Employment Rights Bill

Public Bill Committee, 10 December 2024.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

Would everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on the declaration of interests, as set out in the code of conduct.

Clause 10 - Policy about allocating tips etc: consultation and review

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Mundell. As is customary, I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.

As Members will be aware, clause 10 introduces new requirements on tipping, namely the requirements for employers to consult workers about the allocation of the tips they have earned, and to review their tipping policy. These new requirements will build on the measures introduced by the previous Government in the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023. The Act came fully into effect on 1 October this year and ensured that an estimated £200 million-worth of tips each year are no longer retained by employers.

The Act is accompanied by a statutory code of practice on the fair and transparent distribution of tips. Although the Act requires employers to allocate tips fairly to workers, the existing statutory code of practice only encourages consultation with workers in deciding that allocation. The Government were clear in their commitment to going further—indeed, I took part in a debate earlier this year in which I said that the legislation did not go far enough. We will therefore make it mandatory for employers to consult workers in developing or updating their tipping policies, including how tips are allocated.

The clause will support worker participation in the allocation and distribution of tips that they have earned, by mandating that employers consult workers during the development or revision of their written tipping policies. It will also mandate that employers review their tipping policy and maintain records of the consultation they have carried out, as well as giving workers the right to request and review records related to the tipping policy consultation. The consultation will be required to take place at the formative stage, before the policy is finalised or updated, and should be carried out, where possible, by engaging with representatives of recognised trade unions or other chosen representatives. If neither are available, the consultation will be required to be with workers likely to be affected.

We will continue to engage with unions and worker representatives in hospitality and other impacted industries to ensure that the measures in the Bill and in the statutory guidance deliver fully on our aims. Following Royal Assent, we will consult widely and properly with stakeholders to determine what changes should be made to the existing statutory code of practice. We are determined to ensure that guidance is as helpful as possible, ensuring that tips are allocated fairly and that worker consultation is carried out properly.

These measures will be enforced via the employment tribunal system. If an employer fails to consult their workers properly or to distribute tips in a fair and transparent manner, workers will be able to bring a claim to an employment tribunal. The tribunal will be able to order an employer to compensate workers up to £5,000 for financial loss. I think that Members can see what we are trying to achieve with the clause, and I therefore commend it to the Committee.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once more, Mr Mundell. The Minister mentioned that the clause builds on private Member’s legislation passed in the last Parliament, and it would be remiss of me not to put on record that the transformation in some employers’ attitudes to their employees and to the retention and fair distribution of tips was in large part down to the former Conservative Member for Watford, Dean Russell, who piloted the original legislation through the House. There were one or two little bumps along the road as he came into ministerial office and then out again in—what was the number?—43 days, but many Conservative colleagues really pushed for the legislation. It is one of those great unfairnesses that, for years, incredibly hard-working people in the hospitality sector and others had an expectation that they would receive the generosity of their customers’ tips at the end of the meal, the round of drinks or whatever but, for various reasons, did not get their fair share. The legislation the Minister referred to righted that historic wrong, and clause 10, which seeks to strengthen that, is very welcome.

Where I gently suggest to the Minister that there needs to be a little more thought and clarity is settings where there is no union to consult. That might be a small business such as a restaurant or pub, where the people who work there are not affiliated with any union or body that could be consulted on their behalf. Will he say something about how those smaller businesses—smaller restaurant or pub settings—will get dialogue going with their employees so that the business has a fair and equitable, and clear and unambiguous policy to ensure that the tips reach those workers?

Steve Darling (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I just emphasise what the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire stated in respect of smaller settings. In my constituency there are lots of restaurants and small hotels without the network of support for workers that a trade union would offer. It would be useful if Ministers were alive to the circumstances of those smaller settings. I also wonder whether the Minister is reflecting on what guidance he might issue on the question of what is equitable that could be reflected if people end up going to a tribunal.

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions. I noticed last week that the Prime Minister made a James Bond joke, and I wondered whether he was following the Committee’s proceedings in real time. There is a valid question here: when James Bond buys a vodka martini, what happens to the tips? Hopefully, thanks to this Bill and the legislation passed last year, we will have a more equitable solution.

I want quickly to raise two issues. The “Make Work Pay” document published earlier this year stated:

“Labour will strengthen the law to ensure hospitality workers receive their tips in full and workers decide how tips are allocated.”

I would be interested in the Minister’s views on whether this measure meets that very welcome commitment. Whether tips that would have been received during shifts that are cancelled fall under the definition of reasonable compensation is presumably a question to be addressed in the future.

In respect of the points raised by the hon. Members for Torbay and for Mid Buckinghamshire about consultation with groups of workers who are not represented by a trade union, I suggest that the kinds of businesses they mentioned should have at least a degree of familiarity with the principles of that, since they are established and well understood in the context of redundancy situations and in other areas.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

First, I will acknowledge, as did the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, the work in this area by previous Members of this place, including the former Member for Ynys Môn. I think it was seven years after the announcement that there was to be legislation that we finally got action, but it is welcome. I note the shadow Minister’s comment that the legislation has transformed attitudes, and that is what we are trying to do with this Bill in general: transform the workplace so that workers have better security and a better voice.

The shadow Minister raised some important questions, as did the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, about what this measure means for smaller businesses where there may not be a trade union. Of course, that is an argument for greater organisation in the workplace so that employers can consult collectively with the workforce. Those smaller employers—the Great British café, for example—would not always have an easy route to consult with their workforce, but in that kind of informal setting, where there is only a handful of employees, it should be fairly straightforward. Everyone will know their role and what goes on, and the existing code of practice deals with the guidance for smaller employers in that sense.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield asked whether this measure meets our commitments under “Make Work Pay”, and I believe it does. It is a significant step in continuing the welcome, transformational moves that we have seen on tips, and it gives workers an absolute right to be consulted, which I think is important. There is evidence, such as the research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, that certain sections of the workforce, including agency workers and people working in certain parts of a business, feel that they do not have a voice. This provision will give them that voice and the real teeth they need to ensure that tips are fairly distributed. As the shadow Minister said, this is all about them. It is about ensuring that everyone who contributes to the service that we all enjoy gets those tips, which the customer clearly wants to ensure are spread among the workforce. On that note, I commend the clause to the Committee.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

It is good to hear the Great British café will be covered by these provisions.

Clause 11 - Parental leave: removal of qualifying period of employment

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 12 stand part.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

Clauses 11 and 12 enable employed parents to give notice of their intention to take parental leave or paternity leave from their first day in a new job. Clause 11 does that for parental leave by amending section 76 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to remove the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to the duration for which an employee must be employed before being entitled to be absent from work on parental leave. Clause 12 works in a similar manner for paternity leave, amending sections 80A and 80B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to remove the power for the Secretary to make regulations relating to the duration for which an employee must be employed before being entitled to take paternity leave.

Currently, parents must complete one year of continuous service to qualify for parental leave, and 26 weeks of continuous service to qualify for paternity leave. Clause 11 will make an additional 1.5 million parents each year eligible for parental leave, while clause 12 will bring an additional 32,300 fathers and partners a year into scope for paternity leave. Clauses 11 and 12 will make it easier for employees to move jobs, which may enable them to secure wage increases without losing their ability to take parental leave or paternity leave. Removing deterrents to changing jobs is important, because research by the Office for National Statistics and the Resolution Foundation shows that people who move jobs are likely to get wage increases.

There is also a benefit from our changes to employers, who will gain access to a larger pool of applicants for vacancies, as parents will be more likely to apply for new jobs because they will not lose their access to those leave entitlements. We have engaged with stakeholders who represent the interests of parents, and they have said that they welcome the removal of continuity of service for parental and paternity leave. Making those entitlements available from day one also brings parental and paternity leave into line with other entitlements, such as maternity and adoption leave, creating a clearer and fairer system.

New clause 16 would commit the Government to introducing regulations that require organisations employing more than 250 people to publish information about their parental leave and pay policies. The hon. Member for Torbay is right to highlight the significance of publishing parental leave policies. It is certainly true that parental leave and pay policies are not perks on a par with gym memberships; they are critical policies that allow people to manage their lives. As well as being hugely important at a personal level, parental leave and pay policies are critical for addressing wider social and economic issues.

The Bill already does a lot to support working families. It reforms the right to request flexible working to make it the default. It puts in place legislation that makes it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women, mothers on maternity leave and mothers who return to work for a six-month period after they return, except in very specific circumstances. It also requires large employers to produce equality action plans. That is why at this point we believe that not requiring publication of parental policies in the Bill is the correct approach. It strikes the right balance between doing more to help working families and being manageable for employers to respond and adapt to.

New clause 17 would increase the length of paternity leave from two weeks to six weeks and also seeks to introduce the ability to take paternity leave at any time in the first year following birth or adoption. The Government value the vital role that fathers and partners play in caring for children and supporting their partners. We recognise that parental leave and pay entitlements, such as paternity leave and pay, play a key role in their ability to do that. That is why we are taking the first step of making paternity and parental leave day one rights.

Recent changes to paternity leave and pay, which took effect on 6 April 2024, allow parents to take their leave and pay in two non-consecutive weeks; to take their leave and pay at any point in the first year after the birth or adoption of their child, rather than only within the first eight weeks; and to give shorter notice for each period of leave. That means that parents are now able to take their paternity leave at any point in the first year following their child’s birth or adoption. While I very much support the intent behind this element of the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Torbay, it is already in place and so is not required.

If fathers or partners wish to take a longer period of leave and pay, shared parental leave and pay is an option they can consider. Up to 50 weeks of leave and up to 37 weeks of pay can be “created” for parents to share from maternity entitlements that the mother does not intend to use. Parents can use the scheme to take leave together for up to six months or to intersperse periods of leave with periods of work.

We know that more needs to be done to ensure that the parental leave system provides the best possible support for working families. That is why we have committed to a review of the parental leave system. The review will be conducted separately to the Bill and work is already under way across Government on planning for its delivery. I therefore commend clauses 11 and 12 to the Committee and invite the hon. Member for Torbay not to move new clauses 16 and 17.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

Before I call the shadow Minister, I should tell the Committee that there may be a fire alarm this morning. We will be advised on what to do if that happens.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

Planned fire alarms are always quite disturbing, but never mind. I will broadly address the subject we are debating, before making specific comments on the new clauses tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I do not have a direct interest to declare, but I have had paternity leave three times in my life. I value its provision and the importance of ensuring that fathers and partners are there to support mothers in the early days of a new child arriving in the world. Paternity leave is incredibly important, at any point when it arrives. For my second child, I had only been an MP for four weeks after the 2019 general election, when I disappeared for two weeks. That was vital to support my wife, who had valiantly gone through a general election with me while she was eight months pregnant. Of course, she was not pounding the streets in the way most of us were at that point, but I just wanted to give that personal reflection on how important paternity leave is.

It was right that the Minister acknowledged that it was the previous Government who legislated for the provisions that came into effect in April of this year. That goes to show that there is some cross-party consensus around this issue; there is some commonality of thought on the value of paternity leave and, in particular, around the ability to split that out across the year. It is one of those things where I do not think we will ever get a perfect happy medium that works for every business and for every family—for every father or mother.

However, in relation to the idea in new clause 16 that only companies with more than 250 employees should publish information, that seems to me an arbitrary number, given that virtually every business, even if it has only one or two employees, will have—

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

Will the hon. Member give way?

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

I will just finish this thought; the hon. Lady knows that I am not shy about taking interventions. Every business, even if it has only one or two employees, will know what the plan is if one of its employees comes to it and says that their wife, partner or whatever is pregnant and that they will require at some point in the near future two weeks of paternity leave. On the grounds that virtually every business that I know has that plan—has that understanding of what it will do in offering the statutory requirement for paternity leave and the way it will remunerate it or not, as the case may be—I am struggling to understand why it should be only those companies with more than 250 employees that are subject to the requirement.

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

The reason for leaving it at 250 employees, despite a thought among Opposition Members that it should be extended to 500, is that, currently, small and medium-sized businesses are classified as having up to 249 employees. Larger businesses, which will undoubtedly have the infrastructure, should be able to publish the information. The new clause would prevent an onerous burden on very small businesses from having to publish the information. It does not imply that they would have lesser standards; it is merely that they would not be obliged to publish the information.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes. I am the last person to want to put a greater burden or unnecessary burden on any form of business. All I gently suggest is that this probably is not that great a burden on a business, on the grounds that it will already know what it is going to do when an employee comes and asks for paternity leave, maternity leave or whatever. That is particularly the case given that much of the rules and regulations is already set in statute and, when this Bill undoubtedly achieves Royal Assent at some point, will be further enshrined in statute. There are many other regulations that businesses have to comply with when publishing on their website—I am thinking of privacy notices and various GDPR regulations and so on—just as all the members of this Committee and Members of this House have to do on our own websites. I do not think anyone would try to define any of us as large businesses or huge employers, and I do not think that there are any hon. or right hon. Members left who do not have a website. Perhaps one or two do not—

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

Jacob has gone, hasn’t he?

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

He is a fine television superstar these days.

All of us will have published these statements on our websites, because that is straightforwardly set out in statute—straightforwardly set out in law. I am at a loss to understand why it would be a burden for a business of any size to do that, but I am mindful that we do not want to overburden businesses. I accept the explanation given by the hon. Member for Chippenham.

Turning to new clause 17, I would have loved to have six weeks of paternity leave when my three children were born. When my first child was born, I was still self-employed. It was before my election to this place, so the time I took off in 2016 was entirely unpaid because I just had to forgo client work, but it was important to do that.

I am slightly concerned that, as desirable as six weeks would be, it is too great a burden for businesses automatically to have to shoulder. Some good and generous employers may well find a way of offering it in one way or another, paid or otherwise. However, to go beyond the current entitlement of two weeks, which can be split up, as the Minister mentioned, seems to be too big an ask for some businesses, desirable though it may be for fathers to be able be there with their new child in the most precious early days of life to support the mother and the child. I gently invite Liberal Democrat Members to reflect on whether six weeks is realistic for every business.

Steve Darling (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

As a state, we need to reflect on what makes up our society. Often, it is family units. Whether that is the quintessential family of two parents and two children or something similar, supporting the family unit is absolutely essential. I suggest that the two new clauses are about supporting families. New clause 17 allows both partners to engage. Both my lads are now grown up. It is not just about the link with the child; it is about supporting the partnership of the couple—whatever form that couple happens to be—in bringing up the child. Extending leave entitlements would strengthen that bond. The impact of broken families on youngsters can be very profound, and we are strengthening families through these proposals. We will not push the new clauses to a vote, but we stand by them and believe in them wholeheartedly.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

Just for information, new clauses 16 and 17 would not be voted on at this point. That will come later in the consideration of the Bill.

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I would like to ask the Minister if he could—

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

She.

