Steel Trade Measure

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I honestly just do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands how this works—any single element of it, to be honest. Let me first address his point about the timing. I would have much preferred to give greater notice to everybody, and I worked towards being able to do so. Unfortunately, one of the key parts of the interaction is with the European Union, and we only completed our negotiations with the European Union over the last few days. I point out that the EU itself has not as yet announced its quota, either with us or for any other country, and will not do so until Monday. I wanted to bring this forward as soon as I possibly could.

The hon. Gentleman refers to U-turns. We have listened to the concerns both from specific businesses—I know that some are very pleased with some of the categories we have changed and the quotas we have increased—and from hon. Members, who have brought their concerns to the Chamber or directly to Ministers. We have tried to address as many issues as possible, but, as I said in my statement, there are difficult trade-offs here.

The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should cut the 50% tariff rate. I am not sure that is a point he has made anywhere previously, but if we had a lower tariff rate than other countries, in particular the European Union, we would—this is why I do not think he understands how any of this works—immediately become the dumping ground for all the cheap steel in the world. We would be a magnet for that and we would be exacerbating the problem for steel production that we already have in the UK.

The shadow Secretary of State raised the question of defence. I have looked carefully at this. Of course, he wrote a letter this morning that made some rather ill-founded remarks about what is likely to happen to defence. First, Sheffield Forgemasters is already providing significant amounts of UK steel precisely into the UK defence sector. When the defence investment plan is produced, I want it to deliver jobs in the UK rather than just everywhere else in the world, and I would like more of our defence industry to be based on using UK steel, because that would be a double win for us.

I note that when the previous Government were in place, they commissioned: Type 26 frigates—65% of that steel came from Sweden; Type 31 frigates—all the steel from Finland; and four Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tide-class tankers—44,000 tonnes of steel from Korea. When the Dreadnought-class nuclear ballistic submarines were commissioned by the last Government, where did the steel come from? From France! We can do far, far better than this. It is absolutely preposterous that only 30% of UK steel needs are being met by UK steel production. We need to get that number up. We have committed to getting it to 50% and that is why I am immensely supportive of the measure that we are introducing today.

I also want to make it clear that a lot of categories of steel—as I said, three quarters of the steel by value—is not in scope of the measure at all. That means it can come in and out of the UK without any tariff. Also, the 50% tariff is not on all the steel in a particular category; it is only on that above the quota. In significant areas, we have increased the quota and, for instance, in categories 4, 6, 12A and 7, which is particularly important for the defence sector, the final quotas are higher than the levels of historical trade because some of the previous quotas were not even being fully used. I am afraid that the hon. Member is wrong in nearly every single element of his analysis—and that is not the first time, is it?

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Although I certainly welcome the protection of our steel industry, I remain concerned about some tariffs and quotas affecting some products. I am pleased to hear the Minister reiterate what the Industry Minister said on Wednesday: that, alongside measures to protect our industry, our Government are absolutely committed to increasing the range of products that we make in the UK. To that end, will the Minister meet me to discuss a proposal from a constituent of mine in Llanelli to open a manufacturing facility to produce steel bands, which currently have to be imported from the EU, so we can bring that production back to the UK?

[Chris Bryant]

That is an extremely well made point. Gun barrel manufacturing is being done in the UK again thanks to a Sheffield Forgemasters contract that has been secured. We need to bring more of these categories back into UK production. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend. She might want to come along to the surgery that I am doing on Monday afternoon with officials. If she wants to talk to me, she knows how to find me. She is absolutely right that we need to increase the total quantity of steel that we are producing in the UK, protect what we are already doing and find new areas where we can produce steel. We will never do that unless we introduce tough protections in trade measures to deal with the problem of global overcapacity.

Steel Tariffs

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that link with defence. I know that he cares about it deeply, as I think we all do, but that has not really come out until now. He also mentioned energy. As he will know, we increased the supercharger rebate from 60% to 90%, and the British industrial competitiveness scheme will come into force next year—but there will be a refund for this year as well. That will affect many of the downstream businesses. However, I believe—as, I am sure, does the right hon. Gentleman—that the crucial point about defence is that we need the capability to make aerospace deals in the UK, and our measures are designed to ensure that that happens.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The imposition of tariffs on black-painted and zinc-painted steel banding—products that are not manufactured in the UK, and are therefore imported from the EU—and the scramble for quota at the beginning of the year will increase costs for our steel producers, and will have a serious impact on importers’ cash flow. Will the Minister look at the tariffs again and do all that he can to ensure that those particular tariffs and quotas do not go ahead?

[Chris McDonald]

This issue, which my hon. Friend has raised with me before, relates primarily to category 4 products. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) earlier about the importance of that in Llanwern. I am very concerned about category 4, and it is one of the issues that I am looking at.

UK Steel Strategy

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving himself the opportunity to score an own goal. When we came into office, we inherited a broken economy that was not delivering for working people. Our international relationships were on their knees, public services were stretched to breaking point and our economy simply was not generating income because of the circumstances that we inherited. We have acted to update workers’ rights for the moment we are living in, while getting a grip on the public finances that the previous Government left in utter chaos. Those are the fundamentals that we need moving forward to deal with all the global challenges that will come our way. If we had not got the finances on a stable footing, we would be in a much worse state now that we are facing the challenges that have come our way in recent times.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to supporting our Welsh steel industry and to using much more steel made in the UK, but Llanelli’s Trostre works needs high-quality steel to make the steel packaging products it produces. That steel used to come from Port Talbot’s blast furnaces. Can the Minister tell us more about what he is doing to secure supplies of appropriate scrap metal for the electric arc furnace, and to stimulate research to ensure that the electric arc furnace can produce steel of the quality that Trostre needs?

[Peter Kyle]

My hon. Friend has been speaking about this issue for a long time. In the run-up to the transition period for electric arc furnaces, I assure her that we have a scrap working group, which is working to identify the sources of scrap metal that will be required. Just yesterday in Port Talbot, I was talking with the management, the workers and the unions, and I saw the infrastructure being built to get scrap from across the United Kingdom to where it needs to be on an enormous scale.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

As I said to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), we are committed to ensuring not just that we work to maintain the post office network, but that we deal with some of those long-standing issues about the viability of the business going forward—issues that the Conservatives had 14 years to fix and did not.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Workers at Tata’s Trostre site in my constituency have been hard hit by the five-week annual stoppage, leaving them short of money over Christmas. Despite reassurances from Tata, the Minister will understand that they are worried that this is a sign of worse to come. What is he doing to bring down energy prices, negotiate preferential treatment for our products to access the EU, and ensure that we strengthen our protections against cheap imports—all vital to the future of our steel industry?

[Chris McDonald]

We recognise the importance of the steel industry in Wales and of Trostre in particular, which has more than 70 years of tinplate production and is the only tinning line in the UK. I met the chief executive of Tata Steel this week to discuss this very issue. He referred to a softening in market demand, but fundamentally, this Government are committed to creating a better business environment for steel in the UK, so that it can compete with Europe, including on energy prices.

