Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I suspect that my hon. Friend would be far better at doing that himself. His speech on Second Reading was a fantastic example of how we explain legislation matters and practice. It is important that we have certainty and consistency in how we measure things and that we have a clear legislative framework for the measurements that underpins all science. He gave us a historical sweep of those issues when he spoke on Second Reading.

It is important for me to pass on my gratitude to all those officials who have supported us in the passage of the Bill, as well as the parliamentary staff who have enabled it to come through swiftly and smoothly. It will return to the other place for consideration of the amendments we have made in this place, and I am confident that—in the spirit of constructive scrutiny and co-operation that has characterised its progress so far—it will continue on its way. This legislation is an important step in strengthening our domestic regulatory regime and ensuring that it is robust, future-facing and fit for purpose in a post-Brexit economy. I look forward to working with colleagues in the other place to ensure that the Bill finally reaches the statute book as swiftly as possible.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Let me place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) and for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for their work in holding the Government to account on this Bill.

On Second Reading, I said that the Bill was the archetype of everything that is sometimes wrong with Westminster, but now, after months of debate in both Houses, I fear that it is even worse. In 2017, the now Prime Minister said that his party would respect the outcome of the referendum in which 17 million people voted to leave the European Union. Britain has now fallen victim to Labour’s EU surrender summit, giving up our fishing rights and our ability to make our own laws. I am happy to concede that this is no longer a Trojan horse of a surrender Bill, because it is now in plain sight. It is absurd that any Government would give up the power to shape our own regulations and meet the needs of our own consumers, electors and businesses. Those economies that will succeed in the future are those that are agile, that can adjust dynamically to events and that can tailor their own rulebook to their own particular needs.

While this Government’s track record is frankly disastrous, I still give them the benefit of the doubt when they say they wish for growth, but for the benefit of Labour Members—who I rather suspect have not read the detail of this Bill; they have been whipped into supporting it—let me spell out what it does. The dynamic alignment clauses in the Bill would mean that every time the EU tweaked its standards—shaped by the interests of 27 other states with their own different mix of businesses, often in competition with ours—Britain would have to follow suit. There would be no more bespoke trade deals around the world, as the Prime Minister and his team would be lame-duck negotiators, with the EU President holding the real strings. The Government boast of three trade deals in three weeks, but that is a hollow boast when not a single one is backed up by any detail. The Trade Secretary, who is noticeably absent today, is no doubt trying to make true what his Prime Minister has already announced. The Paymaster General confirmed to me in a written answer this afternoon that British businesses, exporters, travellers and tourists will not benefit from e-gates, as we were promised. Yet the Government, in all their naivety, are legislating to hand control of our product regulations back to Brussels.

At every stage of scrutiny, this Bill has been found wanting. The mild-mannered Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place delivered an uncharacteristically scathing rebuke, branding it a skeleton Bill that grotesquely shifts legislative power from Parliament to Ministers. It shackles British businesses, already bleeding out, to EU standards, stifling innovation. It is a solution in search of a problem, and under the Bill—under the measures being brought forward by the Government today—there is no room for the sort of robust scrutiny that we were sent here by our constituents to do, and no accountability. It is all in the hands of Ministers who keep breaking their promises.

Let us be clear: Labour’s pattern of broken promises does not just set Britain back; it erodes the trust that people have in politics. This House has a duty to restore faith in our democracy, to protect our hard-fought sovereignty and to say no to the overreach of blank-cheque ministerial powers, such as those in the Bill. This House must tonight reject the Bill, as we will seek to do, to stop the Government from forsaking Britain’s ability to carve and determine its own future.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?

US-UK Trade Deal: Northern Ireland

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his vital work on this trade deal—I am feeling more and more like Jim Shannon all the time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Member means “the hon. Member for Strangford”.

[Chris Vince]

Apologies. I am feeling more and more like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all the time.

Can the Minister give the House some additional detail on how this trade deal and others will protect jobs in both Northern Ireland and Harlow? Does he agree that these trade deals mean that we avoid a trade war, which is good for everybody?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State spent about five minutes of his response evading the question that was asked: what will the impact of this trade deal be on Northern Ireland? The fact of the matter is—and he has already said it—that this will be difficult and complicated, and we have to remember that the EU has a single market to protect. It seems he is more interested in protecting the EU from the dribble of goods that goes into the EU than protecting the internal market of the United Kingdom. The fact of the matter is this. The Secretary of State may say, “Well, provided that businesses can prove that parts and other things do not go into the EU, they can then get the taxes back.” But the process for doing that is so complicated, so convoluted and so time-consuming that very often businesses are without the money for a long, long time, with all the cash-flow problems. Then the Treasury spends an age getting the taxes—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. We do need to have a question.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this, but I say again to him that any difficulty or complexity is not caused by this trade agreement per se. There is an arrangement in place—one that the Government support and one that, I believe, those on all sides of the House adhere to—that manages the particular situation that Northern Ireland was put in as a result of Brexit. That is the reality.

Where we have a lot of tension in the global trading system and differentials between ourselves and the EU—there are going to be differentials at times—it is incumbent on us all to manage them and ensure that Northern Irish businesses and consumers are getting the benefits of the trade agreements we are seeking, and that where there is that relationship to the wider European Union, we operate all those schemes in a way that is to their maximum utilisation and efficiency. I recognise that there are complaints about the duty reimbursement scheme, and we have worked with colleagues on that, but it is not these trade deals that caused that complexity; it was the particular situation that the previous Government needed to find a solution to—and, to be fair to them, they did find a solution. We, on all sides, are committed to honouring and making sure it is working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

The Secretary of State says that free trade is essential for growth. What a shame that the trade across the UK is still so badly affected by us not being part of the customs union. When Labour was in opposition, he called for

“a proper role for Parliament in how trade deals are ratified”,

and argued that there needed to be

“a much higher level of scrutiny than we are seeing now”

under the previous Government. There are clearly many questions about how the deal will affect businesses in Northern Ireland. We have seen how the Australia trade deal has been allowed to undermine British farmers across the UK, animal welfare and food standards, thanks to a lack of parliamentary scrutiny under the Conservatives. Farmers in my constituency are worried that American agribusiness will undercut them with inferior meat. I hear what the Minister said about upholding SPS—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Can the hon. Lady get to the question, please?

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the Minister provide reassurance that Members of this House will be given the opportunity to fully scrutinise and vote on the new trade deal with the United States?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The hon. Member will have heard my earlier answers. I believe that Parliament should play a role in scrutinising trade legislation, and indeed any international agreement, but it is not the case in the United Kingdom that we have formal “up or down” votes on any treaty. We vote on the implementation of those agreements, and the responsibility for negotiating and agreeing those is with the Government, rather than Parliament. I am not aware of any substantive proposal to change that system. It is certainly not something that the UK Government today are committed to doing.

The hon. Member talks about the impact of leaving our existing trade relationships in the customs union. That was part of that referendum. I understand how people feel intensely about that. [Interruption.] People have different interpretations of why they voted. We can relive the argument forever or we can focus on the future, on reducing barriers to trade and on the kinds of agreements delivering advantages for every part of the UK, and that is exactly what we are doing. Had we in this case still been part of the customs union, there would be no breakthrough with the US or the India trade deal. All colleagues need to balance up the two things alongside each other. In relation to the automotive sector, that lack of a breakthrough would have meant significant job losses this week in the United Kingdom, and that would have been very painful for all of us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With what I am sure will be a pithy final question, I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

You have set me a challenge, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for securing this urgent question. It is so important to talk about this issue in this place. It has caused considerable problems for my Strangford constituents. In particular, I mention three distilleries—Echlinville, Rademon and the Hinch—but many other businesses are affected, too. How does the Minister plan to address the tariff differentials that may arise for Northern Ireland following the UK-US trade deal? It may see any EU retaliatory tariffs on US goods being applied to US goods entering Northern Ireland, potentially creating an Irish sea border for US goods.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

There is only one Member for Strangford, and no one could mistake him for anybody else in asking a question of that sort. He asks about the definition of whether goods are at risk of entering the single market when they come into Northern Ireland. That is based on a percentage differential in the tariff between the United Kingdom tariff rate for a good or tariff line and that for the EU. I believe that a 3% differential puts a good coming into Northern Ireland potentially at risk and therefore considered for the higher tariff up front. In this case, that would be the EU one, and it would then be reimbursed. I understand that it is a more complex position for businesses in his constituency than for many other things, but we have to make this work. We have to be committed to working with businesses in his area, in Northern Ireland and in the wider United Kingdom, and specifically with political leaders, to ensure that we are getting this right. I am hearing, and I have heard many times, about how we can make that system smoother, more reliable and more efficient. We will take that away and work with our colleagues to do that.

However, the system in place is balancing many different competing pressures, and there are no obvious or easy solutions. I was a parliamentarian when we went through all the potential outcomes when a different party was in charge. Let us make it work. Let us listen where we need to improve things, but let us recognise that this agreement fundamentally addresses some of the core problems that existed when this country chose to leave the European Union.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his very detailed answers this afternoon.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The reasoned amendment in the name of Andrew Griffith has been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

On Second Reading, we have a Bill that is even stronger than the one that started in the other House. Once again, I thank all our colleagues in the other place for their constructive feedback and contributions to the debate. I will not go through every change that has been made, but I will mention some aspects of the Bill that have been strengthened.

First, we have amended the Bill to ensure that there is more parliamentary scrutiny, and we have provided for a statutory consultation requirement to ensure that regulations are informed by those who would be impacted by them. There will also be that additional use of the affirmative procedure for regulations stemming from the Bill. Secondly, the Bill now includes a requirement for me, as the Secretary of State, to publish a statement setting out how my Department expects to identify and assess high-risk products.

Finally, contrary to previous suggestions from the Conservative party, the great British pint will clearly not be affected by this legislation, whether that is ale, cider or indeed milk. We do not believe that the Bill in its original form posed any threat to the pint, but we do not want to run the risk of colleagues thinking that my reassurances are small beer, so we accepted an amendment tabled in the other place that will give the pint statutory protection. That means, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in a few weeks’ time, when I hope you will confirm to the House that the Bill has received Royal Assent, we will all be able to raise a pint—protected under statute—to the Bill. I did inquire about whether I was allowed to bring a pint with me to the Chamber to illustrate the point, but that is apparently not in order; only the Chancellor has that ability. Given the week I am having, perhaps we will look at that at a later date.