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

Sorry. I ask her whether she could advise on what analysis the Government have done on the likely cost to small businesses of making maternity-paternity shared parental leave a day one right. Although I agree that these are important rights for parents, I wonder what analysis has been done. I am concerned for small businesses, such as those with only one or two employees. If they were to take on a new employee, they could immediately find that they have to grant leave and pay, as well as find a substitute worker. I fully accept the importance of these rights, but is the Minister satisfied that it is appropriate to impose those burdens on small businesses, particularly given the other burdens in the Bill, the national insurance charges in the Budget and all other manner of taxes and impositions that the Government are introducing?

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

Let me address that last point first. We have had engagement with stakeholders who represent families, such as Pregnant Then Screwed and Maternity Action, which has shown that they welcome the removal of continuity of service for paternity leave. We can all understand the benefits that that brings in terms of people being able to apply for new jobs and move to better-paid jobs. While the change will have a cost to businesses, it is estimated to be relatively small, at £6.2 million a year, and we believe that the positive impact on families will be much larger. This clause will make 10,000 more fathers and partners eligible for paternity leave, including those with low job security, who are most likely not to meet the current qualifying requirements. I remind the Committee that it is often those people in the most transitory jobs who have the most precarious financial positions and the least opportunity to spend time with their families.

I will address the comments made by the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Torbay. We are making immediate changes to paternity leave through this Bill. We will make paternity leave available from day one in a new job and enable paternity leave to be taken after shared parental leave. The flexibility that this will give rise to will enable employees to move towards better-paid employment without the fear of losing their right to protected time away to be with their families. We have also committed to review the entire parental leave system to ensure that it best supports families. As I mentioned earlier, that is already in progress across the Government.

I will make a small technical point. The effect of new clause 17 is that fathers and partners who are eligible for paternity leave would be entitled to six weeks of leave, adding four weeks to the existing two weeks offered by the current paternity leave entitlement. The new clause would not affect the entitlement window in which fathers and partners need to take their paternity leave, as this was extended from 56 days to 52 weeks in April 2024. However, the change to enable paternity leave to be taken over 52 weeks was made in secondary legislation. The new clause would make this change in primary legislation, which would mean that it would not be possible to make any future changes to the period in which a parent could take parental leave in secondary legislation. On that note, I commend clauses 11 and 12 to the Committee.

Clause 13 - Ability to take paternity leave following shared parental leave

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

The point of clause 13 is to give employed fathers, partners and secondary adopters, including those who have their children through a surrogacy arrangement, the ability to take paternity leave and pay after taking shared parental leave and pay. The clause amends the Employment Rights Act 1996 by removing the limitation that prevents fathers and partners from taking paternity leave and pay after shared parental leave and pay. In April 2024, changes were made to paternity leave and pay, enabling it to be taken at any time in the first year following a child’s birth or adoption. Before then, parents had eight weeks to take their paternity leave and pay. That change means that parents are now more likely to take their paternity leave and pay after their shared parental leave and pay, as they now have more time to take their paternity leave and pay. Removing that restriction creates more flexibility for parents and means that parents who choose to take their shared parental leave and pay first will not then lose their ability to take their entitlement to paternity leave and pay.

Currently, if shared parental leave and pay is taken, parents lose any remaining paternity leave and pay entitlements they have not yet used. Removing that restriction creates a more supportive framework for families by allowing greater flexibility in how parents structure their leave, and ensures that they will not inadvertently lose access to the leave and pay they are entitled to.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

Certainly there is no objection from the Opposition to the principle of flexibility in ensuring people can have that choice and ability to dictate when leave is taken, particularly in the case of paternity leave. I can think of many examples, including colleagues from the previous Parliament. I acted as the proxy vote for one of them while they were on paternity leave. They pushed that back slightly—the obscurities of this place—to ensure that their paternity leave did not marry up with recess. However, there will be many other reasons and flexibilities that people require away from the eccentricities of working in this place.

I ask the Minister to reflect on whether, within that framework of flexibility, which in its own right is a good thing, there needs to be any secondary guidance or advice to businesses on what might turn out to be some very rare but foreseeable circumstances where employees or individuals push the boundaries a bit too far with their employers. and on what to do in those extreme cases. That is not to detract in any way, shape or form from the principle of flexibility, but I ask whether there is a requirement for guidance notes or Government advice, however it is formed, to give employers a bit of a safety net if, in one or two cases, those boundaries be pushed a bit too far.

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

Given the Liberal Democrat new clauses we discussed earlier, it is clear that we welcome any flexibility that encourages paternity leave and allows parents to share the leave in an equal and welcoming way. Therefore, we welcome this clause.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, there are clearly defined time limits, and I am sure that most employers and employees will manage to work this out. I just point out gently that the impact assessment on these provisions received a green rating, so some work has been done on this. I remind Members that we are undertaking a wider review as well in respect of paternity and parental leave.

Clause 14 - Bereavement leave

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

Clause 14 establishes a new day one right to bereavement leave. The loss of a loved one is a deeply personal experience, and a sad reality that almost all of us will experience. When that happens, the grief that comes with a loss will impact us all in different ways. Some individuals may need time and space away from other demands, including work, to begin to process their loss. Others may prefer to keep working to maintain a sense of familiarity while adjusting to a new normal. Thankfully, for those who need it, the majority of employers respond compassionately to requests for time away from work, and recognise the key role they can play in supporting their employees during this time. In the absence, however, of a statutory right, not all employees may be afforded the time off they need to grieve. We estimate that this would benefit at least 900,000 workers each year. That is a significant proportion of the working population who will be able to access bereavement leave from day one of employment.

Currently, the only bereavement entitlement in legislation is parental bereavement leave, which provides two weeks of leave for parents who experience the devastating loss of their child, from 24 completed weeks of pregnancy until the child reaches the age of 18. That is set out in sections 80EA to 80EE of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and in the Parental Bereavement Leave Regulations 2020. Subsections (2) and (3) of clause 14 amend those sections of the 1996 Act, so that the duty on the Secretary of State to lay regulations establishing parental bereavement leave is widened to require regulations providing for bereavement leave for other loved ones as well.

The amendments in subsection (3) ensure that the regulations, in the case of the new bereavement entitlement, must set out the following: first, the eligibility of the new entitlement by definition of the employee’s relationship to the deceased; secondly, the length of leave, which must be a minimum of one week; thirdly, when the leave must be taken, which must be before the end of at least 56 days after the person’s death; and finally, how the leave is to be taken, such as in one block or two blocks, or whatever is appropriate.

Should an employee suffer multiple bereavements, the clause sets out that they are entitled to leave in respect of each person who has passed away. The approach to regulations mirrors that taken when establishing parental bereavement leave and allows similar provisions to be included in the new regulations. Due to the sensitive and personal nature of bereavement, we will consult stakeholders on the details to be set out in regulations to ensure that the entitlement is constructed with the needs of employees and employers at the forefront.

Subsections (4) to (11) make amendments to other provisions of the 1996 Act to enable the regulations to provide important protections for employees who take bereavement leave, such as protection against detriment, protection of contractual rights, and protection for treating a dismissal that takes place for a reason relating to bereavement leave as unfair.

Subsections (12) to (13) make consequential amendments to His Majesty’s Treasury legislation to provide for how persons on bereavement leave are to be taken into account when assessing an employee’s “committed time” or the number of employees for the purpose of certain initiatives or schemes, in the same way as other family-related entitlements. Subsection (14) makes consequential amendments to the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 to remove provisions that no longer have any effect following the amendments made by clause 14 of this Bill.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation of clause 14. It is quite clear on a purely human level that bereavement can strike any family and any individual, often with zero notice or ability to plan, and it is therefore a basic tenet of humanity that we would all expect employers to be sensitive, generous and sympathetic to any employee who finds themselves in that position. For the record, it is certainly my experience that the vast majority of businesses and employers show compassion, sensitivity and generosity to ensure that anybody who is bereaved has the time, space and freedom to be able to grieve, plan for things such as funerals and start the very hard process of not just saying goodbye to that loved one, but putting various affairs in order, such as registering the death. People have to go through a high burden of bureaucracy when they find themselves in that position.

The core principle of the proposals is fundamentally a good one, and does not warrant opposition. However, there is an area that I think needs a little more debate and potentially some refinement. The Minister spoke about the need to consult and to get these regulations right, and it is important that we do that. I do not in any way oppose the principle of the proposals, but I gently suggest that perhaps it would have been better to do the consultation first, so that this could have been clearer in the legislation as it goes forward. I repeat, however, that I say that not to distract from the good principle that sits underneath these regulations.

I ask the Minister to reflect further on the point from the evidence session about bereavement leave being available to parents who have lost their child after 24 weeks of pregnancy. There are many people who suffer the loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks. That is one of the most heartbreaking things for mothers, fathers and wider families, and it happens every single day up and down the land. After all the joy, excitement and future planning that go into any mother’s, father’s and family’s life when they find out that they are expecting a child, the often very sudden news that that pregnancy has not made it comes as a huge shock, often with no notice.

There are things that a family, a mother, a father, will go through when they find out that that pregnancy has not been viable and has sadly ended under 24 weeks, including being taken to a small room and being asked the direct question—which, I assure the Committee makes the ears prick up and the reality of what has just happened come into sharp focus—about whether you wish to attend the burial of that failed pregnancy. That brings into sharp focus that you are actually being asked to say goodbye to your child. That can happen at any point in a pregnancy; it happened to my wife at about 14 weeks in 2018, and I remember vividly sitting in that room, having to fill out what seemed like the “Yellow Pages”-worth of forms, and reflecting that what should have been our second child was not going to be our second child. That takes some getting over, and it often involves surgery for the mother afterwards.

Although we have no formal amendment on this at this stage—I reserve the right to perhaps revisit it on Report—it is worth the Government reflecting on a genuine cross-party basis whether the 24-week period can be substantially reduced to give time to families who are saying goodbye. I do not want to get into the debates about when is a child a child, but it is devastating for families who go through that experience, and if the Government can find a way to ensure that families facing those circumstances can have some breathing space, so that we do not just have the “Back to work tomorrow, please” mentality that persists in this country, it would be a welcome and positive step. That might yet bring the whole House together and ensure that people have, as I say, space and time to reflect on what has just happened—to grieve, come back together again and then hopefully plan for the future.

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

After that incredibly moving speech by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, I cannot help but share the absolute concerns of friends of mine who have also lost children in pregnancy quite early on. I appreciate that that causes devastation, and I would be very happy to support any amendments that are suggested on Report. Perhaps an earlier date for bereavement would be appropriate.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

I, too, thank the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire for sharing such a personal story with us today. As he says, the loss of a child or a baby at any stage is incredibly upsetting. Parents who suffer a stillbirth may be entitled to parental bereavement leave and pay. Although there is no statutory entitlement for miscarriage before 24 weeks, we expect employers to respond with compassion and understanding and encourage employees to discuss the support that they need with their employer. A woman is protected against discrimination in the workplace due to pregnancy, any illness related to pregnancy or absence of that illness. That includes any illness caused by miscarriage extending to two weeks after the end of the pregnancy. After that, the woman is still protected by the Equality Act 2010 sex discrimination protections if she is treated less favourably because she suffered a miscarriage.

Clause 20 will also allow for regulations to be made about dismissal during a protected period of pregnancy, and the enhanced dismissal protection policy will cover women during their pregnancy. I point out that at the moment the Women and Equalities Committee is looking into that and doing an inquiry. We will study the outcome of that very closely as we take our policies forward.

Clause 15 - Employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 130, in clause 16, page 30, line 24, at end insert—

“(1D) In exercising their duties under this section, an employer must have regard to protecting freedom of expression.

(1E) In subsection (1D), ‘freedom of expression’ is defined in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.”

This amendment would require employers to have regard to protecting freedom of expression when exercising the Bill’s duty not to permit harassment of their employees.

Amendment 131, in clause 16, page 30, line 24, at end insert—

“(1D) Subsection (1A) shall not apply to—

(a) higher education institutions, or

(b) providers of─

(i) hotels and similar accommodation;

(ii) holiday and other short-stay accommodation;

(iii) restaurants and mobile food service activities; and

(iv) beverage serving activities.”

This amendment would exclude higher education institutions and hospitality providers from the Bill’s duties for employers not to permit harassment of their employees.

Clauses 16 and 17 stand part.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

If I may just correct the record, there was not an impact assessment on clause 13—I inadvertently said that there was—because the impact is so small. But there was on clauses 11 and 12, and they received a rating of green.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

Thank you for that clarification.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

I will now speak to clauses 15 to 17, new clauses 29, 39 and 40, and amendments 130, 131 and 135. Clause 15 will strengthen the new duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees, which came into force on 26 October 2024 under the Equality Act 2010. Clause 15 requires that employers must take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. Including “all” emphasises the thorough approach that employers must take to prevent that. At the same time, the requirement remains limited to steps that are “reasonable”. The amended duty will mirror the existing statutory defence for an employer regarding vicarious liability, which requires them to show that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent harassment.

The concept of “all reasonable steps” has the advantage of being well established and familiar to employers and employment tribunals. This will therefore provide a consistent threshold and decrease uncertainty for all. The Government intend to provide businesses with clear guidance to ensure that they are fully supported in complying with the new legislation.

Clause 16 will introduce an obligation on employers not to permit the harassment of their employees by third parties under section 40 of the Equality Act. As well as employers taking action to prevent sexual harassment, workplaces and working conditions must be free from all forms of harassment. The clause therefore encompasses all three types of harassment set out under section 26 of the Equality Act. As well as sexual harassment, it covers harassment related to a protected characteristic that is covered by the existing harassment provision. It also covers treating someone less favourably because they have either submitted to or rejected sexual harassment, or harassment related to sex or to gender reassignment.

To avoid liability, employers will need to do what is reasonable. What constitutes “all reasonable steps” for third-party harassment will depend on the specific circumstances of the employer. Employers will need to consider the nature of any contact with third parties—for example, the type of third party, the frequency and the environment. In certain sectors, there may be more regular worker interaction with third-party contractors than in others. This amendment to the Equality Act will give much-needed clarity on the rights and responsibilities of employees and employers in these scenarios, and require employers to take action to prevent such harassment from occurring.

The burden of holding perpetrators and employers to account and of driving change is too great to be shouldered alone by employees who have experienced harassment. This measure therefore sends a clear signal to all employers that they must take steps against third-party harassment. That is the right thing to do because tackling misogyny and violence against women and girls is a societal issue in which employers can play a key role. This also means that victims can be confident that they are protected by the law if their employer has not taken all reasonable steps to protect them, and that they are able to take legal action if they so wish. This measure will therefore benefit all employees by making workplaces safer and ensuring that everyone has the same opportunity to succeed at work.

