Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) I beg to move, That the
Bill be now read the Third time. I am delighted that we are here
today to take a further step towards introducing important changes
to the right to request flexible working. The changes will help to
set the right conditions for employees and employers to realise the
benefits of flexible working. Throughout the passage of the Bill, I
have spoken of the importance of flexible working in helping to
remove...Request free trial
(Bolton South East)
(Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am delighted that we are here today to take a further step
towards introducing important changes to the right to request
flexible working. The changes will help to set the right
conditions for employees and employers to realise the benefits of
flexible working.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, I have spoken of the
importance of flexible working in helping to remove some of the
invisible restrictions that hold people back in the workplace.
These can include the need to live in high-cost accommodation in
city centres or the need to maintain working arrangements that
are hard to combine with caring responsibilities. Offering
flexibility to balance work and home life can be key to ensuring
participation and progression in the labour market and to opening
up employment and promotion opportunities for everyone,
regardless of their age, gender, disability or location.
The Bill is for the mothers who have to leave their jobs because
those jobs do not support flexible working. The Bill is for those
with chronic long-term conditions, the disabled and the most
vulnerable in our society, who desperately need the flexibility
so that they can continue to work while managing their health
conditions and the toll that it can take on their mental health.
The Bill is for working families—those with young children—who
are working hard and trying to make ends meet in a cost of living
crisis.
Throughout the Bill’s passage, Members from across the House have
been keen to point out the business benefits associated with the
take-up of flexible working arrangements. By removing these
invisible restrictions, flexible working fosters a more diverse
workforce, and evidence shows that this leads to improved
financial returns for businesses. Furthermore, workers who have
more flexibility are more motivated at work and are more likely
to stay with their employer. Of course, there is a strong and
unmet demand for more flexible jobs; research conducted by
behavioural insight teams shows that offering flexible working
can attract up to 30% more applicants for job vacancies.
The successful passage of this Bill would introduce changes to
the existing right to request flexible working. That right was
first introduced in 2003 for employed parents, and carers of
children under the age of six and of disabled children under the
age of 18. The legislation has since been amended several times,
more recently as part of the Children and Families Act 2014; that
was when the right was extended to all employees with 26 weeks of
continuous service.
The right allows employees to request changes to their work
arrangements and requires employers to properly consider those
requests, although—and this is important—they do not have
necessarily to agree to them. I recognise that not all
organisations will be able to accommodate all forms of flexible
working, so this Bill makes some changes to the legislation while
retaining the fundamental approach of balancing the needs of both
parties. It focuses on setting the right conditions so that
employees and employers can have an open-minded conversation
about what flexible working arrangements might be possible in any
given context.
The Bill contains four measures. The first is to introduce a duty
on employers to consult with their employees before rejecting
their flexible working request. Put simply, the measure will
prevent employers from defaulting to “no” without first engaging
with the employee when responding to individual requests.
(Bury North) (Con)
As the hon. Lady has just said, the word “consult” will be in the
legislation; as a fellow lawyer, she will recognise that the
matter will be litigated at great length before the employment
tribunal. Will she go into more detail about what “consult”
specifically means and about the requirements on the employer?
Will it simply be a conversation or a formal meeting? What does
“consult” mean if employers are to act in line with statutory
requirements?
I think that in this context “consultation” means having a proper
discussion with employees.
For many employers, what I have been discussing will already be a
standard practice but the measure is an important step to ensure
that we have consistency across the board. More positively, it
will give both parties the opportunity to explore whether
alternative workable options may be available before the
conversation is closed and a final decision is reached.
The second measure will allow employees to make a second
statutory flexible working request within any 12-month period. We
all appreciate that a lot can happen in a year. Someone could
unexpectedly become a carer or be diagnosed with a long-term
health condition, meaning that their working arrangements are no
long sustainable. The legislative framework needs to be
sufficiently flexible to account for those realities. Amending it
in this way will ensure that the right is more responsive to an
individual’s needs and helps to avoid negative outcomes. The
worst case scenario is when the individual feels that the only
option is to drop out of work.
The third measure will reduce from three months to two months the
statutory time frame in which employers are required to respond
to a request. That is partly about encouraging responsiveness and
partly about bringing the legislation up to date. In the event
that an individual’s circumstances change unexpectedly, they will
be likely to need a quick response so that they can adapt to the
changes as efficiently and effectively as possible. More broadly,
it is a fact that technology, processes and our understanding of
flexible working have all advanced over the last decade and the
legislation should be updated to reflect those changes.
The fourth measure will remove the requirement for employees to
explain what effect the change applied for would have on the
employer and how that effect might be dealt with. It seeks to
make sure that the legislation does not unfairly favour those
with more experience or who can better articulate themselves in
written submissions.
I am pleased that, alongside the Bill, the Government have stayed
true to their commitment to me and made the right to request
flexible working apply from day one of employment. I am therefore
grateful to Government Ministers for the position that they have
taken on the Bill. As a package, these measures will help to
secure more flexible working where it meets the needs of
individuals and business, and will encourage a more constructive
dialogue about different ways of working. The changes will also
speed up the administrative process and, ultimately, provide more
employees with better access to a diverse range of working
arrangements.
I thank the organisations that have been a great support in the
last few months, including those that have written to me and met
me. To name a few, they are: Working Families, the MS Society,
the TUC, Pregnant Then Screwed and Zurich Insurance. I especially
thank the team in the Department for Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy—the Department for Business and Trade, as we
now call it—who have been tremendous in their support throughout
the process. All three Ministers whom I have had the pleasure to
deal with about the Bill have also been very supportive.
This is a policy area in which both the Labour party and the
Conservative party have made commitments. We agree that more can
and should be done to help people and businesses to find work
arrangements that allow them to participate and prosper in the
labour market. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members on both sides
of the House will share my desire to ensure that the Bill
succeeds.
10.52am
(Watford) (Con)
I rise in support of the Bill and I pay tribute to the hon.
Member for Bolton South East () for her incredible work to
ensure that it reached this stage. I also thank the Minister and
his team for their work to ensure that it happened.
I am slightly biased, because I was a Minister for a short period
and worked on the Bill with the hon. Lady. Its importance goes
beyond politics and party lines, so I am pleased that hon.
Members have come together to ensure that it goes through to the
next stage. I hope that, when it reaches the House of Lords, the
Lords realise how important it is to this place and to society.
During the pandemic, and in the lead-up to it, society changed
and flexible working became much more important to us, because
the technology had finally caught up with where society wanted to
be.
The challenge is that we live in a fast-paced, 24/7 world where
it is easy to be switched on all the time. Sadly, some workplaces
expect us to be switched on 24/7, which can be challenging for
families, parents and everyone. It also means, however, that we
can be switched on to work from home, when it is beneficial to be
at home or to be flexible in the hours that we work, and so
fulfil our duties as family members, parents, siblings and carers
while delivering on the job at hand. Flexible working is often
seen through the lens of workers, and that is absolutely right,
but it is important that businesses know that it is also
beneficial to them. Some employers already have lots of flexible
working opportunities, and they do that not only for the right
reasons, but because it is good for them, as it is good for
employees, for productivity and for morale.
I want to raise several points about the Bill. First, it
introduces a requirement for employers to consult with the
employee before rejecting their flexible working request, which
facilitates a more open and constructive dialogue between
employers and employees. That is important, because to have that
conversation in the first place enables action to be taken, but
if the request cannot be achieved, the Bill would ensure there is
an understanding of why, which ultimately may enable a future
request. That is important because it opens employers’ eyes to
the importance of flexible working to the employee.
