Justin Madders
MP for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough · Labour · United Kingdom
“Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard asked about, will consider the points raised in this debate and whether any of them can be put into future updates to guidance. As was mentioned, good passenger information is central to standards.”
“As the roads Minister, I of course recognise the importance of bus stops and the important effect they have on the streetscape. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard made clear that she is passionate and informed about the importance of bus journeys to everyone.”
“Where responsibility for highways or individual assets sits elsewhere, close and effective working between the relevant authorities is essential. We expect local plans to join up services, infrastructure and passenger information, rather than treating them as separate issues. That will no doubt be music to the ears of my hon.”
“Our guidance encourages authorities to take a strategic approach to stops and interchanges, including keeping an inventory of infrastructure, identifying priorities for investment and setting locally appropriate standards for facilities and maintenance.”
“She is absolutely right that the quality of a bus stop is about more than accessibility, although of course accessibility is vital. Passengers notice whether a stop is easy to find and use, whether it offers shelter or seating where appropriate, whether it is clean, whether the surroundings feel safe and well maintained and, as we have di…”
“That approach reflects a simple principle: local transport authorities know their areas and are best placed to plan improvements across the whole local bus network. That is why the Department’s vision for buses, within an integrated transport system, puts local transport authorities at the centre of delivery.”
The complete record
Every one of 8,481 lines we hold for Justin Madders, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 37 of 170.
“Friend the Member for Gloucester has answered it: if an employer knows that they will be busy for particular parts of the year, a fixed-term contract is the answer. On the question of business experience, I can claim to have set up my own business when I was 17—I am not saying that it was a FTSE 100-listed effort or anything—and before I was elected I worked in the private sector for 20 years. We do not think that the shadow Minister’s amendment would deliver the policy outcome that we seek. I suspect he recognises that, too, so I invite him to withdraw it.”
“I think she wants us to go faster, so she might need a word with the shadow Minister, who wants us to go a little slower. We are clear that we will take our time before we introduce a lot of the provisions, because we want to get the detail right and we want to engage with businesses. An awful lot of the press coverage is understandably raising anxiety levels, but a lot of it is based on speculation rather than on the law, because the law has not yet been set: the Bill has not been passed, and the regulations and the codes of practice that will follow have not been produced. It is important that we take our time, because we want to work with businesses as we produce information going forward. The hon. Member for Bridgwater made a point about seasonal work that we heard on various occasions during our evidence sessions, but I think my hon.”
“The point of the Bill, however, is that we know that not everyone is a good employer. We need to weed out bad practice, because we believe that all workers deserve the same protections in the economy. The shadow Minister asked whether zero-hours contracts will still be available for those who might not want to work guaranteed hours. He will be aware that the legislation does not compel an individual to accept an offer of guaranteed hours; it has been set up in that way for the individual. There are examples of people—possibly including my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester in his earlier years—whom zero-hours contracts suit better. If that is what he genuinely wants to continue working on, he is entitled to do so. The hon. Member for Chippenham asked about the speed at which we are operating.”
“At the moment, our considered view is that 12 weeks is the right period; we certainly do not believe that 18 months is. [Interruption.] I think the shadow Minister is nodding. We do not think that 18 months is a realistic proposition. I understand the point about seasonal work, but 18 months would take us through half a dozen seasons. He will probably accept that that would not necessarily work. As for why this measure is needed, the shadow Minister said that the Opposition do not presume that all employers set out to exploit their workforce. I make it clear that the Government do not presume that either; we believe that good businesses are good for their workers and good for the wider economy. We heard plenty of witnesses give evidence last week about the good industrial relations that they practise and the benefits for their workers.”
“I am grateful to the shadow Minister for intervening, but there is not a total lack of clarity. We have been clear all along, including when we were in opposition, that the reference period should be 12 weeks. However, we want to continue dialogue with businesses to ensure that we get the right answer to the question of how long the reference period should be for guaranteed hours. As we heard, it is an established period that has been used in the previous Government’s legislation, in the workers’ predictable terms and conditions provisions and under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010. It is an established principle in law that 12 weeks is about right for a reference period. Nevertheless, we will continue to consult and engage with businesses, trade unions and all employers’ organisations about whether it is right.”
