Employment Rights Bill
Ian Lavery Excerpts(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Dearden
Yesterday, I was with the Hospitality Sector Council. I heard about all the brilliant work it does to provide employment opportunities for young people across the country. Indeed, my first job was in a café. Such opportunities to get on the employment ladder are significant for young people. That is why the Bill will work in alignment with all the other crucial work that the Government are doing through the youth guarantee.
As I have outlined on unfair dismissal, it simply is not fair that hard-working employees who have worked somewhere for 18 months can be unfairly dismissed and have no stability and predictability in their jobs. Protection through day one rights gives financial security to people who do not have it. We are striking a balanced approach by introducing a statutory probation period. As we have mentioned, the Government’s preference is for that to be a period of nine months, but we are engaging in consultation on the next steps for those light-touch standards. The probation period will ensure that in the early months of employment, employers can dismiss employees who might not be performing or might not be suitable. The measures will tackle the causes of unfair dismissal.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Some 73% of employers support giving employees protection from unfair dismissal—the day one rights—according to the Institute for Public Policy Research and TUC research, and 83% of managers agree that improved workers’ rights can and do positively impact on workplace productivity. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should listen to that extremely important research?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point about research. Providing employees with security at work results in a happier workforce, which increases productivity and helps businesses across the country, as well as our economy. The Bill will provide flexibility and security for people in workplaces across the country, which is vital for our productivity. That is our vision for our country and economy.
Andrew Griffith
Well, I am glad we have found one; I have not had any representations from it.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State is showing how much he despises the trade union movement and ordinary working people—[Interruption.]
Ian Lavery
I must declare a financial interest with regard to my connection with the trade union movement: I am a very proud member of a trade union.
In response to what the shadow Secretary of State said about support for the Employment Rights Bill, it was a manifesto pledge and the British public voted in their millions to support the Labour party to put this manifesto pledge through in its entirety. And guess what? That is what we are doing.
Andrew Griffith
I ask the Member strongly to withdraw that: I do not despise trade unions; not a single word I have ever said at the Dispatch Box indicates anything of the sort, and I would ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to get the Member to withdraw that comment as it is not worthy of him. I would have hoped for better form in the conduct of this debate.
I support people’s rights to trade unions—well-regulated trade unions. For 30 years, the Labour party accepted a broad consensus on the balance between the rights of workers and the rights of employers. Tony Blair never sought at any point to reopen the consensus on that balance that has served this country well, and it does no one a service to render people unemployed.
Sarah Olney
They are different kinds of work with different work patterns, requiring different skills and experience. I am not entirely certain what point the hon. Member wants me to respond to.
If a different regulatory framework is to apply to seasonal work, a clear definition of seasonal work must be created to prevent employers from avoiding their legitimate responsibilities by claiming employees as seasonal workers in inappropriate circumstances. We continue to call for businesses that are especially reliant on seasonal workers to be properly considered when secondary legislation is created, so I urge Members to support amendment 48B.
On trade unions, I again speak in favour of Lords amendment 62B to maintain the status quo, in which a 50% ballot threshold is required for industrial action. The Government’s proposal to remove the threshold entirely means that a trade union could take strike action with only a small minority of eligible members taking part in the vote. That is bound to raise questions among the public about whether the will of workers has been accurately represented, and it risks unnecessarily creating tensions between workers, employees and the general public. That would not be a good outcome for any of the parties involved. We should maintain a robust process for launching industrial action.
Ian Lavery
Will the hon. Lady inform the House of the statistics relating to her election at the general election? She was elected by a minority. If it is good enough for her—she is doing a great job, by the way—why is it not good enough for ordinary working people?
Sarah Olney
The hon. Gentleman will be happy to hear that 53.3% of Richmond Park voters voted for me to be their representative, so I was, in fact, elected by the majority of my constituents. I am delighted to hear that he thinks I am doing a good job for them. I think he was attempting to highlight that many of the people in the Chamber were elected on less than 50%. The first thing I would say to that is that on most ballot papers, there will have been a choice of more than two candidates.