Secondly, the Bill allows an employee to make two statutory
requests in any 12-month period. That is important, because at
the moment it is just one, and the problem is the stress on the
individual. It is quite a moment when someone needs to go in and
ask for time to be flexible within the workplace. For many, even
asking makes them worry and fear that they will then be judged
and that ask will be seen as negative. The Bill makes a level
playing field by ensuring that both employee and employer are
aware of why the flexible working request is important and what
the benefits are, and ultimately what difference it will make to
the employee.
Thirdly, the Bill reduces the decision period within which an
employer is required to administer the statutory request from
three months to two months, reducing undue delay for the
employee, who is balancing multiple commitments. I have had a
family member have to go into hospital, which all of a sudden
throws everything out. It throws up the challenges of picking up
one’s child from school and the worry about one’s family
member—it picks up so many different issues that can affect
someone within the workplace. It can affect what they are
thinking about and where they can physically be at certain times.
Making that request and knowing that one can get a response
within two months rather than three makes a big difference. That
could perhaps be even shorter, but I appreciate that for many
employers, making a change within two months can be challenging
in and of itself.
Fourthly, this important Bill removes the requirement that the
employee must explain the statutory request, the effect the
change would have on the employer and how that might be dealt
with. That is crucial, because previously the employee had to
explain to the employer how the request for time and flexible
working practice would impact on the business. The challenge for
employees is that they might not know the full context. They
might not be able to make that argument. Someone working as a
cleaner in a business might not know why the request has an
impact on the wider business, but that does not mean the request
is not still crucial or that it will have an impact on their
ability to do their job.
Fifthly, it was pleasing to see in Committee that the amendment
tabled on the entitlement to make flexible working applications
from day one was accepted by the Government. That took a lot of
time and effort to get right, because for some businesses the
concern was that if they are doing it on day one, how can the
person be judged on doing their job when they are not physically
in work, and how can the impact of the request be judged? The
amendment would enable any employee on day one to go in and say,
“I’ve got a need to be flexible, but I can still offer something
positive to the business and make sure that I am delivering.”
This is about productivity and flexible working in the best
possible way, but it is ultimately about ensuring fairness at the
heart of workers’ rights and within businesses.
With the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill that I have been
working on with my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (), the key thing is
workers’ rights, but it is also about fairness. In the workplace,
we often go to work to make a life. We work to live or we live to
work. Many of us in this place often live to work and we all love
what we do 24/7, which is why we do what we do; it is about
community and civic service. However, many people go to work to
get a wage in order to go home and look after their family, and
flexible working is a key part of that. When we are looking at
this Bill, we have to make sure we are delivering on that
part.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. We shall now observe the national one-minute silence to
mark the one-year anniversary of the full-scale Russian invasion
of Ukraine.
11.00am
A one-minute silence was observed.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Slava Ukraini.
Hon. Members
Slava Ukraini.
Slava Ukraini. I pay tribute to all those in Ukraine at the
moment, and to those with family here in the UK and around the
world who are thinking of their loved ones and those who were
lost.
I will finish my speech shortly. I just want to make a few
comments about why this Bill is so important. Flexible working is
not something people request for the sake of it. They often ask
for a reason, be it a family reason or about being able to do
their jobs better. It might be about enabling them to work at
different hours from some of their colleagues but still be
productive. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bolton South
East for bringing this Bill through. It will be transformative
for this country, because it makes us competitive; it makes
businesses competitive; it makes employees feel wanted and makes
sure they are supported; it brings fairness into the workplace;
and it makes sure that workers’ rights are at the heart of what
we do, just as we have seen with many of the Bills that have been
going through, especially the private Members’ Bills. I wholly
support this Bill. I hope the House of Lords will make sure it
passes quickly and can come into force as soon as possible.
11.02am
(Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow that excellent speech from my hon.
Friend the Member for Watford (). I rise today in support of
this Bill because I believe it is right that we, in this place,
should lead the modernisation of working regulations in our
country. That is what the Bill intends to achieve and I welcome
it, so I wish to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for
Bolton South East () on bringing it to the
House.
Of course, as a Conservative, 1 believe that free markets and
competition in the supply of services are vital in order to
ensure the best market prices for consumers. Indeed, our 2019
manifesto committed to
“encourage flexible working and consult on making it the default,
unless employers have good reasons not to.”
Conversely, in a healthy economy, free of monopolies, employers
must compete for employees by offering better salaries and better
terms of employment than their competitors. Indeed, according to
the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, as of May
2022 competition for talent in our country remains fierce, with
up to 45% of employers reporting having vacancies that are “hard
to fill”. The report states that organisations are already
exploring the prospect of offering flexible working to attract
talent. None the less, there is a strong argument to be made in
favour of the provisions in this Bill; its new provisions would
further cement the progress we have achieved in the past two
decades.
It is worth mentioning that since 2014, thanks to Conservative
Governments, all employees have the right to request flexible
working arrangements after a sensible period of 26 weeks of
continuous service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Watford
pointed out, the Bill would add to that by requiring employers to
engage with their employees before rejecting a request.
Another important change is the reduction in the time available
to an employer to respond to a request. I think that these are
reasonable measures. We should not forget that employers need
time to consider and prepare to implement changes, especially to
ensure that staff are available when needed. Likewise, employees
need to be able to plan their life. Reducing from three to two
months the time available to an employer to respond will ensure
that requests are dealt with in an appropriate timeframe.
We must be clear about what the Bill does not seek to do. It
would not compel employers to agree flexible working arrangements
with their employees. That is important, because I think that
mandating such an agreement would be a step too far; it would put
employers in a very difficult position. However, by requiring
employers to engage properly with their employees before
rejecting an application, the Bill seeks to strike the right
balance.
The new regulations could help employers and employees to find
mutually beneficial arrangements. The impact assessment considers
that
“flexible working can result in increased motivation and
productivity from employees…reduced absenteeism, reduced vacancy
costs”.
Those are evidently hypothetical and non-monetised benefits, but
the cost to employers arising from the new regulation would be
low: approximately £2 million annually. That makes the
considerable potential benefits very attractive indeed.
I would like to draw attention to a contribution made on Second
Reading. Unfortunately I was unable to attend the debate, but in
preparation for my speech today, I read Hansard to find out what
colleagues had said. Among the numerous contributions from
colleagues on both sides of the House, I noted an intervention
from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (). He rightly pointed out that
the Bill aims to help the vast majority of people who cannot use
a laptop to work from home, as we can, and to make it easier to
request varying times and adjustments, especially when someone’s
job cannot be done from a desk at home.
If the Bill is passed, it will help those to whom access to
flexible working arrangements will make the greatest difference.
It will even prevent many people from abandoning the workforce
altogether. That is why I will support the Bill today.
11.06am
(Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for
Orpington (), who represents the
constituency where I went to school. I congratulate the hon.
Member for Bolton South East () on introducing the Bill and
on successfully getting it through Committee and back to the
Floor of the House. May I also congratulate the hon. Member for
Preston ( ) on his Co-operatives,
Mutuals and Friendly Societies Bill, which we passed a few
moments ago? On a day on which we are showing solidarity with
Ukraine, it is good that in the best traditions of this House we
are working together to pass legislation that will make a
difference to our constituents across the country.
