partnerships between the United Kingdom and Swedish companies. They contribute greatly to our defence and growth objectives.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Food and drink is one of Scotland’s most successful industries, and it is worth £15 billion to the economy. Over the coming months, the UK Government face a choice in their trade talks with the EU and US: do we align our food and farming standards with those in the EU, or reduce our quality standards at the behest of the United States? Will the Secretary of State guarantee that Scotland’s food and drink industry will not be jeopardised through desperation to satisfy the demands of, and secure a deal with, Donald Trump?
Mr Alexander
At exactly this point tomorrow morning, I will be visiting a farm in East Lothian, so I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am fully aware of the importance of food and agriculture to the Scottish economy and, more broadly, to the UK economy. I also respectfully refer him to the Labour manifesto at the last general election, which made very clear our commitment to maintaining important standards.
Jonathan Reynolds
The amount of working capital provided to British Steel to date stands at £94 million, which is considerably less than if we had given a large amount of money to Jingye, or if we had had to deal with the complete loss of the entire British Steel site and business.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Modelling by the Scottish Government has shown that Brexit-made barriers are likely to have reduced Scottish exports by £3 billion, compared with continued EU membership. Greater co-operation and a closer relationship with the EU will always be encouraged by SNP Members, but does the Secretary of State recognise that anything short of full single market and customs union membership continues to damage Scotland’s economy?
Mr Alexander
In substantive terms, the hon. Gentleman’s point is important: we should be looking to reduce unnecessary barriers to trade between the United Kingdom and our friends, neighbours and partners in the European Union. However, on a political level, it is worth recognising that, had Scotland voted in 2014 to leave the United Kingdom, it would also have left the European Union. There is a certain irony in being told that a politics of flags, borders and manufactured grievances are wrong in one context, when his party continues to argue for them in another.
British Steel
Chris Law Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his work and for the support that he has provided to me, officials and others because of his expertise in this space. He is right to thank staff; they have worked unbelievably hard, and I am very grateful for what they have done. He is also right to talk about how we ensure that the product market develops in the way that we want it to. We are looking at how we increase demand in the UK, as well as at procurement and other issues, so that we are not just trying to save our existing provision, but to expand our provision so that the steel industry can start to grow, instead of halving as it has done over the past 10 years under the Tories.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Despite recent comments by a Scotland Office Minister, may I make it crystal clear that it is not “manufacturing grievance” to suggest that Grangemouth, like Scunthorpe, should be nationalised to protect a critical economic and security asset that has been run down by foreign owners? What we have seen from the UK Government in the last weeks, including today, is that when push comes to shove, they can take bold action in crisis, as they have done in Scunthorpe. Therefore, is it not the case that if the UK Government fail to act in a similar fashion at Grangemouth, highly skilled jobs will be lost, Scotland’s only capacity to refine oil will be shut down and critical energy security will be further diminished?
Sarah Jones
We deeply regret the choices that INEOS has made. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Grangemouth does not provide the only refining capacity in the UK, but he is right to say it is the only provision in Scotland, which is why we intervened with a package of support and a £200 million commitment from the national wealth fund for what happens to the site. The hon. Gentleman is right to stand up for people in Grangemouth over the issues that they are facing, and we are doing all we can. As I said in my statement, the position in Scunthorpe was unique and particular, but that does not mean that we do not care just as much about the people in Grangemouth and that we will not ensure that we do everything that we can to pursue to the future development of that site in a way that supports jobs.
Terms and Conditions of Employment
Chris Law Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Increases to the national living wage and national minimum wage will always be supported by Scottish National party Members. Indeed, we have been pushing for the UK Government to adopt the real living wage for those of all ages since 2011. Disappointingly, we have to continue to do so, as the Labour party has failed to take the opportunity to do that, now that it is in government.
While we support the changes that are being introduced today, the SNP’s position is clear: we want the real living wage for all workers, not just a politically convenient definition of the living wage that falls short of meeting the actual costs of living, and not just for those who are 21 and over. The Resolution Foundation has the real living wage set at £12.60, whereas this regulation increases the national living wage for workers aged 21 or over from £11.44 to £12.21 per hour. It is evidently still short of where it needs to be.