“I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 1, page 7, line 7, leave out “(or has most recently been working)”. This amendment is consequential on amendment 10.”
“This amendment is consequential on amendment 10. Amendment 10, in clause 1, page 7, line 20, at end insert— “(2A) Where a qualifying worker works for an employer under more than one worker’s contract, or in accordance with the terms of more than one arrangement, during— (a) the relevant reference period, (b) the offer period, or (c) the response period, the references in subsections (1) and (2) to the worker’s contract or (as the case may be) the arrangement are to the worker’s contract under which, or (as the case may be) the arrangement in accordance with the terms of which, the qualifying worker last worked for the employer before the end of the period in question.”— (Justin Madders.) This amendment clarifies which worker’s contract or arrangement needs to be considered, in multiple contract/arrangement cases, when determining whether there has been a relevant termination of a contract or arrangement such that the duty to make a guaranteed hours offer does not apply or a guaranteed hours offer that has been made is to be treated as withdrawn.”
“Amendment 10 effectively means that once there is a relevant termination in such cases, the provision is not treated as meaning that the duty ceases to apply where the worker goes on to be offered further limited-term contracts from the employer. It is essentially a clarification and an anti-avoidance measure. Given that there are rather a lot of those today, I will not detain the Committee any longer. Amendment 6 agreed to. Amendments made: 7, in clause 1, page 7, line 10, leave out “(or has most recently been working)”. This amendment is consequential on amendment 10. Amendment 8, in clause 1, page 7, line 16, leave out “(or has most recently been working)”. This amendment is consequential on amendment 10. Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 7, line 19, leave out “(or has most recently been working)”.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I apologise in advance to the Committee because amendment 10 is rather technical, as several amendments are this afternoon. The amendment is required to clarify wording and intent. It clarifies which worker’s contract or arrangement needs to be considered, in cases where a worker has worked under multiple contracts or arrangements during a relevant period, when determining whether there has been a relevant termination of a contract or arrangement such that the duty to make a guaranteed hours offer does not apply, or a guaranteed hours offer that has been made is to be treated as withdrawn.”
“(5D) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about— (a) the form and manner in which a notice under subsection (5A) or (5B) must be given; (b) when a notice under subsection (5A) or (5B) is to be treated as having been given.” This amendment requires an employer to give a notice to a qualifying worker where the employer’s duty to make a guaranteed hours offer to the worker does not apply, or an offer already made is treated as having been withdrawn, as a result of proposed section 27BD(2), or regulations made under proposed section 27BD(5), of the Employment Rights Act 1996.”
“(5C) A notice under subsection (5B) must be given by an employer to a qualifying worker— (a) where it is required to be given by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, by no later than the end of the offer period; (b) where it is required to be given by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, by no later than the end of the response period.”
“(5B) Where, by virtue of regulations under subsection (5)— (a) an employer who would otherwise have been subject to the duty imposed by section 27BA(1) in relation to a qualifying worker and a particular reference period is not required to make a guaranteed hours offer to the qualifying worker, or (b) a guaranteed hours offer made by an employer to a qualifying worker is treated as having been withdrawn, the employer must give a notice to the qualifying worker that states which provision of the regulations has produced the effect referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) (as the case may be).”
“I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 1, page 8, line 7, at end insert— “(5A) Where, by virtue of subsection (2), a guaranteed hours offer made by an employer to a qualifying worker is treated as having been withdrawn, the employer must, by no later than the end of the response period, give a notice to the qualifying worker stating this to be the case.”
“That will help to ensure that workers are informed about the new right and can therefore take decisions about their working hours during their reference period based on the information they receive about their possible right to a guaranteed hours offer. Further consequential amendments 15, 23 and 45 have been made to ensure that a worker may enforce their right to be informed about the right to a guaranteed hours offer by taking a complaint to an employment tribunal. A consequential amendment 20 has been made to define the period within which a complaint of this nature may be taken to a tribunal. I think we might get to that later in relation to the general application of extended time limits.”
“Associated consequential amendments 14, 19 and 44 will ensure that workers will be able to take a complaint to an employment tribunal if the worker is not provided with a notice of exemption or a notice of the withdrawal of an offer already made. That will also be the case where a notice has been provided but should not have been, or where a notice has been provided but cites the wrong exemption. Amendment 13 will introduce a new duty on employers that will ensure that workers who would likely qualify for a guaranteed hours offer are aware of certain information about the right to guaranteed hours.”
