Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Good morning, Sir Christopher. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am pleased to move the new clause, which would add special constables to the scope of section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, giving them the right to unpaid leave to perform their duties.

Special constables are volunteers. They give their time, at no cost to the taxpayer, to help our police forces. Specials have existed in some form ever since the Special Constables Act 1831, which allowed justices of the peace to conscript volunteers. The special constabulary as we know it was established by the Police Act 1964, which gave chief constables the authority to appoint and manage special constables. Today’s specials carry all the same legal powers as their full-time counterparts, on and off duty. They put themselves in harm’s way, without payment, to keep our society safe.

I tabled the new clause because my constituent, Ms Emma-Elizabeth Murphy, asked me to do so. She came to see me at one of my first constituency surgeries and asked me to help her and her fellow special constables. Ms Murphy joined up as a special in 2021 and took the oath as a constable. Since then, she has recorded more than 1,300 hours of duties, arrested multiple offenders and dealt with fatal accidents. Last year, she was recognised as student special constable of the year.

Ms Murphy explained that she and many of her colleagues use their weekends and holidays to perform their duties. They may ask their employers for unpaid leave, but 60% of employers who were surveyed do not grant it. Bringing specials within the scope of section 50 would mean that their employer had to consider the request officially and grant a reasonable amount of unpaid leave. That would put them in the same position as councillors and magistrates.

The number of people who volunteer as a special has fallen by two thirds over the past decade. Many forces now face significant gaps in their special constabulary ranks. Applications have slowed significantly, with most special constables joining purely as a stepping stone into the regular force. The two-year attrition rate of the force is 90%. That means that the constabulary does not see a good return on the time and training that it invests in new recruits.

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under you, Sir Christopher. I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—and the GMB.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater is making a powerful case. Were the Government to accept his new clause, would he support the Bill as a whole?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

That would not be quite enough to offset the £5 billion-worth of costs for small and medium-sized enterprises. The advantage of the new clause is that it would not cost either the taxpayer or employers any money. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.

The truth is that, currently, many people simply do not have the time to offer to the role without employer support. The measure I propose would make it easier for specials to perform their duties and, I hope, help recruitment. Unlike so many of the proposals in the Bill, it would not cost either employers or the taxpayer any money.

I am pleased that this campaign has the support of the Association of Special Constabulary Officers and more than a dozen MPs from Government and Opposition. We also have the endorsement of 10 police and crime commissioners. Importantly, Assistant Chief Constable Bill Dutton, acting in his capacity as the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for the special constabulary, has provided his written support for including special constables under section 50. The Minister has received letters from hon. Members in all parts of the House, and I believe that some of his ministerial colleagues, too, may have received letters or held meetings with Government Back Benchers.

The new clause could help with the recruitment and retention of many new special constables and it would make our streets safer. It would also finally recognise the work of the specials and put them on the same footing as the thousands of other people in this country who are allowed time off work to complete valuable civic duties. I ask the Minister to consider that.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I would like to add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater has proposed. The first duty of Government is to protect citizens from threats abroad and keep them safe at home. Given all the other rights and extensions of rights that the Government are pushing in the Bill, it would seem unusual if support for our special constables, whom I salute for all their hard work day in, day out as part of the mission to keep the British people safe, were not included. I urge the Minister to consider the new clause in a genuine spirit of trying to work together on this issue.

I am tempted to rise to the bait set by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles. We have many differences of opinion about the Bill’s provisions, but, in the spirit of the Bill, surely we can find some cross-party consensus on extending employment rights to special constables going about their duty—the often dangerous duty that they carry out on behalf of us all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

We have had various discussions within the Department. Information has gone over to the Home Office, and we are waiting for a response. Obviously, I cannot speak for the Home Office, so I cannot set out its position. As I say, I think it is time more generally to consider all the legislation relating to the right to time off for public duties. It is too soon to accept this new clause, but I hope the hon. Member for Bridgwater is assured that we are taking this issue seriously and considering it.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Although I am disappointed that the Minister has not accepted the new clause, I will withdraw it at this stage. I can count 10 Government Members and only five on the Opposition Benches, so my chances of success in a Division would be limited. I hope the new clause can find its way back into the Bill, perhaps in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 35

Carer’s leave: remuneration

“(1) In section 80K of the Employment Rights Act 1996, omit subsection (3) and insert—

‘(3) In subsection (1)(a), “terms and conditions of employment”—

(a) includes matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under the contract of employment, and

(b) includes terms and conditions about remuneration.’”—(Steve Darling.)

This new clause would make Carer’s Leave a paid entitlement.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Steve Darling]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is an opportunity to extend carer’s leave across the whole of Great Britain. I hope it falls on more fertile ground than the previous new clause. There are 10.6 million carers across the United Kingdom, yet only 2.5 million are actually in paid employment. That shows that, although some of those carers may be beyond or even below working age, there is still a significant untapped pool of opportunity to drive productivity in our economy.

The economic growth figures released this morning show that the handbrake is sadly still on in our economy due to the appalling state that the Labour party inherited from the previous Government, so we need to think about how to allow people to work in our economy as strongly as possible. Centrica has found that there is an £8 billion cost to our economy for those who choose to leave the workplace due to having caring commitments. This would potentially allow a goodly number of those to remain in the workplace and continue to contribute. Although this is a probing amendment, I hope the Minister will give it some serious consideration and advise the Committee on what exploration the Government may choose to undertake of this golden opportunity for us as a society.

Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting)

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I welcome the clarity offered by the Government in the amendment.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.

The amendment will ensure that the provisions of section 12(2) of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 remain effective even in the context of the changes proposed in the Bill. Section 12(2) will make it a criminal offence for an individual to be in possession or control of a relevant document that is false, is forged or has been improperly obtained with the intention of deceiving others into believing that the individual holds a valid licence under the Act. It is essential that that provision continues to apply to documents issued by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority before its abolition, ensuring that any fraudulent documents issued before the GLAA is dissolved can still result in prosecution. Maintaining that provision is crucial to preventing exploitation and ensuring that individuals and businesses cannot evade accountability with fraudulent documentation.

Clause 109 proposes to abolish the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, which plays a significant role in tackling issues such as labour exploitation, human trafficking and forced labour in certain sectors. The dissolution of the GLAA marks a significant shift in how those matters will be managed. Given the importance of its work, the transition raises important questions about how those responsibilities will be carried forward under the new structures set out by the Bill. The GLAA has played a vital role in regulating the labour market in high-risk industries, so the Government’s proposal to abolish it must be accompanied by a clear plan to ensure continuity of its crucial work.

The GLAA is a non-departmental public body that has been responsible for investigating and addressing serious forms of worker exploitation such as human trafficking, forced labour and illegal labour practices. Additionally, it monitors compliance with regulations under the National Minimum Wage Act and the Employment Agencies Act. By issuing licences to employment agencies, labour providers and gangmasters in high-risk sectors, including agriculture, horticulture, shellfish gathering and associated processing and packaging, the GLAA has been instrumental in safeguarding vulnerable workers and preventing exploitation.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

For the four years before I was elected to this place, I worked in Scotland on combating human trafficking and labour exploitation, and I did a lot of work with the GLAA. Quite properly, the hon. Gentleman lists the industries with which it was associated, such as shellfish, agriculture and horticulture. Although the GLAA was set up to address those things, in Scotland we had only one member of staff inspecting all that coastline and all that land, and the authority was not really equipped or able to do the job that it was set up to do.

Having reflected on how the GLAA has operated and on its lack of power and capacity—that is absolutely not a comment on the ability of the staff, who are severely overworked—and given the scale of the crisis, I would argue that it is appropriate to look at how effective the GLAA is and then bolster that by putting it into a fair work agency, rather than having a very small group of people unable to deal with the task that they face. Things like labour exploitation and human trafficking have not gone down as a result of the GLAA, which tells us that we do need to revisit and restructure the organisation.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The hon. Member makes a number of valuable points. The proposed removal of the GLAA raises concerns about how its important functions will be handled. It is imperative that a robust alternative structure be put in place to address those critical issues and to continue protecting workers’ rights and preventing exploitation.

The GLAA’s work is crucial in specific sectors in which workers are at a heightened risk of exploitation. They include agriculture, horticulture, shellfish gathering and the associated processing and packaging industries. Such sectors often rely on seasonal or temporary labour, which makes workers more vulnerable to abuse. The GLAA has been tasked with ensuring that employment agencies and gangmasters in those areas are properly licensed and comply with legal and ethical standards. Without a continued effective regulatory body, there is a risk that workers in those sectors could face greater vulnerability to exploitation. The amendment ensures that even after the GLAA is abolished, protections relating to fraudulent licences remain in place to help to prevent future abuses in those critical sectors.

Although the amendment will rightly ensure that the offence of providing false licences will continue, including for cases identified prior to the passage of the Bill, there remains a need for reassurance about the future of the GLAA’s core responsibilities. The work of the GLAA in investigating and responding to incidents of worker exploitation is vital. As the Bill progresses, it is crucial that there is a clear and publicly communicated plan for transferring and maintaining those functions under the new framework. The question remains of how those critical duties will be continued effectively under the new system. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that the same level of oversight and enforcement will be maintained without compromising workers’ protections?

One significant issue that arises from the abolition of the GLAA is the future of its staff. The Bill stipulates that staff, property, rights and liabilities will be transferred to the Secretary of State. However, there is a need for further clarity on the fate of staff members, who have been dedicated to the GLAA’s mission. Will there be redundancies, or will staff members be reassigned to continue their work under a new authority such as the fair work agency? In the latter case, it will be essential to understand how that transition will be managed. Will those staff members continue to do the same work, or will there be changes to their roles? Furthermore, will the reorganisation cause any disruption to the ongoing work of tackling labour exploitation and illegal labour practices? Minimising disruption in that process is crucial to ensure that there is no gap in the important regulatory and enforcement work carried out by the GLAA.

Government amendment 183 appears to be designed to ensure that existing legislation, particularly in relation to worker protections and the regulation of labour providers, continues to apply once the Bill passes. It would have been reassuring to have confirmation that the intention behind the amendment is to maintain the existing legal framework and obligations. The continuity of those provisions is critical to ensuring that workers remain protected and that the work of tackling exploitation and human trafficking continues without interruption. I would be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that the amendment will ensure that the key elements of existing legislation remain in force.

Finally, if the Bill introduces any new powers, it is important that the need for those powers be fully explained and understood. The amendment and the Bill more broadly implement changes that could have significant implications both for employers and for their employees. It would be helpful to have clarification on whether the new powers will be used to expand the role of the Secretary of State or the fair work agency in monitoring and regulating sectors previously overseen by the GLAA. How will those new powers affect existing regulations? What safeguards will be in place to ensure that they are used appropriately and effectively?

[Justin Madders]

That was quite a lengthy debate for a technical amendment. This amendment to schedule 6 will ensure continuity of function, which was one of the main points that the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bridgwater made. We are alive to their concern that there is a hole through which provisions can fall: there are a number of amendments to make sure that there is continuity of legal force and in the ability to carry out the functions of the predecessor authorities.

Both hon. Members asked about redundancies. It is premature to talk about operational matters of that nature. The impact assessment is being carried out on the basis of the existing budgets of the relevant agencies. No reduction in staff members is anticipated, but as we move forward, efficiencies and duplications may become apparent when the agencies are merged, which may lead to other changes to the way in which matters are carried out, and those will clearly be dealt with.

