Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 14th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:30
14:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. Mr. Dowd's pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I beg to move that the Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices during the recognition and de-recognition process, which was laid in draft before this House on the 6th of July, be approved. May explain to the House why I bring in this code for your consideration today. We made a commitment in our plan to make work pay to simplify the trade union recognition process.
The Employment Rights Act 2025 updates the legal framework around statutory union recognition so that workers have a meaningful right to organise through trade unions. This includes having removed last April the requirement for a union to demonstrate at the application stage that it is likely there will be a majority for union recognition and removing the requirement for union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the appropriate bargaining unit supporting union recognition. The 2025 act also makes changes to provide better access arrangements for unions, and aims to deal more effectively with unfair practices during the recognition and de-recognition processes.
The government is therefore updating the 2005 version of this code to ensure that all parties, including employers, workers and unions, understand how the legislative changes on access and unfair practices affect them. We revise the code between the 4th of February. We consulted on the revised code between the 4th of February and the 1st of April 2026. The consultation sought views on the clarity of changes made to reflect the updated legal framework.
Structural amendments to reflect the legislative changes made through the act and other changes made to the code, including updating the guidance within it so that it accurately reflects modern working practices and language. A number of revisions have been made to the existing 2005 code following consultation. Previously, the 2005 version applied only to the recognition or de-recognition ballot phase. Now, the code reflects the changes made by the 2025 act to access an unfair practices, and applies from the point where the Central Arbitration Committee accepts an application for recognition or De-recognition.
Record also reflects a clear timetable for negotiations on access. 20 working days from the point the CAC accepts a trade union recognition application. If no agreement is reached, the CAC will have ten working days to determine a reasonable access agreement. Further, the code has been revised to reflect the 2025 act allows five working days after the clause of the recognition ballot for complaints to be submitted to the CAC. Where an unfair practice is alleged, where such a practice is alleged, the Act makes it easier to determine such complaints by only requiring the CAC to consider whether an unfair practice has occurred without considering the effect it may have had.
The updated code also increases the suggested access, meeting frequency and minimum length of meetings to once every five working days and 45 minutes, respectively, during the access period. These changes will provide more opportunities for meaningful engagement between the union seeking recognition and workers within the bargaining unit. This will allow union representatives to answer any questions that the workers may have before the balloted workforce decides whether to agree to statutory union recognition. Employers will, of course, have similar opportunities for engagement with their workers throughout the duration.
And in addition, we have sought to reassure employers, particularly SMEs, for example, by clarifying that the statutory recognition process does not apply to employers that have fewer than 21 workers, and that nothing in the revised code will require employers to breach general data protection requirements. The updated code also provides guidance on what constitutes a good access agreement. It establishes a structured framework covering key areas such as who may be granted access, how and where access should take place, including digital options and arrangements relating to timing, frequency, privacy and communication.
Finally, the government has taken the opportunity to bring the code up to date with changes in digital communications, and the code now provides significantly more detailed guidance in this area, including guidance on digital access. The revised code before the House today now reflects the updated legal framework around statutory trade union recognition and together with the 2025 act. These changes strengthen the collective voice in the workplace, enhance worker representation, and help foster a new partnership of cooperation between trade unions and employers.
So I therefore commend the Code of Practice to the House.
The Employment Rights Act 2025 updates the legal framework around statutory union recognition so that workers have a meaningful right to organise through trade unions. This includes having removed last April the requirement for a union to demonstrate at the application stage that it is likely there will be a majority for union recognition and removing the requirement for union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the appropriate bargaining unit supporting union recognition. The 2025 act also makes changes to provide better access arrangements for unions, and aims to deal more effectively with unfair practices during the recognition and de-recognition processes.
The government is therefore updating the 2005 version of this code to ensure that all parties, including employers, workers and unions, understand how the legislative changes on access and unfair practices affect them. We revise the code between the 4th of February. We consulted on the revised code between the 4th of February and the 1st of April 2026. The consultation sought views on the clarity of changes made to reflect the updated legal framework.