Sarah Olney
May I finish the point? If people are choosing from a list of five people, it is likely, under the first-past-the-post system, that the winning candidate will receive less than 50% of the vote. In a strike ballot, the choice is between two options. That is why there should be more than 50% of all members voting for the option to strike. That is the important point here.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has given me an excellent opportunity to point out that the Liberal Democrats have long been advocates of voting reform. Last December, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill advocating for proportional representation, which was passed. It remains the will of the House, as expressed on that occasion, that we should change the way in which we elect hon. Members.
Maintaining a robust process for launching industrial action is particularly important when we consider the scale of the disruption that the public face when strikes happen. The Liberal Democrats also continue to support measures that would retain the current opt-in system for contribution to trade union political funds. Amendment 72B maximises choice and transparency for individuals about the political funds to which they are contributing.
Most employers are responsible businesses that want to do the right thing by their staff, many of whom support the Bill’s aims, but they have significant concerns about the extent of the Bill, much of which is still undecided on and risks compounding other challenges that they face. Changes in employer national insurance, slow progress on reform of the apprenticeship levy and the absence of any meaningful action to bring down commercial energy prices continue to be extremely damaging to businesses, and to our economy as a whole. We must find a way to support small and medium-sized businesses in particular, and to provide clarity, so that they can plan ahead. If the Government were prepared to make meaningful improvements to the Bill that would make things easier for small businesses—for example, through the amendments suggested by the Liberal Democrats—they might find it easier to make progress with the legislation.
We support many of the aims of the Bill, and the spirit of the measures that strengthen employment rights, but I urge Members to support our amendments, which will help to ensure that this legislation strikes the right balance for both workers and business.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my membership of and financial support from the trade union movement.
I stand here as a proud trade unionist, with a couple of decades of work behind me standing up for the working class. I pay the truest of tributes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders).
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about some hon. and right hon. Friends and the work that lots of people have done to bring this transformational Bill to the Commons. We also need to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for his tremendous work at the very beginning of this process. It is transformational and everybody deserves lots of credit.
Trade Union Workplace Access
Ian Lavery Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andy McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. It may have been compulsory, but it is certainly one of the better decisions that he has ever made.
The problem of trade union access to workplaces is long-standing. Employers have often restricted union representatives from entering their sites, particularly in high-profile industrial settings. The GMB’s attempt to access Amazon’s Coventry warehouse during its 2024 recognition ballot was met with resistance, highlighting the barriers that unions face even when legally seeking to organise.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I hugely thank my hon. Friend for the work, effort and determination that he put into seeing the Employment Rights Bill through the Commons—absolutely outstanding work. On access to the workplace, does he agree that any individual who wants to speak to a trade union or union representative in the workplace, or perhaps even digitally, should have the opportunity to do so, and that it is only bad employers who have something to fear?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I thank him for his kind comments. I will return to the issue of digital access shortly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for securing today’s important debate—I know we say it a lot that debates are important, but this one truly is. It is close to my heart, as I know it is to my hon. Friend’s.
I thank my hon. Friend for his contributions to debates during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, including on this specific issue. It was always a pleasure to work with him on this topic in my previous life working for a trade union for many years—in fact, I declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud trade union member. The amendments that my hon. Friend tabled on Report, which he alluded to in his speech, demonstrate his interest in this area, and I welcome his continued commitment to a productive discussion on the topic today. I thank all other members here for their contributions and interest in this topic—not just hon. Members, but proud trade unionists and friends.
As my hon. Friend will know, the Government’s plan to make work pay and our Employment Rights Bill represent the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. Taken together, they support our plan for change by ensuring that employment rights are fit for a modern economy, empowering working people and contributing to economic growth.