As I said earlier, oral evidence from the Fawcett Society shows that one in five women have been sexually assaulted in the workplace by third parties. These measures could have a positive effect on women, those with disabilities and ethnic minorities across the UK.

Clause 17 introduces a power to make regulations to specify steps that are reasonable for employers to take to prevent sexual harassment. That is to meet the requirements set out in the Equality Act 2010 that employers take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. Those are contained in section 40A, the general preventative duty; section 40, as amended by this Bill, to the extent it relates to sexual harassment by third parties; and section 109, employers’ vicarious liability, where that relates to a failure to prevent the sexual harassment. The provisions place broad requirements on employers, but it will be important to ensure that specific steps are taken where the evidence demonstrates that they are proportionate and needed to prevent sexual harassment. The regulations may also require an employer to have regard to specified matters when taking those steps.

The Government have already produced an extensive set of impact assessments, published on Second Reading and based on the best available evidence for the potential impact on business, workers and the wider economy. We intend to refine that analysis over time, working closely with businesses, trade unions, academics, think-tanks and the Regulatory Policy Committee. We will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill reaches Royal Assent, in line with the better regulation framework requirements. That will account for where primary legislation in the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament in such a way as to change significantly the impacts of the policy on business. That impact assessment will be published alongside the enacted legislation. In addition, we will publish further analysis alongside future consultations ahead of any secondary legislation, to meet our better regulation framework requirements.

No one should fear being sexually assaulted in the workplace, and the measures go further to protect employees. One in five women has been sexually assaulted in the workplace by someone outside their organisation. The measures could have a positive effect on women, those with disabilities, and ethnic minorities across the UK. The amendments and new clauses in this group would not add value, given the extensive impact assessment to which the Government have already committed.

On new clauses 39 and 40, I reassure the Committee that the Government entirely support the importance of ensuring that workers, including women and girls, are protected from workplace violence and harassment. We already have in place a strong and appropriate regulatory regime that provides protection to workers from violence and harassment. Through the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the statutory provisions made under it, employers already have a duty to protect their workers from health and safety risks, including workplace violence, and they must consider ways in which they can remove or reduce such risk. That legislation applies to everyone, irrespective of whether the victims have protected characteristics—it is a law to protect all workers.

The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, along with associated legislation, requires employers to reduce the risks of workplace violence. As part of that, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers first to assess the risks in the workplace, including the potential for violence, and then to take appropriate action to reduce those risks. The Health and Safety Executive and local authorities, which are responsible for enforcing the 1974 Act, carry out proactive and reactive work to ensure that employers are complying with their duties under the Act to assess the risks and are implementing appropriate control measures to protect their workers, and others affected by their work, from workplace violence.

The Health and Safety Executive has also published a range of readily available guidance on its website to assist employers in complying with their legal obligations. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) has tabled new clause 40, asking the HSE to publish a health and safety framework on violence and harassment in the workplace, including violence against women and girls in the workplace, but employers already have such duties under the 1999 regulations, which require them to have suitable and sufficient arrangements in place to manage health and safety in the workplace, including violence and aggression.

Harassment in the workplace could be covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, but the HSE does not act where a more appropriate regulator has specific responsibility, or where there is more directly applicable legislation. Police already have powers to prosecute harassment offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission can take action under the Equality Act 2010.

With amendment 130, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire seeks to amend clause 16 so that it refers to schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to protecting freedom of expression. The Government resist the amendment, and I assure him that it is not necessary, because section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 already does that work by requiring legislation to be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the aforementioned rights. It is therefore unnecessary to include such a provision. The amendment is also undesirable, because it could call into question the absence of a similar provision in a large range of other contexts in which convention rights may be relevant to the operation of a statutory provision.

As with all cases of harassment, under the Equality Act 2010 courts and tribunals will continue to be required to balance rights on the facts of a particular case, including the right to freedom of expression. Free speech is a cornerstone of British values and is protected when it is lawful, but harassment is not free speech. Workplace harassment involves being subjected to unwanted conduct of various types, as set out in the Equality Act, that have

“the purpose or effect of violating”

the employee’s dignity or

“creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”

for the employee. Remarks that are simply upsetting do not fall within the definition of harassment. For areas of debate where people disagree strongly, there are checks and balances in place. Clause 15 requires an employer to take only steps that are reasonable, and that is not likely to include policing private conversations.

Amendment 131 would exclude higher education institutions and hospitality providers from the Bill’s obligation on employers not to permit the harassment of their employees by third parties. The Government resist this amendment, because it would create a disparity and a hierarchy of protections across employers and sectors under the Equality Act 2010. That would mean that the Act’s protections against third-party harassment did not apply to a wide range of employers in occupations that involve a high level of interaction between staff and members of the public. In addition, higher education institutions and hospitality providers would not gain any of the benefits that result from staff feeling safer at work, such as reductions in staff illness, burnout and turnover.

With 29% of people in a 2020 Government survey saying that they had experienced sexual harassment in the workplace within the past year, it is obviously a clear and serious problem that needs to be addressed. We cannot provide carve-outs and create a two-tier system for who is and is not protected against sexual harassment depending on the type of work they do. For areas of debate where people disagree strongly, there are checks and balances in place. An employer has to take only steps that are reasonable, and that is not likely to include policing private conversations. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be guidance and support for employers on the steps they should take to meet their obligation not to permit the harassment of their employees by third parties. I therefore invite hon. Members not to press their amendments, and I commend clauses 15, 16 and 17 to the Committee.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

There is quite a lot in this grouping, and I will try to go through it in a sensible order. I will start with new clause 29 and amendment 135. The Regulatory Policy Committee has said that the Government have not managed to demonstrate sufficiently the need for the clauses in the Bill that require employers to prevent harassment of their employees by third parties, nor that the measures are sensible—those are the RPC’s words, not mine—and it has rated the impact assessment on this as red.

I want to be absolutely crystal clear from the outset, across all the clauses, amendments and new clauses that we are debating, that harassment is wrong; that the sort of sexual harassment that the Minister spoke about is absolutely, categorically unacceptable; and that whatever it takes in the law, and from an enforcement perspective, to stamp harassment out must happen. Such harassment is simply unacceptable in our country and society. The comments that I am about to make are not in any way, shape or form critical of action against harassment, therefore; they are about trying to best understand how the Bill and the amendments that have been tabled would work, and the difference they would realistically make to people’s lives, including by protecting them from harassment or other unacceptable behaviour.

With those ground rules set, if I may put it in that manner, the Opposition are concerned, and have doubts about, the need for and the operability of the provisions in clauses 15 to 18. I repeat that that is not about the principle of stopping harassment, but about the operability of the proposals that we are considering. We must question whether the benefits of these clauses will be outweighed by the burden on employers and, in certain respects, by the chilling impact on free speech.

New clause 29 would require the Secretary of State to

“report on the extent to which the prevalence of third-party harassment makes the case for the measures in sections 15 to 18”.

Within that report, the Secretary of State must include

“an assessment of the impact of sections 15 to 18 on free speech…an assessment of the likely costs to employers…an assessment of which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment through no fault of the employer, and…proposals for mitigations that can be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations.”

Amendment 135 quite reasonably provides that clauses 15 to 18 will not come into effect until—not never, but until—the House of Commons has approved the report required under new clause 29.

We then come to the two new clauses tabled by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, the leader of Plaid Cymru. I share the Minister’s concerns about the new clauses. I do not think they are necessary, I do not think that they particularly add to the spirit of what the Government are trying to achieve in the Bill and I do not think they pass the Opposition’s tests of operability. The official Opposition will therefore not be supporting them.

Amendment 130 would require employers to have regard to protecting freedom of expression when exercising the Bill’s duty not to permit harassment of their employees. I do not believe any business wants its employees to be harassed. No business owner that I know wants their staff, or any human being, to face harassment at all, in whatever setting. However, the amendment is designed to show the impossibility of the position in which the provisions on third-party harassment will put employers. It is a probing amendment, in the sense that we are not trying to create additional burdens for businesses by giving them another duty. It has been tabled so that we can talk about how unrealistic it is to expect employers to be able to enforce all the provisions in the Bill and, inherent to that, so that we can make the challenge that there may be more appropriate and operable pieces of legislation that already sit in statute or that may yet still need to be debated and passed through Parliament to prevent that.

The amendment is about how an employer can balance the right to free expression with the duties explicitly in the Bill. I do not believe that, in the moment, it will always be clear whether someone’s behaviour, say, in a pub falls on the right or wrong side of the line—it is a subjective test. Leaving that aside, there are situations where it will be frankly impossible for employers to abide by the law that the Government are seeking to make. I am interested in the Minister’s reflections on that.

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

The hon. Gentleman says that there will be situations where it is not just difficult, but impossible for an employer to abide by the Bill. Can he give some examples of the situations he has in mind?

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

I am building up to my wider point. To skip ahead, there will be circumstances where, even within the reasonableness test—I understand that test—something so unexpected and unforeseeable happens that the employer could not in any way have planned a protection for their employees around that. Despite that, the employer might find themselves challenged in a tribunal or, worse, some form of criminal investigation about why they did not take reasonable steps against a totally unexpected and unplanned-for eventuality. I accept that, in most cases, there are practical steps that could be put in place to prevent harassment of any sort, but there will be times where that reasonableness test could fall over and someone could find themselves in a very tricky spot, unable to account for why they did not prepare for the totally unexpected.

Jonathan Pearce (Labour, High Peak)

I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB. The hon. Gentleman is making the point that it would be impossible for an employer to reasonably avoid something so extreme and out of the ordinary, but that would actually fall directly in the test, because the tribunal would look at whether it was reasonable for the employer to have put in arrangements, procedures or preparations to avoid a likely, foreseeable scenario. His concerns are completely misplaced, because no employer could reasonably avoid a situation that was impossible to avoid.

To go back to the fundamentals, as the hon. Gentleman said, we and employers should be taking all appropriate and reasonable steps, because 40% of women in the workplace suffer sexual harassment. These measures are reasonable in and of themselves, so I put it to him that he is worrying about something that is covered by the test.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

In many respects it is my job to be worried, to properly kick the tyres and to understand the operability of what the Government are trying to achieve. I certainly take the hon. Gentleman’s point on sexual harassment, and there is very clear criminal law in place that is probably more appropriate to bring perpetrators of such heinous crimes properly to justice. My concerns about the reasonableness test are less about that which can and should be pursued through criminal legislation; they are more about other forms of very subjectively tested harassment, as well as some points that I hope to make about freedom of speech. Hopefully, the hon. Gentleman will reflect on and understand those concerns when I get to that point.

Michael Wheeler (Labour, Worsley and Eccles)

I refer the Committee to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of trade unions. It seems that my thoughts align with those of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak on the reasonableness of completely unforeseeable and unexpected things, but I would go a slight step further on what we are looking for from employers.

Even in circumstances in which something is so completely unexpected and unforeseeable that it might be reasonable for preparatory measures not to be in place, the duty would also address how employers respond. It is about having systems in place to react to incidents when they happen, rather than foreseeing every possible eventuality of the completely unexpected and unforeseeable. We can have supportive measures in place to prevent harassment from continuing or from happening again, and to support the individual.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I broadly agree, but my challenge to him is that reasonableness can be interpreted in many different ways. There will always been an appeals process or something similar, but I worry that unless the legislation is clearer, some good-willed employers who are entirely honest and decent in how they try to protect their staff could, in some circumstances, be on a very sticky wicket trying to defend themselves against something that they never foresaw or dreamed of. They may have been a little too innocent, but they will find themselves in a difficult spot. That is where safeguards need to be locked into the legislation in respect of what is a very subjective test.

I was about to come on to an example. I will preface it by saying that absolutely nobody should be abused in the workplace and absolutely nobody should face any form of harassment in the workplace. However, let us think for a moment about how some of the Bill’s provisions would operate in an NHS accident and emergency department. In any A&E up and down the land, our wonderful doctors and nurses sometimes put themselves in harm’s way, particularly late at night. Perhaps they have a patient who is clearly inebriated but has injured themselves. I am not excusing it for one second, but it can and does happen. Let us say that an incredibly drunk patient, who may have fallen and broken their hand, verbally abuses—not sexually harasses—the doctor or nurse treating them. The doctor or nurse does not deserve that, and that behaviour should not be happening, but I would wager that it happens most Friday or Saturday nights somewhere. It is unacceptable, but it does happen. What should happen in that circumstance?

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

Will the shadow Minister give way?

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

Let me just finish this point. I am trying to deal with a real-life scenario that should not be happening, but does. What does the doctor or nurse do, under the Bill? Do they refuse to treat the patient? Some would argue that perhaps they should, but the reality is that that is not what they are there for. They are there to heal, treat and support that patient who has got into a stupid predicament.

Alison Hume (Labour, Scarborough and Whitby)

Will the shadow Minister give way?

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

I will just finish this point. Both hon. Ladies know that I will give way.

Where would the test come? What should the NHS, as the employer, have done to prevent that situation? What is the overall outcome in that scenario? Where does the reasonableness test fall? I repeat that I am not excusing the behaviour; I am putting it forward as a test to the provisions in the Bill, as a situation in which the employer—ultimately the national health service or perhaps the Health Secretary—would find themselves.

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

I appreciate the shadow Minister’s giving way. I will make an effort not to intervene every time he stands up.

There is a very serious point here that anyone who has ever been in a situation in which they have felt intimidated will understand. An employee in higher education may be intimidated by students who are irritated, angry or frustrated about their results. In my case, they came to my office because they felt that they should not have failed. I have found myself in a small room—the kind of room in which this House would not allow MPs to hold a surgery—with no external access and no security guards on the door to intervene.

Such situations can be hugely difficult. Although the employer is not always in a position to pre-empt the situation, taking reasonable steps surely means providing an option for everybody to have an emergency phone number—that is what was available to me in my university job—or, at A&E, to have security staff intervene when somebody arrives quite clearly inebriated, in the same way that our security staff do at our surgeries. They will immediately foresee the problem and will make sure that the person is accompanied and is not left alone with a member of staff. Those are the sort of reasonable preparations that we would expect; I would be surprised if any employer were not happy to carry them out. I therefore see no reason why that should not be made clear in the legislation.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

I hope that the hon. Lady is right, but part of the test that the amendment sets for the Government is whether it will work. Is it clear? Will it put the protections in place that everybody wants to see? There is a question mark over whether they will work.

The NHS A&E environment is an example with which we are probably all familiar from our postbags. Constituents write to us about situations that they have witnessed or been in themselves, particularly on a busy Friday or Saturday night or in the Christmas season when there are lots of parties and lots of people probably having far too much to drink and sometimes getting themselves into unacceptable situations. There might not be the staff to double up; the patient might be abusive to all of them. It is unacceptable, horrible and wrong, but it is sometimes the reality. Where does that leave the senior doctor or nurse on duty, the chief executive of the trust, and ultimately the Secretary of State or the permanent secretary to the Department of Health and Social Care? Where does the test actually leave them, and what more can be done to make the legislation work?