There was a concern that the reorganisation could lead to disruption, which is certainly not our intention. We expect the agencies to be able to continue to carry out existing investigations—indeed, many of the amendments are being made with that in mind to ensure that continuity is preserved. I remind Opposition Members that the purpose of the fair work agency is to ensure that intelligence is shared and resources are pooled so that we can be more effective in our labour market abuse enforcement mechanisms. That has been widely supported across the entire group of stakeholders.

In terms of oversight, there will be an advisory board, reports and strategies and the Secretary of State will be answerable to Parliament for the work of the fair work agency. We will no doubt return to that on a number of occasions as the detail is fleshed out. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Amendment 183 agreed to.

Amendments made: 102, in schedule 6, page 137, line 13, at end insert—

“(3A) In the italic heading before paragraph 10, omit “of Authority”.”

This amendment makes a minor drafting correction.

Amendment 103, in schedule 6, page 137, line 15, leave out “the heading and”.—(Justin Madders.)

This is consequential on amendment 102.

--- Later in debate ---

My point is that events happen. Although the Minister is optimistic, with his natural sunny disposition, about the lack of disruption that the reorganisation will bring, I gently ask him to consider whether the tyres have been properly kicked in the planning steps and whether the necessary due process has been followed to ensure that any disruption through the reorganisation is genuinely minimised. Although no one can expect the unexpected, I ask that steps be taken should something derail timescales or get in the way of the reorganisation.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Amendments 104 to 106 propose minor but necessary changes to section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, arising from the changes introduced under part 5 of the Bill, particularly the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers by enforcement officers. The intention behind the change is to streamline and update the regulatory framework in response to the restructuring of enforcement roles. By introducing enforcement officers under the new structure, the Government aim to enhance the effectiveness of labour abuse prevention while ensuring that there is no gap in oversight and enforcement. These minor amendments are crucial to align existing legislation with the nearly structured responsibilities and authority of enforcement officers, who will now take on the duties previously held by labour abuse prevention officers.

The centralisation of enforcement agencies under the fair work agency is part of a broader effort to centralise and co-ordinate the various enforcement agencies that currently operate. By bringing the enforcement bodies together under a single umbrella, the Government aim to create a more co-ordinated, efficient and consistent approach to tackling labour abuses and ensuring that workers’ rights are upheld across different sectors. The centralisation process is designed to improve the effectiveness of enforcement and simplify the regulatory landscape for both businesses and workers, but as we move through the reorganisation period, it is essential that all enforcement activities continue to be carried out seamlessly, without any disruption or decrease in the standard of oversight. That is particularly important as the new system is put in place, as workers rely on enforcement mechanisms to protect their rights.

I seek reassurance on the continuity of enforcement standards during the reorganisation. Given the significant structural changes involved, I ask the Minister to assure me that all current enforcement work will continue to be carried out to the same high standard during the transition period. The centralisation of enforcement agencies is a significant undertaking, and it is vital that the effectiveness of enforcement operations is not compromised during the restructuring process. Workers and businesses must be confident that the protections afforded by the existing enforcement framework will remain intact, and that enforcement officers will have the tools, resources and authority that they need to address breaches of the law effectively. I would appreciate clarification on how the Government plan to ensure that no enforcement gaps occur during the reorganisation, and that current and future enforcement work will be conducted at the same high level of competence.

[Justin Madders]

It seems we have a little double act developing on the Opposition Front Bench. It reminds me a little bit of Waldorf and Statler, without the puns. Both the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire and the hon. Member for Bridgwater sought similar and important assurances that the work of the agencies would be able to be carried out effectively during this period of transition. I note what the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire mentioned about the Mid Buckinghamshire reorganisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

For the next part of the double act —I will casually ignore the Minister’s comparison—I will speak to Government amendments 184 and 188. Amendment 184 is a minor amendment relating to part 5 of the Bill and amendment 188 is consequential on amendment 184. As the Minister said, amendment 184 removes section 19A(10A) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Section 19A concerns the

“recovery of sums payable under settlements”

and subsection (10A) provides that the court may make provision as to the time within which an application to the county court for a declaration under subsection (4) is to be made. Subsection (4) states:

“A settlement sum is not recoverable under subsection (3) if—

(a) the person by whom it is payable applies for a declaration that the sum would not be recoverable from him under the general law of contract, and

(b) that declaration is made.”

 

Notwithstanding the Minister’s explanation, it is still not entirely clear to the Committee, or indeed to the whole House, why it is necessary to delete subsection (10A) from the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. I am sure there is a very convoluted reason for it out there somewhere, but it seems to us that the will of the Government in putting this legislation before Parliament does not need that deletion in order to function. I would be grateful if the Minister gave a fuller explanation of the need for that deletion in his summing-up.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Amendment 184 proposes the removal of subsection (10A) from section 19A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, which deals with the recovery of sums payment under settlements, specifically addressing situations in which a party seeks a declaration from the court regarding the recoverability of a settlement sum.

Under subsection (10A), the court has the discretion to make provisions regarding the timeframe within which an application must be made to the county court for a declaration under subsection (4). Subsection (4) essentially provides that a settlement sum will not be recoverable if the person liable to pay the sum seeks a declaration from the court that, under general contract law, the sum is not recoverable from them. The removal of subsection (10A) raises important questions about the implications of the timing and procedure of such applications.

Given that the removal of subsection (10A) may have significant consequences for how significant settlement sums are handled and claims are processed in the future, will the Minister explain why this provision is being deleted? Understanding the reasoning behind the change is important for assessing its potential impact on workers and employers. Will the removal of this provision simplify the process for parties seeking a declaration regarding the recoverability of settlement sums or will it introduce new challenges or delays in the legal process? Furthermore, how will this change affect the ability of individuals to seek a fair resolution in cases where disputes over settlement sums arise? Clarification from the Minister on these points would be appreciated as it would help ensure that stakeholders fully understand the intended effects.

[Justin Madders]

Hopefully, I can put Opposition Members’ minds at rest about the need for the amendment. It is about simplifying the legislative framework. Section 19A(10A) of the 1996 Act is about disclosure of settlement terms to enforcement officers who are appointed under section 37M of that Act. As that is now being repealed by and superseded by the provisions in this Bill, particularly clauses 98 and 99, that provision is no longer required in the 1996 Act. That is why it is being removed; the current arrangements remain in place, but they will all be in one place, in this Bill. We hope that will provide clarity and certainty for those who wish to avail themselves of the rights and obligations under this legislation.

Amendment 184 agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Amendments 186 and 187 propose important changes that would grant the Secretary of State the power to make regulations enabling the director general of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to handle complaints and misconduct related to enforcement officers who exercise police powers. This would involve granting the IOPC the authority to oversee complaints regarding enforcement officers as they carry out their duties, particularly when acting within the scope of the powers given to them under section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Amendment 185 is consequential to those changes, ensuring that the necessary legislative framework aligns with the proposed regulations. Specifically, amendment 186 outlines that the Secretary of State will have the authority to make regulations that will confer specific functions on the director general of the IOPC. Those functions would relate to enforcement officers when they exercise powers granted to them through section 114B of the 1984 Act, which provides enforcement officers with certain powers, and this amendment ensures that there are appropriate mechanisms in place to address any complaints or allegations of misconduct arising from their use of these powers.

I would be grateful if the Minister provided further clarification on the scope of these regulations. Specifically, it would be helpful to understand what types of function the Secretary of State is likely to impose on the director general of the IOPC. For instance, will the regulations specify procedures for investigating complaints, the methods of oversight, or protocols for handling disciplinary actions against enforcement officers? What types of misconduct or complaint are anticipated to fall within this framework? Moreover, how do the Government envisage the IOPC’s role evolving, with the additional responsibility for overseeing enforcement officers under these amendments?

Understanding the intended use of these powers will help stakeholders anticipate the practical effects of these changes and their potential impacts on enforcement officers’ accountability. A key concern is whether the IOPC will be granted greater powers under this proposed framework. The IOPC’s current remit covers complaints and misconduct relating to police officers, but the introduction of enforcement officers who possess police powers raises important questions about whether the IOPC will have the authority to investigate misconduct claims against those officers in a similarly robust manner. Will the IOPC be granted expanded investigatory powers to ensure that complaints involving enforcement officers are handled thoroughly and impartially?

Additionally, will the IOPC have the authority to impose sanctions on enforcement officers found to have committed misconduct? If sanctions are available, it would be useful to understand what types of action the IOPC could take, such as recommending disciplinary measures, issuing fines or referring cases for criminal prosecution.

Providing clarity on the scope of the IOPC’s powers in relation to enforcement officers will be crucial for ensuring that those officers remain accountable for their actions while exercising their police powers.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to Opposition Members for raising those questions. I can reassure them that this is not about creating new powers, either for enforcement officers or for the IOPC. It is about transferring the existing responsibility that the IOPC has for designated officers with police-style powers to the fair work agency. The discussions have been on the basis that there would not be any additional resource implications for the IOPC. Obviously, if that were to change in due course, when the fair work agency is under way, there would be discussions about that. It is simply about the existing powers under section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act being applicable to the enforcement officers of the fair work agency on exactly the same basis as they are now. I hope that that has put Opposition Members’ minds at rest. On that note, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Amendment 185 agreed to.

Amendments made: 187, in schedule 6, page 142, line 3, after “(3)” insert “—

(i) after paragraph (bc) insert—

‘(bca) any regulations under section 26CA of this Act (enforcement officers appointed under Employment Rights Act 2025);’;

(ii)”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 186.

Amendment 186, in schedule 6, page 142, line 3, at end insert—

“(2A) After section 26C insert—

‘26CA Enforcement officers appointed under Employment Rights Act 2025

(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations conferring functions on the Director General in relation to enforcement officers acting in the exercise of functions conferred on them by virtue of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

(2) In this section “enforcement officer” means a person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 72 of the Employment Rights Act 2025.

(3) Regulations under this section may, in particular—

(a) apply (with or without modifications), or make provision similar to, any provision of or made under this Part;

(b) make provision for payment by the Secretary of State to, or in respect of, the Office or in respect of the Director General.

(4) The Director General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration may jointly investigate a matter in relation to which—

(a) the Director General has functions by virtue of this section, and

(b) the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has functions by virtue of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.

(5) The Secretary of State or an enforcement officer may disclose information to the Director General, or to a person acting on the Director General’s behalf, for the purposes of the exercise by the Director General, or by any person acting on the Director General’s behalf, of a relevant complaints function.

(6) The Director General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration may disclose information to each other for the purposes of the exercise of a function—

(a) by virtue of this section, or

(b) under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.

(7) Regulations under this section may, in particular, make—

(a) further provision about the disclosure of information under subsection (5) or (6);

(b) provision about the further disclosure of information that has been so disclosed.

(8) A disclosure of information authorised by this section does not breach—

(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or

(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).

(9) But this section does not authorise a disclosure of information that—

(a) would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether a disclosure would do so, the power conferred by this section is to be taken into account), or

(b) is prohibited by any of Parts 1 to 7 or Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

(10) In this section—

“the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act);

“relevant complaints function” means a function in relation to the exercise of functions by enforcement officers.’”

This amendment and amendment 187 would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling the Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to deal with complaints and misconduct relating to enforcement officers who are exercising police powers.

Amendment 188, in schedule 6, page 143, line 19, leave out “subsection” and insert “subsections (4) and”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 184.