The Employment Rights Bill creates a modern, fairer labour market where workers are better protected, more empowered and supported through every stage of working life. It is pro-worker and pro-business, and it supports the Government’s objective of boosting growth and improving living standards across the country. As part of that, the Government are strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition—I want to take a moment to say how proud I am to be saying that from the Front Bench. After many years of the previous Government, who sought to weaken workers’ voices and trade union rights, we are rebuilding a culture of respect and co-operation with trade unions.
I know that my hon. Friend will agree that trade unions are essential to tackling issues of insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay across the economy. The Employment Rights Bill will modernise trade union legislation, giving trade unions greater freedom to organise, represent and negotiate on behalf of their members. Strong trade unions are key partners in building a stronger, fairer economy.
A key part of our reforms in this area is the introduction of a new trade union right of access. Under existing legislation, trade unions do not have a general right of access to workplaces and can exercise their functions only through individual trade union members in the workplace or through access that has been agreed on a voluntary basis with the employer. In situations in which membership is limited and no voluntary agreement is in place, there is limited scope for trade unions to exercise their core functions within the workplace. Although the Government want employers and unions to continue to agree and use those voluntary access arrangements where possible, the Bill introduces a new right for trade unions to access the workplace in a responsible and regulated manner. That will provide certainty and clarity to all parties involved.
It is worth explaining briefly how the new right of access will work in practice, which will hopefully answer lots of my hon. Friend’s questions. Under the new right of access, an independent union can provide an employer with a request for access. That could be a request for physical access to a building or virtual access to a group of workers—such as via a Teams call—or both. My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about the importance of digital access as part of our consideration of the legislation.
If both parties agree on the terms of access between themselves, they will notify the Central Arbitration Committee to record the terms of the access agreement and proceed with the access as agreed. If no agreement can be reached within a set timeframe, the union or employer can refer the case to the CAC for a determination on whether access should be granted under the terms requested.
The CAC will make its determination on whether access should be granted in line with factors set out in secondary legislation. If the access application meets certain conditions, it will qualify for a potentially expedited route through the CAC process. The CAC will also enforce access agreements once they are in place, hearing complaints about breaches of those agreements by any party, with the power to issue fines for non-compliance.
This debate is timely, because the Government will shortly be launching a public consultation on the details of the new trade union right of access policy, including the matters that the CAC must have regard to when deciding whether access should take place and the level of fines for non-compliance with access agreements. We want to see a fair and workable access framework, so the Government strongly encourage unions and employers of all types and sizes to share their views. As I say, the Government are committed to strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition, and we see the new right of access as a key part of that.
In that light, when the CAC takes decisions on access, it will be guided by the access principles provided for in the Employment Rights Bill. Those principles set out that trade unions should be provided access to workplaces
“in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the employer’s business”
and that the employer
“should take reasonable steps to facilitate”
that access. They also set out that
“access should be refused entirely only where it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.”
The principles provide a default in favour of access, but the Government are aware that some employers may find it more difficult than others to facilitate access arrangements, and that there may be circumstances where it would not be appropriate for access to take place. That is why we will consult on the factors that the CAC should take into account when deciding on access, and consult on what the value of fines should be for non-compliance.
Ian Lavery
Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely essential that lawbreakers and bad employers are not allowed to price in any breaking of the law to the detriment of people in the workplace?
Kate Dearden
I agree with my hon. Friend, and enforcement will be really key to that. I encourage him to get involved in the consultation and to share his views on exactly that point.
The Government will review responses to those two consultation questions with interest, as we will the responses to the consultation as a whole. The consultation matters, because it is important that the implementation of the right of access works in practice, not just on paper. That is why the Government have committed to support businesses throughout the implementation of the Bill, and why we will produce a new code of practice for the policy. That will contain practical guidance on how access should take place in practice to help support employers and businesses to manage the process smoothly and effectively. The Government will consult on that code next year before the new right comes into force in October 2026.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East also mentioned enforcement, and I welcome his support for the Fair Work Agency and its newly appointed chair, Matthew Taylor. Strengthening our labour market, compliance and enforcement is absolutely key to this issue, and to our wider Employment Rights Bill.
