Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces;
Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026.
Kate Dearden
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Stringer.
These regulations were laid before the House on 6 July 2026. The Employment Rights Act 2025 established, for the first time in Great Britain, a statutory framework through which independent trade unions and employers can negotiate agreements for access to workplaces. At present, trade unions have no general independent right of access to workplaces. Where unions cannot reach a voluntary agreement with an employer, they can act only through individual members in a workplace, which can limit their ability to represent workers and facilitate collective bargaining.
The new statutory framework enables unions to access workplaces physically and to communicate with workers, both in person and digitally. It will benefit workers, employers and trade unions alike by supporting constructive engagement, providing greater certainty and creating clearer routes to resolution where access agreements cannot be reached.
The right of access is underpinned by access principles established by the 2025 Act. Those principles recognise that trade union officials should be able to communicate effectively with workers for the statutory access purposes, that employers should take reasonable steps to facilitate access, and that access should be refused entirely only where it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.
The framework encourages employers and trade unions to first reach access agreements through discussion and negotiation. However, where that is not possible via negotiation, the framework enables the union or employer to refer the case to the Central Arbitration Committee, known as the CAC, for a determination on whether access should be granted and on what terms.
The regulations before the Committee provide the practical and operational detail needed for the framework to operate effectively. They establish the procedures for access requests and negotiations, set out the matters the CAC must consider when determining applications, and establish the enforcement framework where statutory access agreements are breached. The accompanying draft code of practice supports employers and trade unions on how the framework should operate in practice, including requests for access, negotiations, digital access and enforcement.
Turning to specific matters included in the regulations, part 3 of the regulations provides that the CAC must refuse an application for statutory access where the employer has fewer than 21 workers. That threshold aligns the access framework with the existing statutory recognition regime in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Applying a consistent threshold across those closely related frameworks provides greater clarity for employers, workers, unions and the CAC, while recognising the operational and administrative challenges that the smallest employers may face. That is why employers with fewer than 21 workers fall outside the scope of CAC-imposed access agreements.
Regarding the practical operation of access agreements, the Government have been clear that access must operate in a way that is compatible with the legitimate operational needs of employers. Access is therefore not unrestricted and cannot unreasonably interfere with an employer’s operation. Access will take place under an agreement setting out where, when and how it may be exercised.
Union officials will need to take account of relevant operational, health, safety, security and safeguarding requirements. Part 3 of the regulations sets out certain circumstances where it is to be regarded as reasonable for the CAC to refuse access, and circumstances where access must be refused altogether, including where the CAC considers that necessary in the interests of national security or to avoid prejudice to the prevention, detection or prosecution of criminal offences.
We recognise that different workplaces face different operational realities. What may be appropriate in an office environment may not be appropriate in a customer-facing business, on a construction site or in a high-security workplace. The framework therefore requires access agreements to reflect the circumstances of the workplace concerned.
I turn to frequency of access. Part 3 of the regulations and the draft code identify weekly access as one of the model access terms. The Government’s view is that access agreements should provide a genuine opportunity for trade unions to communicate with workers, rather than access being so infrequent that its practical value is limited. The Government consider weekly access to provide an appropriate level of regularity to support effective engagement between trade unions and workers. It helps to maintain continuity of engagement, increases the likelihood that union representatives can reach workers across different shifts and working patterns and provides employers with a predictable and structured pattern of engagement. Weekly access is not mandatory, and trade unions and employers remain free to negotiate arrangements that reflect the circumstances of the workplace and the workforce concerned.
Part 4 of the regulations specifies the maximum financial penalties that the CAC may impose on the liable party and the factors it must consider when determining the exact penalty amount. It is important to emphasise that financial penalties are not available at the initial complaint stage, and the framework is designed first to provide the liable party with the opportunity to remedy their actions and secure compliance. The CAC may require the liable party to take specified steps to ensure that access takes place in accordance with the agreement.
Financial penalties become available only where there is subsequent non-compliance after the CAC has already intervened. The framework adopts a graduated approach. The maximum penalty is £75,000 for a first penalty order, £150,000 for a second and £500,000 for subsequent penalty orders under the same access agreement. These are maximum amounts, not automatic penalties, and the CAC must consider factors including the nature and gravity of the breach and the number of workers affected. That ensures that penalties can be tailored to the particular circumstances of the case, while providing the CAC with meaningful powers to address deliberate and repeated non-compliance where necessary.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the new access framework operates effectively in practice. That is why, alongside the statutory review requirements contained in the regulations, we have committed to reviewing the operation of the framework within six months of implementation. The review will consider how the framework is functioning in practice, in consultation with trade unions, employers and the CAC.
The regulations and the code of practice establish the operational and procedural framework for a new statutory right of access and establish clear routes for determination and enforcement where agreement cannot be reached or an agreement is subsequently breached. Crucially, the framework enables unions to engage with workers in person or digitally for the purposes of representation, support, recruitment, organisation, and collective bargaining and delivers on our commitment to strengthen fair and constructive industrial relations as part of our plan to make work pay. I therefore commend the regulations and the code of practice to the Committee.
The Chair
To clarify, the debate is on both instruments. At the end of the debate, the Committee will vote on the first instrument. I will then ask the Minister to move the second instrument formally, and we will vote on that.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
This code of practice grants a legal right for trade unions to access workplaces with more than 21 workers, and it poses a severe risk to UK business stability and national economic vitality. Looking at workplace dynamics, cultivating harmonious manager-employee relationships is a proven catalyst for business growth. It is therefore concerning that a recent survey found that one in four workers believe that managers and employee representatives are ineffective at working together to prevent and resolve conflict. That would suggest the increased presence via workplace access may not be as beneficial as the Government suggest.
The Government should focus on action that is guaranteed to improve employment relationships actively, thereby preventing the workplace productivity lag that is estimated to cost the UK economy £257 billion per year, rather than rolling the dice on a policy that industry leaders have warned will disrupt business output and autonomy. The cost of strikes is already significant. London tube strikes are predicted to cost the UK economy up to £760 million this year alone, and the resident doctor strikes of 2025 cost the NHS approximately £240 million. Increasing that cost through more frequent strikes, which we know are linked to greater union presence—as I demonstrated to the Government yesterday—and now lowering productivity via disrupted employment relations and burdening businesses with the high cost of facilitating mandatory union access is highly counterproductive. No Government should want to threaten the financial viability of domestic businesses; yet here we are, discussing legislation on trade union access to workplaces that research has found will cost businesses over £1 billion to facilitate.
To add further insult to injury, experts have warned that the proposed frequency of weekly access will cause excessive disruption. Extremely concerning is the notion that small and medium enterprises are the ones that will take on the higher proportion of predicted costs which are estimated to reach almost £600 million. The Government will claim to be supporting small businesses with their exemption for workplaces with fewer than 21 employees. What they fail to account for is that thousands of small businesses will be left in a precarious position.