Furthermore, for those aged between 18 and 21, the national living wage is 18% lower, at £10 per hour. Given that the Minister today said that there would be a consultation looking at the cost of living, can he tell me if rent is 18% lower for those under 21? Do 18-year-olds get a special rate on their electricity bills, or on petrol for their car? Do supermarkets give them an 18% discount?
Chris Law
I will not, as I would like to make this point very clear, because it is important. The answer to my questions is obviously no. While I welcome the Minister’s comment that the national living wage may be looked at next year, and may be increased so that there is parity for everybody, we are not there yet. I would like the Government to go further, and I look forward to hearing more about how they will consult on doing so next year.
It is worth noting that in Scotland, the SNP Government have taken proactive steps to ensure that the real living wage is implemented wherever we have control, particularly in our public sector. The Scottish Government have paid all staff within their pay scheme, including NHS staff, the real living wage since 2011—that is 14 years ago. Scotland has the highest proportion of employees paid the living wage of any nation in the UK, with 25% of accredited real living wage employers in the UK based there. The Scottish Government are also providing funding to enable adult social care workers to be paid the living wage, benefiting up to 40,000 care workers, and they are working to ensure that all staff in private nurseries delivering our childcare pledge are paid the real living wage, too.
The Labour Government should demonstrate similar willingness to tackle the scourge of low pay. In their manifesto, they pledged to make changes in line with the real living wage, and to take into account the cost of living, but they have failed, at least today, to do so. They were voted in with a mantra of change, and it is in their power to legislate for the introduction of the real living wage for all, but so far, they have chosen not to. They must go further and adopt the living wage for people irrespective of their age, as the SNP has called on successive Governments to do for the past 14 years.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Law Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Jonathan Reynolds
The simple position is that we will represent the UK’s national interest in this matter. The US has objections about its significant deficits in manufacturing goods with China and the EU, but that is not the relationship between the US and the UK, so there is a chance for the UK to pursue a different policy —one that produces greater benefits for every part of the UK than perhaps are available to other countries. Of course we are cognisant of the overall impact—no one wants to see this type of turmoil in the global economy—but our job is to deliver for the UK, and that is exactly what we are focused on doing.
Employment Rights Bill
Chris Law ExcerptsWednesday 12th March 2025
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 View all Employment Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2025 - large print - (12 Mar 2025)
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Although I have broadly welcomed the Bill as it has progressed through the House, I have caveated that by stating that the Labour Government should be bolder and must go further in future for the rights and protections to become entrenched rather than rolled back. Indeed, on Second Reading I quoted the Scottish Trades Union Congress general Secretary, Roz Foyer, who summarised the Bill by saying:
“the Employment Rights Bill isn’t the terminus. It’s the first stop. This can be the foundations on which we can build.”
I agree.
Antonia Bance
The hon. Member may not have had a chance to look at the Government website and encounter the document entitled “Next Steps to Make Work Pay”, which sets out a programme of continuing work to improve rights at work and parental leave and the review of employment status to come. I am sure he will be glad to hear that.
Chris Law
No, I have not had the chance to look at the Government website, but I thank the hon. Member for raising that. As I have broadly said, I support the Bill, but there are reasons why I am contributing to the debate, not least because of a lack of devolution to the Scottish Parliament, which I will come to shortly.
On Second Reading, the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and local Government, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), made it explicitly clear that the foundations will not be built upon in the long term, as a future Conservative Government would simply repeal protections. He declared that
“many of the measures will be brought in through secondary legislation, therefore making it easier for a future Government to reverse some of the catastrophic changes.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 58.]
Employment rights for workers in Scotland cannot be dependent on the merry-go-round of Westminster politics. They have seen their rights attacked and diminished by years of Conservative Governments, and where the Bill reverses some of the worst excesses of those Governments’ policies, that must be protected and strengthened in the long term. Westminster cannot guarantee that for the people in Scotland, so I have tabled new clause 77, which would amend the Scotland Act 1998 to devolve employment and industrial relations to the Scottish Parliament.
Back in 2014, all Unionist parties, including the Labour party, promised maximum devolution for Scotland, as displayed on the front page of a national newspaper days before the independence referendum, in which Scotland voted no. This Labour Government have failed to devolve a single power to Holyrood since coming to power in July—not a single one—despite the Scottish Parliament voting for employment rights to be devolved.
In November, the STUC called on the UK Government to
“end the excuses and devolve powers over taxation, migration and, importantly, employment law from Westminster to Holyrood.”