Employment Rights Bill
Ian Lavery ExcerptsMonday 15th September 2025
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 15 September 2025 - (15 Sep 2025)
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my support of the trade unions. On the thresholds, does my hon. Friend agree that those who choose to abstain should be counted as “no” votes?
Sarah Olney
I am slightly surprised to be referred to as “hon. Friend”, not least because I am probably going to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. To undertake such massive action, including in the NHS, and on the tube—we saw the level of disruption that that caused the public last week—there needs to be a positive vote in favour of strike action, which is why I back this amendment.
Ian Lavery
I simply mean that if there is a threshold of 50% and it is not met, are those who did not participate in the ballot classed as “no” votes? Is that correct? It is pretty simple.
Sarah Olney
I think the point that the hon. Gentleman is making is that people who did not express a view either way should be counted as voting against. What I am saying is that in order to justify the levels of disruption that strike action has caused recently, it is important that a trade union can demonstrate that it has majority support from its workforce. That is why I support the amendment. We believe that the current threshold for strike action is suitable, and that making it easier to strike risks putting further pressure on public services and damaging the economy, as we saw last week with the disruption across the capital caused by the tube strikes.
Most employers are responsible businesses that want to do the right thing by their staff, and many of them support the aims of the Bill. However, they have significant concerns about the lack of clarity and the proposed implementation process. So much of the detail of the legislation is still undecided and will compound the challenges that small businesses are facing—from the Government’s changes to employers’ national insurance and the reduction in business rates relief, to the absence of any meaningful action to bring down commercial energy prices. We must find a way to support and provide clarity for businesses that are trying to plan ahead. The Liberal Democrats support many aims of the Bill and the spirit of measures that strengthen employment rights, but we will support the Lords amendments that will help to ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance for workers and businesses.
British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
Ian Lavery Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Jones
We are certainly moving as fast as we can. I will explain where the process has got to, and I hope that Members will be reassured.
The transfer of £1.5 billion from the mineworkers’ pension boosted pensions by 32%, which was an average increase of £29 a week for each member. The hon. Member for Ashfield made the point that this is about putting money not just into people’s pockets but into local communities, and that is incredibly important. I also understand that in the context of the BCSSS in exactly the same way. My officials are working closely with the trustees of the mineworkers’ pension on the review of the future surplus sharing arrangements, and we hope to come forward with proposals and reach an agreement on that soon. Having worked closely with the coalfield communities on the delivery of the mineworkers’ pension, I completely recognise the strength of feeling on the BCSSS.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I want to place on record my sincere thanks on behalf of my constituents and the people who work in the mining industry across the country for the fantastic work the Minister is doing in relation to the finances in the mineworkers’ pension scheme. Might she be able to inform the House what the main differences are between the MPS receiving the money and the challenges with regard to the BCSSS?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words, and I will do exactly that and set out what the challenges and the differences are.
Having a process of work ongoing with the mineworkers’ scheme and working out how we will do surplus sharing, we are now working on the BCSSS and what we do in that space, even though it was not a manifesto commitment. I wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in February and secured his agreement to undertake a similar review of the BCSSS, and that review is now well under way. The schemes are not identical. They are different, and the main difference is that there are currently no surplus sharing arrangements in the BCSSS. That is because they were removed in 2015 following two deficit valuations.
The situation at that time meant that members were unlikely to realise any increases to their pensions for a decade or more, and the Government risked having to find new money to fund pensions. Changes were therefore made, and an agreement was reached with the then Government that bonus pension increases would be paid for three years and that the scheme would invest so as to ensure that pensions could be paid, with the aim of returning the reserve to the Government in 2033. That is the main difference.
I met the BCSSS trustees, to whom I am grateful. We are working well together and will continue to do so. I first met them in April, during which I shared my determination to move at pace—that is a Government saying, isn’t it? But we will genuinely move as fast as we can on the review and to start that process for the Government and trustees, and we jointly commissioned analysis from the Government Actuary to inform our decision making.