A key criterion to meet the definition of a small business in the UK is having 50 or fewer employees. The remarkably low threshold of 21 employees leaves thousands of small businesses completely unsupported—small businesses that are already struggling and with trust in the Government to support them being at an all-time low. Numerous surveys have revealed their widespread frustration, with 58% feeling ignored by politicians in one and over half feeling unsupported by the Government in another. So what incentive is there to be an entrepreneur or small business owner any more?
The UK needs small businesses. We need the risk takers that provide jobs and generate economic growth. Yet all the Government appear to be doing is throwing more hurdles their way, with the latest being the momentous cost and disruption of mandatory trade union access, not to mention the financial penalties of up to £500,000 for non-compliance that could destitute many small businesses instantly.
The UK should be proud of our small business community; they consistently endure challenges and hardships to maintain their position as a fundamental pillar of the British economy. Rather than continuing to introduce policy that claims to be pro-worker yet has the potential to wreak havoc on British businesses and the economy, the Government need to take a simultaneously pro-business and pro-worker approach, one that supports businesses and helps workers to keep more of what they earn by addressing the mounting cost of living.
It is for those reasons that we will vote against the instruments. For those same reasons, I also ask the Minister what the Government’s plan is to ensure that small businesses do not become financially or administratively overwhelmed by the Employment Rights Act 2025 or its secondary legislation.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I should start by declaring my interests as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Minister for her engagement on these issues with the trade union movement and those of us who are trade union MPs, and for continuing to champion this agenda in Government. I also congratulate her on her recent promotion.
I wanted to note how important employment access rights are. Contrary to what the Opposition spokesperson has said, those of us who sit on the Business and Trade Committee did a careful examination of the access rights, and when asked, the business representatives that joined us on our panel representing hospitality and retail agreed that the cost of facilitating access would be basically negligible. It is clear that trade union access to workplaces and trade union recognition bring significant benefits to workers in all sizes of workplace, not least that they are more likely to be better paid and work in safer and more family friendly workplaces.
Turning to these regulations specifically, the right of access was a clear manifesto commitment and we must deliver it in a way that is meaningful and effective in practice, knowing that hostile employers with deep pockets and access to specialist lawyers will push back hard. That is why I am here today: because I still have some concerns about the code of practice and the regulations.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to review and consult on these measures shortly after implementation to make sure that we get them right. On enforcement, the proposed cap on fines of £500,000 is unlikely to act as an effective deterrent for some of the world’s largest corporations. I know, having welcomed the valiant GMB members of BHX5, Amazon’s Coventry warehouse, to Parliament and to the Select Committee, that Ministers should seriously consider replacing it with penalties based on a percentage of global turnover such as in the enforcement regime for GDPR breaches. That will provide a more proper deterrent and stop US-style union busting coming over here.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I refer Members to my declaration of interests; I am secretary of the trade union group of Labour MPs, Mr Stringer. Does my hon. Friend recognise that these union-busting firms in America—Amazon, for example—paid up to $14.2 million to bust unions and refuse union access? That is one of the reasons why we have to make sure that the £500,000 cap has the total review and overhaul it needs to protect workers in the workplace.
Antonia Bance
I agree with my hon. Friend, as he would expect. He is right to raise the scale of investment that countries such as Amazon have made in union busting. The Amazon executives who joined us at the Business and Trade Committee two years ago seemed barely familiar with UK employment rights legislation and the UK labour market environment. We do not want US-style union busting in the United Kingdom.
There is a real risk that hostile employers could use vexatious complaints as a tactic to impede union access to workplaces and it cannot be right that unions might be fined for going to talk to workers. It should also not be the case that unions should have to bear the cost of expensive legal advice to enforce access rights or defend themselves against vexatious complaints. If the employers are found to have broken the code of practice, the fines are paid to the Treasury rather than the workers or unions who have suffered the detriment. As Members would expect, I do not think that we should exempt smaller workplaces and we should amp up workers’ protection from victimisation and stop workers losing pay if they engage with unions during the access process. Model access agreements should include clear protections on those points.
I am so glad that Ministers have promised a review and consultation shortly after the implementation of these regulations. I strongly welcome that commitment. The review must lead swiftly to strengthened regulations and a strengthened code of practice. The right of access is critical to improving life at work and we must ensure that those rights work well in practice, as intended in the manifesto that Labour MPs stood on.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise, as I will need to speak and then leave as I have a Bill to present in the Chamber—I am keeping my eye on the business. I declare my interests as well; I am the chair of the RMT parliamentary group.
I want to raise one of the RMT’s concerns. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to see this all through—it is an excellent piece of work—and to have a review very shortly afterwards. I want to put something on the agenda for that review, if that is possible. Let me go through some of the details. The union itself, and the seafarers’ unions overall, welcome the new regulations but they do not improve the situation for access for seafarers. In fact, they simply repeat the restrictions we already have in section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which was introduced at the height of the Conservative Government’s introduction of anti-trade union legislation and attack on trade union rights.
The regulations now mean that trade unions will only be able to improve access on UK-flagged ships, whereas in the recent period we have seen a large number of companies flagging in other countries. That means, for example, that the RMT will not, as a result of the access regulations, be able to organises seafarers on P&O Ferries, Irish Ferries, Cobelfret and a whole range of other merchant ships registered overseas, even though they call at UK ports on a daily basis.
When this issue was raised in the House of Lords, in an amendment tabled by our friend Lord John Hendy back in 2025, Baroness Jones gave the commitment that the Government would
“explore how they could secure the objectives behind my noble friend’s amendment.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 2025; Vol. 848, c. 69.]
At that point, John Hendy’s amendment sought to apply the provisions of the access arrangements to seafarers working on ships with a sufficient link to Great Britain. That link, as the Minister will know, was 120 calls at an individual port. Ideally, that is where we want to go. It is just a matter of wanting to get in the review, as rapidly as possible, the right form of words to give the protection that the Government intend for all workers. We do not want to be in a situation where seafarers remain vulnerable, as they have been, for example, at P&O.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I do not have a formal speech, but I want to make a couple of points about context and put a particular question to the Minister, if that is okay. First, I declare an interest: in a previous life, I was a member of the RMT; as a Member of Parliament, I am a member of the RMT parliamentary group, and of most of the trade union groups as well. In the last Parliament, I also served in Committee on the Seafarers’ Wages Bill and on the Transport Committee that we heard evidence from the chief executive of P&O Ferries, Peter Hebblethwaite—it might actually have been in this room.
I remind the Opposition spokesman—the hon. Member for Bromsgrove is new to the House, so he may not be aware of this—that the chief exec of P&O Ferries admitted publicly, to a joint sitting of the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, that he was fully aware that P&O Ferries were breaking the law in three areas, not just on consultation, and yet it went ahead with the issuing of redundancy notices to all 800 British-based seafarers. Some of them were sacked at a minute’s notice by video call. There was uproar in the House, including on the Government Benches at the time—that was in 2022. It happened on St Patrick’s Day, on 17 March, and there was a commitment that it must never be allowed to happen again.