“Amendment 11 will introduce a duty on employers to inform workers when an exemption applies and the employer is exempt from their obligation to offer a worker a guaranteed hours contract. Any exemptions to the duty to offer guaranteed hours will be defined in regulations. Amendment 11 will also introduce a duty on employers to inform workers where an offer of guaranteed hours already given is to be treated as withdrawn because a relevant termination has taken place. That will ensure that workers are aware of when they are not receiving a guaranteed hours offer because an exemption applies. It will allow workers to check that the exemption is applicable to them, and then enable them to enforce their right to guaranteed hours where an exemption is not applicable.”
“We are trying to ensure that workers who are captured by the zero-hours legislation are aware that they are captured by it and are entitled to certain rights, such as the offer of a guaranteed hours contract. This is about making sure that some of the most vulnerable people in society, who are often exploited by zero-hours contracts, are at least given the information to ensure that their rights are enforced. We will work with businesses and employers, and representatives and trade unions on the precise detail of the information to be provided, but this is about making sure that all parties are aware of their legal obligations. I hope that the shadow Minister understands that this is an important part of the legislation. Amendment 11 agreed to .”
“I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s questions. No doubt during the passage of the Bill we will come back on several occasions to that point about the number of amendments. I just place on record my gratitude to the civil service and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for their work in getting the Bill published to the parliamentary deadline that was politically set. Of course, lots of Bills have amendments as they progress. As is consistent with our wish to engage thoughtfully, we may still have further amendments. As for the shadow Minister’s questions, it is entirely usual to put that sort of detailed information in regulation, and we would not normally specify it in a Bill.”
“As such, the presumption introduced by the amendment would apply only to determine whether there was a relevant termination of a limited-term contract, where a worker is engaged on a series of limited-term contracts doing the same or similar work. The presumption will not prevent an employer from engaging a worker on a series of fixed-term contracts, but it will act as an anti-avoidance measure to ensure that an employer cannot get around its duty to offer guaranteed hours by engaging the worker on a series of limited-term contracts even though they are actually doing the same work.”
“Under proposed new section 27BB(8) of the Employment Rights Act 1996—as referred to in the amendment—it is “reasonable” for an employer to enter into a limited-term contract with a worker if the worker is needed only to perform a specific task and the contract will end when it is performed; if the worker is needed only until some event occurs and the contract will then end; or if the worker is needed only for some other temporary need to be specified in regulations. To be clear, whether it is “reasonable” for the employer to enter into a limited-term contract during the relevant periods affects only whether the right to guaranteed hours applies. If such a contract is not “reasonable”, it is still a lawful contract and may, of course, be an acceptable means of conducting business.”
“That means that the relevant termination provisions would not apply and the employer would not be excepted from its duty to offer guaranteed hours. An employer would have to offer guaranteed hours to the worker, even if that worker’s last contract was terminated at the end of the relevant period, unless it was reasonable for the employer to have entered into a limited-term contract with the worker and the presumption is rebutted, which could then lead to a relevant termination.”
“The presumption will apply when determining whether there has been a relevant termination for the purposes of that section such that the duty to make a guaranteed hours offer does not apply or a guaranteed hours offer that has been made is to be treated as withdrawn. The amendment will close a potential loophole that could mean that workers might not be entitled to a guaranteed hours offer if they are employed on a series of limited-term contracts to undertake the same or similar work. It will do that by adding a rebuttal presumption, that it will not be considered reasonable to have entered into a limited-term contract where a worker undertook work that was the same or similar in more than one contract during the relevant period.”
“I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 1, page 8, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert— “(6) For the purposes of subsection (3)(c) (and subsection (4)(b), which applies subsection (3)(c))— (a) subsection (8) of section 27BB (when it is reasonable for a worker’s contract to be entered into as a limited-term contract) applies as it applies for the purposes of that section; (b) it is to be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that it was not reasonable for the worker’s contract to have been entered into as a limited-term contract if the work done by the qualifying worker under the worker’s contract was of the same or a similar nature as the work done under another worker’s contract under which the qualifying worker worked for the employer— (i) where the period in question is the relevant reference period, during that period; (ii) where the period in question is the offer period, during that period or the relevant reference period; (iii) where the period in question is the response period, during that period, the relevant reference period or the offer period.” This amendment adds a rebuttable presumption to the existing provision made by proposed section 27BD(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.”