Employment Rights Bill
Ian Lavery ExcerptsWednesday 12th March 2025
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 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)
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, following the speech from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). I have to remind him that trade unionists are the bedrock of our communities. They are the producers of the wealth in this country. They are taxpayers, and they are ordinary, hard-working people. They should not be described as, basically, the dirt on the shoes of other people. The shadow Minister could hardly hide his disdain for ordinary working people; he could not hold himself back from opposing everything in the Bill.
I begin by declaring my interest as a proud trade union member—a member of the National Union of Mineworkers and Unite the union, and an honorary member of the Prison Officers Association—and as the chair of the trade union group of Labour MPs.
It is a pleasure to speak about a piece of legislation that turns the tide on decades of anti-trade union laws—laws that have restricted the power of workers and seen the wealth of those at the top grow exponentially. On a personal note, let me say that it is fitting that the Bill should be before the House this week. Last Wednesday marked 40 years since I—along with my father, who has sadly passed on, my brothers and thousands of my colleagues—marched back to work at the end of the miners’ strike. The fact that, although bruised and battered, I am still here today speaking about the Bill proves that while the party of vulture capital may have won a victory in 1985, they did not win the war. This is a good Bill, but it could have been a lot better. Through further time, further discussion and further legislation, it will prove to be a great Bill, and I believe that the new clauses and amendments that I have tabled would strengthen and enhance it.
Workers in the UK have never, ever had the right to strike, but since 1906 their unions have had protection against common-law liability, subject to the meeting of statutory conditions. New clause 108 would establish a positive right to strike, bringing the UK into line with most of the democratic world. It would also remove provisions that make strike action unlawful if it turns out, retrospectively, that the action the workers took was unofficial. That is important, because workers currently have to take it in good faith that the union has managed to navigate the bureaucracy of taking action, and that unscrupulous bosses cannot summarily dismiss them if it has not.
New clause 109 is wide-ranging. The UK’s ban on secondary action is almost unique in the world, condemned on every occasion when the International Labour Organisation has considered the position since 1989. When P&O Ferries flouted its legal obligations by not consulting over mass dismissals and by dismissing people unfairly, the unions were unable to react by calling on dock workers, lorry drivers and workers in other industries on the dockside to boycott the vessels in dispute. That was outrageous: we need to bring back solidarity action. I want to support people in industrial disputes, and new clause 109 would put situations like that right by ending the ban on secondary action. It would remove the need to provide a ballot paper to the employer, remove the obligation on unions in long-running disputes to rerun the ballot every six months, and enable industrial action to achieve recognition for collective bargaining.
Amendments 347 and 348 would change the requirements for notification about the results of a union ballot, meaning that they could be displayed online with easy access for the public. Amendments 345 and 346 would remove the restriction confining pickets to the worker’s workplace. The reason secondary picketing was banned in the first place was the fact that it was a tool that benefited workers and advanced their cause. Solidarity action should be an important part of seeking the resolution of disputes.
The Bill brings measures that aim to end discrimination and place equality at the heart of the workplace. It gives key workers in social care and school support more say in pay and conditions through their unions. It brings measures to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts, gives protection against unfair dismissal from day one, and extends sick pay rights. It repeals minimum service level laws and the majority of the reactionary Trade Union Act 2016, provides greater rights for workers to organise collectively through their trade unions, and reduces bureaucracy affecting trade unions during industrial action processes.