Amendment 189, in schedule 6, page 144, line 10, at end insert—

“Sentencing Act 2020

92A In section 379(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020 (other behaviour orders etc), after the entry for the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 insert—

--- Later in debate ---

I understand that there is also a code of practice, written to help officers currently entitled to use the powers under the 2022 Act to assess their ability to do so in accordance with the law. What plans does the Minister have to update that code in light of Government amendment 190, to ensure that it reflects the application of those powers in the Bill?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The amendment would grant enforcement officers, under part 5 of the Bill, the authority to exercise the powers outlined in section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Specifically, it would enable those officers to extract information from electronic devices in certain circumstances. Of course, everyone now carries one of those electronic devices.

The amendment is designed to support enforcement officers in carrying out their duties, including the investigation and enforcement of employment laws, particularly in cases that may involve criminal activities, such as exploitation, trafficking or financial misconduct. The ability to access electronic devices and retrieve relevant data will aid in gathering evidence and conducting thorough investigations, especially when digital evidence is critical to uncovering illegal practices.

To clarify the scope of that power, section 37 of the 2022 Act limits the use of the power to specific purposes. The powers can be exercised for the following objectives: preventing crime, which could include investigating cases of worker exploitation, trafficking or other forms of criminal behaviour related to employment law; detecting criminal activity, such as fraudulent schemes or illegal practices by employers; investigating crimes, especially where there is a digital trail or evidence related to labour abuse, fraud or similar issues that could be crucial to the case; prosecuting crime and ensuring that the evidence gathered can be used in legal proceedings to hold perpetrators accountable; locating missing persons, which could be relevant in situations involving forced labour or human trafficking; and protecting vulnerable individuals, such as children or at-risk adults, from harm, including neglect or physical, mental or emotional abuse in the workplace.

Those strict conditions are in place to ensure that the powers are used appropriately and only when there is a legitimate and necessary reason to extract information from electronic devices. While that power can be extremely valuable in investigating serious crimes, it is important to consider how often such powers will be needed when enforcing employment law specifically. The nature of employment law enforcement does not always require the same level of investigation into criminal activities as, for example, police work or national security investigations. Thus, I would appreciate an insight from the Minister regarding the frequency with which the power is likely to be used in the enforcement of employment laws. Is the power expected to be a routine tool, or will it be reserved for exceptional circumstances where there is significant evidence suggesting the need for such an intrusive measure?

Additionally, it is crucial to ensure that safeguards are in place to prevent any inappropriate or intrusive use of the power. Given the sensitivity of extracting data from electronic devices, there is a need for strict guidelines and oversight to ensure that the power is not abused. How will the Government ensure that the power is used proportionately and responsibly? What measures will be put in place to prevent overreach and protect the privacy of individuals who are not involved in criminal activity? For example, will there be a requirement for judicial authorisation before enforcement officers can access private data? Will there be any independent oversight to review the use of these powers and prevent misuse?

I would be grateful if the Minister outlined the safeguards and controls that will be implemented to ensure that the power is not used excessively or for purposes outside its intended scope. Furthermore, what will the procedures be for ensuring accountability and transparency in the use of this power?

[Justin Madders]

The shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bridgwater asked me the “how long is a piece of string?” question—that is, how often the powers will be used. The best thing I can do is to come back to both of them with how often they have been used in recent times because, of course, there is an existing power with the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.

I was asked various questions about the use of powers, oversight and so on. Clauses 78 and 79 set out the powers that officers have. As we have discussed, we expect that these things will be the culmination of an ongoing dialogue between a particular business and the fair work agency. When there is non-compliance, these powers can be used as a last resort. Clause 83 sets out some of the oversight provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

Government amendments 191 and 192 ensure that things done “in relation to” existing enforcement officers—for example, before part 5 of the Bill comes into force—continue to have effect as if done “in relation to” the Secretary of State. I fully accept that Government amendments 197 and 200 make minor drafting changes, which look as though they ensure legal continuity—that would be the case, based on the Minister’s opening remarks—and therefore seem sensible, given the policy direction.

I can conclude my comments on the amendments only by asking the usual question, which I have asked many times in Committee and fear I will ask a few more times during the debate over the remainder of today, Thursday and next Tuesday: should the amendments have been included in the Bill on its introduction? This is yet another example of why it is foolish to rush anything, particularly getting a Bill out in 100 days and its consideration in Committee.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Government amendments 191 and 192 are designed to ensure legal continuity for actions and decisions made regarding existing enforcement officers prior to the implementation of part 5 of the Bill. They stipulate that any actions or procedures carried out “in relation to” enforcement officers before the new provisions come into force, such as appointments, disciplinary actions or administrative functions, will continue to have the same legal effect as if they had been made “in relation to” the Secretary of State. That is important, because it prevents any disruption or confusion in the legal standing of prior actions, ensuring that they are not rendered ineffective by the changes introduced by the Bill. Essentially, the amendments provide a mechanism to ensure that the transition to the new legal framework does not invalidate or interfere with prior administrative or operational activities.

The rationale behind the amendments is straightforward: it is legal continuity. As enforcement officers are brought under a new regulatory framework, it is crucial that past actions related to their roles, such as those conducted before the Bill takes effect, are preserved and do not need to be revisited or re-executed under the new provisions. That ensures that there is no disruption in the functioning of enforcement operations and that any ongoing matters involving enforcement officers continue seamlessly under the authority of the Secretary of State. The amendments clarify that past decisions and procedures will be treated as if they were made under the authority of the new system, which will help to avoid any potential legal challenges or confusion.

Amendments 197 and 200 involve relatively minor drafting changes. Although the specifics of those changes may not substantially alter the substance of the Bill, they are important for clarity, consistency and precision in the text. These types of amendments typically address technical issues, such as language inconsistencies, ambiguities or minor adjustments to improve the readability and legal accuracy of the provisions. Although they do not represent major shifts in policy, such amendments are crucial in ensuring that the Bill’s provisions are clear, unambiguous and legally sound. Even small drafting changes play an important role in improving the overall functionality and effectiveness of the legislation.

Amendments 197 and 200 help to fine-tune the Bill’s language, ensuring that there are no interpretive uncertainties that could arise during its application. By addressing potential issues in the drafting, the amendments help to streamline the implementation process and reduce the risk of legal challenges or confusion in future interpretations of the law.

Taken together, the amendments—particularly amendments 191 and 192—help to ensure that there is no legal disruption when the provisions in part 5 of the Bill come into effect. That is an essential part of the legislative process, as it guarantees that previous actions remain valid and that transition to a new regulatory framework is smooth. In addition, the minor drafting changes provided by amendments 197 and 200 contribute to legal clarity, ensuring that the Bill’s language is precise and consistent, which will help to avoid any future complications in the application of the law.

Although these changes are reasonable and sensible, in the light of the Bill’s policy objectives, it is worth noting that they should ideally have been included at the time of the Bill’s introduction. The legal continuity ensured by amendments 191 and 192, as well as the technical refinements in amendments 197 and 200, could have been addressed earlier in the drafting process, to ensure that the Bill was as comprehensive and clear as possible from the outset. None the less, these changes at this stage still serve to enhance the legal robustness and practical application of the Bill, which will ultimately contribute to more effective enforcement and smoother implementation.

[Justin Madders]

I think both Opposition Members who spoke were supportive of the amendments, although they raised legitimate questions about why they were necessary. As the shadow Minister pointed out, we had an ambitious timetable—a manifesto commitment—to issue the Bill within 100 days. Even when Bills are many years in gestation, there are often amendments in Committee to clarify issues, and to ensure that the Bill does what it says on the tin and is legally coherent. These amendments are an example of that process. I am sure Members appreciate how important it is that the amendments are passed, so that we can ensure that everything carries on and is as effective as possible.

Amendment 191 agreed to.

Amendment made: 192, in schedule 7, page 146, line 24, after “by” insert “or in relation to”.—(Justin Madders.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 191.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Amendment 193 addresses the need for a seamless transition in the enforcement of employment tribunal awards. It specifically ensures that the transitional provision in paragraph 6 of schedule 7 to the Bill will apply to officers acting under part 2A of the 1996 Act, which governs the enforcement of employment tribunal awards. This is an important step as the enforcement of the tribunal awards will now fall under the responsibility of the Secretary of State, as stipulated in the Bill. By making the provision, the amendment ensures that the functions previously handled by officers enforcing tribunal awards will continue smoothly during the transition, even as the legal authority for enforcement shifts.

The inclusion of the amendment is crucial for legal continuity. It guarantees that actions taken by officers acting under the 1996 Act will still have legal effect even as their functions are transferred to the Secretary of State and the fair work agency. The amendment essentially ensures that any ongoing enforcement activities related to employment tribunal awards remain valid, preventing legal confusion or disruption during the reorganisation. It also ensures that the change in responsibility from individual enforcement officers to the Secretary of State does not cause any delay or interruption in enforcement actions. This will help to maintain confidence in the process, both for workers seeking to enforce their tribunal awards and businesses affected by these decisions.

[Justin Madders]

Opposition Members raise the same point as before about why we have had to introduce this amendment now. I refer the shadow Minister to my previous comments on that matter; no doubt I may do so again.

Both Opposition Members have rightly raised the concern about ensuring continuity when the body is instigated. Clearly, what we would expect and hope is that the day-to-day operations of enforcement officers on the ground are not impinged or affected by the creation of the agency. The Bill and a number of amendments are about ensuring that their functions continue smoothly.

Amendment 193 agreed to.

Amendments made: 194, in schedule 7, page 147, leave out line 6.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 195.

Amendment 195, in schedule 7, page 147, line 11, at end insert—

“( ) an officer of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority acting for the purposes of any other enactment.”—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment and amendment 194 make a minor drafting change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

Amendment 196 makes it clear that the general provision in paragraph 6 of schedule 7 is subject to any more specific provision in that schedule. Amendment 198 makes transitional provision to ensure that things done by or in relation to labour abuse prevention officers before the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority continue to have effect as if done by or in relation to enforcement officers granted the equivalent powers under section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Amendment 199 makes transitional provision in relation to warrants under section 17 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act, which is being re-enacted for England, Wales and Scotland, with some changes, through clause 83. In particular, proposed new paragraph 7C of schedule 7 of the Bill provides that, where a warrant issued under section 17 of the 2004 Act has not yet been executed, the warrant is treated as if issued under clause 83, but any changes introduced by the Bill that would not have applied if the warrant had been executed under section 17 —in particular the additional requirements in part 3 of new schedule 1—are disapplied.

On the face of it, these are sensible amendments to make sure that nothing falls through the cracks as enforcement functions transfer to the fair work agency. A number of Government amendments of this nature have been considered by the Committee. This set of amendments therefore leaves me slightly nervous, not about the intention, but about whether anything else has been missed. I would appreciate the Minister’s reassurance on that point.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Amendment 196 seeks to clarify the applicability of general and specific provisions and the relationship between the general provision outlined in paragraph 6 of schedule 7 and any more specific provision within that schedule. The amendment ensures that, in the event of a conflict or overlap between general and specific provisions, the more detailed or specific provisions will take precedence. This is an important measure for maintaining legal clarity and consistency in the application of the Bill. By prioritising specific provisions where applicable, the amendment prevents any unintended gaps or inconsistencies in the legal framework, ensuring that enforcement activities and related actions are governed by the most precise and relevant rules.

Amendment 198 introduces a transitional provision designed to ensure that actions taken by or in relation to labour abuse prevention officers prior to the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority will continue to be recognised as valid. Specifically, it ensures that any activities, decisions or functions performed by those officers before the GLAA’s dissolution will have the same legal effect as if they had been carried out by or in relation to enforcement officers who have been granted equivalent powers under section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This is critical because it provides a seamless transition as enforcement responsibilities are transferred, making certain that actions taken by the GLAA’s officers before the abolition of the agency are not rendered void or ineffective.