Structural amendments to reflect the legislative changes made through the act and other changes made to the code, including updating the guidance within it so that it accurately reflects modern working practices and language. A number of revisions have been made to the existing 2005 code following consultation. Previously, the 2005 version applied only to the recognition or de-recognition ballot phase. Now, the code reflects the changes made by the 2025 act to access an unfair practices, and applies from the point where the Central Arbitration Committee accepts an application for recognition or De-recognition.
Record also reflects a clear timetable for negotiations on access. 20 working days from the point the CAC accepts a trade union recognition application. If no agreement is reached, the CAC will have ten working days to determine a reasonable access agreement. Further, the code has been revised to reflect the 2025 act allows five working days after the clause of the recognition ballot for complaints to be submitted to the CAC. Where an unfair practice is alleged, where such a practice is alleged, the Act makes it easier to determine such complaints by only requiring the CAC to consider whether an unfair practice has occurred without considering the effect it may have had.
The updated code also increases the suggested access, meeting frequency and minimum length of meetings to once every five working days and 45 minutes, respectively, during the access period. These changes will provide more opportunities for meaningful engagement between the union seeking recognition and workers within the bargaining unit. This will allow union representatives to answer any questions that the workers may have before the balloted workforce decides whether to agree to statutory union recognition. Employers will, of course, have similar opportunities for engagement with their workers throughout the duration.
And in addition, we have sought to reassure employers, particularly SMEs, for example, by clarifying that the statutory recognition process does not apply to employers that have fewer than 21 workers, and that nothing in the revised code will require employers to breach general data protection requirements. The updated code also provides guidance on what constitutes a good access agreement. It establishes a structured framework covering key areas such as who may be granted access, how and where access should take place, including digital options and arrangements relating to timing, frequency, privacy and communication.
Finally, the government has taken the opportunity to bring the code up to date with changes in digital communications, and the code now provides significantly more detailed guidance in this area, including guidance on digital access. The revised code before the House today now reflects the updated legal framework around statutory trade union recognition and together with the 2025 act. These changes strengthen the collective voice in the workplace, enhance worker representation, and help foster a new partnership of cooperation between trade unions and employers.
So I therefore commend the Code of Practice to the House.
14:34
14:34
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Mr. Chairman, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. We , on this side of the House oppose the Employment Rights Act 2025 at every stage of its legislative journey, and we remain steadfastly opposed to the act elements of which this code serves to implement. The Employment Rights Act 2025 burdens employers with 330 pages of red tape, the single largest increase in employment regulation in a generation. As a direct result, we have seen reduced hiring, job cuts and huge costs to businesses.
Even the government's own assessment of the Act admits it will cost business billions, and we are not opposed to the Employment Rights Act because we want to see workers stripped of their rights. We are opposed because of the damage it will do to businesses up and down the country. The code of practice is one piece of a much larger picture, but it is an important one. And before turning to the code of Practice, I want to touch on the consultation which the minister mentioned.
Over 920 responses were received to the government's consultation, with over 80% coming from employers and their representative organisations on the proposals to increase the frequency of access meetings from once every ten working days to once every five. 98% of the respondents disagreed. The proposals to increase the minimum meeting duration from 30 minutes to 45, saw 97% of the respondents disagree. When asked if the code adequately reflected digital communications in the workplace, 94% said no.
And on the question of the code, adequately explaining the role of the CAC, 96% said no. Asked if section D provided sufficient guidance on access arrangements, 97% said no. And finally, 96% said the unfair practices guidance was insufficient. The consultation into this code of practice is damning on virtually every substantive question put the consultation respondents. The overwhelming majority of them expressed concern, disagreement or they called for significant revision.
