Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. The draft regulations are narrow, necessary and strictly consequential. When Parliament passed the Employment Rights Act 2025, it took the clear policy decision to bring the criminal enforcement functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority into the new Fair Work Agency. Those functions include the ability for the GLAA, as provided for in schedule 4 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, to obtain authorisations to acquire communications data in the most serious cases of labour exploitation.
The sole purpose of this instrument is to ensure that this capability continues seamlessly when the Fair Work Agency becomes operational in April. It updates the statutory reference that currently names the GLAA, so that the same powers are available to the new agency when carrying out serious exploitation investigations that were previously undertaken by the GLAA.
Let me be clear about what the draft regulations do not do: they do not create new investigatory powers; they do not widen the scope of existing powers under the 2016 Act; and they do not lower statutory thresholds, alter authorisation routes or touch surveillance, entry or financial investigation powers. All those sit in primary legislation and remain entirely intact. This statutory instrument simply avoids an unintended enforcement gap following the transition.
Members of the Committee may also have noticed that an earlier version of this instrument was withdrawn. This was done to correct a technical drafting point where the original text duplicated a removal of the GLAA from schedule 4 that already occurs automatically under the primary Act. The corrected instrument before the Committee today makes no change to substance or policy.
Turning briefly to safeguards, communications data is not the content of calls, texts or emails—it is the who, when and where, not the what. In practice, this means information such as subscriber details, phone numbers, call durations, IP addresses, email logs and location data from mobile devices, but never the content itself. It can only be acquired by the Fair Work Agency for serious criminal investigations—that is, for offences that carry at least a 12-month custodial sentence, and only when necessary and proportionate.
In practice, the GLAA has used these powers sparingly, and only in some of the most complex and organised exploitation cases, often where victims are too frightened or unable to come forward. Those safeguards carry over in full to the Fair Work Agency. Every application will continue to go through single point of contact gatekeeping, and routine cases will continue to require authorisation by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, which will continue to inspect and oversee use of these powers, exactly as now.
It is worth underlining that the value of these powers lies not in their frequency of use but in their precision. Communications data is a targeted tool that helps investigators build a clearer picture of organised exploitation, where victims may be isolated, threatened or unable to speak freely. It allows enforcement bodies to corroborate other intelligence and identify links between offenders and locations. Used properly, and under strict oversight, it is a vital element of the wider framework that Parliament has already put in place to confront the most serious forms of labour abuse.
To illustrate the value of these powers in practice, I can point to a recent case in which communications data played a vital role. Forty one vulnerable workers were brought to the UK with promises of decent work and accommodation, only to be exploited by an organised group. Their wages were taken, false identities were created and they were housed in unsafe and overcrowded conditions. Managers within the employing business even assisted the exploitation by diverting wages and acting as unlicensed gangmasters. Access to communications data enabled investigators to uncover the links between the organisers and those inside the firm, revealing patterns of wage diversion, false accounts, excessive deductions and, crucially, further victims. Faced with that clear evidence, the offenders pleaded guilty and received custodial sentences.
On transparency, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner will continue to report annually on the use of the powers, providing Parliament with a clear overview of how they are exercised. Additionally, the Fair Work Agency will report on its use of the powers in its annual report. As we bring three enforcement bodies together, the aim is a clearer system for workers and a simpler one for responsible employers.
Those who exploit workers, particularly through coercive, abusive or criminal practices, must not be given the opportunity to exploit gaps during transition. Ensuring the continuity of capability from day one of the Fair Work Agency is essential to that. The draft regulations provide that continuity without changing the law on when or how investigatory powers may be used, without broadening the Investigatory Powers Act and without altering any of the strong safeguards that Parliament has put in place.
This is a precise and technical instrument that ensures that Parliament’s decisions in the Employment Rights Act can operate exactly as intended when the agency becomes fully operational. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is an absolute honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart; you delivered the title of this legislation with a dryness that belies its purpose and impact on our economy. The instrument looks tiny—there is hardly anything in it—yet I am going to argue that the Committee should vote against it this afternoon. It may look like a technical mechanism, and the Minister described it as such, but it equips the Fair Work Agency with state-level surveillance tools previously reserved for tackling the serious and organised crime that occurs in the gangmaster sector, and applies those investigatory powers across our entire economy. The creation of the Fair Work Agency, a consolidated super-regulator with enhanced snooping powers, represents a significant overreach of the state into the private operations of British businesses.
I hope that not only my Conservative colleagues, but possibly Labour colleagues, and certainly Liberal Democrat colleagues, will vote against this instrument. Currently, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority focuses on high-risk industries, such as agriculture and fishing, where there have been abuses. These changes will allow the Fair Work Agency to snoop everywhere across every workplace in this country. We oppose this statutory instrument as it formalises the transition towards a more litigious and more monitored labour market, which will inevitably stifle start-ups and entrepreneurs and increase the regulatory burden on small and medium-sized enterprises. It is not a proportionate or balanced approach to enforcement.
We have heard repeatedly from business groups about the cumulative pressure that they are under. The British Retail Consortium has warned that margins in retail are already at breaking point. The Confederation of British Industry speaks of a “chilling” effect on hiring as firms brace for more aggressive enforcement. This instrument will give those powers. The Federation of Small Businesses has been clear that tighter scrutiny, combined with rising employment costs, will force many small firms to reduce hours, cut staff or automate roles entirely—something that we are sadly already seeing in the monthly unemployment statistics.