The amendment is vital for legal continuity. It guarantees that there will be no disruption in enforcement activities during the transition period. Officers who previously worked under the authority of the GLAA, particularly those involved in tackling labour abuse, will carry out their roles without interruption, as their actions will be treated as if undertaken by enforcement officers with the equivalent legal powers. The measure strengthens the overall framework for worker protection and labour abuse prevention, ensuring that the enforcement of relevant laws continues smoothly as the responsibility shifts to new authorities.

Amendment 199 focuses on the transitional provision for warrants issued under section 17 of the 2004 Act, which is being re-enacted in a revised form as clause 83 of the Bill. The amendment introduces new paragraph 7C, which addresses the scenario where a warrant issued under section 17 has not yet been executed at the time of the change. In such cases, the warrant will be treated as if it were issued under the new provisions in clause 83, but with a critical distinction. Any changes introduced by the Bill that would not have applied under section 17, such as the additional requirements in part three of new schedule 1, will be disapplied.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any ongoing enforcement actions involving warrants issued under the old regime are not hindered or invalidated by the transition to the new framework. By allowing the warrants to be treated as though they were issued under the new clause, the amendment facilitates a smoother enforcement process and reduces the risk of legal challenges or procedural delays. This is an important safeguard for the enforcement of labour laws and ensures that the power to execute warrants continues without disruption, regardless of the legislative changes.

[Justin Madders]

I sense that the Opposition Members are supportive of the amendments. The shadow Minister challenged me on whether there will be any more minor or consequential amendments. I cannot give him an absolute guarantee on that; it is always an iterative process when Bills are issued; we take notice of what stakeholders say in their feedback, as well as other Government Departments. Of course, it is important that we get these things done before the Bill becomes law, by which time it is too late. I hope the Committee is reassured that there is an ongoing process to ensure that there is certainty and coherence in the legislation as we prepare for Report.

Amendment 196 agreed to.

Amendments made: 197, in schedule 7, page 147, line 25, after “repeal” insert “of that provision”.

This amendment makes a minor drafting change.

Amendment 198, in schedule 7, page 147, line 27, at end insert—

“Labour abuse prevention officers

7A (1) Anything which—

(a) was done by or in relation to a labour abuse prevention officer in, or in connection with, the exercise of a function conferred on the officer by virtue of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”), and

(b) is in effect immediately before the day on which paragraph 67 of Schedule 6 comes into force (“the relevant day”),

has effect, on and after that day, as if done by or in relation to a relevant enforcement officer.

(2) Anything which—

(a) relates to a function conferred on a labour abuse prevention officer by virtue of section 114B of PACE, and

(b) immediately before the relevant day, is in the process of being done by or in relation to such an officer,

may be continued, on and after that day, by or in relation to a relevant enforcement officer.

(3) In this paragraph—

“labour abuse prevention officer” has the meaning given by section 114B of PACE (as that section had effect immediately before the relevant day);

“relevant enforcement officer” , in relation to a function conferred by virtue of section 114B of PACE, means an enforcement officer on whom that function is conferred by virtue of that section (as it has effect on and after the relevant day).”

This amendment makes transitional provision to ensure that things done by or in relation to labour abuse prevention officers before the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority continue to have effect as if done by or in relation to enforcement officers granted the equivalent powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 by virtue of section 114B of that Act.

Amendment 199, in schedule 7, page 147, line 27, at end insert—

“Warrants

7B (1) This paragraph applies to an application for a warrant under section 17 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”) which—

(a) is made in England and Wales or Scotland before the day on which paragraph 42 of Schedule 6 comes into force, and

(b) is not determined or withdrawn before that day.

(2) The application is to be treated, on and after that day, as an application made by an enforcement officer for a warrant under section 83 of this Act.

7C (1) This paragraph applies to a warrant under section 17 of the 2004 Act which—

(a) is issued under that section before the day on which paragraph 42 of Schedule 6 comes into force, and

(b) is not executed before that day.

(2) The warrant is to be treated for the purposes of section 83 of this Act as if it had been issued under that section.

(3) That section applies in relation to the warrant as if—

(a) in subsection (4)(a) , after “bring” there were inserted “any persons or”, and

(b) after subsection (4) there were inserted—

“(4A)On leaving any premises which an enforcement officer is authorised to enter by a warrant under this section, the officer must, if the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is temporarily absent, leave the premises as effectively secured against trespassers as the officer found them.”

(4) Section (Warrants) and Schedule (Warrants under Part 5: further provision) do not apply in relation to the warrant.”

This amendment makes transitional provision in relation to warrants under section 17 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which is being re-enacted for England and Wales and Scotland (with some changes) as clause 83. In particular, new paragraph 7C provides that, where a warrant issued under section 17 has not yet been executed, the warrant is treated as if issued under clause 83, but any changes introduced by the Bill which would not have applied if the warrant had been executed under section 17 (in particular, the additional requirements in Part 3 of NS1) are disapplied.

Amendment 200, in schedule 7, page 147, line 40, leave out “that person” and insert “the enforcing authority”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment makes a minor drafting change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

Amendments 201 and 202 provide that information that was obtained before the coming into force of part 5 of the Bill by officers acting under existing legislation and is held by the Secretary of State can be used or disclosed by the Secretary of State in accordance with clause 98. These are sensible amendments on the face of it, to make sure nothing falls through the cracks as the enforcement functions transfer to the fair work agency—very similar to the previous set of amendments that we have just considered. It is part of a continuing theme of amendments of this nature that we as a Committee are being asked to consider.

I heard the Minister’s response to the previous debate about this being an iterative process and about the need to listen and best understand concerns or practical points raised by those being asked to prepare for and ultimately do this work. It remains a legitimate point of nervousness that there will be more such cracks that need repairing as part of this Bill. Accepting the Minister’s good faith in his explanation on the previous set of amendments, I put on record that we remain a little nervous that more cracks will need that legislative repair as the Bill goes forward.

We urge the Government to get on at pace with the conversations necessary to ensure that they have best understood where any further edits may be required—preferably before Report stage in the House of Commons, but if it does have to bleed into the time when the Bill goes to the other place, so be it. However, I think it would a far more satisfactory position if we were able to consider at our end of the building any further amendments that may be required before we ask their lordships to consider the Bill.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Government amendments 201 and 202 are designed to address a key aspect of the transition process under the Bill. Specifically, they are designed such that any information that was obtained prior to the coming into force of part 5 of the Bill by officers operating under existing legislation and is currently held by the Secretary of State, can still be used or disclosed in accordance with the provisions outlined in clause 98 of the Bill.

That is crucial because, as enforcement functions transfer to the fair work agency, there needs to be continuity in how information is handled. By allowing the Secretary of State to continue using and disclosing this information under the new framework, the amendments ensure that no critical data or intelligence gathered under the previous system is lost or becomes unusable during the transition.

This provision is particularly important for maintaining continuity in enforcement activities. The information collected by officers acting under earlier laws may be vital for ongoing investigations or enforcement actions. For instance, data about businesses that are non-compliant with labour laws, or evidence of potential worker exploitation, could be crucial for future legal proceedings or further investigations.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would have been better and more efficient for the Bill to come before the House in a more final version, which may have put at ease many of us with concerns about the cracks that may still exist?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. The reason that the Bill is in such poor condition is that the Labour party was under a political obligation to its trade union friends to bring it forward within 100 days. Had it waited a month or two, we would not have needed such detailed scrutiny and so many Government amendments. Occasionally one hears a tut or a groan from Government Members as we try to scrutinise the Bill, but really it is entirely the Government’s fault for bringing forward such a poorly drafted piece of legislation.

As I was saying, without amendments 201 and 202, confusion or legal obstacles could prevent the use of such information, creating gaps in the enforcement process. By making it clear that the Secretary of State has the authority to use and disclose such information under clause 98, the amendments ensure that the enforcement process remains uninterrupted, effective and legally coherent.

Overall, the amendments are sensible and necessary to guarantee that nothing falls through the cracks as the responsibilities for enforcing labour laws transition from existing structures to the fair work agency. As the Bill centralises enforcement functions, it is essential that any information collected under the old system remains accessible and usable by the new agency. That is particularly important given the potential impact on ongoing investigations, compliance checks and prosecutions. By ensuring that previously collected information can still be used effectively, the amendments will help to prevent disruptions or delays in enforcement, safeguarding both workers and businesses.

It is worth noting that the transition to a new enforcement structure can often be fraught with challenges. The Bill will alter not only the bodies responsible for enforcement, but the way in which information and data are managed. The amendments will help address the practical aspects of the transition, ensuring that the fair work agency has the resources and information it needs to continue performing its duties effectively. In doing so, they will create a smoother handover of powers and responsibilities from the previous enforcement regime to the new framework.

Throughout the Committee’s proceedings, we have debated many Government amendments of a similar nature. Amendments 201 and 202 are necessary to fine-tune the Bill and ensure that all aspects of the transition are fully addressed, but the sheer volume of amendments at this stage leaves me with some concern, as it suggests that the Bill may not have fully accounted for all the transitional issues at the outset, and there may still be elements that have not been addressed. Given the complexity of centralising such a significant portion of the enforcement process, it is natural to be cautious about whether any areas may have been overlooked. While these amendments are clearly intended to provide clarity and ensure continuity, the volume of amendments suggests that there may still be unanswered questions or unforeseen gaps in the transition process, which leaves me somewhat nervous that issues may have been missed in the initial drafting of the Bill. We have certainly seen that happen often enough thus far. It is crucial that all challenges or concerns relating to the transfer of enforcement powers are adequately addressed before the Bill passes. As such, I believe it is important to consider whether there are any outstanding issues that might affect the long-term success of the transition.

Given the number of amendments and the complexity of the transition, I would appreciate the Minister’s reassurance that there is a comprehensive understanding of the full scope of the changes and that no essential elements have been left unaddressed. Are the Government confident that all necessary steps have been taken to ensure a smooth and effective transition? In particular, can the Minister assure us that the fair work agency will be fully equipped to handle its new responsibilities, including that it will be able to utilise critical information from the prior enforcement system without any disruptions? I would also like to hear about the monitoring processes that will be in place to oversee the transition period and ensure that any unforeseen issues are quickly addressed, which is vital for maintaining business confidence and worker protections throughout the period of change.

While the amendments are crucial for ensuring that enforcement activities continue smoothly during the transition, they should ideally have been made earlier in the process to avoid the need for these later clarifications. Having a more comprehensive and cohesive framework in place at the outset would have reduced uncertainty and provided greater assurance to all parties involved. Never-theless, the amendments go a long way to addressing the issues that could arise during the handover of enforcement responsibilities, and ensuring that the transition to the fair work agency will be as smooth and effective as possible.

[Justin Madders]

The shadow Minister asked whether it is our intention to have the Bill shipshape before we send it to the other place. That is absolutely our intention, and the amendments that have been debated today are part of that.

The criticism from the hon. Member for Bridgwater about the number of Government amendments has been noted. It was important that we kept to our manifesto commitment to issue the Bill within 100 days, but I have to say that when I was an Opposition Member I do not think I ever sat on a Bill Committee where the Government did not introduce their own amendments. If he is able to come up with some examples, I would be delighted to hear from him. I am afraid he will probably have to sit on a few more Bill Committees, and he will see that that is perfectly normal in the way these things work. After a Bill is published, it has more eyes on it; other stakeholders, Government Departments and agencies get to see it, and they offer views and feedback. It is right that we take account of those views and make what are often technical and minor amendments to make sure that the Bill has the intended legal effect.