Coal Tip Safety and New Extraction Licences

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ann Davies]

Absolutely. This is an issue for the whole of the United Kingdom.

The disaster brought about the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969, which came into force to improve coal tips’ stability and safety. However, it did not go far enough. Aberfan should have been a moment to address the dangerous legacy of all coal tips once and for all, but the job remains unfinished. Now, because of increasingly violent storms caused by climate change, we have experienced further coal tip slips. There was a major landslide above Tylorstown in Rhondda Fach in 2020, and then in November 2024, in Cwmtillery, a slip was caused by heavy rainfall from Storm Bert. That led to a slurry and debris slide that forced the evacuation of homes.

Plaid Cymru has long warned that the safety of our coal tips is not a matter for tomorrow; it must be addressed urgently. No family should go to bed fearing a landslide on the hillside above them. No community should be left to foot the bill for the negligence of past Governments. The Senedd recently passed the Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Act 2025, which will establish the Disused Tips Authority for Wales, the powers of which will include requiring landowners to ensure that coal tips located on their land are stable. We must, however, not forget that the issue of coal tips predates the dawn of devolution. It is an historic injustice that the cost of making these tips safe has not been fully funded by Westminster, and that the people of Wales are now expected to foot a large part of this bill.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I welcome this debate, but I would like the hon. Member to acknowledge the fact that the UK Government have given £140 million towards making these coal tips safe, which is absolutely vital. I know that bigger figures have been bandied about, but would she agree that there is a limit to how much we can do in any one or two years, and that that was the amount asked for by the Welsh Government? It does not preclude opportunities in the future to ask for more, when more plans are ready.

[Ann Davies]

Absolutely, but we need £600 million to make these tips safe. The Government responded to my written question in June that the Labour Welsh Government had not asked for the full amount of the estimated £600 million needed to make all tips in Wales safe. Plaid Cymru believes it is a grave injustice to the people of the valleys that the full cost is not covered by Westminster. I reiterate our call on the Government to fully fund remediation work to make coal tips safe in Wales.

Without full funding from Westminster, it leaves the door open to a new generation of mining companies waiting to mine these coal tips under the guise of remediation. That is because the new Welsh Disused Tips Authority will require landowners to make the coal tips safe, and they will likely seek to avoid that extra cost. There is a real risk that mining companies will offer to carry out remediation work on behalf of landowners for free, in return for the commercial rights of any coal that they extract. These companies have proven to us that they cannot be trusted with the stewardship of our environment.

The local authority area of Carmarthenshire has 170 coal tips. My constituency borders some of the largest tips in Wales, one of which is the waste from the East Pit open-cast coalmine, a prime example of where a company has betrayed the trust of the community. In that instance, the company, Celtic Energy, continued to mine coal from the site beyond the expiry of its planning permission. It then failed to restore the coalmine and remediate the local coal tip, abandoning the site and the community with the task incomplete. We cannot allow this to become a pattern by letting the coalmining industry of Wales’s past return to carve open our countryside once again. Making coal tips safe for our communities should be the priority, whether that is through flattening, removing or reprofiling them.

The UK Government have pledged to ban new coalmining licences, but they have confirmed their belief that re-mining coal from the tips does not require a licence, meaning that such activity falls outside the scope of the proposed ban. Although the Welsh Government believe that their own planning policies will prevent re-mining, a loophole allowing coal extraction in “wholly exceptional circumstances” has raised concern among campaigners such as the Coal Action Network. I thank Anthony, who is here today, for his help in preparing for this debate. I also congratulate him on his wedding anniversary—when he should be home, he has come to support us here.

The loophole can be resolved by amending the Coal Industry Act 1994 to require licensing for the re-mining of coal tips, and ensuring that that is included in a UK-wide ban. We must prevent a new industry of commercial coal tip mining from taking root and perpetuating fossil fuel pollution. I urge the Government to extend their coal licence ban to cover the re-mining of coal tips.

Tomorrow is the Senedd by-election in Caerphilly—a local authority area with 207 coal tips, 56 of which are deemed a clear threat to public safety. As we know, voters will get to choose between two different visions for the future of Caerphilly. The vision of Reform and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is one of reopening the coalmines in Wales. He wants to send our people back down underground to slave away in the dark for hours, developing pneumoconiosis from inhaling toxic dust—all to exploit the people of Wales yet again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gerald Jones]

Perhaps the right hon. Lady and her party could be clear on what the true cost would be. We know that those costs are significant. It is something that Plaid Cymru has never really wanted to talk about, so perhaps going forward they could be clear on what the costs of their pipe dream would mean for communities and individuals right across Wales.

But back to the point: the safety of our communities is our first responsibility. The funding represents all that Welsh Government requested to fund the safety works for the rest of this Parliament. With a significant number of category D tips across Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf, this investment is hugely important for my constituents.

This is a Government determined to act where Tory inaction left communities unsafe. The funding announcement, along with significant investment from the Welsh Government, shows the impact of two Labour Governments working together for Wales after years of Tory failure.

I welcome the fact that the Welsh Government’s Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Act 2025 received Royal Assent last month, which paves the way for the establishment of the disused tips authority for Wales, a dedicated public body responsible for assessing, registering, monitoring and managing disused tips. That authority would be the first of its kind in the UK and would be world-leading in developing a robust system for the safety of disused tip.

The new authority is due to be operational from April 2027, and will take over the work that is currently done by the Mining Remediation Authority. As we have heard, there are more than 2,500 disused coal tips in Wales, predominantly in the south Wales valleys. We have almost 100 category C and 44 category D across Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf. The changing climate, our industrial past and the landscape mean that we must act to keep our communities safe.

The House will also be aware that my constituency is home to Ffos-y-Fran, the last major open-cast mine in the UK, which shut down in November 2023. The scheme has certainly had its difficulties and caused much concern over the years. When it first opened, the company running the mine, Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd, pledged to fully restore the site after it finished operations. I call on it to honour that pledge.

Local residents have put up with a lot in terms of nuisance and inconvenience since the open-cast began. I sincerely hope that this is recognised and that the developer ensures that local residents are at the forefront when completing the restoration. Current restoration costs are estimated at between £50 million and £120 million, and there has been much uncertainty in the community.

Merthyr Tydfil residents are understandably concerned, given how long this has gone on and the need for remediation work to provide a lasting solution to ensure that the area is, above all, safe and returned to natural countryside. It is essential that progress be made soon and that remedial work be completed, so that local residents can once more enjoy their local surroundings.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Would my hon. Friend strongly advise constituents in areas like mine to look very carefully at any applications? Luckily, we have no category C or D tips, although we do have A and B tips, and we had an application for Pentremawr, near Pont Henri—luckily, we managed to send it packing. Would he therefore advise our constituents to be ultra-vigilant and not to let things slip through without the full detail?

[Gerald Jones]

I agree that communities need to be vigilant, and also fully involved in these projects going forward—hopefully, we have seen the last of them.