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby has been waiting patiently to come in.

Alison Hume (Labour, Scarborough and Whitby)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I refer the Committee to my declaration of interests and my membership of Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.

The NHS has zero-tolerance policies, in common with the police service and any other service that deals with these difficult situations. They are good employers that have things in place. The shadow Minister spoke about employers not thinking about situations and being innocent. I draw his attention to their responsibility to employees who were innocent, but have lost their innocence as a result of unwanted sexual harassment or worse.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

I do not disagree with a word that the hon. Lady says. The NHS, like every employer, is right to take a zero-tolerance attitude to any form of harassment against its employees, customers, patients or whoever else happens to be on its premises at any time.

I accept the hon. Lady’s point about innocence. My A&E example was not so much about sexual harassment or worse criminality; it is all horrendous criminality, in my view, but there are other criminal laws that can and should be used to bring perpetrators to justice in that space. My example was more about abusive behaviour in the form of verbal harassment from a patient who is drunk or high on drugs. It is still horrible, it is still wrong and it still needs action, but what happens? The zero-tolerance policy, all of a sudden, becomes a poster on the wall rather than real, live action there and then, as that drunk patient makes unacceptable remarks of whatever nature to the nurse or doctor. The test is whether the words in the Bill before us—as opposed to other, potentially even more stringent or stronger legislation that is already on the statute book or that may yet need to be passed—will have a better effect.

Alison Hume (Labour, Scarborough and Whitby)

I think the Bill will do that, because it will strengthen the employers’ responsibility to take all reasonable steps.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

I hope that the hon. Lady is right. What my colleagues and I seek, through our amendment, is to test that. I do not think that anyone will criticise any Member of this House, on either side, for trying to properly road-test any legislation that comes before us and check whether it will have the effect that the Government seek.

Amendment 131 is topical, given the intervention that the hon. Member for Chippenham made about higher education. It would exclude higher education institutions and hospitality providers from some of the duties in the Bill, not around criminal behaviour—it would not exclude them from legislation that should rightly be used to challenge sexual harassment, for example—but around free speech. Employers may end up being overly cautious with respect to protecting free speech, as they will be worried about claims being brought under this legislation. That would lead to free speech debate and challenge being eroded. In the case of higher education, those are the very institutions at which free speech, challenge and rigorous and robust debate should frankly be taking place, and where wrong and unacceptable ideas can be knocked down robustly and firmly through the medium of intellectual debate.

We have already seen the damaging effects of speakers being no-platformed at university campuses. I worry that some of the Bill’s provisions could make that position even worse and could lead to an increase in that worrying trend. A 2022 study by the Higher Education Policy Institute found that quiet no-platforming, whereby students decide not to invite otherwise suitable speakers to an event because of their views, was more common than reported cases of no-platforming.

I am not talking about the obvious suspects that probably no member of this Committee wants to see on a platform—the particularly odious characters who sometimes fill our newspapers, like the Tommy Robinsons of this world. I am talking about speakers quietly no-platformed, including in recent years the late Alex Salmond, Liam Neeson, Harry Enfield, my constituent Tony Blair—I am not sure whether he is still popular on the Government Benches or not—and Peter Hitchens.

I hope the Committee understands that this is not about trying to defend a totally indefensible extreme speaker, a terrorist or someone like that. It is about people who I do not think anybody could reasonably describe as that controversial a speaker—even I will concede that Tony Blair is not that controversial a speaker—but who are now being no-platformed. It is right that we road-test the provisions of the Bill and see whether in higher education settings too great a risk aversion will be baked into the system and this sort of no-platforming will continue. We must think about how much worse the Bill will make the situation.

Does the Minister think that universities may be less likely to invite speakers with views with which they know members of staff or other employees may disagree, now that they are at risk of claims of third-party harassment because employees may not agree with what they hear? The Bill will create a new method by which to discourage universities from giving a platform to those with, for example, gender-critical views, which is a debate that continues to be held. That is why our amendment would carve out higher education providers from those provisions.

We are also worried about the burdens of the third-party harassment provisions on pubs and the hospitality sector. They already have to contend with increased employer’s national insurance contributions and with the possible loss of small business rate relief; there is now a risk that they will have to become responsible for some form of policing. I am not referring to areas that I have already spoken about, such as sexual harassment, which should absolutely be cracked down on, criminal forms of racial abuse, abuse of someone’s sexuality or whatever it might be; I mean areas that get into the realms of free speech. There are some jokes that may be told in pubs and are probably not funny, but do not stray into the very serious categories that I have spoken about. It will put a burden on pub, restaurant or bar owners to somehow police that which most of us, under a reasonability test—but not guaranteed under a reasonability test—would call more innocent banter.

Peter Bedford (Conservative, Mid Leicestershire)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. On the point about the hospitality and pubs sector, on which I held a debate in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago, there is real concern about this part of legislation, in particular about freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Does my hon. Friend agree that one consequence of the legislation might be that industry take actions beyond those intended? For example, people might self-censor beyond what could be seen as an off-colour or offensive joke, because they are scared that they could be held liable later for not protecting their employees. My hon. Friend gave an example, but another one is a comedy club, which would be conscious of and concerned about who they invite to entertain because of the perception that some of their staff could be offended, and the reasonableness of how that could be interpreted in the context of harassment. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a concerning unintended consequence of the legislation?

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

My hon. Friend is right that there needs to be greater clarity about that which is already covered in criminal law—sexual harassment, direct racial abuse or abuse to someone on the basis of their sexuality, which clearly has to be actioned under criminal law and it must be ensured that the perpetrators are brought to justice—compared with satire or cutting jokes. Those are things that do not stray into the criminal, but perhaps some people might be offended by them, for whatever reason.

There are quite a lot of comedians openly talking about whether comedy is in fact becoming a thing of the past in this country. They are finding themselves unable to tell jokes that, while not going into the criminal, do risk offending some people. If that ends up shutting down comedy clubs or open-mic nights in pubs, it would be an unintended consequence that I cannot imagine the Government would want to bring about.

Alex McIntyre (Labour, Gloucester)

rose—

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

However, maybe the hon. Gentleman will tell me.

Alex McIntyre (Labour, Gloucester)

I refer to my membership of the GMB union and the Community trade union. I shall come on to some of the nonsense we are hearing around free speech. I ask a direct question, seeing as we seem to be equating jokes with harassment: does the shadow Minister know the definition of harassment under the Equality Act and would he share that with the Committee so that we may understand what we are talking about here?

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

What I am trying to test is the point at which the reasonability point would trigger. Is this the right Bill—the right set of clauses—to deal with the problems the hon. Member has outlined? There is a clear difference between that which should be treated under criminal law—and rightly stamped down on hard and forcibly—and the unintended consequence that will force sectors such as higher education or hospitality to become so risk averse that they shut down some of their activities. Yes, those activities, whether some form of comedy or whatever, could potentially be offensive to some people, but they are not criminal.

Alex McIntyre (Labour, Gloucester)

I am afraid the shadow Minister does not know the definition under the Equality Act. If he did, he would know that the conduct is required to either violate someone’s dignity or create

“an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”.

That conduct has to be related to someone’s protected characteristic: sex, race, gender or their sexuality. We are talking about very serious circumstances. They fall short of the criminal definition of harassment, but they are within the Equality Act definition.

There is already a test within the current law to avoid some of the free speech arguments the shadow Minister is making. He is seeking to trivialise the experience of many people in those industries who face unacceptable harassment in the workplace.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman. I am not trying to trivialise anything. I have been clear from the outset about how seriously we should take sexual harassment, racial abuse and abuse on the basis of someone’s sexuality, and that I believe the full force of the right laws should be used against any perpetrator of that hideous, evil and unacceptable behaviour. I take issue with his comment that I am trying to trivialise anything. I am trying to ensure that the provisions in the Bill will actually work, and will not have unintended consequences that some might call trivial—which some might be offended by but which do not cross what most people in society would deem some of those lines.

In the definition he just gave, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of undermining someone’s dignity. I am reminded of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders dinner a couple of weeks ago. I cannot remember whether the Minister was there, but the Secretary of State for Business and Trade was. Quite a famous comedian was on stage after the speeches, and their act was essentially to pick on people on various tables to find out which motor manufacturer they worked for and then, I would suggest, be quite brutal with them. He did perhaps undermine their dignity. It was not on the basis of sexuality, race or anything like that, but it was quite a brutal act. Everybody was laughing away, but what if someone in the audience was offended by that and took issue with it? Does that then put the organisers of the dinner—the chief executive of the SMMT—in the spotlight, under the provisions of the Bill? That is the point I think all members of this Committee and, ultimately, all Members of the House, have to be satisfied with before anybody allows this to become statute.

Alex McIntyre (Labour, Gloucester)

I think the shadow Minister has already answered this question. What protected characteristic were any of those jokes related to? This is the point. It is not to stop people being comedians. If someone sits in the front row of a Ross Noble gig, they are bound to get picked on. If the joke relates to a protected characteristic, that is where it crosses the line into harassment. The example that the shadow Minister has just given is a good example of where this would not be triggered, because none of the jokes related to a protected characteristic.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right, but that is not how the Bill is worded. The Bill allows the reasonability test to be applied over the top of the Equality Act definition he has brought to the attention of the Committee. I gently ask him to reflect on that point and just check, because I do not think he would want this unintended consequence to be followed through into legislation. It would undermine the very serious things we spoke about earlier and, dare I say, trivialise them.

Uma Kumaran (Labour, Stratford and Bow)

I refer Members to my declaration of interests, and remind them that I am a member of the GMB. It is timely that we are discussing this, as today is Human Rights Day. In 1998, the Labour Government brought the Human Rights Act into domestic law. Freedom of speech is indeed a human right, but that does not mean someone has the freedom to incite hatred, discriminate or attack people with a protected characteristic. In this fictional comedy club we are talking about, what are the things that people are mentioning? Can the shadow Minister give us a specific example of a joke that he thinks the Bill would put in jeopardy of undermining or putting at risk the CEO of said organisation?

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

I think I have been clear that every law available should be used—potentially, more could be passed—to properly prosecute, challenge, shut down and stop anyone inciting hatred on the basis of race, religion, sexuality or whatever it might be. I cannot find any better set of words to make my revulsion at those crimes clearer, and I show my absolute support for any enforcement agency or Government of any political persuasion that brings forward workable laws to clamp down on those unacceptable criminal behaviours, full stop.

Nick Timothy (Conservative, West Suffolk)

Would my hon. Friend give way?

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

I will just finish this point, then I will be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend.

The point I am trying to make is that bits of legislation that we are asked to consider sometimes have unintended consequences, and that there is a risk of someone being offended by something that does not pass the reasonability test in this Bill. Outside the well-defined areas that go into the criminal, part of free speech is the right to offend on certain levels.

Uma Kumaran (Labour, Stratford and Bow)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

I will give way in a second.

Many comedians—Jimmy Carr is an example—talk frequently at the moment about comedy being shut down. It is not criminal; it is not racial hatred or hatred on the basis of religion, sexuality or anything like that. It is beyond those points.

Uma Kumaran (Labour, Stratford and Bow)

We all enjoy comedy in this House, but this is a very serious subject. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, on the exercise of the freedoms that the shadow Minister is talking about, carries with it duties and responsibilities. It states that the freedoms

“may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of”

a number of things. In this fictional comedy club or this fictional speech, all the things that you are saying may—

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

Order. When you say “you”, you mean me.

Uma Kumaran (Labour, Stratford and Bow)

I apologise, Mr Mundell. All the things that the shadow Minister has referred to are already enshrined in various laws in this country, so what is the fictional scenario that he thinks this Bill jeopardises?

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

The hon. Lady is right to bring the Committee’s attention to that which is already laid down in statute. I think that perhaps where the misunderstanding is coming in—the Opposition are trying to test this—is whether the new reasonability test will deliver perverse results in a tribunal. Probably nobody sitting in this room would expect that to happen, but it could supersede that which is already set down and create a new precedent.

Nick Timothy (Conservative, West Suffolk)

I should probably make reference to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an unpaid trustee at the Index on Censorship, which may be relevant to this debate.

I do not think anybody here is a free speech absolutist. My hon. Friend is trying to test scenarios, but he is in no way talking about issues such as incitement of hatred, which are already criminal matters. We are talking about the codification of things that may be subjective in the light of the law of unintended consequences.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

My hon. Friend highlights an issue that would come down to a subjective test, so “reasonableness” could mean something very different in different tribunal settings and to different individuals casting judgment on any such complaint. That goes to the absolute nub of what we are asking the Government to reflect on. Is the test strong enough? Is it workable? Is it operable? Will it actually produce perverse outcomes?

Alex McIntyre (Labour, Gloucester)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the example that the hon. Member for West Suffolk just cited, IPSO found that there was no harassment, and therefore there was a finding under clause 12(i) of the editors’ code of practice, rather than clause 3?

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

I am not certain that is quite the point that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk was making. However, in the interest of fairness, I will commit to properly looking up that case, which I had not come across until my hon. Friend mentioned it a couple of moments ago.

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

We are back to talking about perverse outcomes and unintended consequences, which are important things to consider. However, is that not what we are looking at in amendment 131? In in my view, it confuses sectors with functions. The hon. Gentleman says that he and his colleagues have selected these particular cases or sectors because they relate to freedom of speech. However, if we take the example of universities and higher education, a higher education institution contracts services of all sorts, many of them not relating to freedom of speech—for example, security and refuse services—but if the amendment were made and if it failed to conduct even basic vetting on a contractor, it would be exempt from these provisions if an incident of sexual harassment occurred. However, if exactly the same circumstances were to be repeated by a community hall or a church that would fall under the scope of the legislation. Is there not a problem in the drafting of the amendment? On that basis alone, it should not be accepted.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making. However, in the examples he gave he has shown exactly why there is a need to ask the Government to doubly rethink the way in which the original Bill is drafted to ensure that some of those areas are covered off so that the reasonability test is clearer and people do not find themselves on that proverbial sticky wicket for innocent reasons. We tabled the amendment—we fully accept it does not cover everything and every eventuality—because it is our job as the Opposition to highlight cases which in turn highlight areas where the Bill may be deficient and where it needs a little surgery to ensure that it achieves what the Government are trying to achieve, rather than creating many loopholes and perverse outcomes. I have probably spoken for long enough on this group of amendments.

Nick Timothy (Conservative, West Suffolk)

Will my hon. Friend give way just one more time? I have an excellent example that I would like to share.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

How can I say no to the offer of an excellent example from my hon. Friend?