Moreover, Scottish Labour’s 2021 election manifesto stated:
“We support further devolution of powers to Holyrood including borrowing and employment rights”.
Here is a question for Scottish Labour MPs: will they respect the wishes of the Scottish Parliament?
Chris Law
I care about the people of Scotland and what they say. Will Scottish Labour MPs listen to trade unions and deliver on the promises made by their party by supporting the new clause, or will they continue to follow instructions handed to them from No. 10? Silence. I thought so. They are too scared to stand up for the people of Scotland.
Johanna Baxter
The hon. Gentleman says that he is a big supporter of workers’ rights. Would he like to comment on the fact that for every year of the last nine years that I was lead negotiator for local government workers in Scotland, they had to have consultative ballots for industrial action just to get a decent pay rise out of the Scottish Government? Does that really mean standing up for workers in Scotland?
Chris Law
I thought I was asking a question of the Scottish Labour MPs, only to be asked another question. The hon. Lady will be well aware that the Scottish Government have worked collectively with both unions and other bodies to ensure that the living wage in Scotland is higher than in any other part of the UK. I remind her that it was Scottish Labour in November 2023 that voted with the SNP for employment rights to be evolved through the Scottish Parliament.
Throughout its existence, when powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, decisions are taken in the interests of the people of Scotland and outcomes improve: publicly owned rail and water, higher per-head education and health spend, free prescriptions, free tuition, a more humane welfare system and a progressive taxation system. Fair work practices are being delivered already by the SNP Scottish Government, such as supporting collective bargaining, achieving real living wage employer status and closing the gender pay gap faster than anywhere in the rest of the UK.
Katrina Murray
Does the hon. Member agree that it is an absolute failure of collective bargaining for the Scottish Government to have walked away from the commitments they made in a deal with health service unions two years ago on the reduction of the working week? They are failing to go through with reducing the working week by half an hour as of 1 April 2025.
Chris Law
I listened to the hon. Member with interest, but I suggest that she has that debate in the Scottish Parliament. After all, we are talking about the devolution of powers here in the UK Parliament.
A framework for collective bargaining in the adult care sector has been developed by the Scottish care unions—Unison, the GMB and Unite—along with the Scottish Government and care providers, with a Scottish social care joint council proposed. The Scottish care unions have intimated that the constitution, composition, remit and function of the Scottish social care joint council is preferable and should assume the role of the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body for England. Scotland already has a 10-year history of joint commitments to fair work, whereas England is only embarking on that journey. Furthermore, there is a need to extend sectoral bargaining to all sectors of the economy, not just adult social care.
Measures such as creating a single status of worker for all but the genuinely self-employed, strengthening protections for those with unfair contracts and increasing the minimum wage to at least the national living wage, and then in line with inflation, are all missing from the Bill. The SNP Scottish Government would support those measures if employment law were devolved, and they would be delivered if this Government respected the votes of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Labour manifesto.
Just as the Bill should be the first stop rather than the terminus, devolution is a process, not an event. Not only has devolution moved at a glacial pace, but we live in the world’s most asymmetrical political union, where each nation has differing devolved powers. Why is it that employment law is devolved in Northern Ireland but not in Scotland? I want to see employment rights strengthened continually rather than in a cycle of piecemeal progress when Labour is in power, only to be reversed when the Tories next get their turn. The gains for workers’ rights in the Bill must therefore be protected. That is why the SNP remains committed to advocating for, at a minimum, the urgent devolution of employment powers. That is the best way, short of independence, of protecting workers’ rights in Scotland.
“Chapter 4A
Chris Law Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I apologise to the Minister because he has moved on, but I want to come back to the new level of statutory sick pay, which is £118.75 or 80% of an employee’s weekly earnings. An employee with weekly earnings of £125 would at present get £116.75, but under the new model, they would receive only £100. Is that correct?
Justin Madders
Yes, but the hon. Member forgets the fact that we are removing the waiting days. With the provisions on the lower earnings limit going, 1.3 million people will be accessing statutory sick pay. We think that that is the right balance and that it will leave people in a much better position. Of course, it is something that we will always continue to review.