I have been involved in discussions, lobbying of Ministers, members of my party and shadow Ministers to ensure that the legislation affords a degree of protection to UK-based seafarers. I fully understand the Minister’s point about the difficulties that we face: the size of the British UK merchant fleet has declined quite dramatically—I think we now have about 8 million gross tonnes of UK or GB-flagged ships, which is quite a dramatic reduction—and the majority of UK-based seafarers work on ships flagged in other countries. We have to be able to offer them some measure of protection.
I fully understand the difficulties and the complexities of international law, but that cannot be a get-out for P&O Ferries, Irish Ferries or any other commercial entity to simply walk away from their legal responsibilities in respect of employment protections. While I thank the Minister for her reassurances, I urge her to continue discussions with the RMT on how we can effectively provide these minimal protections to UK seafarers, in particular those who work on overseas-flagged ships.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
I, too, refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud trade union member. That makes me the only legitimate trade union Barron in this place—[Interruption.] We are all up for a bit of that.
First and foremost, I think everyone welcomes the Employment Rights Act. It introduces new rights for unions to meet and have access to workers. I believe that as part of the consultation, we have to get this right. Opposition parties have already said that they will not support this legislation and, if they ever get in, they will probably reverse it, so we have to get it right in order to make sure that it sticks. That is crucial.
The Act modernises industrial relations, as far as we are concerned. It is obscene that trade unions are not allowed through the gates, but have to stand outside workplaces giving out leaflets, with scared workers walking past—probably too scared to take the leaflets, because they know about the hostility. It is time to end those hostilities, and it is time for people to know that they have the legal right and freedom to join a trade union.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a great point. I remember standing with the GMB outside Amazon in my constituency, and people were harassed by security and by Amazon itself not to join a trade union. Amazon has not come on board, despite promises that it would bring trade unions around the table. Does my hon. Friend agree that this kind of legislation is well past due, and that this is a brilliant time to start enacting it, so that people in my constituency who work for giants like Amazon can have the rights and protections that they absolutely deserve?
Lee Barron
I agree. I must say, I wish people would put as much energy into condemning those sorts of actions as they do into having a pop at trade unions—I really do. It is about time that we levelled that playing field, and that is what this legislation does.
My hon. Friend is right in what she says about giants like Amazon. I stood with GMB workers in Coventry when I was regional secretary of the TUC, trying to access that workplace, and it was basically forbidden. It was not allowed. Organisations like that will absolutely swallow half a million quid-worth of fine after fine; they will make that investment to keep trade unions out. That is why I think the cap is so wrong here. We need to reconsider it; unless these people see that the repercussions of what they are doing will cost them, they will just carry on doing what they are doing.
We have already raised P&O; P&O representatives sat there in front of a Committee in this place and said that they knew that what they were doing was illegal, and the reason they carried on doing it was because they could take the fines—P&O could swallow the fines and make sure that that kept unions out. That is how it derecognised trade unions in its workforce: by sacking its workforce. When you have things like that, there has to be some kind of fine that relates to turnover. It cannot be a cap, because those global giants will basically swallow it up.
The last point I would like to make to the Minister is about this exemption for workplaces with fewer than 21 employees. I have asked and asked, but no one has come up with any logic for that number. All it will do, in our opinion, is create incentives to restructure. This code has to be applied universally. Justice does not hide within numbers; it either exists or it does not. If it does, and people want a trade union to access their workplace, they should be allowed that regardless of the number of people working there.
As I said earlier, workers’ rights are crucial—but if the workers themselves are too scared to enforce them, those rights are not worth the paper they are written on. We must change the narrative as far as trade unions are concerned; we must accept them as part of our economy, accept them as part of what is good for working people, and accept them by making sure that they cannot be kept out on the cheap by global giants and that workers within any workplace can access them.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
May I also declare my membership of the RMT parliamentary group and that I am a proud trade unionist? I welcome these regulations and the Government’s efforts to strengthen trade union access rights, but we have a concern specifically about how that will be applied to seafarers.
As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), as drafted, these regulations simply replicate the existing regulations, meaning that enhanced access rights will apply only to crews on UK-flagged vessels. In practice, that would exclude seafarers who are working from UK ports every single day, including those employed on services operated by P&O Ferries, Irish Ferries and other vessels that are registered overseas.
During the passage of the Employment Rights Act 2025, Ministers recognised the need to consider how employment protections should apply to seafarers with strong connections to Great Britain, and committed to continue discussions with the maritime unions on this issue. Baroness Jones, in the other place, specifically undertook to explore how the objectives behind Lord Hendy’s amendment could be secured.
Could the Minister therefore please confirm that the Government will work with the RMT and other maritime unions on a review of how these access rights and wider employment protections can be extended to seafarers working on vessels with a sufficient link to Great Britain, regardless of the flag they sail under?
Kate Dearden
I thank all colleagues for their contributions during this debate; they are very much appreciated. The scrutiny offered has been constructive too, so I thank all colleagues for their speeches and interventions.
I will start off with the reflections from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, particularly around growth. As a principle and a starting point, the argument that workers’ rights are bad for growth is just a false choice. A modern economy needs productive workplaces; it needs good communication and a workforce who feel that their voice has been heard. This framework supports those things. That is exactly what we are discussing today.
We are asking business to engage with a lawful process, with clear rules and safeguards; I hope that my introductory speech outlined many of those in detail. The draft code is designed to make access practical, exactly for that purpose: it encourages those voluntary agreements first and provides a clear route to resolve disagreements where they cannot be reached.
Good employment relations are the foundation of productivity for our country. We truly believe that the two go hand in hand in terms of growth, workers’ rights and building our economy. The shadow Minister referenced SMEs in particular, and I thank him for doing so.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like to declare an interest as the vice-chair of the Unison group of MPs. The Minister rightly says that it is a false choice between good employment relations or growing the economy. Would she also accept that it is a false choice to say that people in a company with more than 21 employees should have access rights and those with fewer than 21 should not? That is still a choice by the Government and it suggests that workers in smaller companies are somehow less likely to be exploited by their employers than those in larger companies.
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which is appreciated. I outlined the rationale for the threshold aligning with the statutory recognition framework. Below the 21-worker threshold, they are still voluntary, and many trade unions are recognising smaller and micro employers. Where we can encourage good co-operation and working with trade unions, we will always do that.
As I said, SMEs in particular are the backbone of our economy—I come from a small business family and know just how hard small businesses work, day in, day out for our communities and in all our constituencies.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful for the Minister’s engagement, but can I point out a practical problem in the context of seafarers? With the vast majority of the merchant fleet not flagged with GB owners, the problem—including on the ferries and so on that are working out of British ports for more than 120 days a year—is that there is a relatively small number of UK-based seafarers, perhaps fewer than 21, among the complement of a crew. The Government have set that arbitrary figure, and I can understand what the Minister is saying in relation to small businesses more generally on terra firma, but I think a bit of flexibility needs to be applied in the maritime setting.