To summarise, this legislation will finally enable the Government to properly regulate in areas where we have been unable to do so post Brexit. It will also give us the tools we need to better regulate modern-day consumer products. The Bill will help to create a fairer environment for high street shops and small businesses, support our growth mission and provide better protection for millions of consumers. For all those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

This is a little off-topic for a Second Reading, but the hon. Gentleman could have just listened to the “Today” programme this morning. He would have heard me articulate those concerns. We are engaged with our US counterparts, more so than any other country, in those negotiations. He will know that I will not share the content or detail of those talks. The policy originates with the President of the United States and we are responding to and engaging with it. The hon. Gentleman will understand that it comes from the mandate and the agenda of the US Administration.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State that we are debating the Second Reading of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, and not necessarily tariffs.

[Andrew Griffith]

Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am nearing a conclusion in any case. However, I do think that the issue of product safety—the rules and regulations that govern our economy, as the Secretary of State himself said—is intrinsically linked with trade, mutual recognition and growing the economy by removing trade frictions and barriers rather than erecting them and subjecting businesses to the tyranny of simply not understanding the corpus of rules and regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Wheeler]

I disagree that the issue is “purely” around enforcement. Obviously, there are elements of enforcement, but separating out one part of a package—a regulatory framework that will future-proof us from other issues—is not a coherent argument.

To conclude, it is vital that we create a product safety, regulatory and metrology framework that protects consumers, encourages fair competition and meets the changing picture internationally. This Bill delivers that framework, and I look forward to supporting it further in this House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am really grateful to the hon. Gentleman for engaging with the issues about product safety and consumer protection in the Bill, and he is making a serious speech in relation to them.

First, on the point of the customs union, which was skilfully woven into his speech, that would preclude us from reaching any arrangements with the United States, India, the Gulf states or other countries. For my money, if we wish to be part of something without a say in how it would affect our trade policy, that would be a very difficult position to take. I will come back to the references made by Conservative MPs, who often feel like they are fighting the old, last war. They cannot get past it—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. First, I gently suggest to the Secretary of State that he is meant to be making an intervention. Secondly, we are quite definitely debating the Second Reading of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, not a customs union. Perhaps the Secretary of State will conclude his remarks.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. In relation to the number of references made to the EU in this Bill, the EU is explicitly referenced simply because UK product regulations are derived from a lot of EU regulations. We have to reference that when looking to the future, particularly when we recognise some of those European standards, but it is wrong to simply look at those references and try to make them out to be something they are not.

[Clive Jones]

Thank you for your intervention, Secretary of State. You are right—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

“He” is right!

[Clive Jones]

Sorry. The Secretary of State is right when he talks about us needing to keep up with EU regulations. We definitely need to do that.

Despite the potential in this Bill, unfortunately it contains very little actual policy. It relies far too heavily on secondary legislation, which limits opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny and provides little clarity on what the Government actually intend to do with the powers they are giving themselves. The Bill hurls us into a hokey-cokey trade policy in which, at Ministers’ political whims, we can stick ourselves into aligning with the EU just as easily as we can throw ourselves out of it all over again if another Government decided they wanted to do that. It will also hurt business confidence, because the underlying regulations of our country can be easily altered without the appropriate levels of scrutiny from Parliament.

Taking a step back from the issue of EU alignment, this principle can apply across any of the areas that this Bill seeks to regulate. It is developing opaque mechanisms on which the Government expect us to trust them to do better. However, Government Members must contend with the fact that they will not be there forever. All the potentially positive things they could do with this legislation could be reversed or made worse by a different Government.

It is at this point that I must recognise the excellent work of the Liberal Democrat peers. For example, a Lib Dem lord introduced an amendment that protected the use of the unique British pint measurement, ensuring that the Bill could not prevent or restrict its use for beer, cider, or milk in the iconic pint bottle. Liberal Democrat peers pressed the Government to introduce stronger protections against lithium-ion batteries, and a Liberal Democrat peer also ensured that the Government included an important amendment that requires the Secretary of State to publish a statement setting out how the Government expect to identify and assess product safety risks before legislation is laid. Put simply, this will ensure greater scrutiny of regulations that are designed to make products safe.

Despite those improvements, the Bill is still ultimately a skeleton framework that shifts legislative authority from Parliament to the Executive without the necessary level of scrutiny. Many great Ministers agree with me that skeleton Bills are the wrong way to deliver legislation. In fact, in 2023—a mere two years ago—one shadow Minister stated that such Bills were not

“a model example of how Parliament would like to see legislation brought forward”,

and that we should be minimising

“the use of delegated powers where possible”.—[Official Report, 18 January 2023; Vol. 726, c. 409.]

I agree with that then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who is now sitting next to the Secretary of State who has brought forward today’s Bill. I am sorry that he does not agree with himself any more.

I also note the assurances that the Government gave to my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place that a process for editing statutory instruments will be brought forward. We will be pushing for details of that pre-legislative consultation as the Bill progresses through the Commons. Any Government will say that they are acting in our best interests, but all of the things that this Bill could do—such as enhance consumer safety, reduce trade barriers and build an economy fit for the future—could be undone at the stroke of a pen. That is a pen that Parliament should hold, not Ministers.

Employment Rights Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member, but he will be aware that that was not a point of order. As the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) has spoken in the debate, it is perfectly in order to refer to the comments that he made.

[Gregory Stafford]

I return to what industry leaders are saying. They have shared their fear about

“union influence slowing down decision making and hindering flexibility”,

making it harder for companies to remain competitive in global markets. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s survey found that 79% of organisations expect measures in the Employment Rights Bill to increase employment costs, placing further strain on companies that are having to grapple with increases to national insurance contributions and the rising national minimum wage. It is also likely that the measures will lead to

“more strikes, more disruptions, and ultimately less productivity.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Jayne Kirkham]

I agree with my hon. Friend. This matter affects the entire country. Unison, for example, has a campaign about migrant care workers, so, yes, this is a national issue.

In Cornwall, those care workers are often given the early morning and late evening shifts with no flexibility. Some sit on benches, stranded in Cornish villages that buses do not pass through, waiting from their morning shift to their first evening shift.

Many health and social care workers on sponsorship visas are afraid to raise concerns about their employment and living conditions for fear of losing their employer’s sponsorship. Employers in turn can be aware of that, and some even use it as an explicit threat. That brings me to the enforcement provisions in the Bill. Enforcement of statutory pay and employment rights is poor in the social care sector. Pay enforcement relies on individual workers reporting breaches. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs investigates fewer than 1% of care providers each year. International workers and those from minority ethnic backgrounds are particularly vulnerable. For individual rights to become a reality, a collective voice in the workplace and effective enforcement are key.

The Law Society reports that the backlog in employment tribunal cases stands at 44,000, which is 18% higher than it was in 2023. This backlog needs clearing and investment needs to be made in employment tribunals.

The new Fair Work Agency will have a crucial role to play in reducing the burden on the employment tribunal system by providing a focal point for advice on enforcement under Government amendment 208, in enabling the disclosure of information under Government amendment 212 and in taking on some of those enforcement powers under Government new clauses 57 and 58 on behalf of those workers. Those powers could really help low-paid or migrant workers who do not have access to funds or to union representation to enforce their rights, or who fear dismissal if they take steps in that direction.

Government amendment 249 will allow the Fair Work Agency to investigate and combat fraud and exploitative employers, thereby tackling the kind of modern slavery of international workers in the care industry that we have seen recently.

Government new clause 60 will also give the Fair Work Agency the power to recover the cost of enforcement, which would help with the funding of the system. However, real investment will need to be made into enforcement for the new powers to have teeth, with a timeline, resourcing and fast-track procedure for the new Fair Work Agency. I welcome confirmation of the Government’s commitment in this area.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

May I give Members a brief reminder that we are today talking to the new clauses and amendments on trade unions, industrial action, enforcement of labour market legislation, and miscellaneous and general provisions?

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I wish to deal with new clauses 8 and 9, which relate to recognition of the POA’s right to strike. I therefore also declare that I am an honorary life member of the POA. The word “honorary” means that there is no financial relationship, and I am assured that I would not even get a south-facing cell or an extra pillow.

New clauses 8 and 9 try to restore the fundamental right of prison officers to take industrial action in its various forms. The union has existed for 90 years and, although organised as a trade union, it has never taken any form of industrial action that has endangered the prisoners the officers care for, other staff or the wider community. Through all of its long history, there was an industrial relations climate in which negotiations took place and disputes were resolved.

Then in 1994, the Conservative Government, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, made it a crime to induce any prison officer to take strike action, or even to work to rule. The trade union was told very clearly that that would be a criminal act and any trade union officer organising action, even a work to rule, could be prosecuted. What the Government then did—this was why people became extremely cynical at the time—was to plan increases in the pension age, make extensive salary cuts and cut staff numbers. There was no way the union could fight back in any form to protect its members.

Some hon. Members who were about at the time may recall that, in 2019, the POA faced high six-figure fines in the High Court. When it took action on health and safety grounds by convening meetings of members, it was threatened with legal action and the union leaders were threatened with imprisonment. Ironically, it would have been interesting to ask who would lock them up—but that is another question altogether.

When the police had their right to strike taken away, it was almost like a covenant and they were given very specific commitments around how they would be protected on pay, pensions and conditions of work. That was never offered to the POA and there was never any negotiation like that, where it would at least be given some security in return for the loss of that right. That was never given.

The POA took the Government to the European Court of Human Rights in 2024 and the case was accepted. The Court urged the Government to engage with the union in good faith over what remedies would be available. The then Government refused to engage and the current Government are still not engaging, so one of the reasons for tabling the new clauses is to urge the Government to start engaging with the union around that particular issue.