I am aware that Merthyr Tydfil county borough council is working hard on finding a resolution to the restoration, and I am pleased that the Welsh Government are working with the local authority and other regulators as part of a technical working group, to ensure that the best possible outcome is achieved for local people.

The people in my constituency and across Wales have paid an historic price for coal, which has helped to fuel our country and our economy. It is now time they were allowed to enjoy their green and pleasant valleys once again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) on securing this important debate, which brings together two deeply interconnected issues: the safety of coal tips and the prohibition of new coal extraction licences. Both go to the heart of how we reckon with our industrial past, protect our communities in the present and deliver on our climate responsibilities for the future.

In September last year, we hailed the historic moment that the UK closed its last coal-fired power station and we became the first country in the G7 to phase out coal power generation, fulfilling the pledge that we made alongside other countries at COP26. That was a key milestone in our climate targets and our efforts to reduce polluting emissions. At the same time, we paid tribute to the men and women who had worked in terrible conditions in our coalmines and coal-fired power stations for many years while they kept our lights on and powered our industries and economy.

That now leaves, across the United Kingdom, about 5,000 disused coal tips, more than half of which are in Wales. Many of them sit close to the communities that once powered our country: the valleys, towns and villages built around the coal industry. As we have heard, as climate change accelerates, and rainfall and extreme weather events become more frequent, the danger the tips pose is growing. This is not a risk for some point in the future; it is happening now.

This week we remember the tragedy in Aberfan in 1966, when 144 people, including 116 children, died. Just last year, 40 homes in Cwmtillery were evacuated when a tip collapse sent tonnes of slurry and debris through the village. These incidents are a reminder that this is not simply a historical concern, but a very real and present danger for communities today. Such tragedies should not be allowed to happen again.

The Government’s commitment of £118 million over three years for coal tip safety, together with the Welsh Government’s £100 million investment, is of course welcome, but the Welsh Affairs Committee heard clearly that the funding only scratches the surface. The cost of long-term remediation and monitoring is so much higher, and the risks are increasing as the climate changes. Though the funding is welcome, it is reactive and not strategic.

What we need is a strategic long-term plan—a proper partnership between the UK and Welsh Governments—with sustainable funding for the disused tips authority, which is due to be established in 2027. That body will succeed only if it has the skills, resources and the authority it needs from day one. As the Liberal Democrats have consistently said, we have to view this not just as a safety issue but as a climate resilience issue. Climate change is causing ground instability, which means that, as we have heard, living at the foot of a coal tip is becoming even more dangerous, year by year and day by day. The response must be integrated with the UK’s broader climate adaptation strategy.

At the same time, we need to ensure we have truly confronted the unfinished business of coal itself. Liberal Democrats welcomed the Government’s announcement last November that they would prohibit new coal extraction licences, but that has to be a watertight ban. As it stands, there is a loophole that allows coal to be commercially extracted from disused tips, as we have just heard so powerfully.

In practice, extracting coal from a tip is no different from open-cast mining. The method is the same, the disruption is the same, the risks are the same and the emissions are the same. The contradiction can be easily resolved. Leading environmental lawyers, working with the Coal Action Network, have proposed an amendment to the Coal Industry Act 1994 to clarify that the mining of coal from coal tips also requires a licence. That small change would ensure that the Government’s coal ban is comprehensive and future-proof.

Future-proofing is vital, as changes in our political landscape could put all this at risk. There are political parties that would seek a very different route. Rather than invest in the new green jobs of the future, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), the leader of Reform UK, has demanded—I repeat, demanded—the reopening of coalmines in Wales. He argued that Welsh people would happily return to work down the pits—and, I assume, also have slurry tipped over the beautiful Welsh countryside. There is no vision for jobs of the future, only a return to the jobs of the past, and no concern for the planet that our children and future generations will inherit.

Reform UK opposes green renewable energy. Instead, it wants to reopen coalmines and frack stupid frack, ripping apart our beautiful countryside by digging deep, with the threat of earth tremors, polluted water and devastation to our precious nature and wildlife.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge the leadership of the Welsh Government, who have used their planning powers to become the first part of the UK to completely ban fracking?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I do not think that the right hon. Lady and I are a million miles apart on this. I am suggesting that those great technological innovations that are coming on board but are not ready right here, right now in 2025 need time to develop and become commercially viable, and that in the transition we will still need coal for certain functions. Simply turning it all off overnight is not the responsible thing to do.

Coal tip safety is an incredibly serious issue and deserves resource, engineering expertise and local accountability. Communities across Wales and England in particular live with the physical remnants of our industrial past. Those sites must be monitored and maintained responsibly. When tips are abandoned and left unmanaged, they become dangerous, as we have seen in past tragedies.

Cutting off the licensing regime entirely risks creating more orphan sites with no responsible operators to maintain them. We should be modernising the licensing system, not abolishing it. A well-regulated extraction framework would provide both the revenue and the oversight needed to ensure tip safety for generations to come. By banning new coal extraction licences, the Government have not reduced demand for coal; they have simply exported that demand abroad. That is exactly what we have seen with the approach to the North sea and to British industry more generally.

The Times recently reported comments from the industrialist Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who warned that the UK faces a “chemical breakdown” if Ministers continue ignoring the realities of domestic energy and feedstock production. His message was blunt: if we keep shutting down energy-intensive industries here, we will just import the same materials from countries with far higher emissions, fewer safeguards and lower labour standards.

The Government are just lost. To give an example, even the GMB’s general secretary, Gary Smith—no relation—rightly called this strategy “catastrophic” for not just jobs, but the environment. He warned that importing coal, gas and manufactured products from overseas is far more carbon intensive than producing them domestically. He went further, saying that the Government’s net zero drive is “bonkers”—his word—because it undermines the workers who will be essential to any genuine green transition. When even the trade unions are pleading for common sense, it is a clear sign that Labour has lost touch with not just the science, but the people they apparently represent.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Does the shadow Minister accept that his party’s ban on onshore wind in England, plus no experimental hydrogen stations, has contributed to the slowness of the transition? The way he is talking now is a bit rich.

[Greg Smith]

I understand that the point that the hon. Lady is trying to make, but I will never apologise for trying to protect the British countryside.

The Labour Government are closing industries at home, patting themselves on the back for imaginary environmental victories and then importing the same resources from halfway across the world, racking up shipping emissions, losing domestic expertise and devastating industrial communities. That is not a green policy; it is economic negligence. It is bad for the economy, disastrous for security and utterly self-defeating for the climate. Let us be honest: Britain cannot reach meaningful environmental goals by eroding its industrial base. Real sustainability comes from innovation, not prohibition.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this matter, because it allows me to acknowledge what responsible governance should be about: balancing progress with protection. The Government’s policies will harm our communities, hollow out industry and do nothing measurable for the global climate. Let us have the courage to revisit them and stand up for common sense, working people and British industry. If we continue down the path of ideological self-harm, we will soon find that the only thing we have truly exported is our prosperity, and the only thing we have imported is decline.

Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

I commend the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling new clause 35. It is not the Opposition’s intention to support it at this stage, but I want to be clear that the principle behind it is fundamentally good: ensuring carers are not left on a financial sticky wicket, which is a very real problem in the country. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Torbay said that it was a probing amendment, but we believe that it is not currently fully thought through. We can all agree—I would be surprised if we did not—on saluting the incredible work that carers do up and down the land. They are all heroes in their own right and they do incredible work to look after those they care for. Their work merits a genuine use of the word “amazing”. It is a word that has been applied to far too many things in this world that are not amazing, but I think we can all agree that the work carers do genuinely is amazing.

Our rationale for saying that this new clause is not thought through enough is that it does not produce realistic solutions to solving the financial gap for carers, which we acknowledge exists. I would be interested to know the rates of payment the Liberal Democrats think would be appropriate for carer’s leave, how the rates they envisage have been benchmarked, and if they have understood the likelihood of take-up of carer’s leave and therefore the ability of employers to absorb this cost. The hon. Gentleman was very clear about that 10.6 million figure he gave. Any solution that seeks to close the financial gap must accept some of the realities and take on board the costings that will have to come from somewhere to ensure that that financial burden can be met, notwithstanding the acceptance that carers need more support for—I repeat—their amazing work. That is why we believe this new clause just does not work at this time, and I would be surprised if our position were that different from the Government’s.

[The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)]

I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my membership of the National Education Union and USDAW.

New clause 35 would commit the Government to introducing an entitlement for employees with caring responsibilities, to be paid at their usual wage level, while taking carer’s leave. It would give carers an entitlement of up to a week of paid leave and require employers to cover the cost.

I want to underline that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting employed unpaid carers. In the October 2024 Budget, we increased the earnings disregard for carers from £151 to £196, meaning that they can earn up to £196 without losing any of their carer’s allowance. In effect, that means that they can work 16 hours a week at the national living wage.

We have two concerns about the new clause. First, it would introduce significant new costs for employers without giving consideration to the potential impact on businesses, in particular small ones. Secondly, under the proposed approach, individuals taking carer’s leave would be treated more favourably than employees taking other forms of leave to care for family members, such as maternity or paternity leave, where a flat statutory rate is available. There is no clear rationale for taking a different approach, and it could raise questions about differential treatment of different groups. For those reasons, the Government do not support the new clause.

However, supporting carers who want to work alongside managing their caring responsibilities is an important element of our plans to modernise the world of work, which will ensure that there are good jobs for carers and a skilled workforce for employers. The Carer’s Leave Act 2023 gave employed carers a new right to time off work to care for a dependant with long-term care needs. We will review that measure and consider whether any further support is required. That will include looking at potential options for paid leave. The review will draw on evidence from carers and employers and learn from their experiences, so that we can understand what is working in the current system and identify where improvements may be needed. Through that work, we will also engage closely with smaller employers and sector bodies to ensure that we fully understand the potential impacts and benefits that further policy development could bring for them. It is right that we allow the review to run its course to enable an evidence-based decision on whether there is more we can do to support working carers while balancing impacts on businesses.

I heard what the hon. Member for Torbay said about the new clause being a probing amendment, and I hope that what I have said gives him reassurance about our commitment to that review. I therefore invite him to withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling new clause 46. I start by expressing my appreciation for all adoptive parents, who offer loving and stable homes to children who are unable to live with their birth parents. This Government are committed to ensuring that all working parents receive the best possible support to balance their work and family lives.

New clause 46 calls for eligibility for statutory adoption pay to be extended to individuals who are self-employed or contractors. It would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations within six months of the passage of the Bill to enable self-employed individuals and contractors who adopt to receive statutory adoption pay. The proposed regulations would also define the terms “self-employed” and “contractors” to ensure that we have a shared understanding of who would qualify for statutory adoption pay under this extended eligibility.

At present, parental leave and pay entitlements are generally not available to the self-employed. That is because the parental leave system is focused on supporting employed parents, who need specific rights and protections to take time off work. Self-employed people are generally considered to have more flexibility and autonomy, and not to need those same protections. There is, of course, the exception of maternity allowance, which is available to self-employed mothers to ensure that they can take time off work following childbirth to recover and establish breastfeeding, if they wish to do so. That is an important health and safety provision.

None the less, the Government are committed to supporting parents to balance their work and family responsibilities and keen to hear how the system can be improved. While adoptive parents who are self-employed or contractors do not qualify for statutory adoption pay, statutory adoption guidance advises local authorities to consider making a payment similar to maternity allowance for those parents.

In November 2024, the Government published “Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive,” which sets out our vision for children’s social care. As part of that vision, the Government have allocated £49 million to the adoption and special guardianship support fund for this financial year. The fund enables local authorities and regional adoption agencies to offer a wide range of tailored support, including psychotherapy, family therapy and creative therapies to children who are adopted and their families. These services are available to all adoptive families following a locally conducted assessment of the family’s needs. Depending on individual circumstances, additional financial support—for example, universal credit and child benefit—may also be available to contractors or self-employed people who adopt.

We have committed to a review of the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports all working families. The review will be conducted separately to the Employment Rights Bill, and work is already under way on planning its delivery. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for Torbay to withdraw his proposed new clause.

[Steve Darling]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 51

Access to employment rights: workers on temporary visas

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, commission an independent report on the extent to which workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law.

(2) In commissioning the report, the Secretary of State must arrange for the report to meet the requirements set out in subsections (2) to (4).

(3) The report must examine the extent to which workers on temporary visas feel unable to assert their employment rights because they are dependent on their employers to sponsor their visas.

(4) The report must make recommendations to the Secretary of State about how the Secretary of State can support workers on temporary visas in the assertion of their employment rights.

(5) The report must be completed within three months of being commissioned.

(6) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is practicable after receipt of the report, publish the report and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.

(7) The Secretary of State must, within three months of receipt of the report—

(a) respond to the recommendations in the report, and

(b) publish the response and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Chris Law.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for introducing the new clause, and for his absolute sincerity in wanting to support families.

The Government are committed to ensuring that employed parents receive the best level of support to balance their work and family lives. Our plan to make work pay will ensure that employees are supported to work while balancing their essential family responsibilities. We understand that parental leave and pay entitlements are a key part of that, and that is why the Bill will already make changes to parental leave.

The new clause would double the existing rate of statutory parental payments from £184.03 to £368.06. When considering calls to increase the level of parental pay generally, we need to consider the impact on limited resources and the burden on employers. Changes to parental pay would require careful consideration alongside tax reform and consideration in the wider context of benefits and employment rights over the longer term, and they would need to be made in consultation with businesses and stakeholders.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is required by law to undertake an annual review of benefits and state pensions, including statutory payments. That is based on a review of trends in prices and earnings growth in the preceding year. Parental payments are generally increased in line with the consumer prices index. For example, in April, all statutory parental pay provisions, including statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay, were increased by 6.7%. That is in line with other benefits.

It is worth noting that statutory parental pay is only one element of the support available to parents. Depending on individual circumstances, additional financial support, such as universal credit, child benefit and the Sure Start maternity grant—a lump sum payment of £500—may also be available. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Torbay to withdraw the motion.