The hon. Member asked whether any other essential elements have been omitted. The amendments we are debating are about ensuring that the fair work agency is functioning and effective from Royal Assent. I cannot give him a guarantee that there will not be other things that come out, but we have been doing a considerable amount of work, as can be seen by the number of amendments, to make sure that the Bill will be fully operational and that there will be no effect on the day-to-day running of the work of the enforcement officers and the creation of the fair work agency.

Amendment 201 agreed to.

Amendment made: 202, in schedule 7, page 148, line 19, leave out from “to” to end of line 20 and insert “—

(a) any information which the Secretary of State obtains by virtue of paragraph 8A;

(b) any information which, immediately before the coming into force of paragraph 20 of Schedule 6, the Secretary of State holds by virtue of section 15(2) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998;

(c) any information which, immediately before the coming into force of paragraph 21 of that Schedule, the Secretary of State holds by virtue of section 16(2) of that Act;

(d) any information which the Secretary of State obtains by virtue of a property transfer scheme under paragraph 2 of this Schedule.”—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment and Amendment 201 would provide that information which was obtained before the coming into force of Part 5 of the Bill by officers acting under existing legislation and is held by the Secretary of State can be used or disclosed by the Secretary of State in accordance with clause 98.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I am sorry, Mr Mundell.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Government amendment 203 seeks to address an important transitional issue arising from the repeal of section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 by the Bill. Section 9 currently stipulates that a statement made by an individual in compliance with a requirement to provide information under that section may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings against them. The amendment ensures that any statements made under the provisions of section 9 prior to its repeal can still be used in criminal proceedings that occur after the repeal takes effect.

The amendment is a necessary adjustment to maintain the integrity of the legal process. It will ensure that evidence obtained while section 9 was in effect remains valid and admissible in criminal cases, even after the section’s formal removal from the statute. Without the amendment, there could be ambiguity and potential legal challenges regarding the admissibility of evidence, which could undermine ongoing enforcement efforts and hinder the administration of justice. By making this provision, the Government ensure that no gaps are created in the legal framework, preserving continuity and clarity in the application of the law.

As we transition enforcement functions to the fair work agency, such amendments are vital to ensure the process is as seamless as possible. The purpose of amendment 203, and others like it, is to safeguard that critical aspects of the previous legal framework remain intact, even as the functions are reassigned or modified under the Bill. The changeover to the fair work agency is a significant shift, and these amendments are an important step in maintaining enforcement consistency. Given the complexity of transferring powers and responsibilities between agencies, the amendments ensure that no legal actions or evidence will fall through the cracks during the transition. They will ensure that enforcement remains robust, and that any evidence gathered or actions taken before the changeover still hold legal weight under the new system.

Although the adjustments are sensible and necessary, the number of Government amendments made in Committee leaves me with some concern about whether every possible issue has been addressed. The amendments we have seen so far have been well intentioned and critical for ensuring legal continuity, but I would appreciate the Minister’s reassurance that nothing has been overlooked in this important process.

As we know, the task of realigning enforcement powers can be complex, and with numerous provisions being amended or repealed, the risk of something slipping through the cracks is a valid concern. Opposition Members are asking for clarity that even with these detailed and helpful amendments, the transition to the fair work agency will not inadvertently create gaps or unintended consequences. I urge the Minister to provide additional assurances that all potential legal or procedural pitfalls have been anticipated, and that the Government have taken every necessary step to guarantee that the work of enforcement officers and the legal process will continue without interruption. Although the amendments are certainly a step in the right direction, we must remain vigilant to ensure that the full scope of the transition is properly managed and that the system continues to protect the rights of workers effectively.

[Justin Madders]

I believe I have already addressed the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bridgwater on several occasions this morning, although I take his points.

Amendment 203 agreed to.

Employment Rights Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Would everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on the declaration of interests, as set out in the code of conduct.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Mundell. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I seek your guidance on the status of a document circulated to Members by the Scrutiny Unit. It says it is submitted by a Professor Mitie, but I believe that the document is in fact from Mitie, the organisation, and perhaps we do not know its author. Could I ask that we be told who the author is? It is Professor Somebody Else, I suspect. The document also has tracked changes in it, and I seek your guidance on whether those are comments inserted by the Scrutiny Unit or, perhaps, by the author. It is sometimes difficult to know when documents are circulated at the last minute.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Sir Ashley, for giving notice of that point of order. The issue you have raised is obviously on the record. It will be raised with the Scrutiny Unit and there will be a report back to the Committee on the outcome of that inquiry.

Clause 72

Enforcement of labour market legislation by Secretary of State

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The Minister is talking about granting officials of the state extensive powers currently reserved to police officers. Can he tell us how many additional officials will be granted those additional powers?

[Justin Madders]

What we are doing is transferring existing powers and responsibilities from the existing agency. There are no new police-style powers being created for these officers; it is simply a transfer over to the fair work agency.

Clause 72 is key to delivering the much-needed upgrade to the enforcement of workers’ rights so that it is more effective and fair for workers and businesses. It brings together enforcement functions currently split between several different enforcement agencies and gives the fair work agency the flexibility to respond to a rapidly changing labour market. I commend the clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

I know from my surgeries and casework in Torbay that discrimination is sadly alive and well. I ask the Minister to reflect on some of the evidence from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which talked about the provision leading to fragmentation and the possibility of some of its standard work falling between two stools. What reassurances can the Minister give that the good work will proceed appropriately either through the fair work agency, or in a partnership approach with the Equality and Human Rights Commission?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I want to speak in support of new clause 23 and to ask the Minister whether he is familiar with Parkinson’s law. It states that the number of workers in any public administration will tend to grow over time, regardless of the quantity of work done. The corollary is that work expands to fill the time available for its completion.

Although Conservative Members are in favour of the creation of the fair work agency, there is a risk that, over time, it will seek to have more staff and more power, will consume a great deal more of taxpayers’ money and resources, and will impose more on employers’ time, without great result. That is why a review is necessary. We want to ensure that any new authority is lean and efficient. We also want the Government to take the same approach to regulations.

Unfortunately, the Bill is a hefty document. It will impose £5 billion-worth of costs on employers, which will probably result in fewer people being employed, higher inflation and lower growth. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for the Opposition to ask the Government to reflect after 18 months and ascertain whether they can find anything in this weighty tome that they could do better or more efficiently.

The working time directive is immensely complicated and imposes burdensome record keeping on employers. In the past, it has resulted in retained firefighters in rural areas having to count the time when they sit at home, not doing anything, as working time. It has been a difficult and troublesome measure, and perhaps my party should have done more to simplify it when we were in office, but that is not an excuse for the Government to say, “Because you didn’t do enough, we intend to do nothing.” It is reasonable for us to ask the Government, at the end of 18 months, to take another look and see whether they can do anything to reduce the burden on businesses.

[Justin Madders]

I am beginning to wonder whether the Opposition’s support for the fair work agency is as strong as I thought. They now appear to want to make sure that creating it is the right thing do, despite its featuring regularly in Conservative manifestos and despite the support of the breadth of stakeholders who gave evidence to the Committee. The current Director of Labour Market Enforcement made it clear in her evidence to the Committee that the creation of the fair work agency would make her role much easier and more effective. She spoke about the recommendations in her most recent report:

“The ones that relate to having a better joined-up approach, to greater efficiency and to better sharing of information among bodies are the things that I think the fair work agency will do a lot better.” ––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 153, Q159.]

I think that almost half of the recommendations from her most recent report contained an element of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I hear what the Minister says in his explanation of the clause. Often, advisory boards are perfectly good and useful bodies, but I return to my earlier point that where a power rests with a Secretary of State, the accountable body to which any Secretary of State must submit themselves is the House of Commons, where they are a Member, or the House of Lords, in the rare case that they sit in the other place. Parliament is the advisory body—the critical friend—that the Secretary of State should submit themselves to.

However, accepting that an advisory board is going to be established, I want to ask the Minister about its make-up. While the Bill seems to be quite clear, there are some gaps, and some unanswered questions that the public, businesses, employees and the trade union movement will no doubt wish to have answered.

Probably the clearest definition in clause 75(4) is that in paragraph (a):

“persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of trade unions”.

I think we can all understand that that means representatives of the trade union movement.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

There are 10 of them over there.

[Greg Smith]

There is my first question, prompted by my hon. Friend: does that include right hon. and hon. Members of Parliament who themselves are members of trade unions? Could that be the case?

We are less clear on paragraphs (b) and (c). Paragraph (b) states:

“persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of employers”.

That is a far less easily defined body of people. On the one hand, I can hear some potentially arguing that that is the representative bodies that gave evidence to the Committee, such as the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors. That would be a legitimate answer, until somebody came forward and made a compelling case that, as an individual employer, they should be considered to sit on the board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

I am concerned about the heavy weather that colleagues on the Opposition Benches are making of this. For me, this measure is about driving a positive culture in employment, and the board’s balance is entirely appropriate. I welcome the clause.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I have a number of concerns about the establishment of the advisory board for the enforcement of labour market rules. I do not believe that such an advisory board is necessary and I am convinced that its creation would represent an expensive and bureaucratic exercise that would be redundant at best and a tool to disguise the Government’s intentions behind a veil of unnecessary consultation at worst. Let me explain why.

Let us first address the central issue: the need for advice. It is not as if there is a shortage of expert opinions on labour market matters; far from it. If the Secretary of State is seeking guidance from trade unions, he need look no further than the extensive and loud representation of trade union interests on the Benches behind him. There seems to be no shortage of trade union representatives in key positions, be it MPs with close ties to the unions or those with—

[Michael Wheeler]

Does the hon. Member accept that there is a difference between “member of” and “represents” when it comes to trade unions?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Yes, I do. Indeed, “funded by” trade unions is another distinction. The point I am making is that this advice is available for free. There is no need for the Secretary of State to commission a board and pay representatives of trade unions to give him advice. The notion that three members of trade unions are needed on the advisory board seems, to put it bluntly, quite redundant. The Secretary of State can obtain that advice from any number of trade unions, their experts, or any of the MPs that sit on the Government Benches, who will all freely give it. Let us not forget that there are already plenty of independent experts contributing to various public bodies and providing high-level advice to the Government—there is certainly no shortage of them dotted throughout Whitehall.

If the Government require business perspectives, they certainly need not search too far for that advice either. If they wanted to, they could listen to the CBI or, if they preferred, to the Federation of Small Businesses, which provide ample insights and recommendations on policy matters relating to labour and employment. Those bodies represent businesses large and small, and have extensive networks of experts available to advise on any issues regarding the labour market. The problem—I suspect the Federation of Small Businesses would agree—is that the Secretary of State does not listen to them, so what difference would it make if he were to put one of them on a board of nine or 12? Do we need more voices from the same sectors giving advice?

Who might we see the Secretary of State appoint to this board? I am sure Sir Brendan Barber would get a look in, or perhaps Baroness Frances O’Grady. I wonder what Len McCluskey is up to these days—I am sure he has vast experience in employment rights matters.

[The Chair]

Mr McCluskey is now a constituent of mine.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Mr Mundell, you are as fortunate as Mr McCluskey.

I am sure that those are just the independent experts that the Secretary of State will be considering appointing to this board. This highlights another crucial point: the Government designation of independent experts is incredibly vague. The Government define “independent expert” as anyone who is neither a trade union representative nor an employer representative. There is no requirement in the Bill for someone to have any particular expertise; they just must not fall into one of those two categories. Nowhere does it say that that expert cannot be a member of a trade union; nowhere does it say that they cannot be a former leader of a trade union; nowhere does it detail what qualifications or experience these experts are expected to bring. Let us not forget that these experts will be paid substantial sums of money—potentially hundreds of pounds per day—and the Government want us to take it on trust that they will be appointing the best people for the job.