All the union is asking for is that its members be treated like any other workers and for the Government to engage. The right to strike in Scotland was restored 10 years ago and there has been no strike action since. That has created an industrial relations climate that is conducive to working together—not to entering into conflict but to negotiating problems out. I think that that is a result of both sides knowing that there is the alternative, if necessary, of taking part in industrial action.

As most people know, industrial action in public services is often not a strike; it is usually a work to rule to start off negotiations. I have been a member of a trade union for 50 years; I have been a trade union officer, a lay official and so on. Every union that I have known, where there is any form of industrial action that in any way involves a public service, always puts in place negotiated arrangements to protect the people that they are serving—that is not just life and limb protection, but often ensures a standard of service that is still acceptable to people. I therefore urge the Minister to get back round the table with the POA.

There was a debate in Committee on this matter, which angered people and angered me. I have gone over the debate. It showed a shameful disrespect for prison officers and an ignorance of the role that they play and the working environment that they work in. There are references to screws and guards and things like that, and about how, somehow, if the right were restored, the union would allow prisoners to run amok and put the whole community at risk. That is never the case—it never has been and never would be. There is a lack of understanding about what those workers put up with. As many hon. Members know, there is overcrowding. Prison officers deal with prisoners with huge mental health issues, drug problems and health problems overall. There are record levels of violence in prisons and prison officers are injured almost daily as a result of assaults.

I have to say that the disrespect demonstrated in the Committee was part and parcel of the demoralisation of even more of our workers in those key roles. I therefore ask the Minister to re-engage, to get back round the negotiating table and to recognise that the issue will not go away. These members want their basic trade union rights back and, if necessary, they will go back before the European Court. I believe they will win and that we will, unnecessarily, go through another period in which the demoralisation of workers continues because of people’s lack of respect for their basic trade union rights. We are suffering real problems in recruitment and retention, so I urge the Government just to take that one step back to the negotiating table with the POA.

“Chapter 4A

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 33—Collective agreements: contracting out.

Government new clause 34—Collective redundancy consultation: protected period.

Government new clause 35—Duty to keep records relating to annual leave.

Government new clause 36—Extension of regulation of employment businesses.

Government new clause 37—Power to establish Social Care Negotiating Body.

Government new clause 38—Agency workers who are not otherwise “workers”.

New clause 1—Domestic abuse victims’ leave—

“(1) Within twelve months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations entitling a worker who is a victim of domestic abuse to be absent from work on leave under this section.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “domestic abuse” is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

(3) The regulations must include provision for determining—

(a) the extent of a worker's entitlement to leave under this section; and

(b) when leave under this section may be taken.

(4) Provision under subsection (3)(a) must secure that, where a worker is entitled to take leave under this section, that worker is entitled to―

(a) at least ten working days’ leave; and

(b) the benefit of the terms and conditions of employment which would have applied but for the absence.

(5) The regulations may―

(a) make provision about how leave under this section is to be taken;

(b) make different provision for different cases or circumstances; and

(c) make consequential provision.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide for statutory leave for victims of domestic abuse, with regulations providing for a minimum of ten days’ leave.

New clause 2—Domestic abuse: right not to suffer detriment—

“In Part V of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Rights not to suffer detriment), after section 47G, insert new section 47H—

‘Domestic abuse

(1) A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by their employer done on the ground that the worker has been, or is suspected to have been―

(a) a victim of domestic abuse; or

(b) affected directly by domestic abuse.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “domestic abuse” is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’”

This new clause would amend the Employment Rights Act 1996 to protect workers from adverse treatment on the grounds that they are, or are suspected to be, a person affected by domestic abuse.

New clause 3—Dismissal for reasons related to domestic abuse—

“In Part 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, after section 99, insert—

‘99B Domestic abuse

(1) A worker who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as having been unfairly dismissed if the reason for the dismissal is that the worker has been, or is suspected to have been―

(a) a victim of domestic abuse; or

(b) affected directly by domestic abuse.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “domestic abuse” is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’”

This new clause would amend the Employment Rights Act 1996 to protect workers from dismissal on the grounds that they are, or are suspected to be, a victim or a person affected by domestic abuse.

New clause 4—Employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent domestic abuse—

“After section 40A of the Equality Act 2010 (employer duty to prevent sexual harassment of workers), insert—

‘40B Employer duty to prevent workers from experiencing domestic abuse

(1) An employer (A) must take all reasonable steps to prevent their workers from experiencing domestic abuse in the course of their employment.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “domestic abuse” is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’”

This new clause would require employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent their workers from experiencing domestic abuse.

New clause 5—Employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent domestic abuse (contract workers)—

“After section 41 of the Equality Act 2010 (contract workers), insert—

‘41A Employer duty to prevent workers from experiencing domestic abuse

(1) An employer (A) must take all reasonable steps to prevent a contract worker working for or on behalf of (A) from experiencing domestic abuse in the course of their engagement.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “domestic abuse” is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’”

This new clause would require employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent contract workers from experiencing domestic abuse.

New clause 6—Workplace contravention of Equality Act: obtaining information—

“(1) In this section—

(a) P is a worker who thinks that a contravention of the Equality Act 2010 has occurred in relation to P’s employment or working practices;

(b) R is P’s employer and P thinks that R is responsible for the contravention mentioned in paragraph (a).

(2) A Minister of the Crown must by order prescribe—

(a) forms by which P may question R on any matter which is or may be relevant to subsection (1);

(b) forms by which R may answer questions by P.

(3) A question by P or an answer by R is admissible as evidence in proceedings under this Act (whether or not the question or answer is contained in a prescribed form).

(4) A court or tribunal may draw an inference from—

(a) a failure by R to answer a question by P before the end of the period of 8 weeks beginning with the day on which the question is served;

(b) an evasive or equivocal answer.

(5) Subsection (4) does not apply if—

(a) R reasonably asserts that to have answered differently or at all might have prejudiced a criminal matter;

(b) R reasonably asserts that to have answered differently or at all would have revealed the reason for not commencing or not continuing criminal proceedings;

(c) R’s answer is of a kind specified for the purposes of this paragraph by order of a Minister of the Crown;

(d) R’s answer is given in circumstances specified for the purposes of this paragraph by order of a Minister of the Crown;

(e) R’s failure to answer occurs in circumstances specified for the purposes of this paragraph by order of a Minister of the Crown.

(6) The reference to a contravention of the Equality Act 2010 includes a reference to a breach of an equality clause or rule, insofar as it relates to employment or working practices.

(7) A Minister of the Crown may by order—

(a) prescribe the period within which a question must be served to be admissible under subsection (3);

(b) prescribe the manner in which a question by P, or an answer by R, may be served.

(8) This section—

(a) does not affect any other enactment or rule of law relating to interim or preliminary matters in proceedings before a county court, the sheriff or an employment tribunal, and

(b) has effect subject to any enactment or rule of law regulating the admissibility of evidence in such proceedings.”

This new clause would reintroduce, for workers in relation to employers, the right to statutory Discrimination Questionnaires pursuant to the Equality Act 2010 regarding age, disability, sex, race, sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity, gender reassignment, religion or belief and marriage and civil partnership discrimination.

New clause 7—Protected paternity or parental partner leave—

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult on the introduction of protected paternity or parental partner leave for all employees.

(2) A consultation under subsection (1) must consider―

(a) the minimum duration for a period of protected paternity or parental partner leave;

(b) how best to ensure that protected paternity or parental partner leave is protected, non-transferable and does not result in discrimination against the employee taking that leave;

(c) how best to ensure that protected paternity or parental partner leave reduces the risk of employees experiencing discrimination as a result of being eligible for ordinary maternity leave; and

(d) the extent to which the costs to employers of protected paternity or parental partner leave should be reimbursed, in full or in part, and the manner in which this should be achieved.

(3) Following a consultation under subsection (2), within twelve months of commencing the consultation, the Secretary of State must by regulations―

(a) introduce protected paternity or parental partner leave, ensuring that it is paid, protected and non-transferable;

(b) define the length of any period of protected paternity or parental partner leave under subsection (3)(a); and

(c) make provision for any other matters the Secretary of State considers relevant to the matters under subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b).

(4) For the purposes of this section—

(a) “protected” leave means leave during which an employer must not permit an employee who satisfies prescribed conditions to work; and

(b) “parental partner leave” means leave taken for the purposes of caring for a child, with the exception of maternity leave taken under sections 71 to 73 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

(5) For the purposes of subsections (2)(b) and (2)(c), “discrimination” is defined according to sections 13 to 19 of the Equality Act 2010.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on a period of protected paternity or parental partner leave, and require them to introduce protected paternity or parental partner leave by regulations at a subsequent date.

New clause 10—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” includes—

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

(b) terms and conditions about remuneration.””

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

New clause 12—Rates of statutory maternity pay, etc—

“(1) In regulation 6 of the Statutory Maternity Pay (General) Regulations 1986 (prescribed rate of statutory maternity pay) for “£184.03” substitute “£368.06”.

(2) In the Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay (Weekly Rates) Regulations 2002—

(a) in regulation 2(a) (weekly rate of payment of statutory paternity pay) for “£184.03” substitute “£368.06”; and

(b) in regulation 3(a) (weekly rate of payment of statutory adoption pay) for “£184.03” substitute “£368.06”.

(3) In regulation 40(1)(a) of the Statutory Shared Parental Pay (General) Regulations 2014 (weekly rate of payment of statutory shared parental pay) for “£184.03” substitute “£368.06”.

(4) In regulation 20(1)(a) of the Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) Regulations 2020 (weekly rate of payment) for “£184.03” substitute “£368.06”.”

This new clause sets out rates of Statutory Maternity Pay, Statutory Paternity Pay, Statutory Adoption Pay, Statutory Shared Parental Pay and Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay.

New clause 13—Publication of information about parental leave policies: regulations—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to require any employer with more than 250 employees to publish information on the internet about the employer’s policies on parental leave and pay for parental leave.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must be published within one year of this Act being passed.

(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative regulation procedure.”

This new clause would require companies with more than 250 employees to publish information about their parental leave and pay policies.