While I am on my feet—forgive me, Mr Stringer; I do not want to interrupt again—we are seeking assurances in relation to that threshold and the fines that were being applied. If the Minister is unable to give that assurance within the context of these statutory instruments, could we could press for a meeting with the Minister so that we can explore the options that might be available?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend and promise him that I will get to his points—particularly on seafarers as well as the wider review—shortly. I will respond and touch on a lot of those points, and I hope that colleagues always know that I am available for conversations on all areas of my brief.
The shadow Minister raised small businesses. I have touched on how important they are and how committed we are to working with them, whether under the Employment Rights Act or across our Department and Government. On the ERA, as he mentioned, we are working closely with SMEs, particularly on the consultations. We are hearing their views and their considerations are essential to all our work. We are providing that guidance and working closely with ACAS to provide training, support and resources.
The phased implementation has been really important throughout the past two years in terms of guidance of when changes will be introduced under the Employment Rights Act. We are absolutely committed to working closely with our small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy. In addition, we are giving them support, whether it is in small business strategy, the work we are doing on payments, access to finance or open opportunities for exports and trade. We are always keen to work with our small businesses and give them the support that they need.
Before I respond to the contribution from colleagues on my side of the Committee, for which I thank them again, I want to say that the Conservatives often talk about workers’ rights. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, mentioned the pro-worker, pro-business angle, which I have addressed consistently in the approach to this legislation, but he mentioned workers’ rights as though they are a threat to business. As discussed in detail in a delegated legislation Committee yesterday, good employment relations are a sign of strength and a successful economy. That is part of our promise to strengthen workers’ rights. These regulations give trade unions the proper power and ability to organise, while keeping the clear safeguards that I mentioned in my opening remarks. That is how we have arrived at a sensible and proportionate framework.
I thank my hon. Friends, who raised a number of issues. I absolutely share their ambition for a strong and effective right of access. These regulations are an important part of making that right real. We will judge the framework on whether it helps workers to organise in practice and gives them a meaningful route to deliver the policy objectives set out in the Employment Rights Act, which many colleagues have spoken about today.
Engaging with workers for those statutory access purposes is essential. That is why, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have committed to a review within six months of implementation. It will look at many of the practical issues that colleagues have raised, including the operation of the enforcement regime, and whether the penalty regime remains proportionate and effective in encouraging compliance.
Gareth Snell
The Minister says that there will be a review within six months, but can she be clearer to give us certainty? Will it start within six months or will it have concluded within six months? If it starts within six months, how long does she anticipate it will take? I am sadly old enough to remember Government reviews that started within six months and took two and a half years. As she knows, I nag her about others on her desk that have been there for two and a half years. When will we get the outcome of the review? The review itself is important, but we will all be more interested in the consequences of any changes that come from it.
Kate Dearden
We have committed to reviewing the framework within six months of implementation, and I will work closely with my hon. Friend on the timeline and what the review will look like. I know that, like other hon. Members, he is keen to be kept updated on that. I commit to working closely with him on it, and to providing him with updates as much as I can. The review will consider the 21-worker threshold, CAC decision making, model terms, digital access and joint applications. I thank hon. Members for the points they raised on that.
I thank hon. Members for mentioning seafarers, and particularly the concerns raised by the RMT. As a starting point, I am happy to commit to engaging further with colleagues and with maritime trade unions on access provisions.
Jen Craft
Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest, an organisation in my constituency, does excellent work with seafarers. It has shared some truly horrific stories about conditions on board falling below what we would expect. It has flagged that those conditions can stray into the realm of violence against women and girls. Without adequate protections for UK seafarers—particularly women seafarers—we risk making the situation worse. I would be very grateful if the Minister met me and Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest in my patch to talk about some of those things.
Kate Dearden
I can absolutely commit to following up and meeting my hon. Friend, her constituents and those involved. I thank her for making me aware of that issue in Committee.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I declare my union activity as a former member of the National Union of Journalists. I do not miss it at all; it did nothing for me and took money out of my wages. My father was a marine engineer, and when he joined British Petroleum in the ’60s, the number of British-flagged ships that BP had alone was greater than the entire number of British-flagged ships in the modern era. If the Government are so concerned about British sailors on British ships, should they be looking at the way British ships are registered? Other countries use their systems to generate revenue, while registering a ship in this country is a very expensive burden. Should we be looking at how to get more ships under the red ensign?
Kate Dearden
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has raised his concerns directly with the Minister responsible for that sector.
In respect of the access requirement, I hope that hon. Members have heard my commitment to follow up and engage with them further. That invitation extends to our engagement with maritime trade unions on access provisions, particularly in the context of seafarers and merchant shipping with a close connection to the UK. I absolutely commit to that today, and it will form part of the review following implementation. Through our wider employment rights legislation, we are absolutely committed to protecting the working conditions of those working abroad, with international services frequently calling at UK ports. I hope that hon. Members welcome the reassurance on follow-up and review.
I have covered lots of hon. Members’ questions, but I am always happy to follow up. I hope the Committee agrees that the regulations and the accompanying code of practice strike the appropriate balance. We commit to further follow-up in reviewing how the legislation plays out in practice, so as to absolutely meet the intention outlined in the Act.
Gareth Snell
The Minister has not touched on the cap on fines for big companies. Does she think that is sufficient? Amazon’s turnover this year was £30 billion—that is 30,000 million. The maximum fine that it could get in a calendar year is half a million pounds—one sixty-thousandth of its turnover. That is the equivalent of MPs being fined £1.50 of our parliamentary salary. Does she honestly believe that level of potential fine to be a deterrent from bad behaviour?
Kate Dearden
I hope that my hon. Friend heard that, in the review, we will absolutely focus on the enforcement regime, including whether the penalty regime he mentions—and the example that he refers to—remains proportionate and effective in encouraging compliance. It is important that we build that into the review. Let us see how it works in practice. Clearly, where the CAC needs further support, we will review that. Seeing how the policy plays out in practice will form an essential part of our review.
As I have mentioned, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the new rights operate effectively in the workplace, and the review is a key part of that. This is an essential and significant moment in industrial relations across the UK. We want to foster good practice. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to the consultations, and worked with me and my brilliant officials in the Department, to ensure that the regulations could be brought to the House today and come into effect next month.
We want to ensure that the legislation is effective, proportionate and suited to the realities of modern workplaces. It is a shame that the Conservatives cannot support us today. My question for them is: do they believe that workers should be able to hear from an independent trade union in their workplace? That is exactly what the legislation is about. I commend the regulations and the code of practice to the Committee.
Bradley Thomas
On a point of order, Mr Stringer. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, who is sat next to me, does not appear on the cast list. How does that affect the vote?
The Chair
The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury is a member of the Committee. She is not on that list, but she is properly a member of the Committee.
