Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces; Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 General Committees

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

This code of practice grants a legal right for trade unions to access workplaces with more than 21 workers, and it poses a severe risk to UK business stability and national economic vitality. Looking at workplace dynamics, cultivating harmonious manager-employee relationships is a proven catalyst for business growth. It is therefore concerning that a recent survey found that one in four workers believe that managers and employee representatives are ineffective at working together to prevent and resolve conflict. That would suggest the increased presence via workplace access may not be as beneficial as the Government suggest.

The Government should focus on action that is guaranteed to improve employment relationships actively, thereby preventing the workplace productivity lag that is estimated to cost the UK economy £257 billion per year, rather than rolling the dice on a policy that industry leaders have warned will disrupt business output and autonomy. The cost of strikes is already significant. London tube strikes are predicted to cost the UK economy up to £760 million this year alone, and the resident doctor strikes of 2025 cost the NHS approximately £240 million. Increasing that cost through more frequent strikes, which we know are linked to greater union presence—as I demonstrated to the Government yesterday—and now lowering productivity via disrupted employment relations and burdening businesses with the high cost of facilitating mandatory union access is highly counterproductive. No Government should want to threaten the financial viability of domestic businesses; yet here we are, discussing legislation on trade union access to workplaces that research has found will cost businesses over £1 billion to facilitate.

To add further insult to injury, experts have warned that the proposed frequency of weekly access will cause excessive disruption. Extremely concerning is the notion that small and medium enterprises are the ones that will take on the higher proportion of predicted costs which are estimated to reach almost £600 million. The Government will claim to be supporting small businesses with their exemption for workplaces with fewer than 21 employees. What they fail to account for is that thousands of small businesses will be left in a precarious position.

A key criterion to meet the definition of a small business in the UK is having 50 or fewer employees. The remarkably low threshold of 21 employees leaves thousands of small businesses completely unsupported—small businesses that are already struggling and with trust in the Government to support them being at an all-time low. Numerous surveys have revealed their widespread frustration, with 58% feeling ignored by politicians in one and over half feeling unsupported by the Government in another. So what incentive is there to be an entrepreneur or small business owner any more?

The UK needs small businesses. We need the risk takers that provide jobs and generate economic growth. Yet all the Government appear to be doing is throwing more hurdles their way, with the latest being the momentous cost and disruption of mandatory trade union access, not to mention the financial penalties of up to £500,000 for non-compliance that could destitute many small businesses instantly.

The UK should be proud of our small business community; they consistently endure challenges and hardships to maintain their position as a fundamental pillar of the British economy. Rather than continuing to introduce policy that claims to be pro-worker yet has the potential to wreak havoc on British businesses and the economy, the Government need to take a simultaneously pro-business and pro-worker approach, one that supports businesses and helps workers to keep more of what they earn by addressing the mounting cost of living.

It is for those reasons that we will vote against the instruments. For those same reasons, I also ask the Minister what the Government’s plan is to ensure that small businesses do not become financially or administratively overwhelmed by the Employment Rights Act 2025 or its secondary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

I hope that my hon. Friend heard that, in the review, we will absolutely focus on the enforcement regime, including whether the penalty regime he mentions—and the example that he refers to—remains proportionate and effective in encouraging compliance. It is important that we build that into the review. Let us see how it works in practice. Clearly, where the CAC needs further support, we will review that. Seeing how the policy plays out in practice will form an essential part of our review.

As I have mentioned, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the new rights operate effectively in the workplace, and the review is a key part of that. This is an essential and significant moment in industrial relations across the UK. We want to foster good practice. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to the consultations, and worked with me and my brilliant officials in the Department, to ensure that the regulations could be brought to the House today and come into effect next month.

We want to ensure that the legislation is effective, proportionate and suited to the realities of modern workplaces. It is a shame that the Conservatives cannot support us today. My question for them is: do they believe that workers should be able to hear from an independent trade union in their workplace? That is exactly what the legislation is about. I commend the regulations and the code of practice to the Committee.

[Bradley Thomas]

On a point of order, Mr Stringer. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, who is sat next to me, does not appear on the cast list. How does that affect the vote?

[The Chair]

The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury is a member of the Committee. She is not on that list, but she is properly a member of the Committee.

Question put,