New clause 14—Entitlement to paternity leave—

“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 80A (entitlement to paternity leave: birth)—

(a) in subsection (3), for “two” substitute “six”,

(b) in subsection (4), for “56 days” substitute “52 weeks”.

(3) In section 80B (entitlement to paternity leave: adoption)—

(a) in subsection (3), for “two” substitute “six”

(b) in subsection (4), for “56 days” substitute “52 weeks”.”

This new clause sets out an entitlement to paternity leave.

New clause 15—Whistleblowers: protected disclosures—

“In Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996, for section 103A, substitute—

“103A Protected disclosure

An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or one of the reasons) for the dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure.””

This new clause would slightly extend the circumstances in which an employee is considered as unfairly dismissed after making a protected disclosure.

New clause 16—Adoption pay: self-employed persons—

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations enable statutory adoption pay to be payable to persons who are—

(a) self-employed, or

(b) contractors.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the meaning of “self-employed” and “contractors” shall be set out in regulations under this section.”

This new clause extends statutory adoption pay to the self-employed and contractors.

New clause 17—Meaning of “kinship care”—

“(1) This section defines “kinship care” for the purposes of sections 80EF to 80EI of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (inserted by section (Kinship care leave) of this Act).

(2) Kinship care describes an arrangement where a child is raised by a friend, relative or extended family member other than a parent.

(3) Subsections (4) to (9) set out the arrangements that are recognised as being types of kinship care.

(4) An arrangement where a child is adopted (within the meaning of Chapter 4 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002) by a friend, relative or extended family member (“kinship adoption”).

(5) An arrangement where—

(a) a child is looked after by a local authority (within the meaning of section 22 of the Children Act 1989), and

(b) a friend, relative or extended family member of that child is approved by the local authority to be a foster carer for that child (“kinship foster care”).

(6) An arrangement created by a special guardianship order pursuant to section 14A of the Children Act 1989 (“special guardianship”).

(7) An arrangement created by a child arrangements order pursuant to section 8 of the Children Act 1989 where the court orders that a child is to live predominantly with a friend, relative or extended family member of that child (“kinship child arrangement”).

(8) An arrangement where a child is fostered privately (within the meaning of section 66 of the Children Act 1989) by a friend or extended family member (“private fostering arrangement”).

(9) Any other arrangement where a child is cared for, and provided with accommodation in their own home—

(a) by a relative of the child, other than—

(i) a parent of the child; or

(ii) a person who is not a parent of the child but who has parental responsibility for the child; and

(b) where the arrangement has lasted, or is intended to last, for at least 28 days (“private family arrangement”).”

This new clause is subsequent to the new clause about kinship care leave.

New clause 18—Kinship care leave—

“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 80EE insert—

“Chapter 5

Kinship care leave

80EF Kinship care leave

(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations entitling an employee to be absent from work on leave under this section if the employee satisfies conditions specified in the regulations as to an eligible kinship care arrangement with a child.

(2) The regulations must include provision for determining—

(a) the extent of an employee’s entitlement to leave under this section in respect of a child;

(b) when leave under this section may be taken.

(3) Provision under subsection (2)(a) must secure that—

(a) where only one employee is entitled to leave under this section in respect of a given child, the employee is entitled to at least 52 weeks’ leave;

(b) where more than one employee is entitled to leave under this section in respect of the same child, those employees are entitled to share at least 52 weeks’ leave between them.

(4) An employee is entitled to leave under this section only if the eligible kinship care arrangement is intended to last—

(a) at least one year, and

(b) until the child being cared for attains the age of 18.

(5) For the purposes of this Chapter, “eligible kinship care arrangement” means—

(a) special guardianship,

(b) a kinship child arrangement,

(c) a private fostering arrangement, or

(d) a private family arrangement

within the meaning given by section [Meaning of ‘kinship care’] of the Employment Rights Act 2024.

(6) The regulations may make provision about how leave under this section is to be taken.

(7) In this section—

(a) “special guardianship”, “kinship child arrangement”, “private fostering arrangement” and “private family arrangement” have the same meanings as in section [Meaning of ‘kinship care’] of the Employment Rights Act 2024.

(b) “week” means any period of seven days.

80EG Rights during and after kinship care leave

(1) Regulations under section 80EF must provide—

(a) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is entitled, for such purposes and to such extent as the regulations may prescribe, to the benefit of the terms and conditions of employment which would have applied but for the absence,

(b) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is bound, for such purposes and to such extent as the regulations may prescribe, by obligations arising under those terms and conditions (except in so far as they are inconsistent with subsection (1) of that section), and

(c) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is entitled to return from leave to a job of a kind prescribed by regulations, subject to section 80EH.

(2) The reference in subsection (1)(c) to absence on leave under section 80EF includes, where appropriate, a reference to a continuous period of absence attributable partly to leave under that section and partly to any one or more of the following—

(a) maternity leave,

(b) paternity leave,

(c) adoption leave,

(d) shared parental leave,

(e) parental leave,

(f) parental bereavement leave.

(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, but

(b) does not include terms and conditions about remuneration.

(4) Regulations under section 80EF may specify matters which are, or are not, to be treated as remuneration for the purposes of this section.

(5) Regulations under section 80EF may make provision, in relation to the right to return mentioned in subsection (1)(c), about—

(a) seniority, pension rights and similar rights;

(b) terms and conditions of employment on return.

80EH Special cases

(1) Regulations under section 80EF may make provision about—

(a) redundancy during or after a period of leave under that section, or

(b) dismissal (other than by reason of redundancy) during a period of leave under that section.

(2) Provision by virtue of subsection (1) may include—

(a) provision requiring an employer to offer alternative employment;

(b) provision for the consequences of failure to comply with the regulations (which may include provision for a dismissal to be treated as unfair for the purposes of Part 10).

80EI Chapter 5: supplemental

(1) Regulations under section 80EF may—

(a) make provision about notices to be given, evidence to be produced and other procedures to be followed by employees and employers;

(b) make provision requiring employers or employees to keep records;

(c) make provision for the consequences of failure to give notices, to produce evidence, to keep records or to comply with other procedural requirements;

(d) make provision for the consequences of failure to act in accordance with a notice given by virtue of paragraph (a);

(e) make special provision for cases where an employee has a right which corresponds to a right under section80EF and which arises under the person’s contract of employment or otherwise;

(f) make provision modifying the effect of Chapter 2 of Part 14 (calculation of a week’s pay) in relation to an employee who is or has been absent from work on leave under section 80EF;

(g) make provision applying, modifying or excluding an enactment, in such circumstances as may be specified and subject to any conditions which may be specified, in relation to a person entitled to take leave under section 80EF;

(h) make different provision for different cases or circumstances;

(i) make consequential provision.

(2) The cases or circumstances mentioned in subsection (1)(h) include—

(a) more than one child being subject to the same eligible kinship care arrangement, and

(b) a child being subject to an eligible kinship care arrangement on two or more separate occasions, and regulations may, in particular, make special provision regarding the applicability and extent of the entitlement to leave in such circumstances.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for some or all of a period of kinship care leave to be paid.””

This new clause sets out an entitlement to kinship care leave.

New clause 20—Duty to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace—

“(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—

‘(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from violence and harassment, including—

(i) gender-based violence;

(ii) sexual harassment;

(iii) psychological and emotional abuse;

(iv) physical and sexual abuse;

(v) stalking and harassment, including online harassment;

(vi) threats of violence.’

(3) After subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) It shall be the duty of every employer to prepare, and as often as may be appropriate revise, an assessment to identify potential risks of violence and harassment in the workplace and implement policies and procedures to eliminate these risks so far as is reasonably practicable.

(3B) It shall be the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches.

(3C) In subsection (3B) a “gender-responsive approach” means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls, when designing and implementing policies and procedures.

(3D) In this section, “persons working in the workplace” includes—

(a) employees;

(b) full-time, part-time, and temporary workers; and

(c) interns and apprentices.

(3E) In subsection (2)(f) and subsections (3A) and (3B), a reference to the workplace includes remote and hybrid work environments.’”

This new clause will amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to place a duty on employers to protect all those working in their workplace from gender-based violence and harassment.

New clause 21—Expanded duties of the Health and Safety Executive—

“In the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, after section 11 (functions of the Executive) insert—

‘11ZA Duties of the Executive: health and safety framework on violence and harassment

(1) It shall be the duty of the Executive to develop, publish and as often as may be appropriate revise a health and safety framework on violence and harassment in the workplace.

(2) This framework shall include specific provisions relating to—

(a) the prevention of gender-based violence and harassment of those in the workplace including the prevention of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse;

(b) the duty of employers to create safe and inclusive workplaces and the preventative measures they must adopt; and

(c) the use of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with the duty of the employer in relation to violence and harassment (see section 2(2)(f)).

(3) The Executive shall work with other relevant bodies, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission and law enforcement agencies, to develop and revise this framework.

11ZB Duties of the Executive: guidance for employers

The Executive shall, in consultation with such other persons as it considers to be relevant, issue guidance for employers about the protection of those facing violence and harassment on the basis of gender in the workplace by—

(a) implementing workplace policies to prevent violence and harassment;

(b) establishing confidential reporting mechanisms to allow victims to report incidents;

(c) conducting risk assessments and ensuring compliance with the health and safety framework (see section 11ZA);

(d) reporting and addressing incidents of violence and harassment; and

(e) supporting victims of violence and harassment, including making accommodations in the workplace to support such victims.’”

This new clause will create a duty on the Health and Safety Executive to develop a health and safety framework on violence and harassment and to issue guidance for employers about the protection of those facing violence and harassment on the basis of gender in the workplace.

New clause 22—Duty of employer to prepare domestic abuse policy—

“(1) It is the duty of every employer to develop, publish and as often as may be appropriate revise a written statement of its general policy with respect to the support it provides to workers who are victims of domestic abuse.

(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for determining—

(a) the scope of a domestic abuse policy;

(b) the form and manner in which a domestic abuse policy is to be published;

(c) when and how frequently a domestic abuse policy is to be published or revised;

(d) requirements for senior approval before a domestic abuse policy is published.