I do not intend to go into too much detail on the Employment
Relations (Flexible Working) Bill, because I would be repeating
what other hon. Members have already said. It would introduce a
requirement for employers to consult before rejecting a flexible
working request; allow an employee to make a second statutory
request within any 12-month period; reduce the decision period;
and remove the requirement, which is currently a bit of a burden,
for the employee to explain the effect that the change would have
on the employer. Those are all sensible, proportionate changes. I
am conscious of the need not to burden businesses unnecessarily,
and I know that the Minister addressed in Committee the fact that
there will be small administrative costs to business as a result,
but I think that these proportionate changes reflect the reality
of the modern workplace.
A lot of changes have come about as a result of covid. My hon.
Friend the Member for Warrington South (), who is not here today—I am
sure he is in his constituency—was right to note on Second
Reading that a lot of us were able to work well during covid
because we have laptops and we do a job in which we can use them.
Even in this place, which can sometimes be a pretty inflexible
workplace, we showed a great deal of flexibility.
Many of our constituents do not have that flexibility. They have
jobs that require them to be in the office or on the job at a
particular time, but they also have complicated lives—they may be
single parents or have caring responsibilities for their own
parents or elderly relatives—and we really need to make life
better for them. That is what the Bill will achieve, so again I
congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South East.
Mr (Old Bexley and Sidcup)
(Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that amid fierce competition for
labour, employers that can offer flexible working are more likely
to hang on to existing staff and attract new staff?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will address why the day
one right, which was introduced in Committee, is so important. We
all want a dynamic labour market. Although we believe in free
markets, they are not about benefit for the employer; they are
about benefit for both sides. As my hon. Friend the Member for
Orpington said, employees have the right to seek the best price
for their labour, professional development and circumstances that
work for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and
Sidcup (Mr French) is absolutely right: employers need to
recognise that, and those that do will see their businesses grow
and thrive.
The lack of flexible working imposes barriers on everyone, but
especially on women, the disabled, carers and older people. On
that last point, I was contacted last month by a constituent in
Chesterton asking what job opportunities with flexible working
arrangements were available in the area. That person was 82—an
82-year-old inquiring about what we can do to support people like
them back into the workforce in some way. In my view, it would be
beneficial to do anything we can to help people after retirement
age—or those who have just retired but may not be at retirement
age—back into the workforce should they so wish.
I know that my right hon. Friend Chancellor of the Exchequer has
been keen to boost economic activity in that area. A number of
people have dropped out of the workforce since the covid
pandemic. Getting those people back into the workforce—even on a
part-time or flexible basis—would be of great benefit to the
country, because they have stores of knowledge, experience and
wisdom that can be added to the productivity of our businesses
and public sector. That is why the Bill is so important.
I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend for Thirsk and Malton (), for overseeing the Bill
and for engaging with it in Committee in December. If I may, as
it is germane to the Bill, I thank him for meeting me and
businesses from my constituency in a Committee Room on Monday. We
had four exceptional firms from Newcastle-under-Lyme: Incap UK,
Langley Alloys, Mondrem and GivEnergy.
It is worth noting that one of the people who came down to meet
us is the chairman of one of those companies and is in his 70s.
That goes to illustrate the point that I just made about the
importance of retaining the wisdom that is out there among people
who have run businesses in the past. We do not want that wisdom
on the golf course; we would like some of it back in our
boardrooms, informing our businesses about how they can grow,
particularly our manufacturing businesses. We have a great deal
of manufacturing in Newcastle-under-Lyme, as the Minister heard
on Monday.
I pay tribute to the Minister for what he is doing. I worked in
the private sector—as did he, setting up businesses—before coming
to this place, and I think it is important that we have an
understanding of business and of how it can benefit from the
legislation introduced by the hon. Member for Bolton South East.
We also spoke about the planning system, about apprenticeships
and, most of all, about the need for productivity.
We have a productivity puzzle in this country. The question of
why we have not been able to get as much growth as we might is
all wrapped up not just in the way that our public sector
works—indeed, Mondrem is working on making our public sector and
councils more productive in the planning sector—but in how we can
improve private sector productivity. Flexible working is a big
part of that, for exactly the reasons that my hon. Friend the
Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup set out in his intervention.
In the Children and Families Act 2014 the coalition Government
introduced the right for all workers with 26 weeks’ service to
request flexible working, as we discussed earlier. The provision
was reviewed by this Government in September ’21, and 80% of
employees were aware of it in their workplaces. I am sure that
the true figure is higher and that it is available in more
workplaces, because 96% of employers reported that it was, so
there is clearly still work to do on awareness, and the Bill—as
well as the associated coverage in the press—will help with that.
Eighty-three per cent. of flexible-working requests were
granted.
The Bill, as amended, provides for the day one right to make a
request. That is absolutely correct. To refer again to the speech
by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, we want a dynamic
labour market, and employees must be free to move around to seek
better opportunities, professional development or simply a higher
salary. Someone who has a flexible working arrangement that works
for them should not feel tied to that employer because they feel
that they would not be able to get that arrangement on day one
with another employer. Obviously, they could discuss at a job
interview whether such an arrangement might be possible.
We do not want to put people in a position where they feel tied
to an employer that has given them a flexible working arrangement
because they might not be able to port that arrangement over,
from day one, to a new employer. That could put people off,
including women who are bringing up children, people who are
looking after their elderly parents, and all the other cases that
we have mentioned, such as people with disabilities who need
adaptations. That would put people off moving between jobs when
doing so is frequently a way to advance in one’s career, make a
better life for one’s family and get oneself a more fulfilling
job and life. It is a Conservative principle to support both
sides of that negotiation, and we do that not by tying people to
an arrangement—essentially a closed-shop arrangement— but by
giving them the flexibility to duplicate what they have with
their current employer from day one with a new employer.
I am conscious that I have been speaking for a while and that a
number of Members wish to speak, so let me conclude by saying
that this very positive Bill builds on the work of the coalition
Government and private Members’ Bills that did not make it this
far. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South East, and I
thank the Minister for his engagement. I look forward to the Bill
passing its Third Reading shortly.
11.14am
(Bury North) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’
Financial Interests: I am a practising solicitor and a partner in
a firm of solicitors, which may be relevant to some of the
comments I make.
I remember those halcyon days when the hon. Member for Bolton
South East () and I were in Bury
magistrates court together. I tended to be defending the cases,
and she tended to be prosecuting. How time goes by, because that
is well over 10 years ago now. One of the things I have always
known about her is that everything she does, as she has in the
Bill she has put before the House and in the speech she made
today, comes from a desire to change things for the better, and I
congratulate her on that.
The reason I support the Bill—and I think any employer must
accept the deficiencies within the system we have at the
moment—is that, since before coming into this House, I have had
an interest in young people on the autistic spectrum. One of the
great scandals, apart from generally the support and treatment
for young people who have conditions and challenges in their
life, is lack of access to the labour market. Certainly, people
on the autistic spectrum, who have so much to offer, not only
have challenges getting into the labour market, but in many cases
will need flexible working to be able to contribute by
working.
(Dewsbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentioned young people with autism and employment
opportunities. Would he agree with me that, before employment,
there needs to be a significant improvement in educational
standards from primary right through to secondary?
Absolutely; that is clearly correct. We have to recognise that
there are individuals in our country who are being excluded from
the labour market, and ways have to be found to ensure that they
have an equal opportunity.