“Amendment 15, in clause 1, page 11, line 11, at end insert— “(4B) A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that the worker’s employer has failed to comply with— (a) the duty imposed by section 27BEA(1); (b) the duty imposed by section 27BEA(2).”— (Justin Madders.) This amendment is consequential on amendment 13.”
“This amendment imposes a duty on employers to ensure workers who have the potential to qualify for a guaranteed hours offer are aware of, and continue to have access to, certain information (to be specified in regulations). Amendment 14, in clause 1, page 11, line 11, at end insert— “(4A) A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that the worker’s employer— (a) has failed to give to the worker a notice under section 27BD(5A) or (5B); (b) has given to the worker a notice under section 27BD(5A) or (5B)(b) in circumstances in which the employer should not have done so; (c) has given to the worker a notice in purported compliance with section 27BD(5B) that does not refer to any provision of the regulations or refers to the wrong provision.” This amendment is consequential on amendment 11.”
“(3) “The initial information period”, in relation to a worker and the worker’s employer, means the period of two weeks beginning with— (a) where the worker is employed by the employer on the day on which section 27BA(1) comes into force (“the commencement day”), the commencement day, or (b) where the worker is not so employed, the first day after the commencement day on which the worker is employed by the employer. (4) But where, on the day referred to in subsection (3)(a) or (b), it was not reasonable to consider that the worker might become a qualifying worker of the employer in relation to any reference period, subsection (3) is to be read as if it provided for the “initial information period” to mean the period of two weeks beginning with the day on which it becomes reasonable so to consider. Enforcement” .”
“(2) An employer who is subject to the duty in subsection (1) in relation to a worker must take reasonable steps to ensure that, after the end of the initial information period, the worker continues to have access to the specified information referred to in that subsection at all times when— (a) the worker is employed by the employer, and (b) it is reasonable to consider that the worker might become (or might again become) a qualifying worker of the employer in relation to a reference period.”
“We want them to be practical; we want them to be effective; we want people to be able to understand what their rights and obligations are. On that note, I commend the amendment to the Committee. Amendment 12 agreed to. Amendments made: 13, in clause 1, page 10, line 11, at end insert— “Information 27BEA Information about rights conferred by Chapter 2 (1) An employer who employs a worker who it is reasonable to consider might become a qualifying worker of the employer in relation to a reference period (whether the initial reference period, or a subsequent reference period, as defined in section 27BA) must take reasonable steps, within the initial information period, to ensure that the worker is aware of specified information relating to the rights conferred on workers by this Chapter.”
“Member for Bridgwater, “gobbledegook”, but I can assure him that ACAS documents and Government guidance on employment rights are not gobbledegook; they are easily accessible. We are committed to making sure that when the Bill is passed, the legislation is easily accessible, because it will not work otherwise. That is clearly part of our aim. It is pretty clear what section 27BB(8) actually means in terms of when it will be reasonable not to offer guaranteed hours, but I appreciate that that is very easy for us sat in this room to say, having indulged in the niceties of the legislation. It is not what will end up on businesses’ doorsteps. We will not give them a copy of the Bill through the post and say, “Knock yourselves out.” They will get proper support and guidance because that is how we want our employment relations to work.”
“We have had a good debate on this amendment. It is fair to say that my reaction when I first saw the amendment was similar—that it is quite wordy. However, that is the way our legislation is crafted in this country, and it is not unusual. We will make sure that when we drill down into the practical applicability of the Bill, we produce regulations. There will be guidance on gov.uk. ACAS will get involved. The amendment is intended to deal with a particular situation. I do not believe most employers will behave in that way, but we know that some might, and that some will deliberately avoid their obligations to give a right to a guaranteed-hours contract. It may be, in the words of the hon.”
“I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 1, page 11, line 18, leave out “three” and insert “six”. This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 27BF(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from three months to six months.”