The howls of derision from Opposition Members show that the Labour Government are doing the right thing. This is a good Bill that should mark the start of a process. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has done a fantastic job, understands that we are all just trying to strengthen the Bill through our amendments. While we accept those howls of derision from the Conservatives, it is worth reminding the House, and indeed the country, that the turquoise Trumpian Tories in Reform have also opposed the Bill at every step of the way. Perhaps it is because, as a company—for that is what they are—they want to ensure that their workers, such as the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), are limited in how they can address workplace bullying by the owner; or perhaps it is because, while they masquerade as a party for the ordinary men and women of this country, in reality they are simply a Margaret Thatcher tribute act with a sprinkle of bigotry, determined to advance her destructive agenda at all costs, regardless of its impact on working people across our country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Lavery Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
The Government are investing £1.4 billion, with the North East combined authority, to deliver our shared objectives of economic growth and business support. That includes the development of the local part of the industrial strategy, guiding investment to deliver sustainable economic growth, and delivering support to grow all businesses. In 2023-24, there was £420,000-worth of direct support given to the North East Growth Hub, which provides businesses across the area with practical advice and support to grow and thrive.
Ian Lavery
Yesterday saw full-throated Government support for projects across the UK, but not so much for the north-east. The region was decimated by 14 years of Tory Government, and that cannot be repeated. I accept what the Minister says about what has happened, but what will the Government do to ensure that businesses in my Blyth and Ashington constituency can play their part in the cutting-edge technologies of the future and, crucially, see improved investment, which will create much- needed jobs with good wages and terms and conditions?
Justin Madders
I am at one with my hon. Friend in wanting all parts of the country, especially the north-west and the north-east, to have high-paid, well-skilled, good jobs, in tech sectors in particular, but also in other areas where we can see great advantage for the economy. The local skills improvement plan for the north-east will help, and the excellent facilities at Blyth’s Energy Central Learning Hub are supported by over £6 million of Government funding. That is already developing sector skills in a real-world port setting. With the reopening of the Northumberland line, we have reconnected towns in south-east Northumberland with Tyneside, improving links and opportunities across the area.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend and I have previously talked about this great opportunity. The rapid development and breakthrough of new AI models such as DeepSeek tell us that we need to go further and faster to remove barriers to innovation and make Britain the most competitive market. We need to be developing the technology ourselves. That is why we have set out our new AI strategy and why we are scaling up our capacity, creating AI growth zones and putting in place every vehicle we can to support the growth of technology innovation in our country, because we will need it in future.
Employment Rights: Terminal Illness
Ian Lavery Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lee Barron
We managed to get the campaign promoted as best practice by the Department for Work and Pensions—meaning that if employers, through their disability awareness scheme, ever go to the Government in relation to how to treat workers with a terminal illness, they are always signposted to the campaign—but no Government Departments have signed up. However, I am aware that with the new Government coming in, those discussions are now taking place.
Although the progress made so far is commendable, it is not universal. That is why we have called this debate—so that we can the extend this right to all those who are ill. I want to recognise Richard Oliver, who is in the Public Gallery and who has been part of the campaign right from the outset; it is great that he has been able to join us today.
As I said, it is still legal in this country to sack a terminally ill worker on the grounds of capability. At a time when someone is dealing with a devastating diagnosis, they could also face the loss of their livelihood and their financial security. That is not acceptable. There has been significant discussion about dying with dignity recently, particularly relating to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Although that Bill has rightly captured our attention, I do not want us to lose momentum now that it has gone to Committee. These people are on a path—a journey, if we can call it that—and they should not have to worry about whether they will lose their job while they face that.
Most people will never have to think about the implications of working with a terminal diagnosis, and most employers would not dream of firing their terminally ill workers.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Big congratulations to my hon. Friend on the work he has done on this issue over many years. Does he agree that the six-month rule, which determines that a person is terminally ill—that they are dying and will not be here in six months—is too stressful? People need to get clarification from their doctor, in the most difficult circumstances, that they are going to die. I think that is absolutely stressful, and I speak with a personal situation in mind.
Lee Barron
One of the things that has always got me is the number of personal stories people tell about what they have faced. We cannot remove those stories and those situations. I cannot imagine the distress, and I do not know if anybody else in here can. All I know is that I have met people who have gone through this experience, and that should never happen in our society. I have always said that the compassion and values that we hold as a society should not end at the front door of the workplace; they should be part and parcel of the workplace. That is why it is so important that we discuss issues like this.
