Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Cryer and Jo Swinson

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

As I have said, we have taken action on zero-hours contracts, and the next Parliament will have to consider whether anything further needs to be done on that issue. We must keep the matter under review. This Government have been absolutely determined to build a stronger economy and a fairer society, and I wholeheartedly agree with that.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Zero-hours shifts are often cancelled at 20 or 30 minutes’ notice. Does the Minister think that that is fair? If she thinks it is unfair, what would she do about it?

[Jo Swinson]

There are issues around such contracts that employers should address. We are working with different sectors in industry to encourage them to bring forward guidance on the responsible use of zero-hours contracts. Many people who are on zero-hours contracts are perfectly happy with them. The problem is not with the contracts themselves but with the behaviour of some employers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Cryer and Jo Swinson

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

12. If his Department will make an assessment of the main causes of insecurity in the workplace.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

The 2011 workplace employment relations study found that employees’ feelings of job insecurity were related to three factors: whether their workplace had been subject to any recent redundancies; the perception among managers of the effect of the recent recession; and the number of changes at work experienced by employees.

[John Cryer]

An increasing proportion of the work force is subject to zero-hours contracts. Does the Minister think that they have anything to do with job insecurity? Do they contribute to insecurity or do they contribute to security?

[Jo Swinson]

We have of course been looking at these issues and there is a range of evidence out there. The hon. Gentleman might be interested in the survey published last week by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which found there was no difference in the level of job security experienced by zero-hours workers compared with the average employee. We have looked at a range of problems that have been identified, such as exclusivity, the information available and the uncertainty over earnings. We will be publishing a consultation shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Cryer and Jo Swinson

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State imagine that the counterfeiters, the smugglers and the others will welcome the introduction of plain packaging for the tobacco industry?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

I know that there have been strong views on this issue in all parts of the House, and the Department of Health has undertaken a consultation on it. We await the results of that consultation, which will be analysed carefully. I am sure that the interesting counterfeiting issues that the hon. Gentleman raises will need to be considered alongside the health issues.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between John Cryer and Jo Swinson

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

As the hon. Gentleman will find if he checks Hansard, I have just said that we recognise that our approach could have an impact; it may affect the behaviours of both claimants and respondents. We have already published an impact assessment, but we will keep this matter under review. Of course, if at a future point a further change is necessary as a result, we will come back with it. The Bill does not need to provide for that consultation process, given that it is already ongoing.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

We also need to address the question of ACAS’s capacity to deal with the extra cases—no matter how the process is run, their number will increase. Is there not an implication in terms of extra resources, for ACAS to deal with what could be an extra 100,000 cases a year?

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which highlights the crucial role of ACAS in this area. My predecessor gave reassurances in Committee, but I say again that ACAS will be adequately resourced. It is absolutely essential that that is the case in order to deliver early conciliation. Indeed, I remind hon. Members that in his evidence to the Committee, the chair of ACAS, Ed Sweeney, said that he was confident that the Government would make sure that ACAS will be adequately resourced. I am glad to be able to give that reassurance to the House.

Amendment 51 would add a power to make regulations which would prevent an employer from seeking costs against an employee at tribunal, or to take any other measures that would incentivise employers to take part in the conciliation process. Amendment 57 would have the effect of providing those individuals bringing claims under a particular Act, whose limitation period would otherwise expire during the period of early conciliation or within one month of the conciliation process ending, with an additional six months in which to lodge their claim with the tribunal.

I recognise the intent behind the amendments tabled by Opposition Members; they clearly share our belief that resolving disputes is best done between the parties, rather than at an employment tribunal—as, I believe, do those involved in the process. There has been broad support for the introduction of early conciliation, both in the House and from employers and employees, who recognise the benefits that it offers. It is the benefits—savings in time and cost, and in the considerable stress of the tribunal process—that will encourage parties to engage in conciliation, rather than a change in the rules to prevent respondents from seeking a costs order.

The rules on costs orders are clear: costs may be ordered by a tribunal where a party has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in bringing or conducting proceedings. However, it is rare that parties act in such a manner; the vast majority of cases are where there is a genuine disagreement between the parties, which is why only 1,311 of these awards were made in 2011-12.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

It is intriguing, given the experience of Opposition Front Benchers as employment lawyers. It is worth bearing in mind that compromise agreements already exist and existed for 13 years under the previous Government. They have a lot of merit, but tend to be used by large firms in particular—large firms, which can afford to employ expensive employment lawyers. Small and medium-sized companies often feel very afraid of taking on such conversations and that is what we are seeking to address.

I recognise that there are concerns about how the clause might work in practice and what safeguards there may be for individuals, many of which my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, addressed in some detail in Committee. I strongly believe that in clause 12 we have found the right balance between protecting individuals and giving employers the flexibility and confidence they need to manage their businesses effectively. It is about balance. The settlement agreements measure provides a mutually beneficial solution for employers and employees as regards ending the employment relationship. Let us be clear that this is not, as some have suggested—and as Opposition Members have been suggesting from a sedentary position—the first step to no-fault dismissal or Beecroft-lite. We have made it abundantly clear that we will not go down that path.

[John Cryer]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Swinson]

I will give way shortly.

We believe our approach to settlement agreements is a more effective way of dealing with workplace problems, as it offers a positive outcome for all parties. Settlement agreements are by definition voluntary and consensual. Individuals will still need to get independent legal advice before signing an agreement and can decline it if they want to do so. That approach has the benefit that an agreed settlement gives an employer surety that they will not face a tribunal case on any grounds covered by the settlement agreement, which a no-fault dismissal regime would not provide. Employees are at liberty to reject an offer when it is not right for them and our approach does not remove an employer’s obligations not to discriminate or prevent an individual from bringing other evidence to support a case of unfair dismissal.

[Jo Swinson]

I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer).

[John Cryer]

Earlier, the Minister mentioned the possibility of no-fault dismissal. That is exactly what the Opposition are suggesting. It will be illegal to quote protected conversations later, so no-fault dismissal by the back door will be introduced. What mechanism will she use to monitor the workings of this clause so that that does not happen?

[Jo Swinson]

I cannot make it clear enough that this is not no-fault dismissal. The proposals in the Beecroft report would have removed at a stroke the employment rights of 30 million individuals, whereas what we propose is a voluntary and mutually beneficial process that will end the employment relationship only if the employee agrees to it. That is entirely different. The suggestions that are being made are not founded in fact. The hon. Gentleman says that we should consider how things proceed, and compromise agreements have been on the statute book for some time.