On that point, does my hon. Friend applaud the Watford inclusive
jobs fair, which took place just this week? Step2Skills,
Hertfordshire County Council, Watford and West Herts chamber of
commerce and many other organisations came together to make that
happen. When I visited, it was amazing that it had had over 500
people apply to join and over 30 business were attending. Does he
think that would be a good way forward for every other
constituency?
Obviously, I applaud everything Watford-based, but my hon. Friend
makes a very serious point—it was also made by the hon. Member
for Bolton South East—which is that in order to make a
difference, we must have such events. We must ensure that
employers and others involved in the local economy, whether in
Watford or elsewhere, take these issues seriously.
(Broadland) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because many
Members are seeking to intervene on this for some reason. I just
want to draw the House’s attention to a veterinary practice in
Rackheath in my constituency, where the building itself has been
constructed to be flexible for people with autism to work there,
both as veterinary practitioners and in the support services.
Does that not go to show how, with foresight, we can make
accessible for people with autism those areas of employment that
were previously inaccessible?
There is not much else I can say about that, other than that it
is very good news.
I must raise this point because I know that my hon. Friend has
visited the institution concerned. May I take this opportunity to
praise the work of John Caudwell, the founder of Phones 4u—the 4u
group is based in Newcastle-under-Lyme—and the Caudwell Children
centre in Newcastle-under-Lyme, which works with children with
autism, and which I know my hon. Friend visited the other day? As
a private sector entrepreneur, John Caudwell understands all too
well the need for employment opportunities for those with autism.
That is exactly the point my hon. Friend is making, and I could
not let this opportunity pass without raising it.
I think I am going to have to say “I agree” a lot in respect of
these interventions.
(Aberconwy) (Con)
My hon. Friend only has himself to blame for this: he has opened
up a rich vein, because this is important. Only this week, I had
the opportunity to sponsor an event in the House with the charity
Hft, which works with people with learning difficulties,
particularly on such simple issues as addressing obstacles to the
workplace. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the work equation
we all make, and that as employers we need to make as well, there
are important things such as dignity and meaning attached to
work, and reducing barriers and improving the flexibility of
working arrangements is key to unlocking that for so many
people?
I agree. As has been said in relation to the importance of
flexible working for family and all sorts of other reasons, it is
important that a statement is made in law. Flexible working is
already in the legislation that has been referred to, but we must
make it very clear that this Parliament supports it if it can
happen.
One of the things that concerns me about flexible working is the
definition. We have already discussed the best form of flexible
working, and there are sectors of the economy and parts of the
workforce that are currently enjoying it, but I want to make this
serious point. During the pandemic, flexible working was a
necessity. My local authority decided to allow the vast majority
of its staff to continue working from home. That may be a good or
a bad thing—who knows?—but that was its decision.
However, there are considerations to be made. I have serious
concerns about the impact of taking a huge sector of the
workforce out of Bury town centre because the money that those
people bring in to the urban centre is very important. I support
flexibility in the sense that the hon. Member for Bolton South
East set out, but it is not an open invitation to local
authorities simply to continue arrangements that were put in
place during the pandemic. What we are looking for is not
flexibility for flexibility’s sake, but a system that allows
proper access to the workforce for people who are being excluded
and gives flexibility to people who have very good reasons to
request it.
We often talk in the generality about a lot of things in this
place, but the vast majority of the workforce in this country
work in small and medium-sized enterprises of nine employees or
fewer, such as in the sector that I worked in all my life. We
must not underestimate the requirements on small businesses.
Politicians can stand up and say words that make them feel good
about themselves, but people still have to pay wages. There has
to be a business there to allow flexible employment. Flexible
employment cannot be imposed upon a business that cannot afford
it. In vast sectors of the economy, it is simply impossible
because people need to be in an office.
In my sector—this is why I mentioned my entry in the Register of
Members’ Financial Interests—the challenges during the pandemic
of being a conveyancing solicitor working from home were
incredible. I would argue strongly that people in my sector need
to be in the office. There needs to be that team environment,
because it increases productivity. I am sure that it would work
very well in other sectors of the economy, but we have to be open
and honest about this. We cannot just impose principles on
business if they cannot afford to pay the bills.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a balance
between the needs of the employer and the perfectly fair needs of
the employees. Does he agree that this Bill seeks to get the
balance right by imposing a duty of consultation, not an absolute
right?
That is the exact reason why I can support it. The administrative
burden that it would place on employers would not concern them.
Essentially, the law is changing very little from the current
position, so I completely agree with that point.
We always talk about big employers with thousands of employees
that can put in place all sorts of work models, but the
self-employed and small businesses cannot take advantage of this.
Too often, we miss those people out of the conversation when we
talk about employment rights and other things that are crucial to
those sectors. To be able to pay the bills in this place, we have
to ensure that small businesses and the self-employed are not
burdened by over-regulation. They must be able to flourish and
support employees.
The other thing that is quite clear from my sector and, I
suspect, most sectors of the economy is that, although we talk
about flexible working, if an employer does not allow a skilled
solicitor to have flexible working, they will get a job elsewhere
in about five seconds. The question here is not simply about
having flexibility for flexibility’s sake; it is about skills and
the sector. With the market we have at the moment—there are the
best part of a million vacancies—employers who do not take
advantage of employees with the correct skillset for their area
of work will lose them, and they cannot be replaced in the modern
employment market. In many ways, the employment market is
addressing this problem internally, but skills are absolutely
essential to this discussion as well.
11.25am
(Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North () for what he has just said,
which I will build on. I will restrict my comments to those
sectors that are unable to offer the level of flexibility that
this Bill might suggest.
Stoke-on-Trent Central has a very large manufacturing base, a
very large logistics base and engineering works, and these are
sectors in which it is quite difficult to provide the flexibility
for homeworking. As is the case across the country, they also
have a challenge with recruitment. I welcome the Bill and the
work that has been done by the hon. Member for Bolton South East
(), because flexibility is not
just about hybrid working and homeworking; it is also about
looking at working patterns. With manufacturing, for instance,
shifts may have been established a long time ago, when the
circumstances for employees were different. In order to attract
new talent to those industries now, sometimes flexibility is
hugely important.
There is a slight concern that we may be creating a two-tier
system, whereby some people can work flexibly and some cannot.
Analysis during the pandemic showed that more than 38% of workers
earning £40,000 or more had hybrid working arrangements during a
week in 2022, and that people in higher income brackets were more
likely than those in other income brackets to work from home
exclusively. Financial managers, directors and programmers were
able to work from home, whereas those in occupations with lower
average earnings, such as gardeners, carpenters and mechanics,
were far less able to do so.
There is also something else to be aware of. I am not saying that
we should be less flexible, but young people need to have the
ability to learn from more experienced workers when they come
into the workplace—the water cooler moment, the sharing of ideas
and the innovation. If we have too many people working from home
for too long, we run the risk that our ability to learn on the
job and to innovate might be somewhat reduced.
My hon. Friend mentions the ability to learn on the job. I
suggest that what we have learned from the pandemic is how to use
technology such as Zoom and Teams meetings. Does that not
compensate for the lack of face-to-face contact?
During the pandemic, we all experienced the fantastic tools that
are Zoom and Teams. We in this place continued to work, with some
of us dressed appropriately all the way down and some of us maybe
only from the waist up—I hear rumours. It showed a more human
face to many people, because we saw babies, dogs and all sorts of
things in the background. It rendered people much more than their
profession, which was good.