The minister has said that the government listened and made amendments. I will be fair and acknowledge that some clarifications have been made, particularly on digital access, and that is welcome to see. But on issues that matter most to small and medium sized businesses, the government has noted the near-unanimous concerns of the consultation responses and chosen to disregard those concerns and force this through against that advice. On the issue of the duration and frequency of access meetings, I would appreciate if the Minister could outline why the overwhelming view of the consultation respondents has been ignored.
Can the minister also outline if any assessment has been made of the extra costs employers will incur in facilitating the increased frequency of access meetings? The consultation response makes clear that the majority of respondents, 57%, were from relatively small organisations of between 10 and 49 staff. These are not large corporations with dedicated HR and legal teams. So for many businesses, this code will put serious demands on time and limited resources on unfair practice complaints.
The code shifts significantly. Unfair practice complaints will now be able to be upheld by the CAC, without the need to show that the practice actually affected the outcome of the ballot. Now, we recognise that the old test may have been difficult to satisfy in the time allowed, and that did lead to some genuine complaints falling. But does the Minister not think that removing the need to prove an impact on the result of the ballot runs the risk of opening the door to vexatious claims to disrupt the process? And would the Minister appreciate outlining if any safeguards are in place to prevent this? Another significant issue remains is that it is still unclear to many employers what constitutes unfair practice.
In the consultation, employers consistently raised their concerns about the lack of clear examples and case studies of what constitutes an unfair practice, and the uncertainty this creates. The government's response was to say that it is not appropriate to include examples in the code, because it is the cac's role to make judgements on a case by case basis. Surely there are some basic examples that could be provided to employers. So can the Minister outline to me now what an unfair practice is? The Conservative Party will continue to make the case for balanced employment rights, one that protects workers without unduly punishing the businesses that employ them.
This code of practice fails to do that, creating even more uncertainty for business and making employing people even harder than the Employment Rights Act already has. I look forward to the minister's response to the questions I have outlined, but I'm afraid we cannot support this code of practice.
Even the government's own assessment of the Act admits it will cost business billions, and we are not opposed to the Employment Rights Act because we want to see workers stripped of their rights. We are opposed because of the damage it will do to businesses up and down the country. The code of practice is one piece of a much larger picture, but it is an important one. And before turning to the code of Practice, I want to touch on the consultation which the minister mentioned.
Over 920 responses were received to the government's consultation, with over 80% coming from employers and their representative organisations on the proposals to increase the frequency of access meetings from once every ten working days to once every five. 98% of the respondents disagreed. The proposals to increase the minimum meeting duration from 30 minutes to 45, saw 97% of the respondents disagree. When asked if the code adequately reflected digital communications in the workplace, 94% said no.
And on the question of the code, adequately explaining the role of the CAC, 96% said no. Asked if section D provided sufficient guidance on access arrangements, 97% said no. And finally, 96% said the unfair practices guidance was insufficient. The consultation into this code of practice is damning on virtually every substantive question put the consultation respondents. The overwhelming majority of them expressed concern, disagreement or they called for significant revision.
The minister has said that the government listened and made amendments. I will be fair and acknowledge that some clarifications have been made, particularly on digital access, and that is welcome to see. But on issues that matter most to small and medium sized businesses, the government has noted the near-unanimous concerns of the consultation responses and chosen to disregard those concerns and force this through against that advice. On the issue of the duration and frequency of access meetings, I would appreciate if the Minister could outline why the overwhelming view of the consultation respondents has been ignored.
Can the minister also outline if any assessment has been made of the extra costs employers will incur in facilitating the increased frequency of access meetings? The consultation response makes clear that the majority of respondents, 57%, were from relatively small organisations of between 10 and 49 staff. These are not large corporations with dedicated HR and legal teams. So for many businesses, this code will put serious demands on time and limited resources on unfair practice complaints.