Question put,
Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces
Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026.
Kate Dearden
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Stringer.
These regulations were laid before the House on 6 July 2026. The Employment Rights Act 2025 established, for the first time in Great Britain, a statutory framework through which independent trade unions and employers can negotiate agreements for access to workplaces. At present, trade unions have no general independent right of access to workplaces. Where unions cannot reach a voluntary agreement with an employer, they can act only through individual members in a workplace, which can limit their ability to represent workers and facilitate collective bargaining.
The new statutory framework enables unions to access workplaces physically and to communicate with workers, both in person and digitally. It will benefit workers, employers and trade unions alike by supporting constructive engagement, providing greater certainty and creating clearer routes to resolution where access agreements cannot be reached.
The right of access is underpinned by access principles established by the 2025 Act. Those principles recognise that trade union officials should be able to communicate effectively with workers for the statutory access purposes, that employers should take reasonable steps to facilitate access, and that access should be refused entirely only where it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.
The framework encourages employers and trade unions to first reach access agreements through discussion and negotiation. However, where that is not possible via negotiation, the framework enables the union or employer to refer the case to the Central Arbitration Committee, known as the CAC, for a determination on whether access should be granted and on what terms.
The regulations before the Committee provide the practical and operational detail needed for the framework to operate effectively. They establish the procedures for access requests and negotiations, set out the matters the CAC must consider when determining applications, and establish the enforcement framework where statutory access agreements are breached. The accompanying draft code of practice supports employers and trade unions on how the framework should operate in practice, including requests for access, negotiations, digital access and enforcement.
Turning to specific matters included in the regulations, part 3 of the regulations provides that the CAC must refuse an application for statutory access where the employer has fewer than 21 workers. That threshold aligns the access framework with the existing statutory recognition regime in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Applying a consistent threshold across those closely related frameworks provides greater clarity for employers, workers, unions and the CAC, while recognising the operational and administrative challenges that the smallest employers may face. That is why employers with fewer than 21 workers fall outside the scope of CAC-imposed access agreements.
Regarding the practical operation of access agreements, the Government have been clear that access must operate in a way that is compatible with the legitimate operational needs of employers. Access is therefore not unrestricted and cannot unreasonably interfere with an employer’s operation. Access will take place under an agreement setting out where, when and how it may be exercised.
Union officials will need to take account of relevant operational, health, safety, security and safeguarding requirements. Part 3 of the regulations sets out certain circumstances where it is to be regarded as reasonable for the CAC to refuse access, and circumstances where access must be refused altogether, including where the CAC considers that necessary in the interests of national security or to avoid prejudice to the prevention, detection or prosecution of criminal offences.
We recognise that different workplaces face different operational realities. What may be appropriate in an office environment may not be appropriate in a customer-facing business, on a construction site or in a high-security workplace. The framework therefore requires access agreements to reflect the circumstances of the workplace concerned.
I turn to frequency of access. Part 3 of the regulations and the draft code identify weekly access as one of the model access terms. The Government’s view is that access agreements should provide a genuine opportunity for trade unions to communicate with workers, rather than access being so infrequent that its practical value is limited. The Government consider weekly access to provide an appropriate level of regularity to support effective engagement between trade unions and workers. It helps to maintain continuity of engagement, increases the likelihood that union representatives can reach workers across different shifts and working patterns and provides employers with a predictable and structured pattern of engagement. Weekly access is not mandatory, and trade unions and employers remain free to negotiate arrangements that reflect the circumstances of the workplace and the workforce concerned.
Part 4 of the regulations specifies the maximum financial penalties that the CAC may impose on the liable party and the factors it must consider when determining the exact penalty amount. It is important to emphasise that financial penalties are not available at the initial complaint stage, and the framework is designed first to provide the liable party with the opportunity to remedy their actions and secure compliance. The CAC may require the liable party to take specified steps to ensure that access takes place in accordance with the agreement.
Financial penalties become available only where there is subsequent non-compliance after the CAC has already intervened. The framework adopts a graduated approach. The maximum penalty is £75,000 for a first penalty order, £150,000 for a second and £500,000 for subsequent penalty orders under the same access agreement. These are maximum amounts, not automatic penalties, and the CAC must consider factors including the nature and gravity of the breach and the number of workers affected. That ensures that penalties can be tailored to the particular circumstances of the case, while providing the CAC with meaningful powers to address deliberate and repeated non-compliance where necessary.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the new access framework operates effectively in practice. That is why, alongside the statutory review requirements contained in the regulations, we have committed to reviewing the operation of the framework within six months of implementation. The review will consider how the framework is functioning in practice, in consultation with trade unions, employers and the CAC.
The regulations and the code of practice establish the operational and procedural framework for a new statutory right of access and establish clear routes for determination and enforcement where agreement cannot be reached or an agreement is subsequently breached. Crucially, the framework enables unions to engage with workers in person or digitally for the purposes of representation, support, recruitment, organisation, and collective bargaining and delivers on our commitment to strengthen fair and constructive industrial relations as part of our plan to make work pay. I therefore commend the regulations and the code of practice to the Committee.
The Chair
To clarify, the debate is on both instruments. At the end of the debate, the Committee will vote on the first instrument. I will then ask the Minister to move the second instrument formally, and we will vote on that.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
This code of practice grants a legal right for trade unions to access workplaces with more than 21 workers, and it poses a severe risk to UK business stability and national economic vitality. Looking at workplace dynamics, cultivating harmonious manager-employee relationships is a proven catalyst for business growth. It is therefore concerning that a recent survey found that one in four workers believe that managers and employee representatives are ineffective at working together to prevent and resolve conflict. That would suggest the increased presence via workplace access may not be as beneficial as the Government suggest.
The Government should focus on action that is guaranteed to improve employment relationships actively, thereby preventing the workplace productivity lag that is estimated to cost the UK economy £257 billion per year, rather than rolling the dice on a policy that industry leaders have warned will disrupt business output and autonomy. The cost of strikes is already significant. London tube strikes are predicted to cost the UK economy up to £760 million this year alone, and the resident doctor strikes of 2025 cost the NHS approximately £240 million. Increasing that cost through more frequent strikes, which we know are linked to greater union presence—as I demonstrated to the Government yesterday—and now lowering productivity via disrupted employment relations and burdening businesses with the high cost of facilitating mandatory union access is highly counterproductive. No Government should want to threaten the financial viability of domestic businesses; yet here we are, discussing legislation on trade union access to workplaces that research has found will cost businesses over £1 billion to facilitate.
To add further insult to injury, experts have warned that the proposed frequency of weekly access will cause excessive disruption. Extremely concerning is the notion that small and medium enterprises are the ones that will take on the higher proportion of predicted costs which are estimated to reach almost £600 million. The Government will claim to be supporting small businesses with their exemption for workplaces with fewer than 21 employees. What they fail to account for is that thousands of small businesses will be left in a precarious position.