For apprentices, however, nothing beats the ability to be next to
somebody who has done the job for a long time and who can show
them and help them. I agree with the point raised by many that
the impact on disabled people, with the flexibilities they
require in the workplace, will be enormously helpful. Only 52.3%
of disabled people are in employment, compared with 82% of the
general population, and this legislation surely will be an
enormous help.
The other benefit of flexibility is that if people have less time
in the workplace, they can spend more time on education. In areas
like mine, the importance of upskilling to get the new high-tech
jobs that we hope to have in the future cannot be overstated. I
fully back the Bill; we need to reflect on some of the issues
that may come up incidentally, but that is not a reason not to be
more flexible.
11.30am
(Buckingham) (Con)
For the second debate running, it is a pleasure to follow my hon.
Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central ().
Over recent years, not just since the pandemic, flexible working
has revolutionised the way people go about their employment,
their business and their day-to-day lives. That is visible in my
constituency on the daily commute: getting on the train at
Haddenham & Thame Parkway on a Monday or a Friday, the car
park is noticeably emptier. When people get to Marylebone and try
to get on the tube, they can get on the platform at the first
time of asking; if they try it from Tuesday to Thursday, they
have to wait four or five tube trains before they can get on one
to get wherever they are going. On the trains, on the underground
and on public transport generally, the sheer volume of people who
have gone on to a more varied working week is clearly visible—the
days of nine-to-five are well and truly gone, and people are
working in much more flexible patterns.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South East () on her Bill. As others have
said, it seeks to provide greater balance by giving everybody—no
matter who they are, no matter how senior or junior they are, and
no matter what their station within their particular business—the
ability to better engage to get a working pattern that is right
for them and for their business and that ensures we have a
buoyant, growing economy. The growth of technology such as Zoom,
Teams and all the other video conferencing software has, to a
great extent, enabled the ability to work remotely that others
have spoken about—to do three days in the office and two days at
home, or whatever it might be.
However, I have considerable sympathy with the view expressed by
my hon. Friends that we cannot just take that technology to be a
replacement for the office. We cannot say that Zoom and Teams
mean that everybody should always be able to work from home and
never go into the office, because that brings many
disadvantages—not least, from my perspective, for people starting
out on their careers and trying to get up the ladder in their
places of business. I would argue that it has always been the
case that graduate entrants, apprentices or people starting off
in whatever business or profession they have chosen do not learn
the most from textbooks, from university or from whatever degree
they have done, or by some process of osmosis; they learn from
the people further up the ladder. They learn from going to the
next rank up and saying, “I’m struggling with this particular bit
of work, I’m struggling to get my head around this.” They learn
by asking for the advice of more senior colleagues.
In encouraging flexible working, although I am a huge fan of it,
we absolutely must not throw the baby out with the bathwater by
going too far. I say that without any technical interest to
declare, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I do have three small children
at home. Without flexible working—particularly for my wife,
because we all accept that being an MP is not particularly
flexible and that we absolutely have to be here at certain
hours—our childcare arrangements would be an absolute nightmare,
and that would certainly be to the detriment of my children.
I will focus most in my comments on the issue of childcare.
Enormous steps forward have been made, not least by Governments
since 2010, in supporting families with childcare—the 30 free
hours that the coalition Government brought in is one example.
However, I know from my own constituency that lots of parents
struggle with childcare and with being able to pursue the careers
that they want. They find that difficult within the confines of
many working practices and set-ups around the country. Everything
we can do to ensure that working parents are able to pursue their
career of choice and fulfil their professional dreams, while not
being punished for having, loving and wanting to bring up
children, is to the good.
When the Minister responds to the debate, I urge him to look
beyond the Bill, which is a strong starting point, and to ensure
that we continue to lock in family-friendly practices, where
necessary through regulation—although I am generally sceptical
about whether we have to regulate for everything to get the best
result—so that we are as family-friendly as possible.
Another point that came up earlier highlights or
double-underlines the need for there to be a balance—a balance
that, as I said a few moments ago, the Bill does support. I am
thinking of the impact that flexible working can have on
localities and geographies: towns, villages and cities where
business plays a big part. Think of the impact on hospitality
during the rail strikes in December, when no one was able to come
into London—on the cafés, pubs and bars, and all the businesses
set up over the years to support workers who buy their cups of
coffee and get their lunches on their way into work and socialise
with colleagues or friends after it. We cannot allow too much
remote working to undermine our towns and cities and the
businesses set up within them.
To conclude, I would like to briefly commend the comments made
earlier, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North
(). We can use flexible working
not just to support those with childcare needs or the other
things I spoke about earlier, but to ensure that there is a clear
path into employment for those who, as my hon. Friend mentioned,
suffer with autism or other disabilities—to break down those
barriers and ensure that there is a place of work, a career and a
professional path for absolutely everybody in our society. That
might mean slightly different hours or some days at home and some
in the office, but we have to be certain that the Government, the
state and this Parliament have made things as accessible and open
as possible for everybody with a particular need, in a way that
the old system—if I may call it that—did not allow. The Bill goes
a very long way towards redressing the balance and opening up
much greater flexibility.
It strikes me that the argument my hon. Friend is making is that
such flexibility must be inherent in our response to the changes
we are seeing in society. There are changes in personal
circumstances, such as the points he made about caring for his
children—I was glad to hear that he would not throw them out with
the bathwater. There are changes in the marketplace and, indeed,
in the travel patterns of consumers—I think of my constituency of
Aberconwy, which has a tourism-based economy that relies heavily
on seasonal working. Is that the thrust of his argument?
As ever, my hon. Friend puts it far more eloquently than I could.
He has hit the nail on the head, certainly on the seasonal aspect
of some businesses and the changing times that we have all seen,
not just through the pandemic but in recent years. If we want to
have the most dynamic, growing, buoyant economy, we have to
ensure that the paths into employment and by which people hold
down employment—seasonal, permanent or whatever it might be—are
allowed for in regulation. It is important that we do not dictate
too firmly to businesses how they must go about their practices,
but we must ensure that they are fair and open with their
employees, so that nobody feels left behind, unable to enter the
workplace or held back in some other way.
Indeed, that principle goes beyond business and into the public
sector. To back up an argument I made a few moments ago, I am a
member of the Transport Committee, which has looked at the Driver
and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Driver and Vehicle Standards
Agency. All right hon. and hon. Members probably grappled with
delays in the issuance of driving licences and heard nightmare
stories from their constituents. One of the causes of those
delays, stemming from the pandemic, was the inability of DVLA
staff to access the weight of documents that people had posted to
Swansea and to process them from home.
This is a multidimensional issue, but my hon. Friend has put his
finger on a real problem that we have to address and to be honest
about. Productivity is the blight of the British economy and, as
my hon. Friend rightly says, we must do everything we can as a
Parliament to ensure that people can access careers. If somebody
on flexible working in the private sector is not working to a
high standard, that business will go bankrupt. What is my hon.
Friend’s view on productivity in the state sector and these
working requirements?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. As we look
at this legislation, it is important that we do not just think
about it through the lens of the private sector, but talk about
public sector jobs as well.
I can only highlight the point I made a few moments ago about the
challenges involved in getting driving licences issued in the
time that our constituents wanted them to be issued. The problem
in that example was an inability to do the job from home. Not
only had the original documents been posted as good old-fashioned
snail mail to Swansea; even when staff in the office scanned
those documents and transferred them to a digital format, so that
other staff could process them and judge whether a driving
licence could be issued, the files were so enormous that they
were not necessarily able to get through to the person working
from home. We have to ensure that productivity is included in
this debate. As others have said, certain jobs simply cannot be
done from home. The technology is not necessarily there for
absolutely everyone to receive hundreds of megabytes and
gigabytes of data in order to do their job, so I very much agree
with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North.
To conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Will my hon. Friend give way?
I give way to my hon. Friend from just down the A41.
As someone who sometimes gets stuck on the motorways and gets
delayed, it is important to note that the Bill is not just about
working from home; it is about time as well. Sometimes, getting
into work an extra half-hour or hour later and then working an
extra hour at the end of the day can make an immense difference,
especially to people who need to take their kids to school or who
have caring needs. It is important to frame the debate so that we
are clear on that. Does my hon. Friend agree?
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is the point that I
was attempting to make earlier about childcare—that it is not
about working from home or working from the office, but about
timings and the ability to drop the kids at school at 9 am and
not be penalised for going into the office at, for instance, 9.30
or 10 am. Similarly, many parents need to pick up their children
from school at 3, 3.15 or 3.30. Employees, whether in the private
or the public sector, need the ability, indeed the right, to
negotiate with their employers something that works for them when
it comes to picking the kids up from school and making sure they
are looked after before and after school. Many schools offer some
wonderful after-school clubs, but it is not possible for everyone
to attend a breakfast club or an after-school club every day, so
those timings are very important.
To actually conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Laughter]—I once
again congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South East on
taking her Bill to its Third Reading with cross-party support,
and I look forward to its gaining Royal Assent very soon.
11.45am
(Aylesbury) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South East () on bringing her Bill to
this stage of the parliamentary process. Having introduced a
private Member’s Bill myself and, thankfully, succeeded in
getting it on to the statute book last year, I know what a
difficult job it is, and that it only works with the co-operation
of many other people.
Like every other Member, I experienced flexible working myself
during the pandemic. As many will attest, it was not without its
challenges and required a degree of getting used to. It is fair
to say some people enjoyed the experience rather more than
others. Perhaps I am showing my age when I say that I struggled a
little more than some of them! From a practical perspective,
however, although many people thought it would be a difficult
scramble to enable the majority of the nation to begin working
from home for the first time, what we actually saw was a much
smoother transition than had been expected. According to a report
published following the pandemic by Buckinghamshire Business
First and Chandler Garvey, a firm of commercial property
consultants in my constituency, more than three-quarters of those
surveyed in Buckinghamshire found the transition to remote
working simple; so it can be done.
The fact is that working practices change over time. The
incredibly late nights and unpaid overtime that I considered
entirely normal when I started my career are today roundly
rejected. Indeed, many people embarking on their careers, often
fresh from university, see the work-life balance and the ability
to work flexibly as a top priority, and in surveys it is
frequently placed above salary expectations. The Bill will help
in that regard. In particular, requiring employers to consult
employees before refusing a flexible working arrangement will
allow greater transparency in the working environment, and will
hopefully result in an outcome that suits both parties. I
emphasise the words “both parties”, because employers’ needs and
businesses’ requirements must of course be properly recognised,
and I think that the Bill achieves the balance that is necessary
for that to happen.
As we know and as has been pointed out today, individual
circumstances can change at any moment, and the Bill provides a
framework to accommodate that. It will doubtless be helpful that
staff will be able to make two flexible working requests in a
12-month period, as opposed to the one that is currently
permitted. It would be rather odd if someone’s circumstances
changed immediately after they had been refused permission and
they were then not even entitled to ask for a reconsideration, so
I think that this measure is entirely reasonable. Employees will
also benefit from the reduction in the deadline for an employer
to make the decision on requests from three months to two.
As the hon. Member for Bolton South East has said during earlier
debates on the Bill, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to
flexible working. On Second Reading, many Members spoke about the
importance of flexible working arrangements in helping to remove
some of the invisible barriers that can hold people back in the
more traditional working environments. They could include living
in high-cost accommodation close to the centre of cities—flexible
working might well enable people to live further away from work
if they come in less often—or suffering in increasingly crowded
commuter trains, an experience that I know my constituents in
Aylesbury would be grateful to avoid. However, I agreed with my
hon. Friend the Member for Bury North () when he emphasised that the
impact of working from home can be broader than the impact on the
individual employer’s business. Aylesbury town centre is
undoubtedly seeing much less footfall and lower spending now that
fewer people are required to go there to work. It is important
for us to consider that in the round as the economy grows and
develops in the years to come.
When flexible arrangements are agreed between employees and
employers, the benefits can work both ways. From a business
perspective it can be an opportunity to retain the skills and
expertise of experienced workers. Hon. Members have already
suggested that there are some people, perhaps in their 70s, who
could perhaps spend a little less time on the golf course and
more in the office, boardroom, or potentially on the production
line. I am not expressing exactly where any particular
arrangement should work in an organisation, and it is important
that there is that flexibility. We know that at the moment there
is a challenge with the over-50s having perhaps left the
workforce, and we must do everything we can to get them back into
the workplace. If I may stray a little from the narrow confines
of the Bill, we may want to look at pension arrangements to
encourage them to do so. Flexible working practices can also lead
to a more diverse and senior leadership team, which again can be
welcome. There are societal benefits in other circumstances, such
as parents spending more time with their children, as my hon.
Friend the Member for Buckingham () highlighted. Having met his
three children I can well understand why he would want to spend
as much time with them as he can.
One point that bears repeating is that made by my hon. Friend the
Member for Watford (), which is that flexible
working does not mean purely working from home. It can mean doing
a week’s hours in four days rather than five, or starting and
ending the working day at times that allow an employee to fulfil
other commitments such as caring for an elderly relative. I
welcome that type of flexibility and look forward to its being
appropriately used, hopefully as a result of the Bill making its
way to the statute book.
It is important to strike the right balance between the rights of
employees and employers. There will always be some businesses and
organisations where it is much more difficult to work flexibly.
Much has been said about parents needing to pick up their
children from school, but for teachers in that school flexible
working will be much tougher, and it will require a good deal
more imagination to enable that when they need to be in front of
their class during the day. Both employers and employees need to
approach this challenge with a flexible mindset so that there can
be benefit to all—a win-win, if you like, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In conclusion, I again congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton
South East, and wish her well as the Bill continues its passage
to the statute book.
11.52am
(Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate from the Opposition
Front Bench. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South
East () for bringing this important
Bill to the House, and for working with Ministers, employers,
trade unions and other organisations to get it to this stage. She
made an excellent speech, and I commend her for her tireless
campaigning for unpaid carers. She knows that the Bill will help
many across the country to balance work with caring for their
loved ones. Recognition must also go to the TUC for its Flex for
All campaign, as well as to other organisations from the
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, to Working
Families and Pregnant then Screwed for their campaigning on this
issue and for holding the Government to account.
I reiterate what has been said at previous legislative stages of
the Bill. The Bill has Labour’s full support, but we still expect
much greater action from the Government to enhance workers’
rights. The data tell the story: there are currently 1.5 million
more women out of and not looking for work than men. The number
of economically inactive working-age women rose by 124,000 last
year, compared with the previous year. Gaps in employment because
of a lack of flexibility can cause a loss of confidence to return
to work, as well as resulting in reduced pension entitlement and
barriers to career progression, not to mention the gender pay
gap.
Labour welcomes the provisions in the Bill, which will begin to
help create the environment for a fairer and more equitable
discussion between employers and employees about flexible
working. The covid-19 pandemic has changed how we work, with both
employers and employees recognising the business and personal
opportunities created by flexible working. The Bill represents an
important step to ensuring that legislation reflects where we are
as a society.