The code shifts significantly. Unfair practice complaints will now be able to be upheld by the CAC, without the need to show that the practice actually affected the outcome of the ballot. Now, we recognise that the old test may have been difficult to satisfy in the time allowed, and that did lead to some genuine complaints falling. But does the Minister not think that removing the need to prove an impact on the result of the ballot runs the risk of opening the door to vexatious claims to disrupt the process? And would the Minister appreciate outlining if any safeguards are in place to prevent this? Another significant issue remains is that it is still unclear to many employers what constitutes unfair practice.
In the consultation, employers consistently raised their concerns about the lack of clear examples and case studies of what constitutes an unfair practice, and the uncertainty this creates. The government's response was to say that it is not appropriate to include examples in the code, because it is the cac's role to make judgements on a case by case basis. Surely there are some basic examples that could be provided to employers. So can the Minister outline to me now what an unfair practice is? The Conservative Party will continue to make the case for balanced employment rights, one that protects workers without unduly punishing the businesses that employ them.
This code of practice fails to do that, creating even more uncertainty for business and making employing people even harder than the Employment Rights Act already has. I look forward to the minister's response to the questions I have outlined, but I'm afraid we cannot support this code of practice.
14:39
14:39
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you, chair, and welcome, Minister, and thank him for his questions and response. The government is committed to simplifying and improving the recognition process , so that workers have a meaningful right to organize through their trade unions. I'm not going to spend this time going back and forth over the ideology and principles, and why I think the Employment Rights Act is the right thing to do, to drive up quality of work across every area of this country, and that people have the rights that they should expect in the workplace, and that we're updating employment rights legislation.
So it's fit for the 21st century. We've spent a lot of time doing that. I will bring my remarks back to the code that we are discussing today, because the revised code supports part of our wider ambition. It does support the Employment Rights Act to deliver better access arrangements for unions and deals effectively with unfair practices during the recognition and de-recognition process. As I've said in my opening remarks, we have listened carefully to views that were expressed during the consultation earlier this year, and I'm happy to respond to the particular questions that the shadow minister raised today.
The government did carefully consider the consultation responses and did recognise the concerns that were raised about operational impacts. However, we do believe, as I've said, that workers should have a meaningful opportunity to hear from union representatives and ask questions before making a decision about recognition. That's why we've returned the proposed frequency and duration of meetings, alongside guidance intended to minimise disruption and support those practical arrangements, and amended the code to try and aid clarity and support practical use as far as possible.
We do think it's right that we provide a level playing field. Employers have access to workforce throughout the recognition process by granting the union access to workplace from the point where the CAC accepts the recognition claim. This enables the union to also have access to the workplace from the start of the recognition process, at least once of the terms of the access are agreed or determined, and we think that is a fair approach. The costs and the benefits, the changes that he referenced in his speech in the recognition process were laid out in the enactment impact assessment.
The government expects the cost to be very low, estimating the annual net cost to business at £0.3 million. And the code, as we're talking about today, is statutory guidance. It doesn't impose impose further costs on employers beyond what we've discussed at length during the Employment Rights Act passage, and turning to his questions around unfair practices, in particular, the legal definition as to what constitutes an unfair practice has not changed. As he referenced in the Employment Rights Act, unfair practices are actions by an employer, union or worker intended to influence the outcome of a recognition ballot.
These include bribery, coercion, threats or actively interfering in union management to sway worker decisions. We've clarified in the code some issues to consider around some actions during the recognition process. As he referenced, amending the definition of an unfair practice would require separate legislation. Our priority has been to implement the reforms to the recognition process as soon as possible, and the October timeline, as we've promised throughout our roadmap since the introduction of this legislation, we want to give time for the reforms to bed in and bed down, and should it be necessary in the future, we will bring forward further proposals to amend the definition of an unfair practice, in addition to our planned additional unfair practice in relation to balloting, in recognition and de-recognition ballots to.
And I would also say that as part of this, our approach to providing increasing worker voice in the workplace to improve pay conditions and productivity, to enable that, we can protect workers from unfair practices that we're discussing today and to improve employer and employee relations is the kind of country and workplaces that we are fighting for and want to build. This is a really key part to that, how we can make sure that recognition is fair in terms of the access period it needed to be updated.