(3) The regulations may make provision for a failure to comply with subsection (1)—

(a) to be an offence punishable on summary conviction—

(i) in England and Wales by a fine;

(ii) in Scotland or Northern Ireland by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;

(b) to be enforced, otherwise than as an offence, by such means as may be prescribed.

(4) The regulations may not require an employer to revise the policy more frequently than at intervals of 24 months.

(5) For the purposes of this section, ‘domestic abuse’ is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

(6) This section does not apply to an employer who has fewer than 5 employees.

(7) Regulations under this section must be made no later than twelve months after the passage of this Act.”

This new clause would create a duty on employers with 5 or more employees to have a policy outlining the support they provide to workers who are victims of domestic abuse.

New clause 23—Prescribed rate of statutory maternity pay—

“In regulation 6 of the Statutory Maternity Pay (General) Regulations 1986, delete ‘is a weekly rate of £184.03’ and insert ‘is a rate of £12.60 per hour in the UK and £13.85 per hour in London’.”

This new clause would increase the current rate of statutory maternity pay, bringing it in line with the “real Living Wage”.

New clause 25—Working Time Council—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, establish a Working Time Council (‘the Council’) to provide advice and make recommendations to the Secretary of State on the matters specified in subsection (4).

(2) The members of the Council—

(a) are to be appointed by the Secretary of State, and

(b) must include representatives of—

(i) trade unions;

(ii) businesses;

(iii) government departments; and

(iv) experts on matters relating to employment.

(3) Each member of the Council must hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms and conditions of the member’s appointment.

(4) The Council must provide advice and make recommendations on how a transition could be made from a five-day working week to a four-day working week with no impact on pay, including—

(a) how such a transition would affect employers and employees, and

(b) how businesses, public bodies and other organisations should approach such a transition.

(5) The Secretary of State may pay such remuneration or allowances to members of the Council as the Secretary of State may determine.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a Working Time Council to provide advice and recommendations on the transition from a five-day working week to a four-day working week.

New clause 27—Flexible working duties: reports on compliance—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, once every six months, report on compliance with the duties under section 80G of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (employer’s duties in relation to application for change to working hours, etc).

(2) The first report must be published and laid before Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.

(3) Each further report must be published and laid before Parliament within six months of the last such report being published.”

This new clause would require the Government to report on employers’ compliance with the flexible working duties set out in this Bill.

New clause 30—Special constables: right to time off for public duties—

“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended is follows.

(2) In section 50 (Right to time off for public duties), after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) An employer shall permit an employee who is a special constable, appointed in accordance with section 27 of the Police Act 1996, section 9 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 or section 25 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, to take time off during the employee’s working hours for the purpose of performing their duties.

(1B) In section (1A), “duties” means any activity under the direction of a chief officer of police.’”

This new clause gives employees who are special constables the right to time off to carry out their police duties.

New clause 61—Status of Workers—

“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit section 145F(3).

(3) Omit section 151(1B).

(4) Omit sections 295 (meaning of employee and related expressions) and 296 (meaning of worker and related expressions) and insert—

‘295 Meaning of worker and related expressions

(1) In this Act—

(a) “worker” and “employee” both mean an individual who—

(i) seeks to be engaged by another to provide labour,

(ii) is engaged by another to provide labour, or

(iii) where the employment has ceased, was engaged by another to provide labour, and is not, in the provision of that labour, operating a business on the employee or worker’s own account;

(b) an “employer” in relation to a worker or employee is─

(i) every person or entity who engages or engaged the worker or employee, and

(ii) every person or entity who substantially determines terms on which the worker or employee is engaged at any material time;

(c) “employed” and “employment mean engaged as an “employee” or as a “worker” under subsection (1)(a);

(d) “contract of employment” means a contract or employment relationship, however described, whereby an individual undertakes to do or perform any labour, work or services for another party to the contract or employment relationship whose status is not by virtue of the contract or employment relationship that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual, and any reference to the contract or employment relationship of an employee or a worker shall be construed accordingly;

(e) The ascertainment of the existence of a contract of employment or employment relationship shall be guided primarily by the facts relating to the performance of work, irrespective of how the contract or employment relationship is designated in any contractual or other arrangement by one or more of the parties involved;

(f) In ascertaining the existence of a contract of employment or employment relationship, all relevant facts may be taken into consideration but the following facts, if found, may be considered indicative of the existence of a contract of employment and the presence of any such fact shall raise the rebuttable presumption that the arrangement is a contract of employment—

(i) the use, by a person other than the putative worker, of automated monitoring systems or automated decision-making systems in the organisation of work;

(ii) the work is carried out according to the instructions and under the control of another entity;

(iii) the work involves the integration of the worker in the organisation of another entity;

(iv) the work is performed solely or mainly for the benefit of another entity;

(v) the work is to be done, or is in fact done, predominantly by the worker personally;

(vi) the work involves the provision of tools, materials and equipment by an entity other than the worker;

(vii) the worker is to a significant extent subordinated to and economically dependent on the entity for which the work is done;

(viii) the determination of the worker’s rate of remuneration and other significant terms and conditions is wholly or mainly that of an entity other than the worker and, in any event, significantly outweighs the power of the worker to determine his or her rate of remuneration and other significant terms and conditions;

(ix) the worker’s remuneration and other terms and conditions are not determined by collective bargaining;

(x) the financial risks of the entity for which the work is done are not to any significant extent those of the worker beyond his or her interest in securing further remunerated work;

(xi) the worker has no significant capital investment in the entity for which the work is done beyond the provision of tools and equipment necessary for the worker to perform the work;

(xii) the remuneration for the work done constitutes the worker's sole or one of their principal sources of income;

(xiii) part of the remuneration is in kind, such as food, lodging or transport.

(2) It is for a person who is claimed to be the employer and contests that claim to demonstrate in any legal proceedings that—

(a) they are not the employer, or

(b) the person providing the work is not an employee or a worker.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) apply to all employment of a government department, except for members of the armed forces.

(4) A person undertaking the work of a foster carer shall be treated as a ‘worker’ for the purposes of this Act.

(5) An entitlement on the part of a person to substitute the labour of another for his or her own labour shall be ignored in determining whether he or she is a worker or employee.

(6) Where a worker or employee provides labour through a personal service company the employer is the third party for whom the labour is performed.

(7) A “personal service company” means a company—

(a) in which the worker or employee is a director, or a substantial shareholding is held by the worker or employee, by themself or by or with a member of the family of the worker or employee, or by or with a third party for whom the labour is or was performed, or a nominee or nominees of such a third party; and

(b) which has contracted with the worker or employee to provide their labour to a third party or parties nominated by the company; and

(c) in relation to which the terms and conditions on which the worker or employee is or was engaged to perform the labour are or were substantially determined by any third party for whom the labour is or was to be performed, by itself or jointly with another person or entity; and

(d) in which the status of any third party for whom the labour is or was to be performed is not in practice that of a client or customer of the profession or business undertaking carried on by the worker or employee.

(8) An employer that employs, or proposes to engage, an individual to carry out work must not represent to the individual that the contract under which the individual is, or would be, engaged by the employer is a contract for services under which the individual performs, or would perform, work as an independent contractor if that is not the case.

(9) Subsection (8) does not apply if the employer demonstrates that, when the representation was made, the employer reasonably believed that the contract was a contract for services.

(10) In determining, for the purpose of subsection (9), whether the employer's belief was reasonable, regard must be had to all relevant circumstances including the size and nature of the employer's enterprise.

(11) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate as “workers” other persons engaged in work, and designate as “employers” other entities engaged in the provision of work, after consultation with organisations which appear to the Secretary of State to represent such persons and entities and any such regulations must be made by statutory instrument,

(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (11) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(12) This section has effect subject to sections 68(4), 116B(10) and 235.'”

New clause 62—Procedure for handling dismissal and re-engagement—

“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) After Chapter I (collective bargaining), insert—

“Chapter 1A

Procedure For Handling Dismissal and Re-Engagement

187A Duty of employer to consult representatives

(1) This section applies to an employer where, in an undertaking or establishment with 50 or more employees, in the light of recent events or information and the economic situation affecting the employer, there is a threat to continued employment within the undertaking, and one or both of the following matters apply—

(a) decisions may have to be taken to terminate the contracts of or more employees for reasons other than conduct or capability, or

(b) anticipatory measures are envisaged which are likely to lead to substantial changes in work organisation or in contractual relations affecting or more employees.

(2) The employer shall consult with a view to reaching an agreement to avoid decisions being taken to terminate contracts of employment, or to introduce changes in work organisation or in contractual relations.

(3) The consultations under subsection (2) shall take place with all the persons who are appropriate representatives of any of the employees who are or may be affected by those matters that apply.

(4) The consultation shall begin as soon as is reasonably practicable and in good time for any agreement to be reached so as to avoid decisions being taken to terminate contracts of employment or introduce changes in work organisation or in contractual relations.

(5) The employer shall allow the appropriate representatives access to the affected employees and shall afford to those representatives such accommodation and other facilities as may be appropriate.

(6) In this section, “appropriate representatives” has the same meaning as in section 188(1B) (and the requirements for the election of employee representatives in section 188A apply).

(7) If there are special circumstances which render it not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with a requirement of this section, the employer shall take all such steps towards compliance with that requirement as are reasonably practicable in those circumstances.

(8) Where the threat to continued employment emanates from a person controlling the employer (directly or indirectly), or a decision leading to the termination of the contract of an employee for reasons other than conduct or capability or a decision leading to substantial changes in work organisation or in contractual relations is that of a person controlling the employer (directly or indirectly), a failure on the part of that person to provide information to the employer shall not constitute special circumstances rendering it not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with such a requirement.

187B Duty of employers to disclose information

(1) An employer to which section 187A applies shall, for the purposes of the consultation provided for in section 187A, disclose to the appropriate representatives, on request, the information required by this section.

(2) The information to be disclosed is all information relating to the employer's undertaking (including information relating to use of agency workers in that undertaking) which is in the employer’s possession, or that of an associated employer, and is information—

(a) without which the appropriate representatives would be to a material extent impeded in carrying on consultation with the employer, and

(b) which it would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice that the employer should disclose for the purposes of the consultation.