“This set of amendments simply seeks to implement that recommendation.”
“Amendment 83 will increase the time limit for taking a claim that relates to whether a worker, or a former worker, believes they have been subject to a detriment by an employer on grounds of industrial action. Finally, Government amendment 21 is a small technical amendment, which will correct an incorrect section reference. The words “this section” currently refer to section 27BG, which relates to time limits for bringing a complaint, but they should—as I am sure everyone noticed—refer to section 27BF, the correct section under which a complaint may be brought to an employment tribunal. On a more general note, Members may be aware that a number of years ago, the Law Commission recommended that the time limit for bringing employment tribunal claims should be increased from three months to six months.”
“Government amendments 16 to 18, 22, 28, 29, 33 to 36 and 83 ensure that the change is reflected for cases relating to rights that will be introduced by the Bill. Amendments 16 to 18 and 22 will increase the time limit for taking a claim to an employment tribunal that relates to the right to guaranteed hours from three months to six months. Amendments 28 and 29 will increase the time limit for taking a claim that relates to the right to reasonable notice of shifts from three months to six months. Amendments 33 to 36 will increase the time limit for taking a claim that relates to the right to payment for a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift from three months to six months.”
“This group of amendments is not quite as daunting as it sounds, because they all deal with the same point, which is the extension of time limits for making claims. New schedule 2 amends time limits for making claims in employment tribunals from three months to six months. In recent years, as we know, demand has increased sharply. Increasing the time limit from three to six months will help to reduce pressure on the employment tribunal system, allowing parties to try to resolve their differences before resorting to formal litigation. The amendments apply to time limits for the majority of employment tribunal claims, including claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Equality Act 2010. If Members are interested, the full list of claims is set out in the new schedule.”
“The possibility for that agency to enforce holiday pay claims and wages claims, for example, could take a significant burden off the tribunal. Let me return to the original point of the amendments. They are about removing anomalies and giving people more time to resolve their differences. It has been an anomaly in the law for many years that equal pay claims and redundancy pay claims can be brought up to six months after the termination of employment, but most other claims cannot. Indeed, there are some claims that, depending on where they are progressed, can take even longer, such as certain types of employment-related claims that go through county court. This is about ensuring consistency.”
“Because the time limits are so pressured, though, if he did go away and take legal advice, he will probably have been told that the only realistic avenue for him was to put a claim in as soon as possible. There will be real benefits to the amendments, not just for making sure that people are able to enforce their rights, but in giving people more opportunity and time to resolve their differences before proceeding to litigation. For that reason, the impact assessment has not really been able to pin down a particular figure for the impact of these measures. It is probably fair to say that there are a number of other measures in the Bill that may impact tribunal claims, not least the introduction of the fair work agency.”
“He was not a member of a trade union and had taken no legal advice on his situation. Clearly, I am not in a position to give him legal advice, because I am not insured to do so, but I pointed out to him that he might want to think about talking to someone about his rights with respect to unfair dismissal. The point I am trying to make is that I was having that conversation two months after he was dismissed, which does not give him—or, indeed, the employer—much time to try to resolve things. It would be preferable for that individual to have the opportunity to have a dialogue with his employer, possibly get a process done correctly, and be reinstated.”
“A number of examples have been given for why some people will not be able to enforce their rights, because of the strict time limits. Equally, there is evidence that enabling a longer period between a claim being discovered and a tribunal deadline being set means that there is more opportunity for parties to try to resolve their differences. On maternity leave in particular, I recall many occasions when a woman has returned to work and tried to crack on with things but been discriminated against all the time, yet because of the understandable pressures and her eagerness to try to get on, she has not acted as quickly as she should have done. I will give a recent practical example of a constituent who came into my surgery. He had been involved in a road traffic accident while he was working, and he had been dismissed for that.”
“We have had a pretty wide-ranging debate. Generally, there has been support for the amendments. I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ support and hope they carry on in the same spirit for the rest of the Bill—we will see about that. On the principle of what we are trying to achieve, let me take the Committee back to a time before the advent of the employment lawyer, when we had a thing called industrial tribunals. Industrial tribunals were about having a speedy and informal way to resolve industrial disputes where there was an individual issue. As time has passed, employment law has grown and industrial tribunals have become employment tribunals, and the original time limits have not been able to keep pace with the range of developments.”
