Legal advice: Birth of a new era

Assessing the possible impact of the Queen's Speech.

By Rebecca Caws of thePublican.com's team of legal experts from London solicitors Joelson Wilson.​

The famous phrase "we are not amused" reminds us of Queen Victoria and of a time when our monarch's role in government was more central than it is today.

The Queen's Speech remains an important event in today's society, but it reflects the areas which do not amuse the Prime Minister and the government, rather than the Queen.

In this year's speech a number of employment-related proposals were put forward, one of which may have an effect upon the way the pub industry hires new staff, another of which may face a mixed reception from the pub industry.

Illegal workers​

Under the proposed Immigration and Asylum Bill, each time employers are found to have hired an illegal worker, they will face a new £2,000 fixed-penalty fine. A tougher new regime of workplace inspections is also proposed to tighten the immigration and asylum system in a way that is "fair, flexible and in the economic interests of the country".

The measures are of particular relevance to industries which are traditionally attractive to illegal workers. Many illegal workers seek work in pubs, nightclubs and hotels because there is rarely a requirement to provide qualifications. The relatively high turn-over of staff in the hospitality sector means that the tests which should be carried out to check that staff are "legal" can sometimes get overlooked.

It is already an offence to hire an illegal worker and can attract fines of up to £5,000, although it is a defence to have carried out the relevant checks before hiring the person. The draft regulations are not available at the time of writing, but the indication is that the current defence may no longer be available and that a fine of £2,000 will be levied regardless of any checks.

The message is that employers will have to be more vigilant than ever before when hiring staff at every level. It will be interesting to see what guidance is given to employers to help them carry out effective checks.

Parental rights​

Flexible working is a concept which has received a lot of publicity in recent years. It is now proposed that maternity pay is extended from six to nine months and that mothers can transfer maternity leave and pay to the fathers of their children.

One of the motivations behind this proposal is to assist new mothers in their return to work. The problem is that many mothers return to work before the end of their leave because they need the income. Those who use the full leave period often face difficulties returning to work because they have been away for up to a year.

By comparison, paternity leave currently stands at up to two weeks. The idea is that if parents are able to share the leave, they may be better off financially and manage a better work-life balance.

But what about the employer? You may recall a comment made by an MEP last year that "no self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age".

Many people were outraged by this statement, but owners of small businesses may have had a twitch of sympathy.

Many employers find the burden of arranging maternity cover too much, but in a flexible industy such as the pub trade, where many employees work on a shift basis, arranging cover may not be such an obstacle. Costs may be more of an issue, particularly for smaller pubs and bars.

The proposed changes would increase the length of time during which a woman must be paid maternity pay. The cost implications are obvious in a situation where a woman chooses to take the maximum maternity leave available to her. But there are also some advantages to the proposals.

If a mother can transfer part of her maternity leave to the father, then she will be able to return to work earlier.

Although the draft regulations are not yet available, it is likely that any maternity pay which the mother transfers to the father will be payable by the father's employer. If this is the case, not only will the parents be sharing the maternity period, but the employers will effectively be sharing the costs.