(3) A request by appropriate representatives for information under this section shall, if the employer so requests, be in writing or be confirmed in writing.

(4) In determining what would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice, regard shall be had to the relevant provisions of any Code of Practice issued by ACAS, but not so as to exclude any other evidence of what that practice is.

(5) Information which an employer is required by virtue of this section to disclose to appropriate representatives shall, if they so request, be disclosed or confirmed in writing.

(6) The employer is not required to disclose any information or document to a person for the purposes of this section where the nature of the information or document is such that, according to objective criteria, the disclosure of the information or document would seriously harm the functioning of, or would be prejudicial to, the undertaking.

(7) If there is a dispute between the employer and an employee or an appropriate representative as to whether the nature of the information or document which the employer has failed to provide is such as is described in subsection (6), the employer, employee or appropriate representative may apply to the Central Arbitration Committee for a declaration as to whether the information or document is of such a nature.

(8) If the Committee makes a declaration that the disclosure of the information or document in question would not, according to objective criteria, be seriously harmful or prejudicial as mentioned in subsection (5) the Committee shall order the employer to disclose the information or document.

(9) An order under subsection (8) shall specify—

(a) the information or document to be disclosed;

(b) the person or persons to whom the information or document is to be disclosed;

(c) any terms on which the information or document is to be disclosed; and

(d) the date before which the information or document is to be disclosed.

187C Complaint to Central Arbitration Committee

(1) An appropriate representative may present a complaint to the Central Arbitration Committee that an employer has failed to comply with a requirement of section 187A or section 187B. The complaint must be in writing and in such form as the Committee may require.

(2) If on receipt of a complaint the Committee is of the opinion that it is reasonably likely to be settled by conciliation, it shall refer the complaint to ACAS and shall notify the appropriate representative and employer accordingly, whereupon ACAS shall seek to promote a settlement of the matter. If a complaint so referred is not settled or withdrawn and ACAS is of the opinion that further attempts at conciliation are unlikely to result in a settlement, it shall inform the Committee of its opinion.

(3) If the complaint is not referred to ACAS or, if it is so referred, on ACAS informing the Committee of its opinion that further attempts at conciliation are unlikely to result in a settlement, the Committee shall proceed to hear and determine the complaint and shall make a declaration stating whether it finds the complaint well-founded, wholly or in part, and stating the reasons for its findings.

(4) On the hearing of a complaint any person who the Committee considers has an interest in the complaint may be heard by the Committee, but a failure to accord a hearing to a person other than the appropriate representative and employer directly concerned does not affect the validity of any decision of the Committee in those proceedings.

(5) If the Committee finds the complaint wholly or partly well-founded, the declaration shall specify─

(a) each failure in respect of which the Committee finds that the complaint is well-founded

(b) the steps that should be taken by the employer to rectify each such failure, and

(c) a period or periods (not being less than one week from the date of the declaration) within which the employer ought to take those steps.

(6) On a hearing of a complaint under this section a certificate signed by or on behalf of a Minister of the Crown and certifying that particular information could not be provided except by disclosing information the disclosure of which would have been against the interests of national security shall be conclusive evidence of that fact. A document which purports to be such a certificate shall be taken to be such a certificate unless the contrary is proved.

187D Application for injunction pending rectification of failure

(1) This section applies if a declaration of the Central Arbitration Committee under section 187C finds a complaint wholly or partly well-founded.

(2) An appropriate representative may apply to the Court for an injunction to subsist until the employer can satisfy the Committee that the steps under section 187C(5)(b) have been completed within the specified period or periods under section 187C(5)(c)—

(a) to compel the employer to take those steps within the period or periods, or

(b) to render void any dismissal or changes in work organisation or in contractual relations.

187E Complaint to employment tribunal

(1) This section applies where an employer—

(a) offers or proposes to offer re-engagement on different terms to an employee—

(i) it has dismissed or proposes to dismiss for reasons other than conduct or capability, or

(ii) in relation to whom it has made or proposes to make substantial changes in work organisation or in contractual relations; or

(b) has failed to comply with any of the obligations set out in sections 187A or 187B.

(2) Any affected employee or their appropriate representative may make a complaint to the employment tribunal.

(3) If the tribunal finds the complaint well-founded it shall make a declaration to that effect.

187F Award of compensation

(1) An employee, or the appropriate representative of an employee, whose complaint under section 187E has been declared to be well-founded may make an application to an employment tribunal for an award of compensation to be paid by the employer.

(2) The amount of compensation awarded shall, subject to the following provisions, be such as the employment tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances having regard any loss sustained by the complainant which is attributable to the dismissal or substantial changes in work organisation or in contractual relations to which the complaint related.

187G Duty of employer to notify Secretary of State in certain circumstances

(1) This section applies to an employer to which section 187A applies in relation to 50 or more employees at one establishment or undertaking.

(2) The employer shall notify the Secretary of State, in writing, of the matters under section 187A(1) that apply and any related proposals not later than the end of whichever is the longer of—

(a) 45 days, or

(b) the notice period necessary to terminate lawfully the employment of all those employees who may be affected by any such matter before any decision to put into effect that matter is reached.

(3) A notice under this section shall—

(a) be given to the Secretary of State by delivery or by sending it by post, at such address as the Secretary of State may direct in relation to the establishment where employees who may be affected are employed,

(b) where there are representatives to be consulted under section 187A(2), identify them and state the date when consultation with them under that section began or will begin, and

(c) be in such form and contain such particulars, in addition to those required by paragraph (b), as the Secretary of State may direct.

(4) After receiving a notice under this section from an employer the Secretary of State may by written notice require the employer to give them such further information as may be specified in the notice.

(5) Where there are representatives to be consulted under section 187A(2) the employer shall give to each of them a copy of any notice given under subsection (3). The copy shall be delivered to them or sent by post to an address notified by them to the employer, or (in the case of representatives of a trade union) sent by post to the union at the address of its head or main office.

(6) If in any case there are special circumstances rendering it not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with any of the requirements of subsections (1) to (5), the employer shall take all such steps towards compliance with that requirement as are reasonably practicable in the circumstances. Where the decision regarding the matters is that of a person controlling the employer (directly or indirectly), a failure on the part of that person to provide information to the employer shall not constitute special circumstances rendering it not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with any of those requirements.

187H Failure to notify

(1) An employer who fails to give notice to the Secretary of State in accordance with section 187G commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(2) Proceedings in England or Wales for such an offence shall be instituted only by or with the consent of the Secretary of State or by an officer authorised for that purpose by special or general directions of the Secretary of State. An officer so authorised may prosecute or conduct proceedings for such an offence before a magistrates' court.

(3) Where an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person purporting to act in any such capacity, that person as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(4) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (3) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with their functions of management as if they were a director of the body corporate.”

New clause 63—Protection of contracts of employment—

“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) After Part IIA (zero hours workers) insert—

“Part 2AA

Protection of Contracts of Employment

27BA

(1) Any variation to an employment contract is void if it—

(a) was obtained under the threat of dismissal, and

(b) is less favourable to the employee than the pre-existing provision, unless the employer has complied with all its obligations under, and arising from, sections 187A to 187G of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in relation to any person employed under the contract.

(2) In subsection (1)(b), the definition of “less favourable” shall be determined by the perception of a reasonable employee in the position of the affected employee.

27BB Unilateral variation of employment contracts

(1) Any provision in an agreement (whether an employment contract or not) is void in so far as it purports to permit the employer to vary unilaterally one or more terms within an employment contract where the variation is less favourable to the employee that the pre-existing provision.

(2) In subsection (1), the definition of “less favourable” shall be determined by the perception of a reasonable employee in the position of the affected employee.

(3) In Chapter I (right not to be unfairly dismissed), after section 104G insert—

(3) In Chapter I (right not to be unfairly dismissed), after section 104G insert—

“104H Refusal of variation of contractual terms

(1) In relation to an employee who claims to have been unfairly dismissed in circumstances in which the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee has refused to agree to a variation of contractual terms—

(a) section 98(1)(b) shall not apply save that it shall be for the employer to show that the reason for the dismissal fell within section 98(2);

(b) section 108(1) shall not apply.

104I Matters for consultation under section 187C of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

(2) An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if—

(a) the Central Arbitration Committee has made a declaration under section 187C of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of the employer and employee, and the employer has not complied with the steps in that declaration, or

(b) the employer has failed, in respect of the employee, to comply with a provision of a collective agreement applicable to a matter for consultation under section 187A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.”

(4) In section 116 (unfair dismissal: choice of order and its terms), after subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) If an employee has been unfairly dismissed and the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) the dismissal is unfair is one specified under section 104H or 104I, the tribunal may only find that it is not practicable for—

(a) the employer to comply with an order for reinstatement under subsection (1)(b), or

(b) the employer (or a successor or an associated employer) to comply with an order for re-engagement if the employer (or if appropriate a successor or an associated employer) would be likely to become insolvent within three months if such an order was made.”

(5) In section 128(1)(a)(i) (interim relief pending determination of complaint), for “or 103A” substitute “103A, 104H or 104I”.

(6) In section 129(1)(a)(i) (procedure on hearing of application and making of order), for “or 103A” substitute “103A, 104H or 104I”.”

New clause 71—Review of Statutory Sick Pay costs—

“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult on how the Government can best support small employers with Statutory Sick Pay costs.

(2) The consultation under subsection (1) must consider the economic effects of increasing Statutory Sick Pay for small employers with 250 employees or less, including the effects on—

(a) productivity;

(b) long-term illness;

(c) benefit spending; and

(d) economic growth & tax revenue.

(3) Following a consultation under subsection (2), within twelve months of commencing the consultation, the Secretary of State must report to Parliament on actions taken to implement the findings of the report of the consultation.”

This new clause would require the Government to consult on how best to support small employers with statutory sick pay costs while taking into account the wider economic effects of increasing it.

New clause 72—Duty on employers to investigate protected disclosures—

“(1) Part 4A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protected disclosures) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).

(2) In section 43C (Disclosure to employer or other responsible person), after subsection (2) insert―

“(3) Employers must take reasonable steps to investigate any disclosure made to them under this section.