[Steve Darling]

I will just share with colleagues that this measure was part of the commitments in the Liberal Democrats’ fully costed manifesto. I thank the Minister for their reassurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 14

Kinship care leave

“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 80EE insert—

‘Chapter 5

Kinship care leave

80EF Kinship care leave

(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations entitling an employee to be absent from work on leave under this section if the employee satisfies conditions specified in the regulations as to an eligible kinship care arrangement with a child.

(2) The regulations must include provision for determining—

(a) the extent of an employee’s entitlement to leave under this section in respect of a child;

(b) when leave under this section may be taken.

(3) Provision under subsection (2)(a) must secure that—

(a) where only one employee is entitled to leave under this section in respect of a given child, the employee is entitled to at least 52 weeks’ leave;

(b) where more than one employee is entitled to leave under this section in respect of the same child, those employees are entitled to share at least 52 weeks’ leave between them.

(4) An employee is entitled to leave under this section only if the eligible kinship care arrangement is intended to last—

(a) at least one year, and

(b) until the child being cared for attains the age of 18.

(5) For the purposes of this Chapter, ‘eligible kinship care arrangement’ means—

(a) special guardianship,

(b) a kinship child arrangement,

(c) a private fostering arrangement, or

(d) a private family arrangement,

within the meaning given by section (Meaning of ‘kinship care’) of the Employment Rights Act 2024.

(6) The regulations may make provision about how leave under this section is to be taken.

(7) In this section—

(a) “special guardianship”, “kinship child arrangement”, “private fostering arrangement” and “private family arrangement” have the same meanings as in section (Meaning of “kinship care”) of the Employment Rights Act 2024.

(b) “week” means any period of seven days.

80EG Rights during and after kinship care leave

(1) Regulations under section 80EF must provide—

(a) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is entitled, for such purposes and to such extent as the regulations may prescribe, to the benefit of the terms and conditions of employment which would have applied but for the absence,

(b) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is bound, for such purposes and to such extent as the regulations may prescribe, by obligations arising under those terms and conditions (except in so far as they are inconsistent with subsection (1) of that section), and

(c) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is entitled to return from leave to a job of a kind prescribed by regulations, subject to section 80EH.

(2) The reference in subsection (1)(c) to absence on leave under section 80EF includes, where appropriate, a reference to a continuous period of absence attributable partly to leave under that section and partly to any one or more of the following—

(a) maternity leave,

(b) paternity leave,

(c) adoption leave,

(d) shared parental leave,

(e) parental leave,

(f) parental bereavement leave.

(3) In subsection (1)(a), “terms and conditions of employment”—

(a) includes matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under the contract of employment, but

(b) does not include terms and conditions about remuneration.

(4) Regulations under section 80EF may specify matters which are, or are not, to be treated as remuneration for the purposes of this section.

(5) Regulations under section 80EF may make provision, in relation to the right to return mentioned in subsection (1)(c), about—

(a) seniority, pension rights and similar rights;

(b) terms and conditions of employment on return.

80EH Special cases

(1) Regulations under section 80EF may make provision about—

(a) redundancy during or after a period of leave under that section, or

(b) dismissal (other than by reason of redundancy) during a period of leave under that section.

(2) Provision by virtue of subsection (1) may include—

(a) provision requiring an employer to offer alternative employment;

(b) provision for the consequences of failure to comply with the regulations (which may include provision for a dismissal to be treated as unfair for the purposes of Part 10).

80EI Chapter 5: supplemental

(1) Regulations under section 80EF may—

(a) make provision about notices to be given, evidence to be produced and other procedures to be followed by employees and employers;

(b) make provision requiring employers or employees to keep records;

(c) make provision for the consequences of failure to give notices, to produce evidence, to keep records or to comply with other procedural requirements;

(d) make provision for the consequences of failure to act in accordance with a notice given by virtue of paragraph (a);

(e) make special provision for cases where an employee has a right which corresponds to a right under section 80EF and which arises under the person’s contract of employment or otherwise;

(f) make provision modifying the effect of Chapter 2 of Part 14 (calculation of a week’s pay) in relation to an employee who is or has been absent from work on leave under section 80EF;

(g) make provision applying, modifying or excluding an enactment, in such circumstances as may be specified and subject to any conditions which may be specified, in relation to a person entitled to take leave under section 80EF;

(h) make different provision for different cases or circumstances;

(i) make consequential provision.

(2) The cases or circumstances mentioned in subsection (1)(h) include—

(a) more than one child being subject to the same eligible kinship care arrangement, and

(b) a child being subject to an eligible kinship care arrangement on two or more separate occasions,

and regulations may, in particular, make special provision regarding the applicability and extent of the entitlement to leave in such circumstances.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for some or all of a period of kinship care leave to be paid.’”—(Steve Darling.)

This new clause sets out an entitlement to kinship care leave.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I preface my comments by saying that I welcome anything that supports kinship carers. I had an inspirational meeting with a constituent who is a kinship carer over the summer, which certainly opened my eyes to many of the challenges faced by those who take on the heroic and wonderful mission in life of looking after those young people.

New clause 14 sets out an entitlement to kinship care leave. That in its own right seems to me a very good, sensible and noble proposal. Where the clause falls a little short is that it appears to be very trusting of the Government. Some on the Committee might think that is equally a very sensible and good thing, but obviously Governments come and go. Anything set out in any legislation that leaves things open also leaves them open to misinterpretation and the risk that they will not necessarily deliver that which was intended.

The entire eventual policy that new clause 14 would enable would be left up to Ministers, including the extent of an employee’s entitlement to leave, when leave may be taken and much more. I wonder whether the Liberal Democrats have a policy position on those matters; if they do, it seems rather trusting to just leave it up to the Government to determine, rather than setting it out in the new clause.

New clause 15 defines what is meant by kinship care. There is some confusion here, because the Government have set out their definition of kinship care in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which specifies that a child is in kinship care if

“the child lives with a relative, friend or other person connected with the child for all or part of the time”,

or if the child lives with that person

“for all of the time, or for more time than the child lives with a parent”,

and that person provides

“all of the care and support provided for the child, or more of that care and support than is provided for the child by a parent.”

A child is also in kinship care if the child lives with two or more relatives, friends or other persons

“all or most of the time (whether or not the child lives with those persons at the same time)”,

and

“those persons, taken together, provide all or most of the care and support provided for the child.”

That definition was introduced after new clause 15 was tabled, so it would be interesting to know whether there are aspects of the Government’s definition that the Liberal Democrats support, or whether they prefer their own, and why. It seems to me that, now there is live Government legislation in this area providing a perfectly good and well-meaning definition of kinship care, we do not need the new clause.