A key criterion to meet the definition of a small business in the UK is having 50 or fewer employees. The remarkably low threshold of 21 employees leaves thousands of small businesses completely unsupported—small businesses that are already struggling and with trust in the Government to support them being at an all-time low. Numerous surveys have revealed their widespread frustration, with 58% feeling ignored by politicians in one and over half feeling unsupported by the Government in another. So what incentive is there to be an entrepreneur or small business owner any more?
The UK needs small businesses. We need the risk takers that provide jobs and generate economic growth. Yet all the Government appear to be doing is throwing more hurdles their way, with the latest being the momentous cost and disruption of mandatory trade union access, not to mention the financial penalties of up to £500,000 for non-compliance that could destitute many small businesses instantly.
The UK should be proud of our small business community; they consistently endure challenges and hardships to maintain their position as a fundamental pillar of the British economy. Rather than continuing to introduce policy that claims to be pro-worker yet has the potential to wreak havoc on British businesses and the economy, the Government need to take a simultaneously pro-business and pro-worker approach, one that supports businesses and helps workers to keep more of what they earn by addressing the mounting cost of living.
It is for those reasons that we will vote against the instruments. For those same reasons, I also ask the Minister what the Government’s plan is to ensure that small businesses do not become financially or administratively overwhelmed by the Employment Rights Act 2025 or its secondary legislation.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I should start by declaring my interests as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Minister for her engagement on these issues with the trade union movement and those of us who are trade union MPs, and for continuing to champion this agenda in Government. I also congratulate her on her recent promotion.
I wanted to note how important employment access rights are. Contrary to what the Opposition spokesperson has said, those of us who sit on the Business and Trade Committee did a careful examination of the access rights, and when asked, the business representatives that joined us on our panel representing hospitality and retail agreed that the cost of facilitating access would be basically negligible. It is clear that trade union access to workplaces and trade union recognition bring significant benefits to workers in all sizes of workplace, not least that they are more likely to be better paid and work in safer and more family friendly workplaces.
Turning to these regulations specifically, the right of access was a clear manifesto commitment and we must deliver it in a way that is meaningful and effective in practice, knowing that hostile employers with deep pockets and access to specialist lawyers will push back hard. That is why I am here today: because I still have some concerns about the code of practice and the regulations.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to review and consult on these measures shortly after implementation to make sure that we get them right. On enforcement, the proposed cap on fines of £500,000 is unlikely to act as an effective deterrent for some of the world’s largest corporations. I know, having welcomed the valiant GMB members of BHX5, Amazon’s Coventry warehouse, to Parliament and to the Select Committee, that Ministers should seriously consider replacing it with penalties based on a percentage of global turnover such as in the enforcement regime for GDPR breaches. That will provide a more proper deterrent and stop US-style union busting coming over here.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I refer Members to my declaration of interests; I am secretary of the trade union group of Labour MPs, Mr Stringer. Does my hon. Friend recognise that these union-busting firms in America—Amazon, for example—paid up to $14.2 million to bust unions and refuse union access? That is one of the reasons why we have to make sure that the £500,000 cap has the total review and overhaul it needs to protect workers in the workplace.
Antonia Bance
I agree with my hon. Friend, as he would expect. He is right to raise the scale of investment that countries such as Amazon have made in union busting. The Amazon executives who joined us at the Business and Trade Committee two years ago seemed barely familiar with UK employment rights legislation and the UK labour market environment. We do not want US-style union busting in the United Kingdom.
There is a real risk that hostile employers could use vexatious complaints as a tactic to impede union access to workplaces and it cannot be right that unions might be fined for going to talk to workers. It should also not be the case that unions should have to bear the cost of expensive legal advice to enforce access rights or defend themselves against vexatious complaints. If the employers are found to have broken the code of practice, the fines are paid to the Treasury rather than the workers or unions who have suffered the detriment. As Members would expect, I do not think that we should exempt smaller workplaces and we should amp up workers’ protection from victimisation and stop workers losing pay if they engage with unions during the access process. Model access agreements should include clear protections on those points.
I am so glad that Ministers have promised a review and consultation shortly after the implementation of these regulations. I strongly welcome that commitment. The review must lead swiftly to strengthened regulations and a strengthened code of practice. The right of access is critical to improving life at work and we must ensure that those rights work well in practice, as intended in the manifesto that Labour MPs stood on.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise, as I will need to speak and then leave as I have a Bill to present in the Chamber—I am keeping my eye on the business. I declare my interests as well; I am the chair of the RMT parliamentary group.
I want to raise one of the RMT’s concerns. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to see this all through—it is an excellent piece of work—and to have a review very shortly afterwards. I want to put something on the agenda for that review, if that is possible. Let me go through some of the details. The union itself, and the seafarers’ unions overall, welcome the new regulations but they do not improve the situation for access for seafarers. In fact, they simply repeat the restrictions we already have in section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which was introduced at the height of the Conservative Government’s introduction of anti-trade union legislation and attack on trade union rights.
The regulations now mean that trade unions will only be able to improve access on UK-flagged ships, whereas in the recent period we have seen a large number of companies flagging in other countries. That means, for example, that the RMT will not, as a result of the access regulations, be able to organises seafarers on P&O Ferries, Irish Ferries, Cobelfret and a whole range of other merchant ships registered overseas, even though they call at UK ports on a daily basis.
When this issue was raised in the House of Lords, in an amendment tabled by our friend Lord John Hendy back in 2025, Baroness Jones gave the commitment that the Government would
“explore how they could secure the objectives behind my noble friend’s amendment.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 2025; Vol. 848, c. 69.]
At that point, John Hendy’s amendment sought to apply the provisions of the access arrangements to seafarers working on ships with a sufficient link to Great Britain. That link, as the Minister will know, was 120 calls at an individual port. Ideally, that is where we want to go. It is just a matter of wanting to get in the review, as rapidly as possible, the right form of words to give the protection that the Government intend for all workers. We do not want to be in a situation where seafarers remain vulnerable, as they have been, for example, at P&O.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I do not have a formal speech, but I want to make a couple of points about context and put a particular question to the Minister, if that is okay. First, I declare an interest: in a previous life, I was a member of the RMT; as a Member of Parliament, I am a member of the RMT parliamentary group, and of most of the trade union groups as well. In the last Parliament, I also served in Committee on the Seafarers’ Wages Bill and on the Transport Committee that we heard evidence from the chief executive of P&O Ferries, Peter Hebblethwaite—it might actually have been in this room.
I remind the Opposition spokesman—the hon. Member for Bromsgrove is new to the House, so he may not be aware of this—that the chief exec of P&O Ferries admitted publicly, to a joint sitting of the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, that he was fully aware that P&O Ferries were breaking the law in three areas, not just on consultation, and yet it went ahead with the issuing of redundancy notices to all 800 British-based seafarers. Some of them were sacked at a minute’s notice by video call. There was uproar in the House, including on the Government Benches at the time—that was in 2022. It happened on St Patrick’s Day, on 17 March, and there was a commitment that it must never be allowed to happen again.