(4) Employers with―

(a) 50 or more employees;

(b) an annual business turnover or annual balance sheet total of £10 million or more;

(c) operations in financial services; or

(d) vulnerabilities in other respects to money laundering or terrorist financing,

must establish internal channels and procedures for reporting and managing qualifying disclosures.

(5) The calculation of the number of employees under subsection (4)(a) includes employees of all franchises, subsidiaries and associated employers as defined under section 231 of this Act.

(6) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the commencement of this provision, set out in statutory guidance what “reasonable steps” under subsection (3) should include.”

(3) In section 48 (Complaints to employment tribunals), after subsection (1B), insert―

“(1C) A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that the worker’s employer has failed to comply with the duty in section 43C (Duty to investigate protected disclosures).”

(4) In section 49 (Remedies), after subsection (1A), insert―

“(1B) Where an employment tribunal is satisfied that an employer has contravened the duty set out in section 43C (duty to investigate), the tribunal―

(a) shall make a declaration to that effect, and

(b) may make an award of compensation to be paid by the employer to the complainant in respect of the failure and may increase any award payable to the complainant by no more than 25%.””

This new clause would create a duty on employers to investigate whistleblowing concerns, to establish internal channels for reporting and managing whistleblower disclosures, and enable tribunal claims with respect to contravention of those duties.

New clause 73—Hourly statutory sick pay—

“(1) Part 11 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (statutory sick pay) is amended as follows.

(2) After section 151 (Employer’s liability), insert—

“151A Hourly statutory sick pay

(1) Where an employee has an hour of incapacity for work in relation to his contract of service with an employer, that employer shall, if the conditions set out in sections 153 and 154 are satisfied, be liable to make him, in accordance with the following provisions of this Part of this Act, a payment (to be known as “hourly statutory sick pay”) in respect of that hour.

(2) For the purposes of this section an hour of incapacity for work in relation to a contract of service means an hour during which the employee concerned is, or is deemed in accordance with regulations to be, incapable by reason of some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement of doing work which he can reasonably be expected to do under that contract.

(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations make any amendment to this Part that is necessary to enable the operation of a system of hourly statutory sick pay.””

This new clause introduces a new defined term “hourly statutory sick pay”, enabling pro rata payment of statutory sick pay by the hour. This will give employers greater flexibility in SSP payment, which can currently only be paid in whole days.

New clause 74—Non-disclosure agreements: harassment—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make changes by regulation to ensure that an agreement to which this section applies is void insofar as it purports to preclude the worker from making a relevant disclosure.

(2) This section applies to any agreement between a worker and the worker's employer (whether a worker’s contract or not), including—

(a) any proceedings for breach of contract;

(b) a non-disclosure agreement; or

(c) a non-disparagement agreement.

(3) Regulations made under this section―

(a) must not prevent a worker from being granted confidentiality protections associated with a settlement agreement, if those protections are made at the worker’s request; and

(b) must replicate or enhance the protections offered to workers by section 1 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, with respect to non-disclosure agreements and harassment, but must apply those protections to all workers.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

(a) “relevant disclosure” means any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, shows that harassment has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed, by a fellow worker or a client of the employer;

(b) “harassment” means any act of harassment as defined by section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to void any non-disclosure agreement insofar as it prevents the worker from making a disclosure about harassment (including sexual harassment), with relevant exceptions at the worker’s request.

New clause 75—Statutory sick pay: consultation on rate—

“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult on the rate of Statutory Sick Pay.

(2) A consultation under subsection (1) must conclude within six months of its commencement.

(3) A consultation under subsection (1) must consider―

(a) the rate at which Statutory Sick Pay should be set to ensure that employees are able to—

(i) cover their basic needs without falling into negative budgets;

(ii) recover from an illness; and

(iii) remain in work while managing their disability or long-term health condition;

(b) how best to phase in increases to Statutory Sick Pay over a five year period;

(c) the support that the Government could offer small businesses for longer-term absences or to improve the health of their workforce; and

(d) the support that the Government could offer to encourage better insurance protections for businesses to manage staff absences.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to hold a consultation on the rate of Statutory Sick Pay.

New clause 76—Statutory sick pay: gradual increases—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, commence a five year period of annual increases to the rate of Statutory Sick Pay.

(2) At the end of the five year period under subsection (1), the rate of Statutory Sick Pay must be no less than 80% of the National Living Wage.

(3) The annual increases under subsection (1) must be incremental, with each annual increase representing at least 10% of the overall increase required over the five year period.”

This new clause would gradually increase the rate of Statutory Sick Pay over the next five years, taking it to at least 80% of rate of the National Living Wage.

New clause 78—Access to employment rights: workers on temporary visas—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, commission an independent report on the extent to which workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law.

(2) In commissioning the report, the Secretary of State must arrange for the report to meet the requirements set out in subsections (3) to (5).

(3) The report must examine the extent to which workers on temporary visas feel unable to assert their employment rights because they are dependent on their employers to sponsor their visas.

(4) The report must make recommendations to the Secretary of State about how the Secretary of State can support workers on temporary visas in the assertion of their employment rights.

(5) The report must be completed within three months of being commissioned.

(6) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is practicable after receipt of the report, publish the report and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.

(7) The Secretary of State must, within three months of receipt of the report—

(a) respond to the recommendations in the report, and

(b) publish the response and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission a report ensuring that workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law in order to prevent abusive practices.

New clause 79—Duty to prevent and monitor sexual harassment in the workplace—

“(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—

“(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from sexual harassment; and

(g) the monitoring of sexual harassment in the workplace.”

This new clause would require the Health and Safety Executive to prevent and monitor sexual harassment in the workplace.

New clause 80—Single status of worker: review—

“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of Government policy on the single status of worker, and how it affects the ability to access the rights provided for by this Act.

(2) The review must be published and laid before Parliament within six months of this section coming into force.”

This new clause calls on the Secretary of State to review the Government’s policy on the single status of workers within 6 months of this section coming into force.

New clause 81—Modern slavery in UK workplaces: review—

“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of—

(a) the extent to which employees in UK workplaces are subject to modern slavery as a result of the actions of their employer, and

(b) the effectiveness of employment rights in preventing modern slavery in UK workplaces.

(2) The review must be published and laid before Parliament within six months of this section coming into force.”

This new clause asks the Secretary of State to conduct a review of modern slavery to ensure that the employment rights granted in the Act are effective in preventing modern slavery.

New clause 83—Impact on employment tribunals: sections 1 to 6—

“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of—

(a) the impact of sections 1 to 6 on the operation of employment tribunals, and

(b) the ability of employment tribunals to manage any increase in applications resulting from those sections.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay the review made under subsection (1) and the Government’s response to the review before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact on the employment tribunals of the Bill’s provisions on zero hours workers.

New clause 84—Consultation and assessment on the right to request flexible working—

“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of the right to request flexible working provided for in section 7 of this Act.

(2) As part of the assessment, the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation on the proposed right to request flexible working.

(3) The assessment must—

(a) include labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis;

(b) examine the impact of the measures in section 7 on employment, wages and economic output;

(c) consider the likelihood of the costs of flexible working measures being passed on to employees through lower wages; and

(d) examine the likely effect of the right to request flexible working on—

(i) productivity

(ii) wage growth

(iii) equality of opportunity

(iv) job security

(v) economic activity, and

(vi) employment.

(4) A report setting out the findings of the assessment must be laid before each House of Parliament no sooner than 18 weeks after the consultation has been initiated.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clause 7.

New clause 85—Employer duties on harassment: impact assessment—

“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of section 18 of this Act on employers.

(2) The assessment must—

(a) report on the extent to which the prevalence of third-party harassment makes the case for the measures in section 18;

(b) include an assessment of the impact of section 18 on free speech;

(c) include an assessment of the likely costs to employers of section 18;

(d) include—

(i) an assessment of which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment through no fault of the employer, and

(ii) proposals for mitigations that can be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions in Clauses 18.

New clause 86—Unfair dismissal: impact assessment—

“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of section 21 and Schedule 2 of this Act on—

(a) employers, and

(b) the economy.

(2) The assessment must—

(a) include labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis;

(b) examine the impact of the measures in section 21 and Schedule 2 of this Act on employment, wages and economic output;

(c) consider the likelihood the dismissal measures leading to lower employment, and greater use of temporary contracts; and

(d) examine the likely effect of section 21 and Schedule 2 of this Act on—

(i) productivity

(ii) wage growth

(iii) equality of opportunity

(iv) job security

(v) economic activity, and

(vi) employment, including levels of youth employment.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clause 21 and Schedule 2.

New clause 87—Regulations under Part 1 and 2—

“When making regulations under Parts 1 and 2 of this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives—

(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom; and

(b) the economic growth of the United Kingdom in the medium to long term.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State, when making regulations under Part 1 and 2 of the Bill, to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.

New clause 91—Use of positive action in the workplace—

“(1) In this section—

(a) “P” is a public sector worker who reasonably thinks that the application by P’s employer, in relation to P’s employment or a working practice, of sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010 has caused or risks causing detriment to P; and

(b) “R” is P’s public sector employer; and

(c) P reasonably thinks that R is responsible for the detriment in subsection (1)(a).

(2) A Minister of the Crown must by regulations make provision for—

(a) forms through which P may anonymously question R on any matter relevant to subsection (1);

(b) forms through which R may answer questions by P; and

(c) such forms to be made publicly available.

(3) Within six months of the passing of this Act and every three months thereafter, R must publish a report to set out―

(a) the number of forms received under subsection (2), and

(b) a summary of the nature of the complaints to which they relate.

(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations require R to report on the use of sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act.

(5) This section does not apply to activities undertaken by R under paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 of the Equality Act.”

New clause 92—Rolled-up holiday pay for irregular hours workers and part-year workers—

“In the Working Time Regulations 1998, omit regulation 16A (Rolled-up holiday pay for irregular hours workers and part-year workers).”