As is often the case with such bodies, it is not a risk, but a total certainty that the advisory board will be appointed disproportionately to represent one end of the political spectrum. I suspect the Government will make every effort to ensure that those appointed align with the views they already hold—or, if we have a board of nine, that at least eight of them are firmly in the camp of the Labour party. The most likely outcome in my view is that this board will be packed with individuals whose perspectives on labour markets are perfectly aligned with Government policy and with the trade unions that this Government represent. It might be more straightforward for the Government simply to ask the TUC for instructions on how to go ahead, rather than to go through this cumbersome and expensive process. It would certainly cost the taxpayer less, and I would argue it would be more honest too. The fact is that this board’s purpose seems more to provide a cover for a Government agenda that is already in place than to genuinely provide diverse input. It looks like an expensive way to present the façade of consultation without delivering anything meaningful at all.

If the idea of this surplus of readily available advice was not bad enough, we have not started to talk about the cost of setting up this quango and the board. Having served on two public bodies, I know that advisory bodies are expensive and time-consuming ventures that require significant administrative resources in terms of staff, time and finance. Not only do the members of those bodies need to be compensated—perhaps the Minister will advise us whether they will be paid £300 a day, or £400 or £500 a day—but there is also the cost of setting up the selection process, conducting interviews and managing the day-to-day operation of the body. We are talking about at least nine members being appointed—probably more—which will consume considerable amounts of civil service time and taxpayers’ money. The selection process alone will involve a long list of procedures: advertising positions, longlisting, shortlisting, interviewing, and ultimately appointing the individuals—all, inevitably, to end up with the appointment of the nine people that the Secretary of State wanted to appoint in the first place.

What will this board ultimately do? It will advise the Secretary of State on drafting a strategy. We all know how these things go: the result will be a glossy document full of attractive photographs, distributed widely to people who will never read it, and it will have little or no practical impact on the ground. It will be yet more time and money wasted by this Government. We do not need more reports or strategies; we do not need an advisory board. Labour market rules are already there and they need to be enforced. The person responsible politically is the Secretary of State. He should take responsibility for the political decisions he makes in enforcing those laws, and not hide behind an advisory body.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Anna McMorrin.)

Employment Rights Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I wish all colleagues a happy and prosperous new year.

I welcome these proposals. Only this weekend, I was speaking with a constituent in Torbay who told me that the unit he worked in had transferred out of the NHS and been taken over by the private sector. He was gravely concerned about sharp practices that he saw being undertaken by the new employer. My best advice to him was, “Have you engaged with the trade union on site? How can the trade union help you? If I can do anything to assist the trade union, I stand ready to help.”

Trade unions are a force for good in the workplace, and many of the proposals that we will discuss today will put us mid-range in the OECD on trade union rights. Far from the extremism that the Conservatives are painting us into a corner with, these measures will actually put us back on an even keel as a nation in our relations with trade unions, rather than something like third or fourth bottom among OECD countries in the rights that we give unions.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and I wish you and other colleagues a happy new year.

I want to follow on from the comments made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, and emphasise that the clause is completely pointless. Of course all workers have the right to join a trade union and the right not to join a trade union. Will the Minister outline the consequences for a small employer of not complying with the clause? Will there be a penalty? Will the employer be taken to a tribunal that can make a protective award? If there will not be a penalty, surely the clause is only performative, and just more evidence that the Government are doing what their trade union masters are telling them to.

Time and again in the Bill, we see measures that are small and inconsequential individually, but in total mount up to £5 billion of additional costs, most of them on small and medium-sized businesses. We see from surveys of business confidence that businesses are reeling under the imposition of additional taxes and of these rights, and the Government’s business-unfriendly stance. While the Minister talks about growth, the actions of his Government point to the very opposite. They believe that somehow they can regulate their way to growth. We start this new year with more regulation from the Government, none of which will contribute to the wealth and prosperity of our citizens.

[Justin Madders]

There was a mix of responses there. We heard from the hon. Member for Torbay that the Liberal Democrats welcome the clause, I think the shadow Minister was generally supportive, albeit not explicitly, and then the hon. Member for Bridgwater was fairly critical. I will address the points made by all three individuals.

The shadow Minister made a fair point that the frequency with which employees will have to be notified is important. That will be determined by the responses that we get to the consultation. Clearly, we do not want to make this measure too onerous, but we believe that it is important as a matter of principle that employees are aware of their right to join a trade union, for all the reasons that have been amply set out over many months and years.

On making it clear within a notification that the employee is not obliged to join a trade union, I am sure the shadow Minister is aware that the closed shop principle was abolished quite some time ago—possibly not even in his lifetime. [Interruption.] Well, possibly not; perhaps his rest over the Christmas period has made him look more youthful than he is. The precise wording of the notification will be set out in secondary legislation. I am sure it will not be worded in a way that indicates that there is a compulsion on individuals to join a trade union, but it is important that people know of the right.

In reference to the comments from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, I too have had many conversations with constituents who have notified me of issues with their workplace. I hope most Members respond with the question, “What has your trade union said about this?” When I ask that, quite often I get the response, “My employer doesn’t allow us to join a trade union.” That response is far too common for my liking. Evidence has been submitted to the Committee, particularly by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, about the lack of awareness of employees’ right to join a trade union. In a free society, we should be ensuring that people are aware of their rights.

On the points made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater, the consequences for not notifying an individual of this right will be the same as they currently are for failure to provide a statement of terms and conditions under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. It is not a free- standing claim on its own; it can be put on top of another employment tribunal claim, and the penalty can be between two and four weeks’ pay.

On the administrative burden, there is already prescribed in legislation a long list of matters about which the employer must notify the employee when they join in a statement of terms and conditions. Really, we are just adding this to that list. We think this is an important measure.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I think this comes together with day one employment rights. Take the example of a very small businessman or woman who takes someone on with no written contract, and within a week or two the employment does not work out and the employee is fired. They might be within a—what is the word for the period of time in the first few weeks of employment?

[Justin Madders]

Probation.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Probation period—thank you. It is early in the new year, Mr Mundell. That member of staff might be within their probation period, but if that is not specified in a written contract, that dismissal would be procedurally unfair, according to the Bill. If that same small businessman or woman has not notified the employee of their right to join a trade union, the Minister seems to be saying that the employee will get a protective award of another two to four weeks’ salary on top of that. Can he not see that for microbusinesses, the array of sanctions becomes threatening—many weeks’ wages, for a very short contract that did not work out—and that he threatens to make it very difficult and onerous for them to take on new employees?

[Justin Madders]

I understand the point the hon. Member makes. I do not think it is helpful to get into hypotheticals about what might or might not happen under the statutory probation system, given that we have not really fleshed out the details. That will happen in due course, but it is already the law that statements of terms and conditions are required to be presented to employees, I think within the first month. There is not an additional burden of extra paperwork that has to be delivered; this is already built into the system, in terms of ensuring that employees receive their statement of terms and conditions when they start employment.

On that note, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46

Right of trade unions to access workplaces

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

I think we have all followed with interest, and perhaps some entertainment, the shadow Minister’s embrace of red tape and pettifogging bureaucracy in as much as he wishes to apply that to trade unions. It is of course important to state that each trade union member has opted in to the political fund, has the right to opt out at any time and has a means of recourse, through the Certification Officer, if there is a complaint about any attempt to opt out that is not successful.

The comparison drawn by the shadow Minister was completely ill-founded. The amendment not only seeks to inform trade union members of their right to opt out of the political fund—that is already well understood—but requires them to continue to opt in annually. Throughout the history of the Conservative party’s relationship with trade unions, it has repeatedly sought to apply punitive legislation in respect of the political fund. That is what the amendment represents: it is nothing more than a transparent attack on the funding of the Labour party and on the wider political activities of trade unions.

Let us not forget that many trade union political funds are directed towards not only party political activity but welcome campaigns, including some taken up and implemented by the previous Conservative Government. I draw attention to one: the campaign to introduce the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. Had the amendment been in force, that Act would have been much harder to accomplish, and paramedics, prison officers and police officers assaulted in their line of duty would have had less recourse to legal protection.

I am sorry but, to return to the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles, this is a ridiculous amendment. Were it to be implemented, we would have to look closely to ensure that there was not a two-tier approach to donations made by other entities, such as publicly listed companies. Should there be a requirement for shareholders to be informed of, and be able to veto, any donation in furtherance of a political activity? What about other civil society organisations? That is an enormous can of worms that is not particularly pleasant to smell once opened up, and it is a naked and transparent political attack that should be given short shrift.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The amendment is designed to give trade union members the right not to contribute to the political funds. Why does the Labour party want to stop them having that right? It is pure self-interest. Labour wants a conscript army of trade union members to contribute to the funds. Furthermore, I dare say that a good proportion of the political funds end up supporting the campaigns of Labour Members, who one by one in Committee have declared their membership of individual trade unions.

Earlier, we heard the Minister say that, annually, he wanted employers to remind workers of their right to join a trade union, yet he does not want those same members to have the right to opt out, or to be reminded of their right to opt out, of the political fund. I therefore support the amendment, which will assist trade union members to know that they have the right to opt in or out of the political funds.

[Michael Wheeler]

I might surprise Conservative Members by saying that I welcome the amendment. Before those on the Labour Benches start to panic, I welcome it because it is a reminder that the only place in the country where Conservative Members support increasing red tape is for trade unions.

It is always nice to follow and to be of one mind with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, so I will try not to repeat too much of what he said—although I agree with it all. The shadow Minister challenged Labour Members who have spoken, but it is fundamental to point out that the analogy he drew is false. A trade union is a member-based democratic organisation designed to protect those who are part of it. It is not a subscription or an entertainment package on TV. It comes with more rights, more democratic involvement and more control over where money and resources go. A fundamentally false analogy was drawn.

We heard earlier about businesses. I gently push back on what the hon. Member for Bridgwater said; I do not think I heard the Minister say it would be an annual notice. It was up for consultation, but even one notice was described by Conservative Members as onerous. Yet here we have an amendment pushing not just for reminders but for annual reconfirmation, from people who have already given their consent to pay into a political fund, that they are happy for that to happen, as a compulsory measure. That is deemed reasonable by Conservative Members, but it is not. The amendment is a continuation of a decades-long attack on the trade union movement by the Conservative party.

Employment Rights Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling]

I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman is taking a Panglossian approach that all in the world is perfect. It is far from perfect, which is why I welcome large tracts of the Bill, as long as we are supporting employers on the journey.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher.

I rise to speak in support of Opposition amendments 113 to 115 and new clause 18. These are modest proposals to ameliorate the additional costs and burdens that the Bill is will place on employers and the public sector. It seems extraordinary that the Government want to introduce this new facility time without any thought about what the cost will be. It strikes me that the measures the Government are bringing forward are simply a bung to their trade union friends to provide extra money to employ extra trade union officials to do work that genuinely does not need doing.

The law is clear and should be enforced. We do not need the state to impose further burdens by employing trade union officials to effectively double up as Government inspectors. I shall therefore support the amendments and vote against the Government’s new clauses. A pattern is being followed through this Bill, whereby Ministers rise and say that each individual proposal is reasonable and modest, yet each one is an additional burden on the taxpayer and/or employers. The net result is £5 billion in additional costs, which will make this country less competitive, efficient, and effective.