Since that 2005 legislation, in line with the ambitions that we have for our legislation, the Employment Rights Act. And this is a really, really key part to that agenda. And I believe that the code before colleagues in the House today will assist both unions and employers in complying with the new statutory requirements on access and unfair practices during recognition and de-recognition process. That's why this code is necessary, and I hope colleagues can support it today to enable that vision and to enable this to practically work in workplaces.
Thank you, chair.
So it's fit for the 21st century. We've spent a lot of time doing that. I will bring my remarks back to the code that we are discussing today, because the revised code supports part of our wider ambition. It does support the Employment Rights Act to deliver better access arrangements for unions and deals effectively with unfair practices during the recognition and de-recognition process. As I've said in my opening remarks, we have listened carefully to views that were expressed during the consultation earlier this year, and I'm happy to respond to the particular questions that the shadow minister raised today.
The government did carefully consider the consultation responses and did recognise the concerns that were raised about operational impacts. However, we do believe, as I've said, that workers should have a meaningful opportunity to hear from union representatives and ask questions before making a decision about recognition. That's why we've returned the proposed frequency and duration of meetings, alongside guidance intended to minimise disruption and support those practical arrangements, and amended the code to try and aid clarity and support practical use as far as possible.
We do think it's right that we provide a level playing field. Employers have access to workforce throughout the recognition process by granting the union access to workplace from the point where the CAC accepts the recognition claim. This enables the union to also have access to the workplace from the start of the recognition process, at least once of the terms of the access are agreed or determined, and we think that is a fair approach. The costs and the benefits, the changes that he referenced in his speech in the recognition process were laid out in the enactment impact assessment.
The government expects the cost to be very low, estimating the annual net cost to business at £0.3 million. And the code, as we're talking about today, is statutory guidance. It doesn't impose impose further costs on employers beyond what we've discussed at length during the Employment Rights Act passage, and turning to his questions around unfair practices, in particular, the legal definition as to what constitutes an unfair practice has not changed. As he referenced in the Employment Rights Act, unfair practices are actions by an employer, union or worker intended to influence the outcome of a recognition ballot.
These include bribery, coercion, threats or actively interfering in union management to sway worker decisions. We've clarified in the code some issues to consider around some actions during the recognition process. As he referenced, amending the definition of an unfair practice would require separate legislation. Our priority has been to implement the reforms to the recognition process as soon as possible, and the October timeline, as we've promised throughout our roadmap since the introduction of this legislation, we want to give time for the reforms to bed in and bed down, and should it be necessary in the future, we will bring forward further proposals to amend the definition of an unfair practice, in addition to our planned additional unfair practice in relation to balloting, in recognition and de-recognition ballots to.
And I would also say that as part of this, our approach to providing increasing worker voice in the workplace to improve pay conditions and productivity, to enable that, we can protect workers from unfair practices that we're discussing today and to improve employer and employee relations is the kind of country and workplaces that we are fighting for and want to build. This is a really key part to that, how we can make sure that recognition is fair in terms of the access period it needed to be updated.
Since that 2005 legislation, in line with the ambitions that we have for our legislation, the Employment Rights Act. And this is a really, really key part to that agenda. And I believe that the code before colleagues in the House today will assist both unions and employers in complying with the new statutory requirements on access and unfair practices during recognition and de-recognition process. That's why this code is necessary, and I hope colleagues can support it today to enable that vision and to enable this to practically work in workplaces.
Thank you, chair.
14:44
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you. In that case, the question is that the committee has considered the draft Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices during the recognition and de-recognition process. As many as of that opinion say, aye. I the contrary. No, no. Division. Division. Division. Division. Lock the doors.
14:45
14:45
14:45
14:45
14:45
14:45
14:45
14:45
14:45