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

Provided that the totality of the exchange is less than two minutes.

Nick Timothy (Conservative, West Suffolk)

It has just been drawn to my attention that the Health Secretary is the subject of an official complaint to the Labour party for his jokes about the former Transport Secretary at The Spectator party last week because his comments were considered “bullying and uncomradely” according to the complaint. That may be another example of this kind of subjective test.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

I thank my hon. Friend for that. It may well be such an example. I must admit I resisted the urge to attend The Spectator awards last week. I am told the Health Secretary did make what many considered a very funny speech. However, it is clear that some deem it uncomradely. Who knows? Had this legislation already been enacted the Labour party itself might have found itself on that sticky wicket. On that note, I ask the Minister to reflect on the provisions in this Bill in that regard and check that the Government really do have this right.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Middleton South)

I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following:

Amendment 130, in clause 16, page 30, line 24, at end insert—

“(1D) In exercising their duties under this section, an employer must have regard to protecting freedom of expression.

(1E) In subsection (1D), ‘freedom of expression’ is defined in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.”

This amendment would require employers to have regard to protecting freedom of expression when exercising the Bill’s duty not to permit harassment of their employees.

Amendment 131, in clause 16, page 30, line 24, at end insert—

“(1D) Subsection (1A) shall not apply to—

(a) higher education institutions, or

(b) providers of─

(i) hotels and similar accommodation;

(ii) holiday and other short-stay accommodation;

(iii) restaurants and mobile food service activities; and

(iv) beverage serving activities.”

This amendment would exclude higher education institutions and hospitality providers from the Bill’s duties for employers not to permit harassment of their employees.

Clauses 16 and 17 stand part.

Alex McIntyre (Labour, Gloucester)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Stringer. I welcome the Bill, and this clause is a really important part of it. We are introducing the clause to improve the workplace treatment of individuals who suffer harassment. Before the lunch break, we heard an interesting interpretation of the legislation, but sadly, it was not correct in all places, and I would like to go through some points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire. As part of that, I will reflect from the beginning that the Fawcett Society has found that 40% of women have experienced workplace harassment, and women who are marginalised for other reasons, such as race or disability, face an increased risk of and different forms of harassment, including sexual harassment in the workplace.

This clause is a vital part of the legislation, because we know—we heard this in evidence a few weeks ago—that harassment does not always come from a fellow employee or an employer. Quite often, it can come from third parties, particularly in some of the sectors that the Opposition seek to exclude with their amendment. We heard particularly from UKHospitality about the impact of third-party harassment in the hospitality sector, and I have shared my experience of being harassed in the workplace while working in the hospitality sector as a 15-year-old. This is really important. My example was only one—frankly, there will be thousands of examples—and I know that my experience as a young man will be very different from the experiences of women working in hospitality up and down the country.

As we enter the Christmas party season, we will see a massive increase in workplace harassment—not just sexual harassment, but other forms of harassment. This is perhaps where we got into some confusion this morning. There are different types of harassment, and the type that we talked about in particular this morning was harassment under the Equality Act 2010. That has a very specific definition, which will not be changed by the proposed legislation, despite what the shadow Minister said. A different test will be applied to that definition in terms of when it might come into play, but the definition of harassment will not change. Therefore, for something to be harassment, it must be unwanted conduct relating to somebody’s protected characteristic and create an offensive environment, or one that degrades, humiliates or embarrasses individuals.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk tried to introduce a few examples around the free speech argument, but those did not support the argument that he tried to make. The Independent Press Standards Organisation found that there was no harassment in the Gareth Roberts case. It found that there was a lower form of conduct in relation to clause 12(i) of the IPSO code of practice, but there was no harassment.

Nick Timothy (Conservative, West Suffolk)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alex McIntyre (Labour, Gloucester)

I will, if the hon. Gentleman wants to correct the record.

Nick Timothy (Conservative, West Suffolk)

I have absolutely no intention of correcting the record, because the record will be correct. I think the hon. Member misunderstands my point, which was not to say that in that case the conduct was an example of harassment; I am fully aware that the IPSO ruling said that it was not harassment. My point was about the laws of unintended consequences. When IPSO was established, I do not think anybody thought that there would be cases such as this, where a journalist would be penalised by IPSO for saying something that IPSO acknowledges was a statement of fact on the grounds that it may be offensive.

Alex McIntyre (Labour, Gloucester)

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but the fact is that in these circumstances, the definition in the Equality Act is clear. There is already an abundance of case law on what constitutes harassment, particularly in relation to the Equality Act, the different types of protected characteristics and the actions required to reach that threshold. The threshold is not just that there is unwanted conduct or that it relates to a protected characteristic; it is about the environment that is created. There is an abundance of case law on that point.

The second example was about my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, but again it missed the point entirely. We all enjoy comedy, which is a staple of our culture. Jokes are fine unless they start to become unwanted and are aimed at protected characteristics, such as someone’s gender, gender identity or sexual orientation. The other point that that example missed—we spoke at length about comedy clubs, and I hate to raise them again—is that the Bill is not about punters at a comedy club being offended by what they hear on stage; it is about protecting the employees. For somebody to trigger this legislation, the comedian would have to make a joke directed at one of the employee’s protected characteristics. If the club employs a member of bar staff who has a protected characteristic and the comedian on stage consistently and absolutely humiliates them because of it, one might expect the employer to take some reasonable steps, such as not booking that comedian again, so that the individual is not consistently humiliated on a regular basis because of one of their protected characteristics. That is what the Bill is intended to do.

We are not saying that employers are required to stop all harassment in the workplace; that would not be possible. As the shadow Minister rightly said, there will be cases when somebody comes into a bar during a Christmas party, inebriated, having enjoyed far too much free wine, and says something that is offensive and horrifically wrong, and with which we all across this House would disagree. The Bill requires employers to have policies in place to deal with that. We cannot legislate for the unknown. We cannot legislate for serious circumstances that we cannot predict or for every individual who walks into a bar, but we can have policies in place to deal with those things.

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

Surely one of the unintended consequences of this proposal is that small businesses risk lawsuits from employees who perceive that they have been harassed, perhaps by a third party. The inevitable lawsuit then follows, and it is not so much the offence for the employer that is the problem; it is the legal fees, the time, the effort and the distraction. What I find most concerning about this proposal is that the Minister says that the impact assessment will follow. Our amendment says that this provision should not be introduced before an impact assessment has been carried out. Does the hon. Member for Gloucester not think, given the doubt and uncertainties about the effect of this Bill, that it would be more sensible to have the impact assessment first before exposing small businesses to unintended consequences?

Alex McIntyre (Labour, Gloucester)

If the hon. Gentleman is inviting me to agree that there should be a two-tier system, whereby employees at small businesses are entitled to be harassed by third parties but employees at larger businesses are not, I have to disagree.

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

The hon. Gentleman knows I am not saying that.

Alex McIntyre (Labour, Gloucester)

Well, a great deal of things are protected under law. Employees who work for businesses of all sizes are entitled to protection from harassment under the law, and I do not think that we in this House disagree with that principle.

I come back to the reasonableness test. A small business can have a claim brought against it for a whole host of reasons under employment legislation. Claims can be brought for discrimination or for whistleblowing, and that comes at a cost to employers. There is a separate discussion to be had about how to ensure that employment tribunals work for businesses of all sizes, but the point that we are debating is about harassment in the workplace under the Equality Act.

One of the key points that we must keep coming back to is that it does not really matter to the victim whether they are harassed by a third party, a fellow employee or their employer; the impact on them is exactly the same. Disregarding people who work for small businesses and not giving them the protections that are afforded to everybody else is just not acceptable.

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

It clearly does make a great deal of difference to both the employee and the employer where the harassment comes from. If an employer is harassing an employee, they are directly responsible for those actions and they should rightly be held accountable. If the harassment comes from a third party—the drunk person who comes into the pub or into A&E—there is surely a complete difference. The hon. Member is asking for the employer to be responsible for that unless they take all reasonable steps. This clause then exposes that businessman—that small employer—to legal action on something he cannot control.

Alex McIntyre (Labour, Gloucester)

I thank the hon. Member for setting out the difference. The difference is the “all reasonable steps” test. If an employer harasses someone in the workplace, there is no “all reasonable steps” test that they can take; for a third party, there is.

In tribunals, “reasonable” takes into account, for example, the circumstances of the case, the size of the business, the sector it operates in, the policies it has in place and the training it provides for employees. These points of reasonableness are taken into consideration in tribunals every single day in other areas. For example, there is already a test in section 109 of the Equality Act that deals with a defence that employers have. They cannot be held liable for the actions of their employees if they have taken all reasonable steps to train their employees to avoid issues such as discrimination in the workplace.

Peter Bedford (Conservative, Mid Leicestershire)

The hon. Member mentions reasonable steps being taken by small businesses. Does he accept that an impact assessment on the consequences of bringing in this kind of legislation for these businesses should be conducted up front, so that businesses can at least understand how much time and money it will cost them and how much additional bureaucracy it will create for them?

Alex McIntyre (Labour, Gloucester)

The Minister will answer about what the Government are doing on impact assessments, but the impact on small businesses is that they have to think a little bit about harassment in their industry. That will vary from business to business. Some small businesses are not public facing. The impact in a small café will be different from that in a small office, because of interactions with the general public, but I do not think it is unreasonable to ask a small café or a small bar to think about what they can put in place to deal with someone coming in and abusing or harassing staff.

Again, if somebody comes in and is abusive, these provisions will not necessarily be triggered, because the abuse and unwanted conduct has to be related to their protected characteristic. I know from closing up a number of Christmas parties when I worked in hospitality that people get a bit out of hand. That was not harassment under the Equality Act; it was because people were drunk and disorderly, which is a separate antisocial behaviour issue. There are different channels to deal with that. We are talking here about specific cases where there is abuse of people because of a protected characteristic. Those are very narrow circumstances where people have to think about what kind of policies they have in place.

The hon. Member for Chippenham spoke about how MPs would not operate in similar circumstances. We would not, for example, be alone with individuals in a private room. It is appropriate to have policies in place where we try to think about some of the circumstances.

This proposal does not use the word “requires”, and it does not say that every single step has to be taken—it mentions “all reasonable steps”. That is part of the tribunal, and there will be guidance to set out some examples of things that employers can do to take reasonable steps. It is really important that we do not create a two-tier system where we say that small employers do not have to deal with these issues, because actually it is often in small and medium-sized enterprises that some of this bad behaviour takes place.

I gave an example last week. I went to my boss and said, “I have just been groped by a midwife and was told, ‘I’m going to show you a thing or two’”. When I said that I was only 15 years old, my boss said I should enjoy it: “You are a bloke. Go back in there. Toughen up.” That is not acceptable. Actually, a reasonable step in those circumstances would be the manager saying, “Alex, why don’t you go and work in another part of the business for the rest of the week? Work on the bar this evening, rather than in the function.” It is about having a policy that deals with those kinds of incidents in the workplace. There are different steps that businesses can take.

Let me move on to the argument around free speech, which the Minister talked about at great length. I have set out how some of his arguments do not apply in this instance as this provision is about specific incidents of harassment under the Equality Act. A point that the shadow Minister might have raised that would perhaps have been more legitimate is cases where two protected characteristics are in play. A lot of the free speech cases that have made the press have engaged with two. For example, in some cases someone has expressed their religion, but that might be opposed to someone expressing their sexual orientation; or people have expressed protected views on gender-critical theory, but others have a protected characteristic of a different gender identity.

Those are difficult cases, which can go all the way to the Supreme Court. What is important to note, however—this is where the shadow Minister could have gone, to give us a stronger discussion—is that if we are at the stage where the Supreme Court has to give an opinion on these things, no tribunal in the land will say, “Well, an employer should reasonably have seen that and therefore taken reasonable steps to avoid such scenarios happening.” No, this is the exact example of where tribunals will take “reasonable steps” and say, “What is reasonable in these circumstances for these employers?”

Having represented the NHS for a number of years as an employment lawyer, I should point out that the A&E example that was given unfortunately did not make any sense. First, the NHS operates a zero-tolerance approach. In several instances, policies are in place where individuals can withdraw their support for someone if they are being abused in the workplace. Scenarios and planning are in place to make sure that everyone is looked after, without people being subjected to harassment in the workplace.

To sum up, “all reasonable steps” does not mean that an employer has a duty to stop something altogether. We have to be sensible. There is no point scaremongering so that individuals think this will have a broader impact, closing all comedy clubs and stopping people making jokes in the workplace. That is not the case. This is about specific examples of harassment under the Equality Act—that has to be unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic, creating an offensive, hostile, degrading or humiliating environment. These are specific examples. It is important that we extend this to third parties, given all the evidence we have heard, and I encourage everyone in the Committee to support the legislation.

Steve Darling (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

It is a privilege to serve under you, Mr Stringer. Broadly, I welcome—[Interruption.]

Steve Darling (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

My reflection on the Opposition amendments is that on this occasion my colleagues may be in danger of throwing the champagne out with the cork. The reality is that the challenges for people who face harassment in the workplace are very serious. As Government Members have highlighted, the comedy club example is relatively bogus, as the Bill would actually affect protection for employees rather than for punters.

On Friday, I am due to visit Torquay Girls’ grammar school in my constituency. I invite the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire to join me and hear directly from young women there about their experiences in the workplace. Strangely enough, apart from universities, the sectors that Opposition amendment 131 would exclude from clause 16 are almost all in the hospitality industry, in which those young women would be working. When I visited the school some time ago, one student shared with me how they dreaded a certain day of the week because they knew that a certain individual would be in, who would make them feel physically sick because of their approach to them, and the sexual harassment that occurred within the workplace.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

As much as I would love to join the hon. Gentleman in Torbay and it sounds like a delightful day out, I have a pretty full diary. I was not making a point against trying to stop sexual harassment; I was very clear that we need to use every power, every law and every mechanism available to clamp down hard on anybody who engages in the sexual harassment of anybody. My point was about the unintended consequences, including to free speech. By no definition, in my world, does sexual harassment count as free speech; that is something totally different. I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect on my arguments, which were not in any way, shape or form about trying to remove powers to deal with sexual harassment.

Steve Darling (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree to differ on that point. I am sure that the Government’s proposals will support those who are facing sexual harassment from third parties. As colleagues on the Committee have highlighted, the reality is that the legislation is about taking all reasonable steps. It is not saying that when somebody walks in and abuses an employee it is an immediate red line. The reality is that the employer needs to have taken all reasonable steps. I am very comfortable with the proposals. The Liberal Democrats will vote against the amendment.

Jonathan Pearce (Labour, High Peak)

I promise to keep my comments brief. Clause 15 will amend section 40A of the Equality Act 2010 to provide that an employer must take all reasonable steps to prevent the sexual harassment of employees in the course of their employment.