I have been involved in discussions, lobbying of Ministers, members of my party and shadow Ministers to ensure that the legislation affords a degree of protection to UK-based seafarers. I fully understand the Minister’s point about the difficulties that we face: the size of the British UK merchant fleet has declined quite dramatically—I think we now have about 8 million gross tonnes of UK or GB-flagged ships, which is quite a dramatic reduction—and the majority of UK-based seafarers work on ships flagged in other countries. We have to be able to offer them some measure of protection.
I fully understand the difficulties and the complexities of international law, but that cannot be a get-out for P&O Ferries, Irish Ferries or any other commercial entity to simply walk away from their legal responsibilities in respect of employment protections. While I thank the Minister for her reassurances, I urge her to continue discussions with the RMT on how we can effectively provide these minimal protections to UK seafarers, in particular those who work on overseas-flagged ships.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
I, too, refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud trade union member. That makes me the only legitimate trade union Barron in this place—[Interruption.] We are all up for a bit of that.
First and foremost, I think everyone welcomes the Employment Rights Act. It introduces new rights for unions to meet and have access to workers. I believe that as part of the consultation, we have to get this right. Opposition parties have already said that they will not support this legislation and, if they ever get in, they will probably reverse it, so we have to get it right in order to make sure that it sticks. That is crucial.
The Act modernises industrial relations, as far as we are concerned. It is obscene that trade unions are not allowed through the gates, but have to stand outside workplaces giving out leaflets, with scared workers walking past—probably too scared to take the leaflets, because they know about the hostility. It is time to end those hostilities, and it is time for people to know that they have the legal right and freedom to join a trade union.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a great point. I remember standing with the GMB outside Amazon in my constituency, and people were harassed by security and by Amazon itself not to join a trade union. Amazon has not come on board, despite promises that it would bring trade unions around the table. Does my hon. Friend agree that this kind of legislation is well past due, and that this is a brilliant time to start enacting it, so that people in my constituency who work for giants like Amazon can have the rights and protections that they absolutely deserve?
Lee Barron
I agree. I must say, I wish people would put as much energy into condemning those sorts of actions as they do into having a pop at trade unions—I really do. It is about time that we levelled that playing field, and that is what this legislation does.
My hon. Friend is right in what she says about giants like Amazon. I stood with GMB workers in Coventry when I was regional secretary of the TUC, trying to access that workplace, and it was basically forbidden. It was not allowed. Organisations like that will absolutely swallow half a million quid-worth of fine after fine; they will make that investment to keep trade unions out. That is why I think the cap is so wrong here. We need to reconsider it; unless these people see that the repercussions of what they are doing will cost them, they will just carry on doing what they are doing.
We have already raised P&O; P&O representatives sat there in front of a Committee in this place and said that they knew that what they were doing was illegal, and the reason they carried on doing it was because they could take the fines—P&O could swallow the fines and make sure that that kept unions out. That is how it derecognised trade unions in its workforce: by sacking its workforce. When you have things like that, there has to be some kind of fine that relates to turnover. It cannot be a cap, because those global giants will basically swallow it up.
The last point I would like to make to the Minister is about this exemption for workplaces with fewer than 21 employees. I have asked and asked, but no one has come up with any logic for that number. All it will do, in our opinion, is create incentives to restructure. This code has to be applied universally. Justice does not hide within numbers; it either exists or it does not. If it does, and people want a trade union to access their workplace, they should be allowed that regardless of the number of people working there.
As I said earlier, workers’ rights are crucial—but if the workers themselves are too scared to enforce them, those rights are not worth the paper they are written on. We must change the narrative as far as trade unions are concerned; we must accept them as part of our economy, accept them as part of what is good for working people, and accept them by making sure that they cannot be kept out on the cheap by global giants and that workers within any workplace can access them.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
May I also declare my membership of the RMT parliamentary group and that I am a proud trade unionist? I welcome these regulations and the Government’s efforts to strengthen trade union access rights, but we have a concern specifically about how that will be applied to seafarers.
As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), as drafted, these regulations simply replicate the existing regulations, meaning that enhanced access rights will apply only to crews on UK-flagged vessels. In practice, that would exclude seafarers who are working from UK ports every single day, including those employed on services operated by P&O Ferries, Irish Ferries and other vessels that are registered overseas.
During the passage of the Employment Rights Act 2025, Ministers recognised the need to consider how employment protections should apply to seafarers with strong connections to Great Britain, and committed to continue discussions with the maritime unions on this issue. Baroness Jones, in the other place, specifically undertook to explore how the objectives behind Lord Hendy’s amendment could be secured.
Could the Minister therefore please confirm that the Government will work with the RMT and other maritime unions on a review of how these access rights and wider employment protections can be extended to seafarers working on vessels with a sufficient link to Great Britain, regardless of the flag they sail under?
Kate Dearden
I thank all colleagues for their contributions during this debate; they are very much appreciated. The scrutiny offered has been constructive too, so I thank all colleagues for their speeches and interventions.
I will start off with the reflections from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, particularly around growth. As a principle and a starting point, the argument that workers’ rights are bad for growth is just a false choice. A modern economy needs productive workplaces; it needs good communication and a workforce who feel that their voice has been heard. This framework supports those things. That is exactly what we are discussing today.
We are asking business to engage with a lawful process, with clear rules and safeguards; I hope that my introductory speech outlined many of those in detail. The draft code is designed to make access practical, exactly for that purpose: it encourages those voluntary agreements first and provides a clear route to resolve disagreements where they cannot be reached.
Good employment relations are the foundation of productivity for our country. We truly believe that the two go hand in hand in terms of growth, workers’ rights and building our economy. The shadow Minister referenced SMEs in particular, and I thank him for doing so.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like to declare an interest as the vice-chair of the Unison group of MPs. The Minister rightly says that it is a false choice between good employment relations or growing the economy. Would she also accept that it is a false choice to say that people in a company with more than 21 employees should have access rights and those with fewer than 21 should not? That is still a choice by the Government and it suggests that workers in smaller companies are somehow less likely to be exploited by their employers than those in larger companies.
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which is appreciated. I outlined the rationale for the threshold aligning with the statutory recognition framework. Below the 21-worker threshold, they are still voluntary, and many trade unions are recognising smaller and micro employers. Where we can encourage good co-operation and working with trade unions, we will always do that.
As I said, SMEs in particular are the backbone of our economy—I come from a small business family and know just how hard small businesses work, day in, day out for our communities and in all our constituencies.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful for the Minister’s engagement, but can I point out a practical problem in the context of seafarers? With the vast majority of the merchant fleet not flagged with GB owners, the problem—including on the ferries and so on that are working out of British ports for more than 120 days a year—is that there is a relatively small number of UK-based seafarers, perhaps fewer than 21, among the complement of a crew. The Government have set that arbitrary figure, and I can understand what the Minister is saying in relation to small businesses more generally on terra firma, but I think a bit of flexibility needs to be applied in the maritime setting.