Moving on to umbrella companies, we are aware of non-compliance in this market, where umbrella companies can be responsible for denying employment rights to those who work through them. New clause 36 will allow for the regulation of umbrella companies and for enforcement by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, and subsequently the Fair Work Agency. The specific requirements on umbrella companies will be set out in the relevant regulations, which set out the minimum standards of conduct for employment agencies and employment businesses. We will consult before amending these regulations, and we are committed to working with the sector to ensure that future regulation works effectively for umbrella companies. The amendment marks an important step towards ensuring non-compliant umbrella companies are no longer able to deny workers the rights they are owed.
The Government are moving a range of amendments in relation to part 3 of the Bill, which covers the adult social care negotiating body and the school support staff negotiating body. On the SSSNB, the Government are moving two technical amendments to correct incorrect cross-references. The body is an important part of delivering both the Government’s “Plan to Make Work Pay” and our opportunity mission. The Government will today commit to consult in the summer on whether agency workers should be brought into scope of the SSSNB in future legislation to support those missions.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
As per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I am a member of GMB. My union membership has given me reassurance for many years that I have backing if I need it. I am conscious that although in this place we may be listened to when we speak up, for too many people insecurity and lack of respect at work are an everyday experience.
Businesses suffered under the failure of the previous Government to act when reform was needed. That was not in this area alone, of course, but today we are speaking about the relevant amendments. We can come back to their other failings another day—or perhaps on more than one other day—because this is the time for action and we are the party of business.
Everyone should have a contract that reflects the hours that they work. There is a place for flexibility, but people need to sort out transport and childcare and plan their household budgets, so we will ensure that agency and low or zero-hours contracts work for both sides—for businesses and workers. For too long, zero-hours contracts have often been at the expense of people who are just trying to make a living for themselves and their families. We will put a stop to that.
A day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay, and giving the Fair Work Agency the power to bring civil proceedings and issue penalties is an important move. The vast majority of employers respect the rights of the people who work for them and have nothing to fear from that. In fact, they will welcome the levelling of the playing field. As they tell us all the time, their good practice must not be undermined by the unscrupulous minority.
We also say that everyone should be free from harassment when they are at their place of work. The message that Conservative Members send when they object to that protection—to, among others, the many thousands of young women who have been harassed at work—is appalling. In contrast, we believe that everyone deserves respect at work, whatever the industry they work in. I want to reassure, among others, workers in the hospitality and retail industries that they matter, they deserve better and we are on their side. Further, when issues happen, it is to everyone’s benefit to resolve them quickly. We will fast-track decision making and back that up with robust fines. That helps businesses and workers and it minimises stress, cost and delay.
I am pleased that the Bill is welcomed by many of our leading employers, including Centrica, as already mentioned. I know Centrica well; it has a training academy in my constituency. Its chief executive, Chris, is fully supportive of the legislation as not just the right thing to do but as a foundation for a high-growth, high-skills economy and the progress that our country needs.
A stable workforce will help both employers and workers. The chaos of repeated strikes has damaged businesses and services and left our country reeling. The Conservative party may be instinctively opposed to empowering ordinary people, but on the Labour Benches, we say that these are the people who keep our country going and they have the full support of this Government.
Chris Law
I rise to speak to new clause 75 and to other new clauses and amendments in my name.
Last year, the Labour party committed to
“strengthen statutory sick pay, remove the lower earnings limit to make it available to all workers and remove the waiting period.”
Although the removal of the lower earnings limit and the waiting period are welcome, the fact remains that the UK’s statutory sick pay does not meet the needs of working people. The miserly increases to the rate—it has just been increased by £2 after five years—are far from the transformative change that Labour promised and will not help to deliver a healthier population and a growing economy. Indeed, only a few years ago, during the covid period, the Minister noted that the then Health Secretary had
“admitted that he could not live on statutory sick pay”.—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee Delegated Legislation Committee, 25 January 2021; c. 7.]
To be clear, the UK is lagging behind in its provision of SSP, offering one of the least generous systems in the OECD. While the Labour Government propose a rate of £118.75 a week, or 80% of average weekly earnings—whichever is lower—numerous other European countries, such as Austria, Germany, Iceland and Luxembourg either provide full salary payments or cover a portion of earnings ranging from 50% to 90%. Amendment 272 would bring the UK into closer alignment with other OECD countries.