The concept of “all reasonable steps” has been part of the Equality Act 2010 since its inception, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester referred to. Section 109 of the Act provides a defence for the employer in respect of the discriminatory acts of the employee. It is about vicarious liability: in effect, if the employer can show that it has taken all reasonable steps, it will not be liable for the acts of the employee.

Exactly the same “all reasonable steps” test is being applied here. In my experience as an employment lawyer, employment tribunals are very well-versed in it and have a huge amount of experience with it. It would be a matter of fact for them to determine. It is important to understand that it will be, and always has been, a proportionate test that looks at the size and resources of the employer and the context of the employment situation.

There will inevitably be guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission on how employers should take all reasonable steps and what those steps might be, but it will be fact-specific. It may well include steps to mitigate, such as some form of risk assessment, policies, training or means by which an employee who is at risk of or has suffered third-party harassment can report it and action can be taken. All those things are fairly standard. They happen already as a result of the vicarious liability element of the Equality Act; the clause would just extend them to third parties.

Chris Law (Scottish National Party, Dundee Central)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I rise to speak in support of new clauses 39 and 40, which stand in the name of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts).

The new clauses follow the publication of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Amendment) Bill, a presentation Bill that the right hon. Member introduced in co-operation with the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and Rights of Women. They would address a critical gap in workplace safety by mandating proactive employer responsibilities to prevent all forms of violence and harassment, including gender-based violence.

The Health and Safety Executive does not currently accept domestic abuse within its remit. That might come as a surprise to some Members, but the reason is that domestic abuse and other forms of gender-based violence are not explicitly covered in the 1974 Act, even though the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 underlines the fact that employers owe their employees a duty of care that covers protection from domestic abuse.

Discrimination law inadequately protects workers from gender-based violence beyond sexual harassment, especially when such violence is not physical. The UK’s ratification in 2022 of the International Labour Organisation’s convention 190 means that the UK should take a comprehensive approach that addresses all forms and threats of gender-based violence in the workplace, psychological and emotional abuse, physical abuse and stalking, including with respect to people commuting to and from the workplace.

New clauses 39 and 40 would address those issues. They would go further than the Bill’s provisions on protection from harassment, because new clause 39 would introduce clear, actionable duties for employers to safeguard employees from gender-based harm through risk assessments, policy development and training. New clause 40 would mandate that the Health and Safety Executive create an enforceable framework that holds employers accountable and fosters inclusive, violence-free work environments for workers.

I understand that this may have been the Minister’s first opportunity to hear these points. I hope he will consider them, perhaps on Report.

Alison Hume (Labour, Scarborough and Whitby)

Prior to entering this place, I spent 25 years working in the television production industry, both as a writer and as a producer. I co-own an independent production company—I refer the Committee to my declaration of interests—that has made children’s drama for the BBC, including the hit science fiction series “The Sparticle Mystery”, in which a cut-price British version of the large hadron collider at CERN sends all the adults into a parallel universe, a situation with which I have had some sympathy since arriving as a new Member. I mention that not to burnish my CV in the hope of a writing credit on the next James Bond film, but to make a point about clause 15.

The television industry is full of creative, inventive and hard-working people who wish to make the most of their talents and contribute to making the programmes with which the UK is a world leader and for which it is rightly admired. Unfortunately, the nature of a fast-moving and pressurised industry based on freelancers is that it is left open to abusive practices. Freelancers move between productions, often with no HR departments, with no formal recruitment processes and with a lack of the checks and balances that we all want to see in good workplaces. It is also an industry in which the talent is protected, which has led to a culture of exceptionalism in which appalling behaviour has been allowed to continue for years.

This is not just about sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour. It is also about power, or rather the imbalance of it. When I was in the green room at the start of a production, someone came up to me—I was on my own with him—and put his arm around me. He said, “Make me a cup of coffee, love.” I said, “Make your own, and then start looking for a new job,” because I was the executive producer on the show. Unfortunately, far too many women endure sexually explicit comments, inappropriate touching and offensive jokes as part of their everyday experience at work.

A few years ago, a survey found that 39% of women working in film and television had been subjected to sexual harassment at work; freelancers, members of the LGBTQ+ community and disabled people are also most at risk. Women are too scared to speak out: they fear that if they do, they will simply not work in the industry again. It is hardly surprising that last year two thirds of women aged between 25 and 59 thought about leaving the industry.

I say to the shadow Minister that clauses 15 to 17 will mean that companies have to proactively take all reasonable steps to close the vacuum of responsibility that currently exists between senior and middle management. They will need to ensure that staff have the training to call out challenging behaviour, support colleagues and prevent future abuse rather than focusing solely on damage limitation, as sadly we have seen time and again.

Anneliese Midgley (Labour, Knowsley)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite.

I want to bring this debate into reality—after all, the Bill seeks to affect real people’s lives and make their life at work better—and talk about my personal experience as a young woman. I was working a couple of jobs to get by, one of them as a silver service waitress on a zero-hours contract and minimum wage. The employer hired only young women, and we worked mostly at high-profile sporting events. To be sexually harassed was seen as normal. We were told to expect it, and we were told that we were expected to accept it—it was part of the job. The employer would also over-hire, so too many of us would turn up and many of us would be sent away, because it was decided that our face or figure did not fit the event that day. Those of us who got to the service were groped, propositioned, reprimanded if we talked back, and threatened with the sack. Travelling home from work together, we would feel completely humiliated and degraded, and we would exchange tales of what had happened to us that day. We took solace in the fact that we were not alone.

That behaviour is not something we should accept, but we know it still happens. That is why this part of the Bill is so important. No one should go to work dreading being harassed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester pointed out, the Fawcett Society has said that

“40% of women experience sexual harassment throughout their career.”

The Bill is intended to prevent workers from being subject to that vile behaviour, and it will ensure that people can get on with their jobs without being filled with fear, dread or humiliation, or feeling unsafe and degraded.

Michael Wheeler (Labour, Worsley and Eccles)

I did so this morning, but I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, as it pertains to some what I will say.

First, I want to take us right back to the beginning of the debate, if we can remember that long ago. The shadow Minister referenced the Regulatory Policy Committee’s assessment, in particular on the need for clauses 15 and 16. I strongly welcome what the Bill is doing in this space, in particular on third-party harassment. I do not profess to be an expert in the procedures and mechanisms of the RPC, but if we look broadly at society and at surveys and analysis of the state of work and what workers go through in this country, I think there is ample proper evidence of the need for these clauses.

I draw the Committee’s attention to this year’s “Freedom from Fear” survey released by USDAW, which surveyed retail workers in this country. It is an annual survey and the figures were released as part of Respect for Shopworkers Week in November. It featured responses from 4,000 participants, and the interim results showed that 69% of respondents—69% of a sample of 4,000 retail workers—had been verbally abused while at work, not by colleagues but by customers: a third party. Forty-five per cent had been threatened at work while simply going about their job. That is just one survey of one sample of one sector in our country that demonstrates the need for clauses 15 and 16.

On Opposition amendment 131, I must admit that I was slightly confused, but I was listening closely and I gathered that its thrust was primarily around free speech. We have talked a lot about unintended consequences in this Committee. I suggest that, whether it is intended or unintended, the consequence of the amendment, which would remove two entire sectors from the scope of the Bill, would be far too broad given the protections that are needed. That is particularly the case in the hospitality sector, and we have heard my hon Friends’ experiences of that sector. I question whether the amendment is at all proportionate, considering the overall aims of the Bill, as well as the experiences and evidence that we have heard from my hon. Friends and witnesses.

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that the Government have not undertaken an impact assessment on these measures makes it very difficult to know whether the amendment is proportionate, and that in fact our amendment 135, which states that these provisions should not take effect until after the impact assessment has taken place, is an entirely sensible proposition?

If I may make a second point, Mr Stringer, on the issue of harassment at higher and further education colleges, one can quite imagine a situation where students put forward a point of view—perhaps on gender critical subjects, on which a lecturer or employee has particular strong views and students have other strong views—that could easily result in a charge of harassment by a third party. That is not what should be happening at our higher education establishments. We should encourage free speech. We should encourage students to express themselves forcefully but respectfully, and we should not see that resulting in what I would regard as spurious legal cases.

Michael Wheeler (Labour, Worsley and Eccles)

As I said, I listened closely to the points that Opposition Members made. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, I will allow the Minister to come back on the specifics of impact assessments. The point I am trying to make is that we are all looking at the same Bill and the same information. We might desire more information at this point, but we are exercising our judgment. Regardless of the specifics of any impact assessment, I think it is patently obvious that it is a disproportionate response to the concerns raised by Opposition Members to exclude entire sectors from the protections that we are discussing.

On hospitality, we heard in oral evidence from the trade union Unite—of which I am not a member—that it had surveyed its hospitality workers and found that 56% of them had considered leaving the sector entirely as a result of the sexual harassment they were experiencing. We have heard throughout the debate about the desire to support businesses. We heard from UKHospitality about struggles with retention and how measures in the Bill, outside of this one, will aid with that. I hope we can all agree that, beyond edge cases that might raise concerns, the significant protections for workers that we are discussing would be not only good for those workers, but fundamentally good for business.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

We have had a full and thorough debate, and I thank my hon. Friends—in particular my learned hon. Friends the Members for High Peak and for Gloucester—for making many valuable arguments, and everybody for contributing their personal experiences.

I remind the Committee that clause 15 requires employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. Including “all” emphasises the thorough approach that employers must take; at the same time, the requirement remains limited to steps that are “reasonable”. The concept of “all reasonable steps” has the advantage of being well established and familiar to employers and employment tribunals. That is a really important point, because the clause clarifies and makes things easier and more straightforward, rather than complicated and burdensome, which is the implication of some of the amendments.

I thank the hon. Member for Dundee Central for speaking to new clauses 39 and 40 tabled by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd. I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady for her work on violence against women and on stalking, and indeed to the work of her predecessor on stalking. I reassure the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady that the Government entirely support the importance of ensuring that workers, including women and girls, are protected from workplace violence and harassment. There is already in place a strong and appropriate regulatory regime that provides protection to workers from violence and harassment. If the hon. Gentleman so desires, I will ask the Health and Safety Executive to write to him on that point.

Chris Law (Scottish National Party, Dundee Central)

I thank the Minister. I would appreciate that.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

I will ensure that that happens.

The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire questioned the necessity of this new legislation, so let me explain again. Often, harassment legislation, including the criminal law, allows an individual to take legal action against a perpetrator. However, that does not go far enough in tackling the wider issues and root causes. The burden of holding perpetrators to account and driving change is too great to be shouldered purely by employees who have experienced harassment. This measure therefore sends a clear signal to all employers that they must take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment.

I think the hon. Member is also concerned that the clauses that we are discussing risk being unworkable or burdensome. It is important to remember that they simply require employers to do what is reasonable for their specific circumstances. That means that employers will not be penalised for failing to take unworkable or impractical steps. The clauses will not require employers to foresee the wholly unforeseeable or to police all customers’ private conversations. On one hand, the hon. Member acknowledges that good businesses already accept the need to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment, but on the other, he wants to make exceptions for a large number of businesses.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

I would be very happy to discuss with the Minister and her colleagues in Government the specific points I made about sectors such as higher education and concerns about the no-platforming of perfectly moderate speakers such as Tony Blair. Would she be willing to engage in that dialogue on safeguards in higher education around no-platforming, so that free speech can be protected?

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

Free speech is absolutely a cornerstone of British values, but I remind the hon. Member that harassment is not free speech. They are two different things. The Bill concerns employer liability for workplace harassment, which is a serious issue, not to be underplayed. As with all cases of harassment under the Equality Act 2010, courts and tribunals will continue to be required to balance rights on the facts of a particular case, including the right to freedom of expression. Harassment is a serious matter that involves being subjected to unwanted conduct of various types that, as set out in the Equality Act,

“has the purpose or effect of violating”

the employee’s

“dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”

for the employee. Those who seek to harass people at work will not be tolerated.

The hon. Member raised a number of potential scenarios relating to potentially offensive or upsetting speech. It is important to note that in employment tribunal claims for harassment, if certain conduct has a humiliating or degrading effect on the recipient but that was not its intended purpose, the tribunal must consider whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have had that effect. It is not a purely subjective test based on the view of the recipient. The reasonableness and the facts of the individual situation must be considered. On that note, I ask the Committee to accept the clauses unamended.

Clause 16 - Harassment by third parties

Clause 18 - Protection of disclosures relating to sexual harassment

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

I beg to move amendment 163, in clause 18, page 31, line 24, at end insert—

“(4) In section 14K, in subsection (1), after paragraph (cb) insert—

‘(cc) works or worked as a self-employed contractor;

(cd) works or worked as a sub-postmaster;

(ce) is member of the judiciary, non-executive director or a trustee, including a pension trustee;

(cf) is a trade union representatives;

(cg) has applied for a vacant role as an external applicant and makes a protected disclosure about information obtained during the application process;’”.

This amendment extends protections for whistleblowers to other categories.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Middleton South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 41—Whistleblowers: protected disclosures—

“In Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996, for section 103A, substitute―

‘

An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or one of the reasons) for the dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure.’”

This new clause would slightly extend the circumstances in which an employee is considered as unfairly dismissed after making a protected disclosure.

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Before I make my case, I must make a small correction: the reference to section 14K in the text of amendment 163 should be to section 43K. My apologies for the error.

The Liberal Democrats tabled amendment 163 because although we strongly welcome the Bill’s proposals on whistleblowing, we do not feel that it goes far enough to support all workers: it is not extended to additional workers. We feel that whistleblowing protections should be extended to all those in the workplace who may see wrongdoing and may suffer for raising public interests and concerns. After our long debate about harassment, we must all agree that harassment can often be brought to light only by whistleblowers, so this part of the legislation is incredibly important. As the definition of “worker” in section 43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is already slightly different for whistleblowers than for other areas of employment law, there is a sound public policy reason to extend it even further.

In our diverse and complex labour market, many people who wish to blow the whistle do not necessarily qualify as a worker and are therefore not protected either by the existing legislation or under the Bill. The Secretary of State already has the power to make these changes through secondary legislation, but until the Government act on that, we are pushing for Parliament to extend protections to workers such as contractors.

In the modern economy, the boundaries between a self-employed contractor and a worker have never been more blurred. Many people classified as self-employed workers are inside a company, yet do not enjoy whistleblowing rights. That is true in my constituency of Chippenham, where a large number of people working in the care industry are technically subcontracted to the employer for whom they are working. In a large part of Corsham, many people work for the Government in one form or another, through the military or Ministry of Defence, but they are often either self-employed or subcontracted and therefore not entitled to these protections.