[Justin Madders]

I will respond briefly to some of the points that have been made. I was asked why we need to put equality representatives on statutory footing. I think the hon. Member for Torbay gave just one example of the ongoing issues of discrimination in many workplaces up and down the country but, of course, this Bill also seeks to expand family friendly rights. Anyone who takes cognisance of local authority matters—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield does so more than most—will be aware that equal pay is still a huge issue in many local authorities. This is over 50 years since the Equal Pay Act 1970 was brought into force, so there is a strong case for allowing equality reps to bring their value to the workplace.

The amendment on performance targets is particularly unfair. In effect, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire is seeking to punish trade union members for the failings of their employer if they do not hit performance targets. None of those targets have been specified in the legislation. Perhaps it is a reflection of the fact that under his party’s Administration, most public services did not meet performance targets, and he was hoping that if they got back into power he would be able to use that to deny facility time to all trade union representatives.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does the Minister really expect us to believe that his Government has not costed these proposals? Does he believe that providing additional facility time to trade unions will improve public sector performance? What we have said is that in cases where Departments are not meeting their targets, the Department should use taxpayer money to meet those targets before granting additional facility time to trade union officials.

[Justin Madders]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point but I refer him to the impact assessment, which sets out the cost of these individual measures and their cumulative impact. For facility time, the amount is very small indeed. It has been green-rated by the Regulatory Policy Committee, and studies by the predecessor Department of the Department of Business and Trade showed that facilities time did lead to significant savings and reduced dismissals, reduced employment tribunals, reduced voluntary exits and enhanced productivity. We are talking about figures in the region of hundreds of millions of pounds here. I accept that it is an old study, but the principle remains the same. We heard repeatedly during evidence that strong engagement from trade unions is a good thing for employers, because it helps to engage the workforce and improve productivity. Therefore, I do not accept the premise of his argument.

Regarding the general thrust of what is coming from the Opposition about the use of facilities, the Trade Union Act 2016 was designed to make it more difficult for trade unions to perform their duties by increasing the amount of investigation and focus on their time, but the reported figures in terms of the percentage of the public sector pay bill were the same at the start of the reporting requirements as they were at the end, which was 0.07%—007; we are back to James Bond again. That shows that the requirements of the 2016 Act were simply burdens that added nothing. I therefore urge hon. Members to reject the Opposition amendments and to support the clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 51 and 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53

Blacklists: additional powers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman says that the great educational experiment has not worked, but would he not acknowledge the significant improvement in our children’s ability to read, write and do mathematics over the past 14 years? Scores in the programme for international student assessment show that standards of reading, writing and mathematics have improved enormously in England—although they have regrettably fallen in Scotland, for reasons we can imagine. I am really proud of the achievements of the coalition and later Conservative Governments in improving educational standards. The freedom granted to academies—the freedom to innovate and to employ staff on the terms and conditions that they wish—has been critical in that, but the Government are rolling back those freedoms. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the educational achievements of the past 14 years?

[Laurence Turner]

That was quite a generous amount of time for an intervention. The hon. Member may wish to go back to the record, because the point I made was that the experiment over pay and terms and conditions has failed. The challenge to the Opposition was: do they recognise that there is a serious problem with school support staff remuneration and contracts? If they do, what are their proposals to fix it? I would be willing to take a second intervention on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Uma Kumaran]

The school support staff negotiating body—to stick to the Bill—is an important part of the Bill and will help to ensure standardised fair pay and employment terms across the board, addressing not only local but regional disparities.

School support staff make a massive contribution to the running of our schools. Just last Friday, I visited the Odessa school in Forest Gate in my constituency, which has an above-average intake of SEND pupils, and I saw at first hand the contribution the support staff made. That is why the Bill, and this clause, are so important—because those staff, too, deserve to have their contributions properly recognised through a negotiating body. At present, their job profiles are out of date, opportunities for professional development are poor and the work they do often goes largely unrecognised or unnoticed. The SSSNB can play a major part in tackling the recruitment and retention crisis across our schools.

I do not think anyone could look at our current approach to school staff and say it is a functioning system—that is certainly not what I hear from teachers when I visit local schools. Local support staff have told me the hardships they are under, and the TUC has shared a report with us showing that one in eight workers use food banks, a quarter take second jobs and half are actively looking to leave their role because they cannot make ends meet.

The attitude—which some may call neglectful—that we have had towards school support workers due to the approach taken by the last Government has sent a clear message that they simply are not valued. By re-establishing the school support staff negotiating body, the Bill will change that. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. We are discussing clause 28 and schedule 3, and the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield asked what the Opposition’s proposal would be. Well, nothing needs changing—the clause and schedule are completely unnecessary. I say that because it is my belief that the way the education system in England is delivered—mostly by academies—is a successful model. The Government’s proposals will harm our education system because they will take freedom away from schools and academies. There is a fixed amount to be spent on education, and the governors of schools and academies are best able to decide where those resources are allocated.

The hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield told us it was unfair that some teaching assistants have lower pay than others and that their terms and conditions are not identical. He also said it was difficult to retain and recruit teaching assistants. If that is the case, the governors of a school or the leaders of an academy can pay more to recruit the staff they need.

What we see from the Government is a belief that Whitehall knows best. They intend to centralise terms and conditions and will try to specify how much each teaching assistant in each school will work, because that suits their political agenda and the agenda of the trade unions that pay for their election campaigns.

[Laurence Turner]

Why does the hon. Gentleman’s argument against central direction-setting not apply to teachers? Is he arguing for the abolition of the School Teachers Review Body?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Teachers are different because teaching is a profession that should certainly agree not to strike on pay and conditions, in return for the provision of the pay review bodies, which should play an integral part in ensuring that children’s education is not disrupted by industrial action. I would be happy to grant academies the freedom to pay a little more or less for scales, although perhaps that is not currently possible. I want the maximum freedom granted to academies and schools because, fundamentally, I believe they are best able to allocate the limited resources.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire said, if the Government really wanted to raise pay and improve conditions for teaching assistants, it is in their power to increase substantially the amount of money available for schools. They choose not to do that, but instead say that schools must stick to certain parameters on pay and conditions that will not enable schools to deliver the best education for children.

It is important that I talk briefly about the enormous improvement in educational standards for our children, which has been enabled by the freedom that academies have been granted. Clause 28 and schedule 3 start to roll back those freedoms. My fear is that this is the start of a process in which we will see educational standards in England deteriorate.

[Laurence Turner]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. He describes a picture of extraordinary success. Classroom-based support staff spend the majority of their time supporting SEND learners. Does he regard the SEND system as a success?

[The Chair]

Order. We are starting to stray back into a wider debate.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am trying to think of how clause 28 and schedule 3 relate to SEND education, and I am struggling. I do not believe that the SEND system is a success, and I do not think that more central control is the way to solve that. In fact, one of the problems is that every time there is a problem, we in Parliament and Whitehall think, “The solution is a directive from above. That will sort out the problem.” That is precisely the model that the Government are adopting in clause 28 and schedule 3: “There’s a problem with low pay, so we will set up a process in London that will help matters.” That is not true at all.

I hope we can all agree that the purpose of spending money on education is to improve the life chances of our children. How are resources allocated? Are they best managed on a school basis or an academy basis? Or are they best decided in London? I argue that they are best decided on a school or an academy level. As I say, I fear that clause 28 and schedule 3 are the beginning of a process in which we will see more and more central control exerted over schools, and that that will lead to worse outcomes for our children.

[Justin Madders]

I will respond in the strict terms that you have directed, Mr Mundell. I also point out to Members that an education Bill will be presented today. So there will be an opportunity for the wider debate that Members are keen to have, when that Bill gets its Second Reading in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Of course, the Bill has not been published yet, so we cannot stray into that. We may be able to get on to it this afternoon, but we are trying to help some of the most poorly paid people in our society, who do such an important job. My hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge, for Birmingham Northfield and for Stratford and Bow all talked about how important teaching assistants are, particularly in supporting those with special educational needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield was right that it is shameful that the Low Pay Commission has now deemed teaching assistants to be part of the low pay environment. We are determined to address that, which is why the reinstatement of the SSSNB is an important step.

Let us reflect on some of the evidence that we have had—for example, the GMB evidence. Andy Prendergast said:

“we see increasingly more pupils with special educational needs go into mainstream education, and they need that additional support.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 132, Q136.]

Some of those staff do detailed things such as phonics, supporting pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, and help to deliver classes.

I take the point that has been made about the NJC being an inappropriate way of evaluating and assessing job value. It is clear—indeed a number of other pieces of written evidence have supported our assertion—that the NJC is not the right vehicle for assessing teaching assistants’ pay. We believe that the SSSNB is the way ahead.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater talked about this being a centralising move. Of course, the SSSNB will comprise mainly employers and employee representatives. It will not be a Whitehall-dominated machine.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

But to the extent that the SSSNB will decide the terms and conditions of assistants in Bridgwater, Mid Buckinghamshire and Birmingham Northfield, and those conditions will apply to all teaching assistants, regardless of the school’s or academy’s view on the subject, it is a centralising measure, does the Minister not agree?

[Justin Madders]

It is a necessary measure because, as we have seen, teaching assistants and school support staff have suffered in recent years. The point that the hon. Member for Chippenham and several other Members made about funding is correct. It will, of course, be incumbent on future Governments to ensure that any proposals that come forward are affordable. It should be noted that the recent Budget put some additional funds into special educational needs.

Let us look at why this measure is needed. We know that there is a chronic issue of low pay, a lack of career progression and damaged recruitment and retention among school support staff. A survey of teaching assistants found that 27% were considering leaving education altogether—surely we need them to stay—while 60% cited low pay as a reason for leaving, and 40% said that lack of opportunities for progression was. Eighty-nine per cent of schools said they found recruitment difficult, particularly in respect of teaching assistants, and 78% said they found that group hard to retain. There were similar figures in terms of the difficulties with the recruitment and retention of teaching assistants with SEND specialisms.

We are setting up this body to recognise that these people do a critical job in our education system and that they are not properly represented at the moment. They do not have a proper voice, and they do not have a proper mechanism to ensure that the valuable work they do is properly measured, remunerated and recognised. That is why the SSSNB is so important.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Employment Rights Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

They are.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

But some are more memorable than others.

[Greg Smith]

Some are definitely more memorable than others.

Amendment 168, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches, would change the matters that are within the remit of the school support staff negotiating body in relation to academy staff, limiting it to the creation of a framework to which academy employers must have regard in all but “exceptional circumstances”. I am sure that Government Members will agree to a moderate amendment in the spirit of what they seek to do.

As I said in the debate on clause 28, which introduces schedule 3, in 2010 the then Conservative Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, rightly abolished the school support staff negotiating body. The Conservative Government had a clear and principled reason for that: employers should have the flexibility to set pay and conditions locally, rather than having a top-down, centralised framework imposed on them. Instead of giving employers the flexibility to do what works best for them, this Government are establishing a national terms and conditions handbook on training, career progression routes and fair pay rates for school support staff.

These things can sometimes get taken out of context, so I want to be clear: we are not advocating for a race to the bottom on pay and conditions for school support staff, but we believe that the current arrangements are working well and have allowed for innovation that is beneficial for pupils—real children up and down the land receiving their education. Our worries about the re-establishment of the school support staff negotiating body are principally that we believe that school employers must retain a degree of freedom and flexibility to recruit, develop, remunerate and deploy their staff for the benefit of the children in their community—their setting—to achieve their particular aims from a school improvement and inclusion perspective.