Most people will never have to think about the implications of working with a terminal diagnosis. Those who receive a terminal diagnosis and their families should not have to worry about paying the bills or about their job, on top of everything else. The reality is that not all terminal illnesses are treated equally under the law. The prior part of employment, when people fall under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, is protected. It is when they get a terminal diagnosis, and when capability comes into it, that they are not protected. That is the part that needs to be protected; that is the loophole in the law.
I met a lady who worked for Nottinghamshire county council. The council signed up to the Dying to Work charter on a Thursday, although she had passed away on the Friday of the previous week. She had decided that she wanted to stay at work because that was where her friends—her social outlet—were; she did not want to sit at home, bouncing off the walls. She took that decision for herself, and her employer did the right thing by saying, “We’ll give you the freedom as far as that decision is concerned.”
Many people are proud of the work they do. They often wake up early to work long, hard days to provide for themselves and their loved ones. They greet and talk to their colleagues, who they see almost every day. They deserve dignity and respect, and they deserve our support.
Some terminally ill people may want to continue working as long as they can, finding peace and distraction in their professional lives. Others may decide to step away, prioritising their family and themselves. While the Government are rightly levelling up workers’ rights, we must seize the moment to ensure those with terminal illness are treated with fairness, compassion and the respect they deserve in the workplace. Protections like those enshrined in our Dying to Work charter should be universal, not optional. Legislation must be introduced to best protect vulnerable people in our workplaces. In the meantime, it is essential that we persuade as many employers as possible, including Government Departments, to sign up to the Dying to Work charter to protect as many workers as possible. Dignity at work is not a privilege; it is a right.
Some organisations do have death in service payments, but if a person is fired, they and their family are no longer entitled to any of those benefits. Every worker deserves to know that they will not be forced out of their job when they need it most. People at the end of their life should be able to decide whether they want to continue to work.
I was delighted to hear that the Government will be implementing the Dying to Work charter as best practice in Departments, but we need to go further. We need to review the Equality Act 2010 so that there are not gaps in rights for those who are terminally ill. We need to protect people’s employment when they are ill. We need to give the most vulnerable people in our society the right to choose and the right to dignity. We need to implement new legislation to protect these workers.
Protecting employment for those who are terminally ill means that they can focus on what truly matters, whether that is continuing to contribute to work or stepping away to spend their remaining time with their loved ones. Ultimately, that choice should be theirs and theirs alone, and if we need to we should protect that choice in law.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) on bringing this extremely important debate to the House and on his work over the years before he became an MP, particularly in the midlands, which was exemplary, to say the least.
Sir Edward, can you imagine what it is like when the consultant tells you—perhaps you are at work and you get a phone call—that you have got terminal cancer? Your life flashes before you. It is horrendous, and not only for you; your family, your workmates and everyone else is completely devastated. Yet here in the UK employers still have the ability to decide whether to dismiss somebody under those circumstances, on the basis of capability, or allow them to remain in employment. Quite frankly, it is appalling. It does not befit this wonderful country that we live in.
When they get telt they have terminal cancer or a terminal illness, and are in work, different people have different views, but many have not got different options, because it is down to employers. There are good employers and bad employers. That has always been the case and it always will be. That is why it should be enshrined in law that people with a terminal condition cannot be dismissed on grounds of capability in any way, shape or form.
Different people are different. Some people want to work, because they see it as a distraction from their condition. Some people have a condition that makes it impossible for them to work. Some people want to fight their grave illness; others want to lie under the duvet and sadly spend the rest of their days in the house, not in work. But people need to have options, and people need to be supported by the Government.
I can give personal testimony, because I have experienced this situation only this year. A very close relative—it was my brother, actually—was in this position, and it was terrible. For pension reasons, to continue in employment and to receive other support, he had to prove to his employer that he really was terminally ill. For someone to do that, they have to get a letter from their GP to prove that they are going to die. The definition of “terminally ill” is that someone will die within six months, so he and his family had to seek a letter saying that he was not going to be around in six months. That is absolute stress of the highest level; it is a pre-death certificate.