New clause 45, on additional leave for foster carers, would ensure that local authority foster parents are entitled to at least one extra week’s leave every 12 months. I would be interested to know whether the Liberal Democrats have undertaken any assessment of how businesses would be able to absorb the additional cost. That is not to say that we necessarily oppose the principle, but again, like with new clause 13, it would be important to know, before we could formally support any such change—well-meaning as it might be—whether that research has been done to understand the cost to business.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

New clause 14 aims to establish a new kinship care leave entitlement for employed kinship carers, with a minimum of 52 weeks of leave being available for eligible employees. New clause 15 then seeks to create a legal definition of “kinship care” to be used to establish eligibility for kinship care leave.

I start by emphasising how much I value kinship carers, who provide loving homes for children who cannot live with their parents. This Government are committed to ensuring that all employed parents and carers receive the best possible support to balance their work and family lives. We are also aware that the existing system of leave for parents and carers needs improvement.

Some of the improvements to that system will be made through this Bill, while others will be delivered separately. As the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has mentioned, for the first time, this Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will create a legal definition of kinship care for the purposes of measures within that Bill, including the duty to provide information to children and their kinship carers by local authorities, and extending the role of a virtual school head to promote the educational achievement of children in kinship care. That is a vital part of our commitment to keeping families together and supporting children to achieve and thrive.

That Bill defines kinship care as a situation in which a child lives with, and is cared for by, a relative, friend or someone else connected to them, instead of their parents, and that person provides all or most of the care and support to the child. By defining kinship care in law, the legislation will ensure that local authorities have a clear and consistent understanding of what constitutes kinship care.

I am also pleased to say that the Government recently announced a £40 million package to trial a new kinship allowance, which is the single biggest investment made by Government on kinship care to date. That investment could transform the lives of vulnerable children who can no longer live at home. It could allow children to grow up within their extended families and communities, reducing disruption to their early years so that they can focus on schooling and building friendships.

Employed kinship carers may already benefit from a number of workplace employment rights that are designed to support employees in balancing work alongside caring responsibilities. Those rights include: a day one right to time off for dependants, which provides a reasonable amount of unpaid time off work to deal with an unexpected or sudden emergency involving a child or dependant and to put care arrangements in place; the right to request flexible working; and the right to unpaid parental leave, which, through this Bill, we are making a day one right.

An employee may not automatically have parental responsibility as a result of being a kinship carer, but they may acquire parental responsibility through, for example, a legal guardianship order. We have also committed to a review of the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports all working families. That review will be conducted separately from the Employment Rights Bill, and work is already under way on planning for its delivery.

New clause 45 proposes to introduce an entitlement to a week of leave for local authority foster parents. Foster parents offer crucial support to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. They provide love, stability and compassion to children and young people when they need it most.

Employment Rights Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 30—Repeal of Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017—

“The Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 (anaw 4) is repealed.”

This new clause repeals the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017.

[The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)]

We now turn to clause 71 and will resist Opposition new clause 30. Clause 71 is the final of the package of clauses to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016. It makes a consequential amendment to the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 following the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016. Section 1 of the 2017 Act disapplied some of the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) 1992 Act, as introduced by the Trade Union Act 2016, from applying to devolved Welsh authorities. As the Trade Union Act 2016 and the relevant provisions of the 1992 Act are being repealed, section 1 of the 2017 Act is now redundant. There are also consequential amendments to the 1992 Act to remove the relevant references to devolved Welsh authorities.

New clause 30 seeks to repeal the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 in its entirety. Section 1 of this Act disapplies certain provisions of the Trade Union Act 2016 to devolved Welsh authorities. Repealing the Trade Union Act 2016 means that these provisions are no longer necessary. It is for that reason that we are repealing section 1 of the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 through clause 71 of this Bill. Section 2 of the 2017 Act is not impacted by the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016. It prevents a devolved Welsh authority from using agency workers to replace striking workers. This Government support a prohibition on using agency workers to cover industrial action and therefore we are content to leave this in the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017. New clause 30 is therefore unnecessary and I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw it. I commend clause 71 to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

I will focus my remarks on new clause 30, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk, for Bridgwater and for Mid Leicestershire. It is good to see the Minister in her place on her first outing in the Committee of the day, and as she said, new clause 30 would repeal the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017. Prior to the 2017 Act, there was legal ambiguity in post-devolution case law of the degree to which trade union legislation was a reserved or devolved competence. Following the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016 in the UK Parliament, the Labour-led Welsh Government then passed Welsh legislation—the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017—to disapply a number of trade union measures in Wales in relation to devolved public services. The Wales Act 2017 was subsequently passed with cross-party and cross-institution agreement, and re-established that industrial relations were a reserved competence.

The Conservative-led UK Government at the time pledged to unwind the Welsh Government’s Act and reapply the full 2016 Act to Great Britain following the passage of the Wales Act 2017. However, re-asserting such common trade union law across Great Britain would require primary legislation in the United Kingdom Parliament. Given that the Wales Act 2017 established industrial relationships as a reserved competence, we would like to understand when the Government intend to resolve the changes implemented by the Welsh Government’s Act, which disapplied some of our 2016 Act. I do not think it is an unreasonable ask of the Government that we seek to resolve through the new clause.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

The point is very clear, isn’t it? In the legislation we are providing now, we are making the first part of the Trade Union (Wales) Act unnecessary, and therefore it is perfectly appropriate to put through a clause in this Bill to keep things in line with what we are doing across the UK. It is perfectly in order to have a clause that seeks to bring that particular legislation in line with the situation in which we now find ourselves.

On the second part of that legislation, as I have just said, that is already something on which we agree with the Welsh Government. We therefore see no particular reason why there should be a repeal of that legislation in the Bill, and we do not propose to do so. I suggest that the shadow Minister’s new clause is not necessary in the current Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 71 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling]

I echo the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham about the impact of endometriosis on younger women’s lives. It can be extremely incapacitating. A constituent of mine in Torbay shared how her daughter had to give up work because of the impact and the length of time that it was taking her to go through the NHS system to get the treatment that she deserved. Action to resolve that and get her in the right place was months and months away.

To me, the Bill needs a couple of touch points that test the employer and challenge them to reflect on certain areas of their workforce. That will result in a culture change among employers, so that they reflect on these matters and see the broader picture. It is extremely important to drive that culture change by adding this amendment, because throughout the United Kingdom, including in my Torbay constituency, there are significant issues related to finding enough people to fill workplaces. If we have the appropriate culture through this proposal and other changes in the Bill, we can make sure that the pool of people who can step up and work and contribute to our economy is enhanced.

[The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)]

Amendment 112 would add menstrual problems and menstrual disorders to matters related to gender equality in clause 26. Prioritising women’s health is a positive step that the Government are taking, and the hon. Member for Chippenham is absolutely right to highlight the terrible impact that many different conditions related to menstruation can have on whether a women can perform to the best of her ability. Physical symptoms can be further compounded by the taboo that often surrounds conversations about women’s reproductive health, and I thank her for bringing that to the Committee’s attention.

Clause 26 does not provide an exhaustive list of matters related to gender equality, as the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire referenced. As the hon. Member for Torbay said, this is about culture change in a place of employment. In creating equality action plans, we are reflecting the fact that many actions will be beneficial for people in lots of different circumstances. For example, the improved provision of flexible working can be valuable for an employee balancing childcare, as well as someone managing a health condition.