While I am on my feet—forgive me, Mr Stringer; I do not want to interrupt again—we are seeking assurances in relation to that threshold and the fines that were being applied. If the Minister is unable to give that assurance within the context of these statutory instruments, could we could press for a meeting with the Minister so that we can explore the options that might be available?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend and promise him that I will get to his points—particularly on seafarers as well as the wider review—shortly. I will respond and touch on a lot of those points, and I hope that colleagues always know that I am available for conversations on all areas of my brief.
The shadow Minister raised small businesses. I have touched on how important they are and how committed we are to working with them, whether under the Employment Rights Act or across our Department and Government. On the ERA, as he mentioned, we are working closely with SMEs, particularly on the consultations. We are hearing their views and their considerations are essential to all our work. We are providing that guidance and working closely with ACAS to provide training, support and resources.
The phased implementation has been really important throughout the past two years in terms of guidance of when changes will be introduced under the Employment Rights Act. We are absolutely committed to working closely with our small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy. In addition, we are giving them support, whether it is in small business strategy, the work we are doing on payments, access to finance or open opportunities for exports and trade. We are always keen to work with our small businesses and give them the support that they need.
Before I respond to the contribution from colleagues on my side of the Committee, for which I thank them again, I want to say that the Conservatives often talk about workers’ rights. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, mentioned the pro-worker, pro-business angle, which I have addressed consistently in the approach to this legislation, but he mentioned workers’ rights as though they are a threat to business. As discussed in detail in a delegated legislation Committee yesterday, good employment relations are a sign of strength and a successful economy. That is part of our promise to strengthen workers’ rights. These regulations give trade unions the proper power and ability to organise, while keeping the clear safeguards that I mentioned in my opening remarks. That is how we have arrived at a sensible and proportionate framework.
I thank my hon. Friends, who raised a number of issues. I absolutely share their ambition for a strong and effective right of access. These regulations are an important part of making that right real. We will judge the framework on whether it helps workers to organise in practice and gives them a meaningful route to deliver the policy objectives set out in the Employment Rights Act, which many colleagues have spoken about today.
Engaging with workers for those statutory access purposes is essential. That is why, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have committed to a review within six months of implementation. It will look at many of the practical issues that colleagues have raised, including the operation of the enforcement regime, and whether the penalty regime remains proportionate and effective in encouraging compliance.
Gareth Snell
The Minister says that there will be a review within six months, but can she be clearer to give us certainty? Will it start within six months or will it have concluded within six months? If it starts within six months, how long does she anticipate it will take? I am sadly old enough to remember Government reviews that started within six months and took two and a half years. As she knows, I nag her about others on her desk that have been there for two and a half years. When will we get the outcome of the review? The review itself is important, but we will all be more interested in the consequences of any changes that come from it.
Kate Dearden
We have committed to reviewing the framework within six months of implementation, and I will work closely with my hon. Friend on the timeline and what the review will look like. I know that, like other hon. Members, he is keen to be kept updated on that. I commit to working closely with him on it, and to providing him with updates as much as I can. The review will consider the 21-worker threshold, CAC decision making, model terms, digital access and joint applications. I thank hon. Members for the points they raised on that.
I thank hon. Members for mentioning seafarers, and particularly the concerns raised by the RMT. As a starting point, I am happy to commit to engaging further with colleagues and with maritime trade unions on access provisions.
Jen Craft
Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest, an organisation in my constituency, does excellent work with seafarers. It has shared some truly horrific stories about conditions on board falling below what we would expect. It has flagged that those conditions can stray into the realm of violence against women and girls. Without adequate protections for UK seafarers—particularly women seafarers—we risk making the situation worse. I would be very grateful if the Minister met me and Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest in my patch to talk about some of those things.
Kate Dearden
I can absolutely commit to following up and meeting my hon. Friend, her constituents and those involved. I thank her for making me aware of that issue in Committee.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I declare my union activity as a former member of the National Union of Journalists. I do not miss it at all; it did nothing for me and took money out of my wages. My father was a marine engineer, and when he joined British Petroleum in the ’60s, the number of British-flagged ships that BP had alone was greater than the entire number of British-flagged ships in the modern era. If the Government are so concerned about British sailors on British ships, should they be looking at the way British ships are registered? Other countries use their systems to generate revenue, while registering a ship in this country is a very expensive burden. Should we be looking at how to get more ships under the red ensign?
Kate Dearden
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has raised his concerns directly with the Minister responsible for that sector.
In respect of the access requirement, I hope that hon. Members have heard my commitment to follow up and engage with them further. That invitation extends to our engagement with maritime trade unions on access provisions, particularly in the context of seafarers and merchant shipping with a close connection to the UK. I absolutely commit to that today, and it will form part of the review following implementation. Through our wider employment rights legislation, we are absolutely committed to protecting the working conditions of those working abroad, with international services frequently calling at UK ports. I hope that hon. Members welcome the reassurance on follow-up and review.
I have covered lots of hon. Members’ questions, but I am always happy to follow up. I hope the Committee agrees that the regulations and the accompanying code of practice strike the appropriate balance. We commit to further follow-up in reviewing how the legislation plays out in practice, so as to absolutely meet the intention outlined in the Act.
Gareth Snell
The Minister has not touched on the cap on fines for big companies. Does she think that is sufficient? Amazon’s turnover this year was £30 billion—that is 30,000 million. The maximum fine that it could get in a calendar year is half a million pounds—one sixty-thousandth of its turnover. That is the equivalent of MPs being fined £1.50 of our parliamentary salary. Does she honestly believe that level of potential fine to be a deterrent from bad behaviour?
Kate Dearden
I hope that my hon. Friend heard that, in the review, we will absolutely focus on the enforcement regime, including whether the penalty regime he mentions—and the example that he refers to—remains proportionate and effective in encouraging compliance. It is important that we build that into the review. Let us see how it works in practice. Clearly, where the CAC needs further support, we will review that. Seeing how the policy plays out in practice will form an essential part of our review.
As I have mentioned, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the new rights operate effectively in the workplace, and the review is a key part of that. This is an essential and significant moment in industrial relations across the UK. We want to foster good practice. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to the consultations, and worked with me and my brilliant officials in the Department, to ensure that the regulations could be brought to the House today and come into effect next month.
We want to ensure that the legislation is effective, proportionate and suited to the realities of modern workplaces. It is a shame that the Conservatives cannot support us today. My question for them is: do they believe that workers should be able to hear from an independent trade union in their workplace? That is exactly what the legislation is about. I commend the regulations and the code of practice to the Committee.
Bradley Thomas
On a point of order, Mr Stringer. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, who is sat next to me, does not appear on the cast list. How does that affect the vote?
The Chair
The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury is a member of the Committee. She is not on that list, but she is properly a member of the Committee.
Question put,