This issue is part of a wider problem with our modern economy, particularly the gig economy. It is welcome that the Government have made fighting the insecurities created by bogus self-employment a core plank of their employment reforms, but adopting this amendment would immediately plug the gap in workplace rights and protections for those who are self-employed.

I want to highlight a few cases. If the sub-postmasters, who were effectively contractors, had been afforded whistleblower rights, they might have been able to raise their concerns about the Horizon IT system much faster, and some of the issues would have been resolved faster.

Non-executives and trustees are subject to duties and liabilities under laws such as the Companies Act 2006 and the Trustee Act 2000, but they are not covered by whistleblower legal protections. Not only is blowing the whistle without protection a risk to someone’s employment, but for trustees of charities it could cause reputational damage, yet the law on that is currently unclear.

I do not need to remind Labour Members that the role of trade unions in the workplace is recognised in the Bill. A whistleblower is likely to go to their trade union representative for advice on whistleblowing, but if I have understood correctly, when representatives raise that concern to the employer on behalf of a colleague, there is currently no protection. The amendment would be an important extension to the clause.

If someone is rejected for a job because they blew the whistle in a previous role, they are unlikely to have a remedy in an employment tribunal against a prospective employer for the loss of that job opportunity. That puts them at a significant disadvantage. It leads to whistleblowers being blacklisted and unable to work in the sector in which they have raised concerns. The law is inconsistent; job applicants must not be discriminated against under equality law, and job applicants in the NHS do have whistleblowing protections.

The amendment would ensure that job applicants receive the whistleblowing protections that they deserve, and that extend whistleblowing rights to people working in various other forms who are not strictly considered to be workers. I ask the Committee to support our amendment.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. As always, I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.

I thank the hon. Member for Chippenham for raising these important issues, which we need to explore. She is coming from a good place. We all know that whistleblowers play an important role in shining a light on wrongdoing. The fear, and often the reality, of retaliation is a barrier to people coming forward with concerns.

Before I turn to the substance of amendment 163, I will recap the existing protections for whistleblowers. Workers have the right not to be subject to detriment on the grounds of making a protected disclosure and not to be dismissed for making a protected disclosure: that would be treated as an automatically unfair reason for dismissal. These are day one rights for workers and employees who have recourse to an employment tribunal. The standard employment law definition of “worker” has been extended in recent years to whistleblowing protections. It includes a range of employment relationships, such as agency workers, individuals undertaking training or work experience, certain self-employed staff in the NHS, police officers and student nurses and midwives.

Amendment 163, as the hon. Lady says, would extend the scope of whistleblowing protections to a huge range of other groups, including the self-employed, contractors, office holders including members of the judiciary, non-executive directors, trustees—including personal trustees—and trade union representatives and job applicants, as well as those who acquire information during a recruitment process.

I can see the hon. Lady’s intentions and what she is trying to achieve. However, there are questions that the amendment does not address, particularly given how our current employment law framework is structured, because a lot of the people it covers are not in an employment relationship or a worker relationship. The remedies are based on detrimental treatment and on dismissal, but a lot of those to whom she seeks to extend protection are people who by definition cannot be dismissed, because they are not employees or workers.

It is quite a job to understand exactly where to take the issue of people who acquire information during a recruitment process, which is the final limb of the amendment, paragraph (cg). That is potentially extremely broad in application. In legislation like this, it would be difficult to pin down exactly who it would apply to. Would it apply to someone casually undertaking a job search on the internet? Where do we draw the line?

On the point about job applicants, I take the point that blowing the whistle can have a huge impact on a person’s career prospects. I have represented many people who have found that to be an issue, and there are already blacklisting laws for certain types of protection. However, the tribunal can award compensation and take into account the difficulty that an individual might have in finding suitable employment at a similar level as a result of having blown the whistle. There is a wider question about how we treat people who blow the whistle, which is not necessarily going to be resolved by the amendment.

I agree that we should protect those who speak up and that we should ensure that our legal framework takes account of modern working relationships. I recognise that, particularly for trade unions, there is a benefit to having these groups within scope, and there are issues here that I think bear further scrutiny. Because of the plethora of unintended consequences and knock-on effects, some of which I have touched on, we cannot accept the amendment as drafted, but I assure the hon. Lady that I intend to meet Protect next month to discuss the issues on which it is campaigning. We are aware of the long-overdue requirement to look at whistleblowing law. The previous Government undertook a small exercise and we need to understand its findings, but we will be taking into account some of the issues that the hon. Lady has raised.

We cannot pretend that such an amendment would not bring very large numbers of additional people into scope, so we would want to work with stakeholders to understand what that would mean for them. It is also possible to imagine people becoming professional whistleblowers by having something that they could rely on in perpetuity; again, we have to balance that against the need to ensure that people are properly protected. I am happy to work with colleagues across the House to ensure that if we introduce any legislation in this area, we get it right and recognise modern relationships. The hon. Lady is also right to refer to worker status: we are keen to look at that in our “Next Steps” document, because we know that a whole range of issues arise.

New clause 41 would lower the bar for an automatic unfair dismissal claim, such that a dismissal would be automatically unfair if made on the grounds that a protected disclosure had been made, whereas the current legal framework requires the disclosure to have been the principal reason. Effectively, the new clause would mean that the question whether a protected disclosure had been made would be the only question that an employment tribunal had to ask.

I know that cases have recently come before the courts in which a seemingly unconnected event has been used as a reason to dismiss an employee, and the employee has felt that it was because they made a protected disclosure. Indeed, I remember grappling with cases in which establishing the causal nexus between the disclosure and the dismissal was sometimes a challenge and in which there are competing facts. However, these are things that tribunals already consider as part of their process.

It would be very difficult to accept the new clause without further consideration of the impact, because the test applies for a whole series of direct tribunal claims for automatic unfair dismissal. If we accepted the principle in this instance, we would have to accept it in all the others. We will need to think carefully about whether we want that. In such cases, which are very facts-sensitive, I think that such a broad definition would create difficulties further down the line.

I urge the hon. Member for Chippenham not to press her amendment and her new clause. I assure her that in due course we will be looking at the whole area of whistleblowing, to see whether there are things we can improve on. We will also be introducing the Hillsborough law to create a legal duty of candour on public servants; that legislation, which we hope to introduce shortly, will be a big paradigm shift in the way we treat whistleblowers, certainly in the public sector, and we will want to see it replicated across the board.

Sarah Gibson (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham)

We are happy not to press either amendment 163 or new clause 41, but I ask the Minister to meet us before Report so that we can introduce some, if not all, of the measures in them, and particularly those in amendment 163. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

Clause 18 will strengthen the protections for whistleblowers by making it explicit that sexual harassment can be the basis for a protected whistleblowing disclosure. It will do so by amending part 4A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, adding sexual harassment to the list of relevant failures about which a worker can blow the whistle.

For context, to qualify for whistleblowing protection, a worker needs to have a reasonable belief that their disclosure tends to show one of the relevant failures and that the disclosure is in the public interest. A worker who blows the whistle by making a protected disclosure has the right not to suffer a detriment or, if they are an employee, not to be unfairly dismissed.

This measure will provide welcome clarity that sexual harassment can form the subject of a qualifying disclosure. This is because, as a result of the measure, a worker will not need to identify an existing legal obligation, criminal offence or breach of health and safety in order to make a qualifying disclosure about sexual harassment.

We anticipate that the measure will have wider benefits, including enabling more workers to use whistleblowing routes to speak up about sexual harassment, and sending a clear signal to employers that workers who make disclosures must be treated fairly. Workers will have legal recourse if their employer subjects them to detriment for speaking up.

This is one of the steps that we are taking to tackle sexual harassment at work. According to data from the Office for National Statistics, more than a quarter of those who have experienced sexual harassment in England and Wales said they had experienced it at their place of work. That must change. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 19 - Right not to be unfairly dismissed: removal of qualifying period, etc

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I will not speak for long on clause 19, because it is a fairly straightforward clause and there are more detailed clauses and amendments that may generate further debate. Clause 19 introduces schedule 2, which will repeal section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, thereby removing the two-year qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal.

An estimated 9 million employees have been working for their employer for less than two years and therefore have very limited protection against unfair dismissal. By removing the qualifying period, the Government will make basic protection against unfair dismissal a day one right for all employees, ensuring a baseline of security and predictability. It is about tackling insecurity. Unless there are automatically unfair grounds, an employer can lawfully sack a worker just by giving them their statutory or contractual notice pay and telling them not to come back to work. There is no entitlement to a fair process, nor even a right to a written statement explaining why they have been sacked.

Think about what you can do with two years in your life, Mr Stringer—well, maybe we should not think too much about it. Someone can make an awful lot of commitments, including financial commitments. They can get married, buy a house, start a family and take out loans of all descriptions, but they have no protection at work and nothing to stop them being arbitrarily dismissed in that two-year period. We think that that is wrong: it creates a great deal of insecurity in the workplace, and it has to change.

Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. We will ensure that businesses can hire with confidence. We will ensure that employers can operate contractual probation periods, which are separate from the new statutory probationary periods. During the statutory probationary periods, employers will have a lighter-touch standard to meet when they need to dismiss an employee who is not suitable for the job.

Our changes will ensure that newly hired workers are not arbitrarily dismissed. We believe that that will help to drive up standards in the workplace. It will ensure that there is greater fairness and greater understanding between employees and businesses. It will drive up standards, quality and security—all things that we believe will improve our economy. We do not intend to bring in these measures in until autumn 2026 at the earliest. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I accept the Minister’s point that clause 19 essentially just introduces schedule 2. Several amendments in my name and in the name of my hon. Friends will explore schedule 2 in detail over the coming days and potentially even weeks.

However, as we discuss clause 19, I think it is important gently to challenge what is actually quite a big leap, from two years down to day one. It is incumbent on the Government to come up with a rationale and a reason for such a considerable change. This is not a taper or a gradual decrease from two years to a year or six months; we can have a debate about what the right number is.

It is clear that the Government wish to move down from two years, but what we heard in our public evidence sessions shows the very real risk that introducing these day one rights for all employees will mean that employers are reticent, are more risk-averse and do not hire as readily, freely or easily as we might want in order to create jobs in our economy. I remind the Minister what Jane Gratton of the British Chambers of Commerce said about her members:

“Members say that there would be a reduced hiring appetite were this legislation to come in, and that they would be less likely to recruit new employees due to the risk and difficulty, particularly under the day one rights”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 8, Q2.]

She went on to argue for a nine-month probationary period—a period to which it would potentially be feasible to reduce this timeframe.

Whenever a new law comes in and makes a significant change, be it to business, regulation or whatever sector, I gently ask the Minister to reflect on the time period. Is it really necessary to make such a giant leap in one go? Even if in years to come the Government get what they want in terms of day one rights, would it not be better to face this now, listen to industry, listen to the evidence that this very Committee heard a couple of weeks ago and be more measured, proportionate and risk-averse as to what these measures might end up doing to the overall jobs market in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? If the Government did that, it would help with some of the stark and staggering business confidence numbers in the economy at the moment. Businesses are worried about where the future lies, and real people out there looking for work are worried that jobs might not be as readily available after the Bill comes into effect.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I declare an interest as a member of a trade union. We have seen a change in the labour market over recent decades. Previously, people used to stay in work for much longer; currently, the average tenure is 4.5 years—there has been a slight increase, because it has been bang on four years for the past five or six years. That means that people nowadays spend half their time in a job without any rights, because of the two-year threshold. The proposals in this legislation are updating the labour market to the realities of today’s jobs. People spending half their time without rights leads to a lack of confidence and security. The way to address business confidence and worker security is by bringing these rights in from day one, as this legislation proposes; sticking with the status quo is what leaves people more insecure.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Middleton South)

Order. I remind hon. Members that they can catch my eye to make significant points in the debate. Interventions should be short and to the point.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

Thank you, Mr. Stringer. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his points. He is right that the labour market has changed significantly in recent decades. In fact, it is constantly evolving and has been since time immemorial, and certainly since the industrial revolution, although I suspect I will be trying the Committee’s patience if we go through all that history—the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield might be keen to do so, but that is perhaps one for the bar some time, rather than the Committee.

If we take it as read that a change to the two-year period is desirable, is it proportionate to make such a giant leap in one go? I would argue that it is not—given the statistics the hon. Gentleman gave about the changes in the labour market in recent years—to go from two years to day one. The evidence I just quoted from the British Chambers of Commerce suggested nine months, and I am open to other suggestions for the exact period—I am not standing here giving an exact number and saying, “This is it,” because that would be as foolish as simply sticking to the day one change.

Let us test the issue with real business and real industry; let us take the evidence we already have and try to come to a more proportionate view that will not cost the labour market and the British economy jobs. I genuinely cannot believe that anybody wants to create an environment that makes businesses more reticent to employ, companies less likely to grow their workforce, and our great industries less likely to grow. Given the evidence we have heard so far, I fear that that is unfortunately going to happen.

Michael Wheeler (Labour, Worsley and Eccles)

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and I will keep my intervention short, Mr Stringer. We are hearing a lot of grandiose threats when it comes to the economy, and I would like to drag us back to the specifics. This measure is not a ban on dismissal; it is not even a protection from dismissal. It is a protection from unfair dismissal, so it is quite narrow. It still allows for dismissal, disciplinary procedures and all of that. Does the shadow Minister have a timeframe in which he thinks it would be acceptable for workers to be unfairly dismissed?

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

The hon. Gentleman is right about the unfair dismissal point. Nobody wants to see anybody unfairly dismissed, but it is impossible to see each measure in the Bill in its own silo or its own column; each is part of the cumulative impact of many measures reverting to day one rights. So, too, is the measure before us, and the Committee has heard direct evidence from representatives of real businesses out there that it could have a damaging effect.

I am not arguing against the principle of what the Government are trying to do here—to protect workers against unfair dismissal. I am trying to test the waters on the operability of the Bill, and on the unintended consequence that it may have in terms of overall numbers in the job market and the rate at which companies out there make new hires, or indeed choose not to. It is a worthwhile exercise for the Committee to really test these things to see how this measure will work out in practice.

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Throughout these proceedings, we have talked a lot about evidence bases and the likely impact of particular measures on business. The clause might be short and to the point—I do take the points made by the shadow Minister that we will come on to more detailed discussions, and it is right to debate the general principles here—but it does have precedents. In terms of the dilemma or decision over whether the qualifying period should be two years, one year or, as in the Bill, day one—but with that important provision for a probationary period—the issue has been road-tested.

The period was set at two years for many years. Then it was reduced to one year in the late 1990s, and economic growth continued. When the qualifying period was raised from one year to two years in 2012, the impact analysis that the then Government produced said that one year was easily sufficient in the overwhelming number of cases. On this aspect of the Bill, the businesses I have spoken to in my constituency and in the general Birmingham area have told me that, in almost all roles, employers are not still talking about whether someone is suitable for the job 12 months in; it is usually apparent within weeks. That circumstance is still covered by the initial period of employment provided for in the Bill.