In the same way, ensuring that employers support staff going through the menopause will necessitate them taking steps that are positive for supporting women’s health in the workplace more broadly. For example, menopause best practice includes greater discussion around women’s health and awareness of potential workplace adjustments—things that have a much wider potential benefit. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Chippenham to withdraw the amendment.

[Sarah Gibson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Nia Griffith]

If I may, Mr Mundell, I will draw attention to my registered interests, including my membership of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the National Education Union.

Amendment 162 would add caring to the matters related to gender equality listed in clause 26. The hon. Member for Torbay is absolutely right to highlight the impact of caring responsibilities on women in the workplace, and we recognise that carers might need extra protection and support. I reassure him that many people with caring responsibilities are likely already to be afforded protections under the Equality Act 2010, through the provisions relating to age and disability discrimination.

The Equality Act protects people from direct discrimination by association. That means that individuals with caring responsibilities for someone who is, for example, elderly or disabled are likely to have protection from unlawful discrimination because of their association with someone with a protected characteristic. The Government frequently receive requests for the creation of new protected characteristics. Unfortunately, merely creating new characteristics within the Act will not necessarily lead to a change in the behaviour of service providers and employers. We can see that from the number of court cases that continue to be brought under the existing characteristics.

Clause 26 does not provide an exhaustive list of matters related to gender equality. Instead, we are reflecting the fact that many actions will be beneficial for people in lots of different circumstances. For example, improved provision of flexible working can be valuable to someone who is managing a health condition as well as to an employee who is balancing care. Equality action plans will increase awareness of the need for a wide range of potential workplace adjustments for all who would benefit from them, delivering a much wider potential impact. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Steve Darling]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[Dame Nia Griffith]

The clause is the first step towards introducing equality action plans, and it provides the power to do so in subsequent regulations. Women are a crucial part of securing economic growth and improving productivity, but the national gender pay gap remains at 13.1% and eight in 10 menopausal women say that their workplace has no basic support in place. This lack of support adds up to a significant loss of talent and skills. Menopause affects 51% of the population, with one external estimate showing that the UK is losing about 14 million work days every year because of menopause symptoms.

Large employers have been obliged to publish gender pay gap data since 2017, with action plans being encouraged, but voluntary. Analysis in 2019 found that only around half of employers that reported data went on to voluntarily produce a plan saying how they would act to improve the figures. That demonstrates that only making it mandatory will push employers to act. The best employers already recognise that providing women with the conditions to thrive is good for their employees and good for business. In taking this step towards introducing mandatory action plans, we are making sure that all large employers in scope of this clause follow their lead.

We are using a delegated power, mirroring the approach taken for gender pay gap reporting. Just as with that requirement, we want to give employers as much detail as possible in legislation—more than would commonly be in a Bill. The use of regulations allows us to do that while maintaining flexibility. When drafting this power, we reflected on what we have learned from gender pay gap reporting and from the hundreds of employers we have engaged with as a result. Most organisations think about equality in the round. They have one diversity and inclusion strategy, recognising what is borne out by the evidence: the most effective employer actions have benefits for more than one group or identity. That is why this clause proposes that employers produce one plan that covers both the gender pay gap and the menopause, reflecting the way they already work, reducing the burden of duplication and ensuring that they can get on with putting the plan into action. I commend clause 26 to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

We covered many of the issues relating to this clause when we discussed amendments 112 and 162. I am grateful to the Minister for citing the 2017 changes, which were brought about by the previous Conservative Government. It is morally right to completely close the gender pay gap. That will undoubtedly take some time, but every step taken to close it completely is a welcome one. It is important to make sure that employers are taking proper and serious account of the issue and action on ensuring gender equality in the workplace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Mundell. I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration of interests and my membership of Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.

I associate myself with the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge on the gender pay gap. I particularly welcome the focus on menopause support, which will be provided by the equality action plans proposed in clause 26. The TUC has reported that research from Bupa estimated that 1 million women have been forced out of their jobs because of discrimination and a lack of support for them while experiencing the perimenopause or menopause. I have lost count of the many talented women whom I count as friends and who have left jobs and careers that they loved, simply because they were not given support by their employers to manage their symptoms while at work. I am pleased that we have moved on from an era in which women going through the menopause had to suffer in silence, but we have a long way to go. That is why the mandatory equality plans are so necessary. They will help employers to provide the best workplace experiences.

USDAW research involving women members who are going through the menopause has found that one in five women take time off because of menopause-related symptoms. Given that women between the ages of 45 and 54 make up 11% of all women in employment— 3.5 million women—it is vital that employers consider the needs and experiences of women during this period and ensure that support is in place, that women can keep working and earning, and that their talents are not lost to the workforce.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge and for Scarborough and Whitby for their powerful contributions.

I cannot stress enough to the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire how important our continuing consultation will be. We are keen to engage with stakeholders to ensure that we get this right and lay the appropriate regulations before the House in the appropriate way. On that note, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Provision of information relating to outsourced workers

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

[Dame Nia Griffith]

This clause is the first step towards requiring employers that already report gender pay gap data also to provide information about where they receive outsourced support from.

A 2019 YouGov survey found that seven out of 10 employer respondents had used third parties to provide key services. We know that the success of a business is down to everyone who contributes, including those who do some of the most demanding jobs but whose pay may be overlooked because they are employed by outsourced service organisations.

By getting large employers to disclose who they have outsourcing relationships with, we are building on what we have learned from gender pay gap reporting. Public accountability is an effective motivator for organisations. Instead of trying to get organisations to share employee data, which risks data relating to outsourced workers getting lost in the wider data, our approach will put those outsourcing relationships front and centre. That will act as a prompt for employers, and so achieve our original aim: getting employers to work throughout their networks and be invested in the pay decisions of those from whom they receive outsourced services.

We are taking a delegated power, mirroring the approach taken for gender pay gap reporting. That will enable us to provide as much detail as possible to employers in legislation, including the definitions and parameters of what will need to be reported. We recognise that outsourcing is not clearly defined and that we will need to work with employers to ensure that the measure works. The use of regulations will allow us to engage on an ongoing basis with experts in the area, provide as much clarity as possible in legislation and still maintain flexibility.

This measure is a step towards valuing and supporting some of the lowest-paid workers; it is a step towards businesses working together, rather than engaging in a race to the bottom; and it is a step in the right direction. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

The clause builds on the gender pay gap reporting introduced by the last Government. Of course, in 2017 we were on the second of four female Conservative leaders, while the Labour party is still yet to show its commitment to gender equality in its leadership. Perhaps the Minister might be the first female leader of the Labour party—who knows? I gently and slightly naughtily make that point; it is the Conservative party that has shown a clear commitment to gender equality, particularly with the changes to gender pay gap reporting.