“He is shaking his head—that is good. I certainly do not envisage that to be the case, but we recognise there is a backlog in the employment tribunals. Like many public services, they are under pressure, and there is a plan to recruit more judges in the new year.”
“Amendment 22, in clause 1, page 11, line 31, leave out “three” and insert “six”. This amendment is consequential on amendments 16, 17 and 18. Amendment 23, in clause 1, page 11, line 36, leave out “(3)” and insert “(3D)”.— (Justin Madders.) This amendment is consequential on amendment 20. Question proposed , That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.”
“Amendment 20, in clause 1, page 11, line 28, at end insert— “(3C) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under section 27BF(4B)(a)unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the last day of the initial information period (see section 27BEA(3) and (4)). (3D) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under section 27BF(4B)(b) unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which the worker first becomes aware of the failure to which the complaint relates.” This amendment is consequential on amendment 15. Amendment 21, in clause 1, page 11, line 30, leave out “this section” and insert “section 27BF”. This amendment corrects an incorrect section reference.”
“Amendment 19, in clause 1, page 11, line 28, at end insert— “(3A) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under section 27BF(4A)(a) relating to a notice unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on or before which the notice should have been given (see section 27BD(5A) and (5C)). (3B) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under section 27BF(4A)(b) or (c) relating to a notice unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on which the notice is given.” This amendment is consequential on amendment 14.”
“This is the right thing to do, it is consistent with the Law Commission’s recommendations, and we think it will improve access to justice. Amendment 16 agreed to. Amendments made: 17, in clause 1, page 11, line 22, leave out “three” and insert “six”. This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 27BF(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from three months to six months. Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 11, line 26, leave out “three” and insert “six”. This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 27BF(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from three months to six months.”
“There are a whole range of Government performance indicators where trends were already going in the wrong direction before covid hit, and that is just another of them. We recognise that there is more to be done to deal with the backlog, which is why we intend to recruit more judges in the new year. We hope that the Bill will not increase demand on the tribunal service, and that the extra time we are giving and the other powers we are giving the fair work agency will encourage people to resolve their disputes without going to litigation. We understand that it is a tremendous expense to go to employment tribunal, and of course, by that point, the employment relationship is already fractured beyond repair.”
“It provides for regulations to set the form and manner in which the worker must respond to the employer’s offer, and when the response is taken as having been given.”
“The amendment has added a rebuttable presumption, which presumes that it is unreasonable for an employer to engage a worker on a series of limited-term contracts to undertake the same work, and that would therefore not be a relevant termination excepting the employer from their duty to offer guaranteed hours. If the employer fails to rebut that presumption, no exception will apply and the employer will still be required to offer guaranteed hours. New section 27BE sets out how the worker accepts or rejects an offer, and when the new contract or varied terms and conditions are deemed to take effect. It provides that a worker who does not respond to an offer will be treated as having rejected it, because we would not wish workers to be moved on to guaranteed hours if they had not specifically agreed to them.”
“That will ensure that workers are aware of which exemption applies, and that their employer has not merely failed to offer guaranteed hours. Any exemptions will of course be defined in regulations. Similarly, a further amendment requires that a notice is given where a guaranteed hours offer is treated as having been withdrawn as a result of a relevant termination. We have made further amendments to the new section, designed to close a potential loophole. As previously drafted, the provisions could have meant that in situations where an employer employs a worker on a series of short-term contracts and the last contract of the period terminates with a limiting event, that could have been treated as a relevant termination. As a result, an employer might not have been required to offer the worker guaranteed hours.”
“A qualifying reason is a reason that, when an employer is dismissing an employer, can be a fair reason for dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. New section 27BD also allows regulations to be made to specify circumstances in which the duty to offer guaranteed offers does not apply, and it is that section that sets out offer and response periods. The response period, during which a worker must respond to an offer, will begin on the day after an offer is made and its duration will be set out in regulations. We have made amendments to new section 27BD that will require employers to inform a worker when circumstances exist that exempt them from their duty to offer guaranteed hours, and similarly where a guaranteed hours offer is treated as having been withdrawn as a result of an exemption applying.”