Latest news with #House of Lords
The Independent
11 hours ago
- Business
- The Independent
Workers may not get ‘day one' protection against unfair dismissal despite government pledge
Proposals to give new workers 'day one' protection against unfair dismissal has suffered a heavy defeat in the House of Lords on Wednesday. The defeat is a new blow for the government as the proposals were a Labour manifesto commitment. The House of Lords backed by 304 votes to 160, majority 144, a Conservative -led measure which would instead reduce the existing qualifying period for the workplace safeguard from two years to six months. It was the latest setback suffered by the Labour frontbench to its Employment Rights Bill in the upper chamber and puts peers on a collision course with the administration, given it was an explicit election pledge. The change will be considered by MPs when the draft law returns to the Commons during so-called 'ping-pong', when legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached. The proposed reforms also give workers other 'day one' rights, such as sick pay, paternity leave and the right to request flexible working. In addition, the Bill would introduce new restrictions on 'fire-and-rehire' processes when employees are let go and then re-employed on new contracts with worse pay or conditions. Business minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch told peers: 'This Government was elected on a manifesto to provide unfair dismissal protections from day one of employment. 'Not two years, not six months, but day one. 'To deliver this commitment we will remove the qualifying period for these rights.' She added: 'These amendments would not deliver on the Government's manifesto commitment to introduce a day one right against unfair dismissal, leaving many newly hired employees without robust employment protections.' However, Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'We are debating a change that will fundamentally alter the balance of risk in hiring, and at a time when unemployment has risen in every month this government has been in power.' He added: 'This clause will do nothing to promote fairness in the workplace. 'It will erode flexibility, it will choke opportunity, and it will harden the barriers that those on the margins already face.' He pointed out the Government's own impact assessment which said that introducing the day one right to claim unfair dismissal 'could damage the employment prospects of people who are trying to re-enter the labour market, especially if they are observed to be riskier to hire', including younger workers with less experience and ex-offenders. Lord Sharpe went on: 'The Government already knows and thinks this so why are they doing this? 'So I don't believe this clause is ready. I don't believe that it's safe, I don't believe that it's wise.' Independent crossbencher Lord Vaux of Harrowden said: 'With this Bill, the Government is knowingly and deliberately damaging the life chances of the most vulnerable, in particular young people trying to get their first step on the employment ladder, and for no apparent tangible benefit. 'I urge them to think again.' The Government was subsequently dealt a further blow as peers backed by 248 votes to 150, majority 98, a change to the legislation, proposed by the Liberal Democrats, which would force ministers to strengthen whistleblower protections.
The Independent
3 days ago
- Business
- The Independent
Why zero-hours contracts could be here to stay in new blow to workers' rights
A proposed crack down on zero-hour contracts in the workplace have suffered a setback today. Flagship plans by the Government to halt zero-hour contracts in the workplace have been scuppered by peers in the House of Lords. The House of Lords backed by 264 to 158, majority 106, a move to change the legal requirement for an employer to offer guaranteed hours to an employee's right to request the arrangement. Peers went on to inflict a further blow on the Labour front bench in supporting by 267 votes to 153, majority 114, a measure to exempt employers from having to make a payment to a worker if a shift was cancelled with at least 48 hours' notice. The defeats came as the Employment Rights Bill, which has already been through the Commons, continued its passage through the upper chamber. The changes made by peers to the draft law paves the way for a parliamentary tussle, known as 'ping-pong', where the legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached. The proposed workers' rights reforms also introduce new restrictions on 'fire-and-rehire' processes when employees are let go and then re-employed on new contracts with worse pay or conditions. In addition, the Bill strengthens trade unions and gives workers certain 'day one' rights, such as sick pay, paternity leave and the right to request flexible working. Proposing his alternative to the proposed zero-hours provision, Liberal Democrat Lord Goddard of Stockport acknowledged the need to tackle the 'exploitative' use of the practice that left workers in 'precarious employment circumstances'. But he added: 'That said, our amendment reflects that shared objective, while offering a more practical and balanced view. 'The amendment changes legislation from an obligation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request them. 'Furthermore, it maintains that when a such request is made, the employer must grant it.' He added: 'Our amendment seeks a fair balance, protecting workers from exploitation while preserving the flexibility which is crucial for many industries to function.' But opposing the move, Labour peer Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill, a former assistant general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, warned: 'I very much fear that it undermines the purpose of the Bill, which is trying to deal with the problem of zero-hours contracts.' She said: 'What the amendment doesn't take account of is the imbalance of power in workplaces and the characteristics of employees who are working on zero-hours contracts.' Arguing those on zero-hours contracts were 'the least empowered workers', Lady Carberry added: 'So the right to request guaranteed hours in those circumstances is not a real right at all. 