Can it be right that working people are tret in this way? You have got enough stress when you have been telt—by the consultant, the doctor, the hospital, the GP—that you have not got that much time left. Some people want to get on and put their affairs in order; others want to spend time with their family. But people should have the right to work, and the right to continue in employment, if they can.
Other speakers have mentioned financial issues. Of course, lots of people who get a terminal illness while they are in work have family, including kids, as well as mortgages, cars and loans, and they cannot just have their financial position severed because of bad employers. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire who said that dignity at work is not a privilege, but a right. I agree. Basically, I think that the Government should consider the position of terminally ill individuals in the workplace.
With regard to needing absolute proof that you are dying, I am not sure. Imagine having to ask the doctor, “Can you put it in writing that I’m not going to be here?” It is dreadful. That is something we need to look at. I think it is right that the Government should enshrine in legislation that employers cannot dismiss anyone on grounds of capability if they can prove that they have a terminal illness, whether that proof is a letter saying they have six months to live—a pre-death certificate—or not. The employer should recognise that proof and it should be up to the individual worker to decide which of the options available to them to take.
It is commendable that 1.5 million workers and a whole number of companies have signed up to the Dying to Work campaign, but I think we have about 44 million workers in this country, and we have good employers and bad employers. We need to take the choice away from the employers; we need to enshrine it in law and support people who face the most dreadful situation that could ever be imagined.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Lavery Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
The Government are committed to strengthening the collective voices of workers and restoring the principle that work should always pay. That is why we introduced the Employment Rights Bill, which will restore the school support staff negotiating body and introduce a framework for a fair pay agreement in adult social care. Combined with other measures in the Bill, that will empower workers, unions and employers to come together to negotiate fair pay, terms and conditions.
Ian Lavery
I thank the Minister for that answer. It was fantastic of the Labour Government to bring in the Employment Rights Bill within their first 100 days—an absolutely brilliant achievement. Experts say that sectoral bargaining is a force to be reckoned with for both employees and employers, so what plans might the Government have to extend sectoral collective bargaining in other sectors of the economy?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is right to say that there is plenty of evidence worldwide that collective bargaining improves terms and conditions and the overall vitality of the economy, but we must start somewhere. About 5% of the entire working population are employed in adult social care, and with a 25% turnover rate and rampant abuse of zero-hours contracts and the minimum wage laws, we felt that that sector needed the most attention first. We must make a concerted effort to drive up working conditions, because those who work in that area have been undervalued and underappreciated for far too long, and that has to change. We must focus on getting it right in adult social care, and we will see where that takes us.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Sarah Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is essential that local communities see the benefits of landmark investments. I am pleased that Blackstone is investing £110 million in a fund to support local skills training and transport infrastructure. I am happy to have a conversation with my hon. Friend about what more can be done.
Post Office Horizon
Ian Lavery Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their contribution. We are concerned that matters are taking too long. We have been working with lawyers who have signed up to a framework for representing claimants, and we are looking at ways we can speed the process up. There are issues in terms of collating enough expert evidence to support the claims, but we are looking at how that can be accelerated. On the independent process, we are looking at an independent mediation step after the initial decisions and offers are made, and ultimately an independent appeal decision will be considered as well.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
A whole number of individuals out there have been convicted and have paid huge amounts of money—£10,000, £20,000 or £30,000—back to the Post Office, but because they were directly employed not by the Post Office, but perhaps by their sub-postmaster, they cannot get any redress. They are victims of the Horizon scandal equally as much as anyone else. What advice can the Minister give to people in my constituency of Blyth and Ashington who find themselves in those circumstances?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend refers to some specific circumstances that I would welcome further information on. If he can contact the Department, the relevant Minister will look through those circumstances to see whether there is anything we can do, because we do not want anyone to be out of pocket as a result of this scandal.