Children with special educational needs and disabilities rely on schools’ ability to deploy staff to meet their individual needs, and stifling innovation in staffing to meet those needs would be the greatest barrier to reforming the SEND system. In particular, ensuring that mainstream provision can meet the needs of SEND children requires, in its very essence, an innovative use of support staff resource.

As I have said in previous debates, I salute all support staff, whether they support children with SEND or other- wise. They are great assets to every school who do an enormous amount of good work for every child they work with on a daily basis—I am thinking of the example given earlier by the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield, and the way in which they interact with and support my own children in their schools in Buckinghamshire. They are hugely important, but this is about ensuring local decision making, local flexibility and the local ability to shape what is right for children’s education, development and future life prospects.

For those reasons, we believe that the statist approach created by the Bill is fundamentally misguided, and that children, particularly those with additional needs, could be worse off because of it. All school employers operate in a competitive market to attract and retain staff. I accept that in the education world it is currently particularly difficult to recruit teachers and support staff—there is no doubt that that has been a challenge for a considerable number of years—but, particularly in relation to support staff, schools compete with other local establishments, including in the private sector, and employers in local markets. Incentives to attract and retain staff are needed.

Our concerns with the re-establishment of the school support staff negotiating body do not end there. Academy trusts sign a funding agreement with the Secretary of State that gives them certain freedoms, among which is the ability to set pay and conditions for staff. What the Government are trying to do with the Bill is therefore to unpick a clear, established and positive freedom that academy trusts have. To take that away from them would be a retrograde step. The Bill explicitly overrides that contract. As for school support staff, it states:

“Where the person is employed by the proprietor of an Academy, any provision of the Academy arrangements relating to the Academy has no effect to the extent that it makes provision that is prohibited by, or is otherwise inconsistent with, the agreement.”

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition worry that this is just the start of the Government’s longer-term mission to unwind academy freedoms, and that it shows that they fail to understand how to support educational excellence.

The data on key stage 4 performance recently released by the Department for Education shows that academies and free schools tend to perform better than other types of school. We therefore believe that it would be counterproductive to unwind one of the key tenets that has led them to where they are today. There is always room for improvement, but when things are travelling in the right direction it is foolish to put barriers up. Our amendment would change the SSSNB’s remit so as to create a framework that academies must have regard to but are not compelled to follow. That seems a reasonable compromise, and I ask the Government to consider it carefully.

In this context—we are all creatures of our own experience—I think particularly of examples from my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire and the county of Buckinghamshire more widely. I think I brought up this example in relation to other sectors in earlier Committee sittings. Because the county of Buckinghamshire borders London boroughs, rigid pay scales make recruitment an even greater challenge, because of the London weighting issue. Many teaching assistants, school support staff and, frankly, staff in any sector—we will come to adult social care later in the Bill, and care workers are equally affected—who live in Buckinghamshire and perhaps want to work there feel compelled to go and get the extra money that the London weighting would bring by applying for a job in, say, the London boroughs of Hillingdon or Harrow. Nobody can blame them for doing that, but it creates a recruitment challenge for Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Essex, Kent, Surrey and other London-bordering counties.

The amendment seeks to correct for what the Government are trying to do with schedule 3, and so to maintain the freedom that allows academies in Buckinghamshire and those other counties to dynamically adapt their pay and offering for school support staff and counter those challenges. It would mean that schools in Buckinghamshire that want to employ people who want to work in Buckinghamshire can get them on board, rather than there being a false incentive that forces people to take jobs in one of the London boroughs and secure the London weighting that goes with them. That is one practical example of why I believe that academies, and free schools for that matter, should have that core freedom and flexibility to get it right for their children.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Conservative Members know what they left behind, and I have not heard any of them offer an alternative. The specific answer to the right hon. Member’s question is that employment allowance was doubled in the Budget and the threshold was taken off. That is why 1 million, mainly smaller, businesses are paying less or the same in national insurance contributions as they were before the Budget. She should tell the House how the Conservative party would pay for the infected blood scandal—the victims of which we are all committed to compensating—Post Office compensation, support for the steel industry, and the advanced manufacturing plan that we inherited, because none of that was in our departmental budget. We are fixing the foundations with long-term public investment and an agenda based on higher business investment and better, stronger economic growth in every part of the UK.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The Government have raised national insurance charges on employers and introduced a family farm and a family business tax. The Employment Rights Bill will raise business costs by £5 billion, predominantly for small businesses. As a result of those changes, does the Secretary of State believe that SMEs will employer more or fewer people?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I have absolutely no doubt that the Government’s agenda is one for employment, business investment and growth. Some of the things that this country needs the most could only have been delivered by a change of Government. I simply do not believe that the Conservative party is capable of reforming the planning system or having a long-term industrial strategy, fixing our relationship with the European Union, and all the rest of it. Yes, there have been challenges, but the Conservatives know what they left behind. They knew what they were doing. There is a reason the Conservative party had no spending plans for the next financial year. We have had to confront that reality, but we cannot have the kind of success that this country needs unless we are willing to fix the foundations and focus on the long term. The Chancellor did that in the Budget, and the agenda of the Department for Business and Trade is extremely attractive for the future.

Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.

The shadow Minister has posed some questions that underlie amendment 156, which seeks to include redundancy as one of the reasons for dismissal to which the lighter-touch standards will apply during the statutory probationary period. As he has rightly identified, the Bill sets out that the reasons for dismissal to which the lighter-touch standards may apply are the statutory grounds of capability, conduct, illegality and some other substantial reason.

It is important to note that those four areas relate to the individual employee, which is why redundancy is not included. Redundancy can affect entire workforces, whereas the other areas are included because of the overlap between the potentially fair reasons for dismissal in the legislation, particularly suitability for work, and the sorts of issues that might come up in a probationary period. A redundancy situation would not ordinarily come up within a probationary period, because it would be about the wider business condition rather than the individual employee’s performance or suitability for the job. I hope that explains why redundancy has not been included.

I turn to the shadow Minister’s more general points. We are trying to strike a fair balance between strengthening employee protections against unfair dismissal and maintaining businesses’ ability to hire, assess and dismiss new employees. The Government are committed to ensuring that businesses retain the confidence to do so. We do not wish the new procedures to undermine existing fair dismissal processes for redundancy, which already provide a robust, straightforward and fair process for employees facing redundancy.

We will work closely with ACAS, in consultation with businesses and trade unions, to ensure that there is clear, straightforward and easy-to-follow guidance on how to carry out a redundancy process under the new measures. It will be an easily accessible process. One of our concerns about including redundancy is that if an employer decided to make a significant number of their workforce redundant, it would be an additional administrative job for them to identify which employees they did not need to include within a redundancy process because they were part of a statutory probationary period, and which would be subject to the wider process. That would lead to unintended consequences and possibly risk of discrimination claims.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Can the Minister give me an assurance on how microbusinesses will be affected by the change? A very small business might choose to take on one person, and there might be nothing wrong with that person, but within a couple of months the business might realise that it is not working from an economic point of view. The employee would then be effectively redundant, because that small business cannot sustain their employment. Can the Minister assure me that if that small business cannot dismiss that person for the reason of redundancy during the probationary period, there will not be a separate, complex redundancy process to follow?

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Member may be conflating two slightly different issues. I say to him very clearly that existing laws on redundancy will not be changed as a result of the Bill. We expect employers to follow the same processes, regardless of the length of service of the employee. In that situation, I do not imagine that there would be a particularly lengthy process if it involved only one individual and a small employer. There would not need to be a pool for selection, for example, or selection criteria. We would expect the employer to comply with the law in those circumstances.

Amendment 157 questions whether regulations should be able to set steps that an employer must follow for a dismissal to be considered fair when prescribing lighter-touch standards to apply during the statutory probationary period. We have set out clearly our intention to have a light-touch process, and we know that around 9 million employees will benefit from that. The intention behind setting out those steps in regulations is to ensure that we take account of further consultation, which we will undertake not just with employers but with trade unions and civil society, to ensure that we have the right balance of process and fairness in a statutory probationary period. We will be developing that in due course. As is often the case with the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures, there are already lots of examples of really practical guidance out there, which we intend to replicate. I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

Employment Rights Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

While this is a probing amendment, I gently suggest that it would be entirely counterproductive to the core purpose of the measures, scuppering them completely. I appreciate that it probably will be withdrawn, but I want to gently push back because it is not related to the core thing here, which is preventing fire and rehire.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Ms Vaz. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has explained that this is a probing amendment to find out the Government’s intentions, but I put it to the Minister and Labour Members that each of the Government’s proposals seems to be based on the premise that we need to legislate against the worst possible outcome.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles referred to P&O, and that was in fact a scandal. But the problem with this approach, of course, is that a regulatory burden is imposed on each and every other employer, and the labour market is made less flexible and employing people is made more expensive. Therefore, every time the Government see a problem with one employer and say, “We have to regulate for everyone,” the whole labour market is made more expensive and less attractive to foreign investors—less like Britain and more like France. As we look across the channel, we see a country with a similar-sized economy, but an unemployment rate approximately double our own.

Combine that, for example, with the proposal on unfair dismissal, and employers could be less likely to employ that marginal worker. In this case, as Matthew Percival from the CBI said, it becomes more attractive, perhaps, for employers to make their workers redundant than to try to renegotiate terms and conditions.

I ask the Minister to consider the cumulative effect of each and every one of his proposals. It is easy for him to stand up and say, “This proposal on its own is modest and reasonable and good,” but the whole Bill will add £5 billion of costs to industry, and the majority of that falls on small and medium-sized enterprises. My fear is that the Minister, through the very best of intentions, will end up with unemployment higher at the end of this Parliament than when he started.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz. For the benefit of the Committee, I again refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions.

It has been an interesting debate. I think we are on the opposite end of the spectrum from where we were in the earlier debate about where the balance lies with our measures to end fire and rehire. I think that the fact that we have two arguments from other ends of the spectrum suggests that we are in about the right place—but if the shadow Minister expects us to believe that cows queue up to be milked in the morning, I just say to him: pull the other one!

[Sir Ashley Fox]

They get worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I have a couple of brief questions. I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification that the clause does not provide for a consultation of the whole workforce. That was a legitimate concern for many as they looked at the drafting of the Bill. The clarification will be welcome.

My bigger question is about the practicalities where an organisation has in excess of 20 employees. For example, a small chain of five or six pubs could easily have that volume of employees across bar and kitchen staff—chefs—cleaners and perhaps security, but in that sort of setting it is very rare for staff to be unionised, or even organised among themselves. In that scenario, where a smaller business employs that number of people across multiple sites, how does the Minister expect the requirement for the involvement of a trade union or employee organisation that does not exist to be engaged with? What is the mechanism for that? I appreciate that many Government Members would quite like everybody to be in a trade union—

[Sir Ashley Fox]

They all are.

[Greg Smith]

Indeed, we know from their declarations of interest that they all are. I hope the Minister takes the question with the good intent with which it is asked. Not everybody is in a trade union and not everybody organises in that way, so how would the mechanics of the measure work in those circumstances?

That leads to the wider question, “Why 20?” Why not 19, 18 or 15? Why not 25? It seems like an arbitrary number. I accept that a number needs to be put down. In some ways, in specifying a number, this clause is more detailed than most in the Bill, and it gives certainty, but I would like to understand why it is 20. It seems like a number picked from thin air. It could negatively impact an organisation if it led the employer to decide, “Well, we’ll just get rid of 19 of them, and we won’t have to comply.” That seems at odds with the other provisions in the Bill, where the Government seem to want to move all rights back to day one, yet they do not seem to want to apply that to organisations where, for whatever reason, 20 people are, sadly, being consulted on being made redundant. I would like clarity on that point.