Many Members have spoken on this common-sense Bill, particularly
from the Government Benches, and we heard from the hon. Members
for Watford (), for Orpington (), for Newcastle-under-Lyme
(), for Bury North (), for Stoke-on-Trent Central
(), for Buckingham (), and for Aylesbury (). We also heard interventions
from the hon. Members for Dewsbury (), for Broadland () and for Aberconwy (). Far be it from me to point
out that they are all—as I am—from the 2019 intake, and therefore
are the Conservative MPs with the most recent experience of the
world of work. Perhaps they are getting their bids in early for
when they return to the world of work in a year and a half or two
years.
Improving access to flexible working will help the parents of
young children, single parents, women, carers, older people and
people with disabilities or health conditions. Accessing flexible
work is not equal for all: a TUC poll found that one in three
flexible working requests were turned down. People want to stay
in work and earn a living, but too many are being forced out of
the labour market. At present, one in five economically inactive
people say that the reason they are economically inactive is that
they are responsible for other family members. We know that many
women are disproportionately affected by barriers to accessing
flexible working, which are compounded by poor access to
affordable childcare and to adequate parental leave.
The Bill will contribute to breaking down barriers to the
workplace and will help employers to create stronger, more
diverse workforces. I stress that flexible working is about not
just working from home, but a fundamental change to working
practices to improve the lives of all working people. The ability
to work flexibly is crucial to achieving gender equality in the
workplace and a fairer, growing economy to change our economy and
the world of work for the better.
The Bill is a step in the right direction, but workers still need
greater protections. Flexible working should not be a
nice-to-have or a job perk, but an employment right. We need to
see the Bill as a starting point, not the end point.
Following years of dragging their feet on their pledge to make
flexible working the default, the Conservatives have agreed to
back only these watered-down proposals. They pledged to include
regulations on flexible working in their long-awaited employment
Bill. That Bill was announced in the 2019 Queen’s Speech, and it
was stated that it would
“make flexible working the default”,
but it was seemingly shelved in last year’s Queen’s Speech.
Beyond responding to this private Member’s Bill, the Government
have repeatedly failed to follow through on their promises to
promote flexible working. Labour is proudly committed to
strengthening rights at work. Although the Government are willing
to allow workers the right to request flexible working, Labour’s
new deal for working people will ensure the right to secure
flexible working for all workers, as default from day one, with
employers required to accommodate that as far as is
reasonable.
Will the hon. Lady clarify that point? Is it the case that if,
for good reason, a small or medium-sized employer cannot afford
to accommodate flexible working, because of the nature of their
business, a Labour Government would legislate to say that that is
unlawful and that it had to, no matter the financial consequences
for the business? [Interruption.]
The Minister chunters from a sedentary position. I beg to
disagree: Labour is the friend of small businesses. If the hon.
Gentleman had listened to the end of my sentence before jumping
to his feet, he would have heard me say, “as far as is
reasonable”. There is a better balance to be had, but there is
still a requirement to have a discussion and for it to be as far
as is reasonable for the business.
I am bit confused about the hon. Lady’s response to my hon.
Friend the Member for Bury North (). How, then, does Labour’s
position differ from what the Bill seeks to achieve? It sounds
identical.
This gives day one rights at work, compared with—[Interruption.]
We would like to see a greater ability for employees to secure
flexible working as a right from day one through discussion.
In response to the hon. Member for Bury North, I want to build on
the point that the right to flexible working includes flexible
hours, compressed hours, staggered hours, and flexibility around
childcare and caring responsibilities. There are examples of its
being a win-win-win, such as in Luton when, following cuts to
budgets, the refuse operatives came up with a new working model
that resulted in the same productivity in four days rather than
five. It not only met their needs but supported the needs of the
business and—sadly—met an objective to make savings.
We know that allowing working people to ask for flexible working
is one thing, but ensuring that all workers have the opportunity
to benefit is another.
We are committed to ending one-sided flexibility, so that all
workers have secure employment and regular and predictable
working hours, enabling them to plan their lives around a stable
job. We want to ensure that businesses can truly maximise the
talent of their employees by creating thriving working
environments. Evidence shows that that will greatly increase
recruitment and retention. Research by Working Families found
that only three in 10 UK parents would be likely to apply for a
job that did not list flexible working options in the advert, yet
eight in 10 UK parents would be likely to apply for a job if it
did list flexible working options in the advert.
I am confused as to why the hon. Lady’s position seems to be that
employers would not want to provide more flexible working and
need a labour law to enforce them to do so. That is not my
understanding of business. I know that the Labour party claims to
be the friend of business, but I am not quite sure how we can be
a friend to business and assume that businesses do not have the
interests of their employees at heart.
I take the hon. Lady’s point. However, not all employers operate
as effectively as the ones that she has experience of, because
many people have not had the opportunity to secure the flexible
working they need and have had requests turned down.
Importantly, Labour would ensure that businesses can truly
maximise the talent of their employees by creating thriving
working environments. We would support small and medium-sized
businesses to adapt to flexible working practices and to increase
the uptake of flexible working, which is good for people and good
for businesses. It would boost productivity, employee engagement
and staff retention.
In closing, it is right for me to refer to my personal
experience. In my career, before having the privilege of being
the Member of Parliament for Luton South, I enjoyed the benefits
of flexible working arrangements at first hand, both as an
employee and as a manager of people. As an employee, I flexibly
balanced my working hours both when studying part-time for a
Masters degree as well as when I was a local councillor carrying
out my duties. While working in human resources, I saw how
flexible working—whether it be hours or location—can suit
different people’s lives and commitments, especially women, and
help to retain expertise and talent in the workplace when
people’s circumstances change.
I end my remarks by reiterating that we wholeheartedly welcome
the introduction of this Bill. It is a long-overdue and positive
step that will help hard-working people across the country, and I
am pleased that it has the Government’s support.
12.02pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade
()
I thank the shadow Minister for her very positive comments at the
end of her remarks. I shall pick up one or two of the other
points, if I can, as I go through my remarks.
First, let me thank the hon. Member for Bolton South East () for all her hard work and
engagement in bringing forward this important legislation at this
time. It has been a pleasure to work with her. It is always a
pleasure and an honour to introduce a private Member’s Bill. I
have had that opportunity twice—both were successful—in my career
as a Back Bencher. I know that she will feel a great deal of
pride at today’s events.
The Government have been very pleased to support the Employment
Relations (Flexible Working) Bill through its various stages,
and, of course, that will continue today. It has been heartening
to observe the support for the Bill across the House, and I was
pleased to hear that reflected in this debate.
The ability to vary the time, hours and place of work is an
important element of the flexible labour market in Great Britain.
Having access to flexible working arrangements enables employees
to participate in the labour market in a way that suits their
circumstances. Indeed, it brings people back into the workplace.
Let me illustrate that point. There are more than 8 million
people working part-time in the UK. For many of those people,
such flexibility is a need rather than a choice.
The shadow Minister raised the fact that we want to attract more
women back into the workplace, and I absolutely support that aim.
I reiterate that this is one of six private Members’ Bills that
the Government are supporting and those include some very
important other measures, such as carer’s leave, neonatal leave,
and pregnancy and return to work protections, to make sure that
women feel more comfortable and protected in the workplace.
