My Lords, I am disappointed that noble Lords are not staying to hear my words of wisdom. I rise to move Amendment 1 standing in my name and I apologise to the House for not being able to attend the Second Reading of the Bill, but I have specific concerns about its impact in relation to my equalities brief.
It has fallen to me to lead on this group of amendments, which are related to employment and all make the same point relating to the Bill. As we know, it will sunset much of EU retained law by 31 December this year, unless an active decision is taken to retain it.
That is legislation thoughtfully discussed and thought through over decades gone in a few short months from now, regardless of the consequences and the effect on people in this country. We know that there are thousands of pieces of legislation that could fall under the axe, but not even the Government know exactly how many. We do not know what consequences will be wrought when the legislation that the Government do not even know about, or have not considered, is suddenly not there anymore. Where there is no legislation, there is a recipe for a free-for-all—a race to the bottom where lack of protections in standards and for the workforce will delight cowboy companies, which will be able to undercut their competitors, ignore safety standards, ignore everything in pursuit of profit and put competitors who retain ethical standards out of business.
I am intrigued to know who the Government think they are going to please with this legislation. It is not the business world—apart from the least ethical members, of course. It is not small businesses; a CIPD poll found that only 6% of small businesses saw employment legislation as a barrier to growth. A group of business and employment lawyers we met on Monday laid out a stark picture of Britain post 2023. They said that one thing the business world fears is uncertainty. How will it trade if it does not know what the playing field will look like? They described trying to untangle the complex interrelationships of EU and UK law as “trying to untangle knotweed”. Perhaps most frighteningly, decades of case law will be overturned, so we will have none of the secondary clarifications that we have relied on for many years. We will be making it up as we go along—unless the Minister has any news that he might like to inform the House of today.
Before I completely steal the thunder of everybody else in this group, I will move on to the amendment standing in my name. MAPLE exemplifies the EU-derived employment protection law which is under threat. It is an acronym for maternity and parental leave. It is EU-inspired legislation and is one of the thousands of laws poised to go on the bonfire unless specifically excluded.
Let us take what might happen to parental leave legislation as an example. Parental leave is different from maternity or paternity leave. It entitles parents, after they have been in a job for a year, to be absent for a set period to care for a child. Employers can only postpone it in narrow circumstances when the operation of a business would be “unduly disrupted”. As currently drafted, Clause 12 or 13 of the Bill could be used to change parental leave substantially, with minimum parliamentary scrutiny. It could change the wording, for example, from “unduly disrupted” to simply “disrupted” or even “caused inconvenience”. Clause 15 could give employers the power to refuse leave altogether and, since subsection (2) would not require the affirmative procedure, there would not be a thing that MPs, elected to represent constituents who will be affected, could do about it.
A real-life case under the maternity provisions is the example of Lucy. Lucy was employed by an international law firm as an anti-money laundering manager. She continually exceeded expectations in her performance reviews and had been promoted on several
occasions. Lucy took her full entitlement of 52 weeks of maternity leave. Just before she was due to return to work, she was informed that she had been replaced by her maternity cover and was offered an alternative role which she considered to be a demotion. Her employer told her that if she did not accept the new role, they would have no option but to accept her resignation. Lucy was legally entitled to return to her previous role on the same terms and conditions. Her employers’ preference to retain her maternity cover was not enough to refuse to allow her to return to the job after the maternity leave. Lucy was being discriminated against because she was on maternity leave. By asserting her rights under MAPLE, the Employment Rights Act 1996 and unlawful pregnancy and maternity discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010, she was able to secure a substantial compensation package and an agreement that her employer would pay all her legal costs.
What might happen to someone like Lucy if they had been treated like this after the sunset date at the end of this year? We simply do not know. All these suppositions would apply only if the Government decided to modify MAPLE. They could of course just let it fall off the edge with all the other protections that would be lost. This is not what business and employers want, and if the Government think that this Bill will win them any support from the business world, they are very much mistaken. I beg to move.