According to the impact assessment, the estimated saving to business across the entire the economy, after the familiarisation cost period, was relatively small—I believe it was around £2 million to £3 million in 2011 prices, so probably somewhere around double that today. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles used the word “grandiose”. We are really not talking about that, but about a relatively small number of cases that could fall under that initial period of employment provision.

Let me return to an argument that has been made previously in the Committee, but that is relevant here. One undesirable effect of that change in the qualifying period was that because a worker who faced detriment and unfair treatment in the workplace had no recourse to an unfair dismissal claim through the employment tribunal system until they reached their two years, they found themselves relying on equalities arguments instead—a day one right in law as it stands. The effect—another perverse outcome—has been to overload that part of the employment tribunal system.

This change is sensible. It will help with the undesirable effects in the court system as it stands. The Chartered Management Institute, which we heard evidence from, surveyed its members and found that 83% of managers agreed that improvements in family-friendly policies and day one rights, including in respect of unfair dismissal, would positively impact workplace productivity.

In some of the related provisions in the Bill, particularly around the initial period of employment, there is promise that we will see a light-touch regime, and we are all looking to see what the details will be. I know that the Government are due to come back on that.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I promise that I will make a short intervention this time, Mr Stringer. The statistics show that one in 10 workers never spend more than a year in a job, so they are particularly affected by the lack of provision on day one. At any one time, one in five workers are within the first two years of their employment. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are talking about a group of people who need the security of these rights to improve their productivity, but who are currently completely excluded from them?

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

My hon. Friend makes an important and relevant point. The people who are most adversely affected are those who have the least and who are on the lowest incomes in the economy, and the social care sector is a good example of that. In the city of Birmingham, the average turnover rate for care workers is around 30% every year. An enormous number of people are concentrated in particular sectors. One of the difficulties in Committee is that we use overall, aggregate numbers when weighing the impact of policies, but they are felt particularly in certain sectors—that is a common point of agreement among Members on both sides. If we get this change right, the benefits will be felt most keenly in the parts of the economy, and by the people, that need these protections most.

Again, it is worth reflecting on what we heard in the evidence sessions. We heard from Professor Bogg, from the University of Bristol, that

“if you look at the OECD countries, we are the fifth least regulated on dismissal protection out of 38 countries, and we are the third least regulated on hiring on temporary contracts”,

and that the change

“just pushes the UK back into the mainstream of other…OECD countries with employment regulation that works effectively.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 143, Q147.]

There can be a lot of sound and fury about the individual measures that we are debating, but I want to reinforce the point that all the evidence we have had, whether that is written evidence from interested parties, evidence the Committee has heard or historical evidence—maybe not going quite back to the industrial revolution, but at least over the past 30 years of changes in the qualifying period—shows that the effect on the overall economy will be sensible and limited. However, it will be the lowest-income workers, whose living standards, rights and dignity of work we all want to improve, who will benefit most. The clause is extremely welcome, and I commend it to the Committee.

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I do not believe that unfair dismissal should be a day one right. I think this is a fundamental error by the Government. It is interesting that during the previous Labour Governments, under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the qualifying period was one year. There was a reason for that: by reducing it—by making it a day one right—we introduce an aspect of procedural unfairness to all small businesses. Small businesses might decide after a week that they do not want to keep someone in employment. They might not follow the letter of the law, and it might be procedurally unfair because not every t was crossed and not every i was dotted, and that will lead to an unfair dismissal case.

Jonathan Pearce (Labour, High Peak)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

Let me just make this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked what the rationale was behind the day one qualifying period. I think the answer is that it is a demand from the trade unions; it is one of a long list of demands from the trade unions. This Bill is payback for the trade unions’ support for the Labour party. Those demands continue to come in, and we know that because the Bill is not even properly written. It is half-written—

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

No. It is half-written and, with each week that goes by, we have more amendments as more demands come in.

My concern is that small businesses are less likely to employ people, because of these costs. Take a look at the Government’s impact assessment: table A7 says that these day one unfair dismissal rights will cost businesses £372 million. That will fall disproportionately on small businesses. They will be afraid of legal action; they will be wary of the costs. It will make them less likely to take people on—to employ that marginal employee. The cumulative effect of this proposal, taken with the many other proposals in the Bill, is to make our labour market less flexible, which is precisely what the trade unions want. They do not want a flexible labour market. This measure will make our economy more like France’s and will, in the long term, lead to higher unemployment. I think that is a great pity.

We are told that there will be a probationary period, but that it will be set out in regulations. This is another reason to think that the Bill is half-baked: the Government have not decided what should be a reasonable period. I suggest that two years is reasonable; if not, then the one year under Blair and Brown certainly seemed to work. However, the Government will find that introducing more and more day one rights will lead to higher unemployment. We all know that every period of Labour government ends with unemployment higher than when it began, and I suspect that this Bill will help to maintain that record.

Jonathan Pearce (Labour, High Peak)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Protection from unfair dismissal is already a day one right in respect of certain carve-outs from the two-year qualifying period, including for dismissal relating to a protected disclosure—whistleblowing—refusal to allow somebody to undertake jury service, or refusal to allow somebody to take family leave. That protection, and the principle of unfair dismissal, is already in statute as a day one right.

Let us look at other day one rights, which are worth exploring a bit further. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, employees have a whole raft of day one rights, including most of the discrimination acts under the Equality Act and protections for whistleblowing. I want to continue my hon. Friend’s argument in order to try to give employees reassurance, which I think will come with guidance and the statutory probation period.

Certainty on this issue would help many employers. What I found in practice was that there would be a probation period in the contractual relationship, but smaller employers that I advised often did not have a policy; they just had a shortened notice period—often a month, rather than the three months after the probation period. There would be no structure in place. All too often, I found that many of those employers got themselves into difficulty because they believed that they did not have to follow any process whatsoever, due to the two-year qualifying period.

More often than not, those employers were dismissing people for reasons of capability: the employee had not got up to the necessary standard, and there was an issue with their work. In those circumstances, the employer often did not have much of a structure or procedure in place, and would eventually get to the point at which it would, in effect, give up and decide that the employee was never going to get to the standard that it wanted within the probationary period. The employer would dismiss people without any process or meeting—even without speaking to the employee at all—and without taking any evidence.

All too often in the cases that I dealt with, it would come to light that there was a reason for an employee’s lack of capability, which related to an impairment. Many of those impairments were protected under the Equality Act, and those employees had protections against discrimination on the basis of disability. They had a right to reasonable adjustments that the employer had not considered because it did not ask the question, and which had not been implemented. In those circumstances, the employer is exposed to uncapped discrimination claims, which are very serious and very difficult to respond to, because no process has been followed.

It is really important that we seek to reassure small, medium and large employers that having a light-touch, clear structure will mean that no employer falls into that trap again, and that we will save a lot of employers unnecessary litigation.

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in those cases where someone has ended up taking the equalities route because that is the only route available to them, it can be particularly reputationally damaging to the employer? Does he also agree that, because by the nature of those claims—particularly where they relate to disability discrimination—the system requires the claimants to stress an impairment of some kind, that process is also distressing for the claimant in a way that is wholly unnecessary? Making these changes would at least avoid those circumstances for both employer and employee.

Jonathan Pearce (Labour, High Peak)

I absolutely agree. Often, in those circumstances, it is extremely distressing for the employee, who, had the reasonable adjustment been in place to assist them with disability or to enable them to get to the required standard, would still be employed. They have to face the extra hurdle of declaring their particular impairment to the world.

Reputationally, these claims can often be hugely damaging for employers that had never intended to discriminate and would never have discriminated against an employee, but for the lack of process. As I say, there is nothing new in day one rights—protection from unfair dismissal is already, in certain circumstances, a day one right; Equality Act claims are a day one right; whistleblowing is a day one right—but the Bill will help employers not to fall foul of those day one rights that already exist and give a far clearer structure to the employment sphere. With those reassurances and with guidance, there is nothing for employers to fear from this legislation.

Anneliese Midgley (Labour, Knowsley)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. About a year ago, one of my constituents in Knowsley was told that she needed IVF. She went to her employer to let them know that she was going to start treatment, and a few days later she was sacked. She was a few weeks short of having worked two years for her employer. She had previously passed probation and had no previous complaints or warnings on her work. Hon. Members will be happy to know that she did get pregnant and she had that baby a month ago, but while trying to get pregnant and in the early stages of her pregnancy she could not find another steady job. No employer wanted to take her on and being unemployed obviously caused immense stress.

My constituent did not qualify for maternity pay. She has worked hard all her life; she has studied and has a doctorate. She is now with a small baby on a statutory maternity allowance of £184 and is still not in a job. One in nine women are forced out of the labour market every year due to pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The two-year period in which someone can be dismissed was used unfairly against my constituent. The Bill will protect women across the UK, allowing them the right to a secure job and a family. I am sure we can all agree that the current situation for workers is unacceptable.

Alex McIntyre (Labour, Gloucester)

I start by aligning myself with the very good arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak made from his professional experience. I saw many of the same circumstances in my professional career.

There are a couple of points that I want to add. To the extent that there are people who want to bring claims in bad faith, there are already avenues for them to do so. If they wanted to bring a claim against their employer vexatiously they could, as my hon. Friend said, bring a claim under the Equality Act or on the basis of whistleblowing. Part of the concern here is some of the—quite frankly—scaremongering going on about what some of these processes might entail. If the hon. Member for Bridgwater would like to intervene and say exactly which part of the capability process he thinks small businesses will be concerned by, and would be disproportionate for a small business to undertake, I will happily take that intervention.

Most employers—and nearly every MP in this room is a new employer, although there are some returning colleagues—get an idea pretty quickly whether someone is going to be a fit or not. If there are concerns about their performance, there is a very straightforward process that can be followed. It is not particularly onerous. There is often a disproportionate concern about what that process might look like. Part of the issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak said, is that, by not following a simple process, employers end up tying themselves in more knots and potentially discriminating against individuals because they have not followed what could have been a fair process from the start. That is the point that the Bill seeks to address.

The Bill will not prevent individuals from being dismissed for fair reasons, which include capability, performance and redundancy. We are saying that a fair process should be followed. We have already made provision for the fact that there will be a slightly different process, and rightly so, for individuals in their probation period. It is important that we recognise that and do not scaremonger, because that will put businesses off employing, when there is a simple procedure that they can follow.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Middleton South)

I call the Minister to respond to the debate.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

We seem to have lost a few colleagues during the votes; hopefully, they are coming back. It seems a while since they were made, but I will pick up on comments and questions of—[Interruption.]

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Middleton South)

Order. We will come back in 15 minutes.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

Let me sum up the debate. The shadow Minister asked some questions, and there were other contributions to the debate, which I hope to come on to. I think that the shadow Minister’s general position was that he accepted that there should be a reduction in the qualifying period. I am not entirely clear whether that was the case, but certainly his colleague, the hon. Member for Bridgwater, threw out a number of proposals. The question that the shadow Minister asked was, “Why day one?” I will come to that shortly, but I think the other main thrust of his argument was that we are not listening to businesses. Of course we are, and that is why we came up with the concept of a statutory probationary period.

For the information of the Committee, about 140 stakeholders have engaged with us about the Bill since we came into office in July. One of the many issues that have come up is the question of day one rights, and how we balance the risk for employers—giving them the confidence to hire but ensuring that we deliver our policy aim of giving people more certainty and security at work. That is where the statutory probationary period comes in. We believe that that will help businesses focus on their hiring practices, but it should also increase the dialogue between employer and employee in those early days of the employment relationship.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said that an employer can work out pretty quickly whether someone will be suitable for the workplace. At this point, I quote Professor Dominic Regan, an eminent professor of employment law, who used to quip somewhat tongue in cheek that he could decide whether he liked someone within 10 minutes of meeting them on a train. That was his way of arguing that the two-year time limit for unfair dismissal was set far too high. It is certainly a sentiment that I agree with, although we will not be going as far as to introduce a 10-minutes-on-a-train test.

We are seeking to give employees the security of knowing that they will not be arbitrarily dismissed in the early days of their employment, but to give employers the confidence to hire and the opportunity to use a light-touch process to deal with issues of performance and capability. We believe that will be a positive for employees. Research quoted in the impact assessment suggests that having a job is significant to physical health and personal relationships, as a determinant of one’s wellbeing. The quality of that job and how secure it is are clearly a key part of that.

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, and by my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak and for Gloucester, about employees who get dismissed before the qualifying period sometimes looking for a protected characteristic to base a claim on is an interesting one. I do not think that is something that we can model, because we do not know exactly how many claims would have continued anyway, but it is a fair point that when people are dismissed before two years, without any discussion or explanation, they seek answers, and sometimes they might seek those answers by hanging their hat on a statutory peg that may not always fit the case. My hon. Friends all spoke eloquently about how that can be counterproductive not just for the businesses, but for the employees’ general wellbeing.

Business in the Community surveyed 4,000 employees, of whom 66% said that their mental health and wellbeing was affected by their personal job insecurity. In written evidence presented to the Committee, USDAW noted that

“Being dismissed on spurious…grounds, without a fair investigation can have devastating consequences for an employee”

in terms of morale, confidence and living standards. Having worked for employers that had quite a gung-ho approach to employment rights, I welcomed the security of a qualifying period for unfair dismissal. Before that, it really did feel that you were one wrong conversation away from seeing your job go.

Of course, there is significant evidence to suggest that there are advantages for the wider economy. I think there is an acceptance that job insecurity can have a cooling effect on job mobility. The Resolution Foundation noted that the job mobility rate in 2019 was 25% lower than in 2000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, there is an international context to this: the UK is the fifth least regulated of the 38 OECD countries in terms of the dismissal of individual workers. We should look to correct that, and the Bill will go a long way towards doing so.

The shadow Minister asked about the risk to jobs. The impact assessment states:

“There is limited evidence to suggest that protecting employees from unfair dismissal is associated with lower employment rates.”

Evidence from our OECD counterparts across Europe supports that. The Resolution Foundation gave evidence to the effect that the measure is unlikely to have an impact on employment rates. Professor Deakin’s historical context was important. He said that, over the sweep of history in the past 50 years, increased employment protections have not led to increased unemployment. Of course, all Members will be aware of the messages of doom that we heard during the national minimum wage debate about what implementing that measure would mean for employment rates.

History demonstrates that there is nothing to fear in this legislation, and nothing to fear in giving people greater job security from day one. By providing for a statutory probationary period, we are getting the balance right between security at work and giving employers the opportunity to take a chance on new hires. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Written evidence reported to the House