Expanding reporting to outsourced service providers does not seem a controversial move, but I urge the Minister to ensure that the provisions that the Government introduce do not create loopholes or miss anyone out; I can imagine various scenarios in which someone might argue that something is not outsourced, even though it is contracted. I urge her to double check that the specific language used does not create something that anyone can exploit or legally challenge. That is to ensure that the provisions build in spirit on the previous Government’s 2017 changes and do not create loopholes.

[Sarah Gibson]

I am not sure that highlighting quite how quickly the Conservatives go through leaders is helpful, but we do have to recognise that they have had the highest number of female leaders of any of our parties here, which is to be commended.

On a serious note, I welcome the intentions of clause 27. It is incredibly important that we start to shine a light on outsourcing, especially in the public sector, which I have seen myself, as I highlighted earlier, regarding the Chippenham hospital. To a certain extent, it seems to be a way of hiding some of the less clear and sensible ways we employ people, especially when it comes to low-paid, often female workers. I will therefore be supporting this clause and I am very pleased to do so.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I think I had better start by putting on the record that I am not intending to stage some sort of leadership coup—[Hon. Members: “Shame!”]

[The Chair]

That usually means that you are.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Well, I shall leave Members to interpret my words in Hansard as they choose. On that note, may I just make sure that I have not inadvertently made a mistake? I was referring to the 2019 YouGov survey, and I may have inadvertently said 2020, so I would like to just correct that on the record.

Turning now to the clause itself, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield for making some powerful points, as did the hon. Member for Chippenham. On the burden and the detail required, I say to the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire that we are absolutely committed to ongoing stakeholder engagement in this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Pay and conditions of school support staff in England

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

Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 21 stand part.

[The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)]

Clause 20 amends an existing power in section 49D of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which allows the Secretary of State to make regulations

“about redundancy during, or after, a protected period of pregnancy.”

Regulations made under that power took effect in April, bolstering the protections against redundancy for pregnant women. However, redundancy is just one of five reasons for which an employee can be fairly dismissed. The changes delivered by clause 20 are required so that regulations can be made in regard to dismissal more broadly beyond redundancy, both during and after pregnancy.

The existing provisions for redundancy allow regulations to set out three things. The first is how the protected period of pregnancy is to be calculated. The regulations can provide that the protected period begins after a pregnancy has ended, which means that protection can be extended to a woman who has miscarried but has not yet told her employer that she is pregnant. The second is that employers must offer alternative employment to pregnant women at risk of redundancy. The last is the consequences of a failure to comply with any protections, including stipulating that this will result in the dismissal being treated as unfair. Those provisions for redundancy will all be extended, and therefore made available for dismissals for reasons other than redundancy, through this clause. This approach is necessary to then deliver enhanced dismissal protections in the regulations for pregnant women.

A 2016 Equality and Human Rights Commission survey found that 1% of mothers were dismissed following their pregnancy each year. Analysis by the Department for Business and Trade estimates that that equates to around 4,100 mothers—that is how many women could benefit from the new dismissal protections annually. Using secondary legislation to set out the policy detail is a standard approach in this area of employment law and supports working with stakeholders to further shape the policy before confirming the final approach in the regulations.

Clause 21 amends existing powers that allow the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning dismissal during several kinds of family-related statutory leave. The amended powers will continue to allow for regulation of dismissal during the period when an employee is away from work on maternity leave, adoption leave, shared parental leave, neonatal care leave or bereaved partners paternity leave. The amended powers will also apply to a period after the employee has returned from one of those types of leave.

Additionally, clause 21(5)(b) clarifies that parents looking to take bereaved partners paternity leave who have adopted from overseas or had their children via a surrogacy arrangement can be included in regulations creating protections against redundancy, as well as the new protections against dismissal for other reasons. It also makes it clear that the cohort of parents taking bereaved partners paternity leave can be included in the regulations allowing access to keeping-in-touch days, which allow an employee on statutory leave to be able to do some work for their employer without that leave coming to an end.

Our primary focus with the enhanced dismissal protections is supporting pregnant women and new mothers during and after maternity leave. However, as is the case with clause 20, we want to consult and work closely with stakeholders on whether new parents more generally should be covered by the enhanced dismissal protections. The final policy design will then be reflected in the regulations, as is typical in this area of employment law.

Before I commend the clause to the Committee, I put on record my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including my membership of USDAW and the National Education Union.

[Greg Smith]

I think this is one of the least contentious parts of the Bill, and we do not seek to oppose in any way the important protections for pregnant women and new mothers. I note that what the Government are really doing with these clauses is building on the regulations that, as the Minister rightly said, came into force in April off the back of legislation brought forward by the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis) and my noble Friend Baroness Bertin in the other place.

Again, we have the challenge of consultation after legislation. It is important that the Government move quickly to ensure that the protections for pregnant women and new mothers are not left to drag out as part of that consultation. Although consultation is important, the objective that the Government are trying to meet is quite clear. The desire to build on existing legislation should make it less controversial, and it should make getting it right quickly less of an open-ended question. That will enable pregnant women and people who are trying to conceive and start a family—or to have a second, third or fourth child, or whatever it may be—to plan with the confidence that those protections will be in place. I am not in any way speaking in opposition to this measure; I am just urging the Government not to let the consultation drag on.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship again, Ms Vaz. I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration of interests and my membership of Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain. I associate myself with the shadow Minister’s comments about the positive results that the legislation will have when it comes into force.

I will speak briefly about the importance of clauses 20 and 21, which will afford considerable extra protections to women who are pushed out of their jobs from the point at which they get pregnant, while they are pregnant, while they are taking maternity leave or just after they return. We heard at our evidence sessions that under the coalition Government, a report was done by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which found that it was possible that 54,000 women a year lose their jobs in this way. That report was published in 2016. We also heard the Fawcett Society call for a new report because the data is so out of date. I refer to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield and the shadow Minister about the lack of data.

Nobody can argue with the fact that so many women suffer maternity discrimination, however. From January to September 2023, 832 complaints were brought to employment tribunal for detriment or unfair dismissal as a result of pregnancy, and we know that that is the tip of the iceberg. Back in 2022, there was a high-profile example when Morrisons was told to pay a mother £60,000 for discriminating against her when she returned from maternity leave. Donna Patterson, who returned to work after having her second child, was asked to fulfil the responsibilities of a full-time job, despite only being contracted to work part-time hours.

Ms Patterson was supported by the charity Pregnant Then Screwed, the founder of which, Joeli Brearley, told us that

“the dial has not moved very much”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 84, Q79.]

in 10 years, so this Bill will mark a significant step forward. When women suffer maternity discrimination, not only does it take them a long time to recover personally, but it damages their careers and their mental health, and it is a big contributor to the gender pay gap. These clauses will tackle maternity and pregnancy discrimination, and it is necessary to do that to avoid having more women leave the workplace.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Let me pick up on the point about the consultation. We very much recognise the urgency, so the consultation is expected to take place in 2025—this coming year—after which we will introduce secondary legislation. It has been noted that clauses 20 and 21 build on previous measures that received cross-party support, and I commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Dismissal for failing to agree to variation of contract, etc

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 160, in clause 22, page 33, leave out lines 11 to 2.