Crucially, for businesses, this Bill supports a diverse range of
work arrangements, which can be key in retaining people and
keeping them productive. We know that one key challenge for
business is finding and retaining the right people. Crucially,
the Bill provides a right to request, not a right to insist. I,
too, was a little confused about Labour’s position, because the
Bill provides a right to request, which is a right to be granted
flexible working subject to reasonable measures; there are eight
grounds on which a request could be refused. Crucially—I was
pleased that my Conservative colleagues were keen to point this
out—this is not a right to impose flexible working on businesses,
as that would be the wrong thing to do. We know that there are
many burdens on businesses at the moment, not least some of the
challenges associated with the cost of living, and adding further
burdens would be a mistake if they would be an imposition.
The post-implementation review of the Flexible Working
Regulations 2014 found that employers have seen improvements in
staff motivation and employee relations because of flexible
working. That point was made clearly by the hon. Member for
Bolton South East. Reduced absenteeism and lower staff turnover
was also found. Research indicates that flexible working can
unlock opportunities for growth and, indeed, access to the
station platform, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member
for Buckingham (). It suggests that in the
absence of suitable working hours or locations, groups of people
are not employed, have retired early or are working below their
potential. Some 500,000 people of working age have left the
workplace since the start of the pandemic and it is crucial that
we bring them back into the workplace, as was mentioned by the
hon. Member for Bolton South East and by my hon. Friend the
Member for Orpington (). He rightly pointed out that
the costs and burdens of these measures are relatively limited,
at about £2 million. It is always right to look at the cost to
business of these kinds of measures.
These measures are supported by a recent Office for National
Statistics study, which showed flexible working hours to be the
most important factor in determining whether older workers who
have left the workplace since the start of the pandemic will
return to the labour market. Again, that point was made
succinctly by my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury () and for Newcastle-under-Lyme
(), who talked about a lady of 82
returning to the workplace, which was very impressive. Sadly, my
mum passed away when she was 84, but she was proud to work every
single day until then. He also talked about the stores of wisdom
of people who have left the workplace but whom we are trying to
attract back into it, and I could not agree more with that
position.
From running my own business, I know that accommodating a
particular working pattern can often be the difference between
losing and retaining a valued member of staff. The right to
request flexible working is very good enabling legislation. It
acknowledges that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to
working arrangements, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the
Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (). It is designed to help employees and employers find
arrangements that work for both sides, and it is functioning
well. The post-implementation review of the legislation found
that in 83% of workplaces where a request is made the request is
granted, with only 9% of workplaces reporting turning down such a
request. That is why our 2019 manifesto committed to consult on
ways to improve access to flexible working. That consultation was
primarily focused on adjustments to the right to request flexible
working. We published our response to that consultation at the
end of last year and I am pleased that the measures in this Bill
reflect what we set out in our response; most importantly, this
becomes a day one right. I wish to pick up on the comments made
by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (), who did such fine work in
Committee and as my predecessor in this role. That day one right
did not come as a result of the amendment, which was withdrawn in
Committee; we made the commitment, in consultation, that that was
our intention and it was what we confirmed later that week.
These important changes will facilitate better access to all
forms of flexible working, whether it relates to when, where or
how people work. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and the
shadow Minister both mentioned the importance of childcare to
getting people back to work. One note of caution, of course, is
that childcare is very expensive for the taxpayer, around £3.5
billion a year. We would all like to expand childcare provision,
but all hon. Members, certainly on my side of the political
divide, are keen to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent
wisely.
I reassure the Minister that my point was less about needing more
taxpayer subsidy than about ensuring that all employers are aware
of the needs of working parents so that their businesses and
enterprises are able to gain their skillset, for their own good
and that of the wider economy, by allowing them to work flexible
hours.
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I agree entirely. As
an employer, we were very keen to get people back to the
workplace who had gone off on maternity leave, and we would be as
flexible as possible in facilitating that. I think all good
employers do, as indicated by the fact that 83% of employers
agree to requests for flexible working.
The consultation requirements will mean that employers and
employees are encouraged to have a broad conversation about what
flexible working arrangements may be workable. This will avoid
the scenario in which an employer rejects a specific request out
of hand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford explained very
well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North () asked what “consultation”
means, which is a good question. ACAS will update its code of
practice to make sure that employers are clear on the
requirements. The current code of practice requires only a
discussion, which could be over the telephone or face to face,
and the update will explain what it means in practice.
Allowing employees to make two statutory requests in 12 months
will mean that legislation is better able to respond to changing
needs and requirements; reducing the timeframe within which
employers must respond to requests will speed up the whole
process; and removing the requirement for an employee to set out
the impact of their requested change will level the playing field
and remove red tape from the process.
I thank my predecessors, my hon. Friends the Members for Watford,
for Loughborough () and for Sutton and Cheam (). I also thank the civil
servants in my private office who do such a fine job and who have
done so much legislation in recent weeks and months with such
great care and expertise: Matthew Wootton, Tony Mulcahy, Roxana
Bakharia, Jayne McCann, Ana Pollard, Bryan Halka, Dan Spillman
and Cora Sweet.
Supporting this Bill is in line with the Government’s ongoing
commitment to building a strong and flexible labour market that
supports participation and economic growth. Our 2019 Conservative
manifesto committed to encouraging flexible working, and this
Bill is a positive development for individuals and businesses
alike. I wholly support the passage of this Bill as it moves to
the other place, and I commend it to the House.
12.13pm
With the leave of the House, I am truly grateful to all
parliamentary colleagues who have come to the House today and who
were here on Second Reading, and particularly those who agreed to
sit on the Public Bill Committee. I genuinely felt humbled when I
saw them all turn up in Committee, because they did not have to
do so. There was no three-line Whip, so they chose to be there. I
am truly grateful to all of them for attending.
Before I conclude, I would like to tell the House a little story.
I have been a Member since 2010, and every year I used to put my
name forward for the ballot. Last year, when we were sent the
notice, I thought, “I’ve never been successful in the previous 11
years, so why should I even bother?” It just so happened—I do not
know why—that on that particular day I kept coming across my hon.
Friend the Member for Easington (), and every time he saw me,
he asked, “Have you put your name in the ballot box?”, and I said
no. After the third reminder, I went and put my name in, and I
was successful. I suppose that is a lesson for all Back Benchers:
it is possible for them to get their own Bill.
As a Front Bencher, I have been involved in Public Bills, but
this is the first time I have dealt with my own Bill. It was not
only a pleasure but a steep learning curve as I discovered how to
take the Bill through. Of course, it is the first time I have had
the chance to work directly with Ministers and civil servants in
the Department. I thank the Ministers I have been working with:
the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (), for Loughborough (), for Watford () and for Thirsk and Malton
(). I also pay enormous
tribute to the hon. Member for Castle Point (), the lovely Whip, who has
been instrumental in guiding and helping me, so I thank her for
that.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, including the
hon. Member for Watford, who was one of the Ministers, and the
hon. Members for Orpington (), for Newcastle-under-Lyme
(), for Bury North (), for Stoke-on-Trent Central
(), for Buckingham () and for Aylesbury (). I also thank my hon. Friend
the Member for Luton South () for responding on behalf
of the Labour party, and the Minister for signalling the
Government’s support for the Bill.
I am glad that Members on both sides of the House agree with the
Bill. It is an important piece of legislation that will have an
impact on millions of people. I commend it to the House. I am
glad to say that the noble Baroness Taylor has agreed to sponsor
it in the House of Lords. I wish it a speedy journey.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
|