'And then how many of those workers, vulnerable as they are, might come under pressure not to press for guaranteed hours 'This formulation of the amendment leaves open the path to some of those worst employers to make sure that they don't end up offering guaranteed hours to workers on zero-hours contracts.' However, Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'It makes no sense to require employers to offer guaranteed hours to employees who don't want them. 'The Government appears to misunderstand or simply disregard the autonomy of the individual worker. 'Imposing this administrative burden, especially on small employers, to calculate and offer guaranteed hours where they are neither wanted nor needed, is an unnecessary and unavoidable cost. 'We therefore strongly support the right to request amendment proposed by Lord Goddard which better respects worker choice and employer flexibility.' Responding, business minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch said: 'We believe the duty to make a guaranteed offer should lie with the employer. 'This is the best way to ensure that all qualifying workers benefit from the right guaranteed hours when they want them. 'If a worker on an exploitative zero-hours contract had to request the guaranteed outcome, they may feel less able to assert their right to those guaranteed hours, and they would lose out as a result. 'It's quite right to highlight the imbalance of power in the workforce for these individuals, and this is particularly true when workers take up a new job.' She added: 'A right to request model could create undesirable barriers, making it especially difficult for vulnerable workers on exploitative zero-hours contracts to access their right to those guaranteed hours, especially as many workers are younger and often in their first job. 'As the Bill is currently drafted after receiving an offer from the employer, qualifying workers will be empowered to make a decision based on their individual circumstances. 'If a worker wants to retain their zero-hours contract, as many will, they can do so by rejecting the offer.'
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Bishops call on UK government to take action over settler violence in West Bank
Four senior Church of England bishops have called on the UK government to intensify the use of sanctions and to be willing to suspend its trade agreement with Israel over settler violence in the occupied West Bank. The situation there is 'in freefall with increasing levels of settler violence and intimidation against Palestinians,' the bishops say in a letter to the Guardian. The settlers are acting with impunity, they add. 'Settler violence is state violence by any other name.' The letter is signed by Guli Francis-Dehqani, the bishop of Chelmsford; Rachel Treweek, bishop of Gloucester; Graham Usher, bishop of Norwich; and Christopher Chessun, bishop of Southwark. All four sit in the House of Lords. It highlights the situation in Taybeh, the last remaining Christian-majority village in the West Bank, where there have been 'a series of systematic attacks by settlers on the town's land and holy sites, including St George's, its fifth-century church'. The letter says: 'As well as threatening the town's security and livelihood, these attacks undermine the dignity of its Christian residents and threaten their historical and religious heritage. Residents fear expulsion from their land and homes. This is part of a wider strategy of control and coercion rendering life unviable for Palestinians across the occupied territory.' According to church leaders in Taybeh, settlers have damaged olive trees and prevented Palestinian farmers from accessing their land. Illegal settlement outposts have expanded in the area under military protection, they say. On Friday, a Palestinian-American man was killed allegedly by Israeli settlers while visiting relatives in the West Bank. Sayfollah 'Saif' Musallet, 20, was reportedly beaten by settlers on his family's farm in an area near Ramallah. Another Palestinian man, Razek Hussein al-Shalabi, 23, was fatally shot during the attack and was left to bleed to death, the Palestinian health ministry said. Two weeks earlier, more than 100 settlers rampaged through the village of Kafr Malik, near Ramallah, killing three men and injuring several more people. The Israeli military has been accused by rights groups of standing by or even helping as settlers raid Palestinian villages, where they vandalise property and attack residents. Arrests of settlers are rare. The bishops call on the UK government to take action in the form of sanctions against individuals, illegal settler outposts and organisations that support violence, and by suspending the UK-Israel trade agreement. 'The UK government has a legal and moral duty to ensure Britain is taking all necessary steps to address settler violence, which threatens not just the peace of the region but the continued presence of Christians in this Holy Land,' they say. At the C of E's ruling body, the General Synod, which is meeting in York this weekend, the Rt Rev David Innes, the bishop responsible for Europe, expressed 'disappointment' that there was no debate scheduled on events in Gaza and the West Bank. There was deep concern and horror about what was happening in the West Bank and Gaza, he told representatives, and appealed for time to 'be given to this appalling international situation'. Hosam Naoum, the archbishop of Jerusalem, was due to address the synod on Sunday but was unable to do so due to ill health.