With limited coverage and relatively low rates, many workers and particularly low-income and part-time employees are left without sufficient financial support when they fall ill. Such a gap in sick pay provision impacts workers’ wellbeing, exacerbating financial stress during illness, and can discourage people from taking the necessary time off to recover. It contributes to poorer health outcomes, undermining longer, healthier working lives across the UK population. Surely no one in this House wants that to continue.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation states that the most effective way of strengthening sick pay is by increasing the rate. There are numerous amendments that would do that, including new clause 76 in my name, which would gradually increase the rate of statutory sick pay over the next five years, taking it to at least 80% of the rate of the national living wage, and others that propose SSP to be the higher of a prescribed rate or percentage of usual weekly earnings. Moreover, a report by WPI Economics shows that sick pay reforms could result in a net financial benefit to this country of more than £4 billion. It also found that the positive effects of sick pay reform would particularly help the increasing proportion of the British workforce who manage long-term conditions and ensure that fewer workers fall out of the job market entirely.
As an example, many people with multiple sclerosis need to take time off work for varying lengths of time for reasons related to their condition. Some people with MS are well supported by their employers through occupational sick pay—of course we support that—and can take the time off work that they need on full pay. When people with MS can get the financial support they need while they are off work, they can often stay in work for longer, as they can better manage their symptoms in the long term. This needs to be the same for all those with MS and other long-term conditions who rely on SSP.
New clause 75 would require the Secretary of State to consider such a change, with the aim of properly reforming this outdated and inflexible system. Changes for those with such conditions could include SSP being paid at an hourly rate, rather than a daily rate, to enable people to work half or part days on a gradual, phased return to work, or changing the restrictions on how people can claim and use SSP so that it is fairer for people with fluctuating conditions by extending eligibility timeframes. Sadly, however, I suspect that the Labour party is looking to slash welfare spending, as has been reported today—700,000 disabled people being pushed into poverty will be no joy to many—and that it has little interest in making such supportive and progressive change. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
The Labour Government’s lack of gumption in their approach to SSP is illustrative of the timidity of their approach in this Employment Rights Bill. Yes, the Bill makes improvements to the rights of working people and, yes, it reverses some of the worst excesses of the Tory Government, but it could have done so much more. Where is the straightforward system defining a single status of worker to replace the maze of confusing classifications, designed to limit protections, that continue to exist? Where are the increased provisions for collective bargaining to alleviate low pay? Where have the promises disappeared to of the right to switch off, which would ensure better work-life balance?
This was the opportunity to legislate to entrench employment rights and to ensure a fairer deal for workers and a healthier, more equitable and more productive economy and society. Unfortunately, this Bill is left wanting. I hope that, if the Labour party is serious about its manifesto commitments, the Minister will look at these new clauses and amendments.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I welcome the Report stage of this Bill. I proudly declare my membership of Unite and the Communication Workers Union and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This Bill will see the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights for a generation. It is an agenda for change—change that is desperately needed. Working class people keep this country cared for. They keep our streets clean, our shelves stacked and our public services running, but the imbalance of power in our workplace is plain to see. The P&O scandal was testament to that. This Bill represents a crucial first step in redressing that imbalance, especially amendment 80 on sick pay. It strengthens both collective and individual rights and puts more money in the pockets of working people.
I therefore welcome the Government’s amendment to the Bill ensuring that everyone gets sick pay from the first day they are ill, including those previously excluded for earning too little. Currently, around 1.2 million workers are excluded from statutory sick pay altogether, and the present three-day wait is extremely hard for those on low pay who often budget on a week-to-week basis. Me and my husband were those people who lived week to week and dragged ourselves into work when we were not well, because if we did not work, we did not eat when my children were small. The fact that the Bill rectifies that is extremely welcome.
The pandemic exposed just how inadequate current levels of sick pay are. I therefore urge the Government to ensure that as many workers as possible benefit from the measures in the Bill. In particular, they should look at what they can do to increase the rate of statutory sick pay over time, as we currently have one of the lowest rates of sick pay across the developed countries. I hope the Government continue to consider the impact of the removal of the lower earnings limit to ensure that everybody benefits from the measures in this Bill.
Overall, these changes will be transformative for working people in my constituency. As a working-class woman from a council estate, it does my heart good to be able to stand in this place supporting changes that will make the lives of working people better and give them the rewards they so deserve.