The Minister claimed that the statutory instrument simply ensures continuity following the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. Of course it does as far as that sector is concerned, but in so doing widens that to the entire economy via the Fair Work Agency. It is not a like-for-like replacement. We are seeing a super-regulator with a far wider remit and far stronger powers. Those reasons, alongside our commitment to repealing the vast majority of the job-destroying Employment Rights Act, are why we oppose this statutory instrument today. We urge all other hon. Members to do so, too.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I was not planning to make a speech, but since the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, said she plans to vote against this statutory instrument and invited me to join her, I feel I should get some remarks on the record on behalf of my party. I thank her for her kind invitation, but I plan to vote with the Government on establishing the Fair Work Agency, in line with the policy of my party throughout the progress of the Employment Rights Bill.
We support the setting up of the Fair Work Agency. It brings together the powers of several different bodies into one unified place, and that is really important. I hear what the shadow Minister is saying about extending the GLAA powers, but I think there is a bigger win here in setting up the Fair Work Agency: it would not only provide a better route for employees to establish their rights in the workplace, but relieve the burden of tribunals from employers, if it works as intended.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I am genuinely shocked and surprised to hear the Liberal Democrat line, because I seem to remember when these investigatory powers—including the right to snoop on communications—were first brought in, the hon. Lady’s party was vehemently against them, yet here we are giving these powers to an agency that will cover every job in this land.
Sarah Olney
I hear the hon. Lady, but I repeat what I said: the setting up of the Fair Work Agency is an important step towards ensuring that employees can assert their rights in the workplace and that employers will not be burdened unduly with the costs of tribunals. That is why the Liberal Democrats have supported the setting up of the Fair Work Agency from the start.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Businesses in my constituency have told me categorically that they are very concerned about this. Entrepreneurs who have taken all the risks to create jobs in their communities run the risk of the Fair Work Agency, which will be given these powers, coming into their businesses and riding roughshod over the work they are creating. How is that liberal and democratic?
Sarah Olney
It is very kind of the hon. Lady to ask me that. This is obviously the Government’s statutory instrument, so I am not entirely certain why I am getting all the scrutiny here. I repeat again that we have supported the setting up of the Fair Work Agency from the very start and support the measures in this statutory instrument that contribute to that.
I hear the hon. Lady’s concerns, and the concerns of businesses in Bognor Regis. The Liberal Democrats are obviously concerned to ensure that any request for information from businesses is made proportionately, and only in response to legitimate concerns about employers treating their employees fairly. That is what we would expect the Fair Work Agency to do. I will finish by reiterating that we support the setting up of the Fair Work Agency and this statutory instrument.
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister for her contributions and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her support for this statutory instrument. It might be helpful for me to run through the purpose of the particular SI, which I hope I made clear in my introductory remarks. I will touch on a few things that the shadow Minister has raised.
To repeat: we are replacing one specified body with a successor. The Fair Work Agency’s remit, as debated across Parliament, is established in the Employment Rights Act, which brings together the existing functions of the GLAA, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’s national minimum wage enforcement.
On what the shadow Minister alluded to, the Act does include the delegated power to add further labour market enforcement functions in future, subject to new regulations and parliamentary scrutiny. However, this SI does not use that power and does not add any new enforcement functions; it is purely consequential. No new powers have been created previously under the GLAA, as I alluded to in my opening remarks. The Fair Work Agency will only be able to request the use of these powers to investigate offences under the GLAA’s previous remit, and for other offences added to the Fair Work Agency’s remit by the Employment Rights Act—which we debated.
For the sake of detail, the only offences in the FWA’s remit that meet the serious crime threshold in the Investigatory Powers Act that I talked about in my opening remarks are as follows: offences under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015 that were part of the GLAA’s remit, and offences under section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 that was added to the Fair Work Agency’s remit by the Employment Rights Act, and was debated in the House. The Serious Fraud Office can already request the use of those powers to investigate those offences. The offence of failing to comply with a labour market enforcement order under section 139 of the Employment Rights Act supersedes an offence under the Immigration Act 2016, which is in the GLAA’s remit. The GLAA has never sought the use of these powers to investigate the offence in the Immigration Act. Offences under sections 140 and 142 of the Employment Rights Act are for Scotland only and were considered by the House in Committee.
I hope that it is clear what we are debating today. The offences to which the power relates do not change, only the remit does. We have transferred over the powers of existing enforcement bodies, but added extra safeguards—at present, a warrant is not needed to enter a dwelling, for example. It is clear what this SI will do. Continuing as normal would weaken enforcement, which would not be good for businesses or those who are on the most vulnerable side of the labour market and who need the Government on their side to make sure that their rights are enforced and that they are supported at work, and to stop modern slavery.
That is why this SI is so important. It is disappointing that the Opposition will be voting against it—I thought that we would be on the same page—because the question today is whether serious labour exploitation investigations should continue uninterrupted, and when the new agency goes live. It is quite simple and technical, as I have alluded to. I thank the Liberal Democrats for their support and urge all colleagues to support this necessary legislation so that we can crack on with enforcement and support the agency in doing so.
Question put.