This new clause would remove regulation 16A from the Working Time Regulations, which gives employers the ability to pay irregular hours workers and part-year workers their holiday pay by way of ‘rolled-up pay’, i.e. an uplift to their weekly or monthly pay.

New clause 93—Working Time Regulations 1998: records—

“In Regulation 9 (Records) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, omit paragraphs (2) and (3) and substitute—

“(2) The records referred to in paragraph (1)(a) must be created, maintained and kept in such manner and format as the Secretary of State may prescribe.””

This new clause would remove the discretion given to employers in 2023 to keep records in any form they choose (or not at all) in relation to each worker’s daily working hours.

New clause 94—Annual report on application of changes to employment rights to seafarers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament an annual report on the extent to which the relevant employment rights changes made by this Act apply to seafarers.

(2) Each annual report must describe—

(a) so far as appropriate, whether each relevant employment rights change applies or is intended to apply at the time of its commencement to seafarers on a relevant service within the meaning given by section 1 of the Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023;

(b) any proposals by the Secretary of State to apply any relevant employment rights change to such seafarers subsequent to commencement;

(c) the extent to which the application of changes to employment rights to seafarers is affected by any change or prospective change to the Maritime Labour Convention, adopted on 23 February 2006 by the International Labour Organisation.

(3) The first annual report under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament within three months of the passing of this Act.

(4) In this section, “relevant employment rights changes made by this Act” means the provisions of—

(a) Part 1 of this Act,

(b) sections 25, 28 and 29.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the application of employment rights provisions to seafarers.

New clause 95—Annual report on provisions relating to seafarers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament an annual report on the extent to which the provisions of sections 26, 47 and 48 of, and Schedule 3 to, this Act improve the working conditions and employment rights of seafarers.

(2) The first annual report under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament within three months of the passing of this Act.”

New clause 97—Rights of employer and employee to minimum notice—

“(1) Section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Rights of employer and employee to minimum notice) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) omit “for one month or more”;

(b) for both instances of “one week’s notice”, substitute “one month’s notice”; and

(c) for “twelve weeks’ notice”, substitute “twelve months’ notice”.”

This new clause would change the minimum notice period for termination of contract to a day one right, and would increase the notice period to: one month for an employee who has been employed for up to twelve years; and twelve months for an employee who has been employed for over twelve years.

New clause 101—Duty to establish a regulatory body for foster carers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make a report to Parliament on progress made to date on establishing a regulatory body for the employment rights and remuneration of foster carers.

(2) Any regulatory body established pursuant to the Secretary of State’s activities under subsection (1) must include—

(a) representatives of employers and foster care workers;

(b) independent members; and

(c) representatives of individuals with lived experience in foster care; and

(3) A regulatory body established pursuant to subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the establishment of a central registration system for foster carers;

(b) the expansion of employment rights for foster carers;

(c) remuneration rates for foster caring; and

(d) any other matters which the Secretary of State deems appropriate.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory body for foster carers for the purposes of consideration the remuneration and the expansion of employment rights for foster carers.

New clause 102—Statutory sick pay: report to Parliament—

“(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that any regulations made under section 157 (rates of payment) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 do not result in an employee receiving a lower rate of statutory sick pay than the employee would have received prior to the passing of this Act.

(2) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must report to Parliament on how the prescribed percentage of weekly earnings specified in section 9 of this Act will ensure that all employees receive an increase to their eligible rate of statutory sick pay.”

This new clause would ensure that the Bill’s changes to statutory sick pay do not result in any employees receiving a reduced rate, compared with current rates.

New clause 105—Substitution clauses: duties of company directors—

“(1) The director of a relevant company has a duty to ensure that the company keeps a register of all dependent contractors.

(2) The director must supply details of the register under subsection (1) with the Secretary of State within 12 months of the passing of this Act and every 12 months thereafter, subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about what information must be supplied in the register of dependant contractors.

(4) For the purposes of this section―

(a) a “relevant company” is a company that―

(i) provides services in relation to postal and courier activities, food and beverage service activities or taxi operation;

(ii) has more than 250 employees in the UK and overseas; and

(iii) includes provision within the company’s contracts with contractors which allow the contractor to send another qualified person (a "substitute") to complete the work in the contractor’s place if the contractor is unable to complete the work;

(b) a “director” includes any person occupying the position of director, by whatever name called; and

(c) “dependent contractor” means a person who—

(i) performs work or services for the relevant company;

(ii) is paid according to tasks performed rather than hours of work;

(iii) depends partially or primarily on the relevant company for employment and income;

(iv) is not required to perform services for the relevant company; and

(v) is not specified as an employee or worker for the relevant company within a statement of employment particulars or a contract of employment.”

This new clause requires certain company directors to keep a register of the people carrying out work for the company under so-called ‘substitution clauses’, which allow companies to permit their suppliers – including some delivery couriers – to appoint a substitute to supply services on their behalf.

Amendment 275, in clause 1, page 2, line 30, leave out from “period” to the end of line 32.

This amendment aims to take out reference to low hours.

Amendment 276, page 2, leave out lines 36 and 37.

This amendment is linked to amendment 275.

Government amendment 8.

Amendment 277, page 3, line 20 leave out “with the specified day” and insert “12 weeks after the commencement”.

This amendment proposes that the reference period for offering guaranteed hours to workers previously on a zero-hours contract be 12 weeks.

Government amendment 9.

Amendment 264, page 3, line 39, at end insert—

“(11) In this section an agency worker is a qualifying worker”.

Government amendments 10 to 15.

Amendment 265, page 5, line 4, leave out from “event” to the end of line 7.

Government amendment 16.

Amendment 266, page 5, line 14, leave out from “contract” to “, and” in line 15.

Government amendment 17.

Amendment 267, page 5, line 25, leave out lines 25 to 42.

Government amendment 18.

Amendment 328, page 8, leave out lines 10 and 11.

Amendment 269, page 11, line 24, at end insert—

“(c) the length of the response period which shall not be less than one week.”

Government amendments 19 to 28.

Amendment 278, in clause 2, page 16, line 22, leave out “a specified amount of time” and insert “2 weeks and ideally one month”.

This amendment, and amendments 279 to 281, aim to set time limits for workers to be given notice of shifts, when shifts are moved and when compensation should be paid.

Government amendment 29.

Amendment 279, page 17, line 16, leave out “a specified amount of time” and insert “2 weeks and ideally one month”.

This amendment is linked to amendment 278.

Government amendments 30 to 37.

Amendment 280, in clause 3, page 21, line 29, at end insert “provided that the notice is at least 10 days in advance of the original planned shift”.

This amendment is linked to amendment 278.

Amendment 281, page 21, line 39, leave out “a specified amount of time” and insert “a week”.

This amendment is linked to amendment 278.

Government amendments 38 to 50 and 79.

Amendment 7, in clause 9, page 29, leave out from line 34 to line 3 on page 30 and insert—

“(1) The weekly rate of statutory sick pay that an employer must pay to an employee is the higher of—

(a) the National Living Wage; or

(b) the prescribed percentage of the employee’s normal weekly earnings.

(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), the “National Living Wage” is defined in accordance with regulation 4 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015.”

This amendment brings the rate of Statutory Sick Pay into line with the National Living Wage.

Amendment 272, page 29, leave out from line 34 to line 3 on page 30 and insert—

“The weekly rate of statutory sick pay that an employer must pay to an employee is the higher of—

(a) £116.75; and

(b) 65% of the employee’s normal weekly earnings.”

This amendment would make the rate of statutory sick pay 65% of an employee’s earnings or £116.75 a week, whichever is higher.

Government amendments 80 to 85.

Amendment 1, in clause 16, page 33, line 8, at end insert—

“( ) after subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) The conditions specified under subsection (2) must be framed so as to ensure that a “bereaved person” includes those bereaved by pregnancy loss.

(2B) In subsection (2A) “pregnancy loss” includes—

(a) a pregnancy that that ends as a result of—

(i) a miscarriage;

(ii) an ectopic pregnancy;

(iii) a molar pregnancy;

(iv) a medical termination conducted in accordance with section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967;

(b) an unsuccessful attempt at in vitro fertilisation due to embryo transfer loss.””

This amendment requires that any regulations made under section 80EA of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (as amended by the Bill) must include conditions framed by reference to those bereaved by pregnancy loss.

Amendment 2, page 33, line 11, at end insert—

“( ) in subsection (5), after “child” insert “or as a result of pregnancy loss.”

This amendment amends section 80EA(5) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to ensure that the two week leave period is made available to those bereaved as a result of pregnancy loss.

Amendment 3, page 34, line 8, at end insert—

“( ) In section 171ZZ6 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (entitlement to statutory pregnancy loss pay), after subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) The conditions specified under subsection (2) must be framed so as to ensure that a “bereaved parent” includes those bereaved by pregnancy loss.

(3B) In subsection (3A) “pregnancy loss” includes—

(a) a pregnancy that that ends as a result of—

(i) a miscarriage;

(ii) an ectopic pregnancy;

(iii) a molar pregnancy;

(iv) a medical termination conducted in accordance with section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967;

(b) an unsuccessful attempt at in vitro fertilisation due to embryo transfer loss.””

This amendment amends the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 to ensure that the entitlement to statutory pregnancy loss pay extends to those bereaved by pregnancy loss.

Amendment 288, page 34, line 32, leave out clause 18.

Amendment 289, in clause 18, page 35, line 7, at end insert—

“(1D) Subsection (1A) does not apply to the hospitality sector or to sports venues.”

This amendment would exclude hospitality providers and sports venues from the Bill’s duties for employers not to permit harassment of their employees.

Amendment 287, page 36, line 10, leave out clause 21.

Government amendments 86 to 89.

Amendment 329, in clause 24, page 37, line 30, at end insert―

“(3A) For the purposes of this section, any provision in an agreement (whether a contract of employment or not) is void in so far as it purports to confer on the employer or a third party the power to vary, unilaterally, the terms of the agreement.”

This amendment would render void, for the purposes of a case of unfair dismissal in relation to failing to agree to a variation of contract, any provision enabling an employer to vary a contract unilaterally.

Government amendment 90.

Amendment 316, in clause 25, page 39, line 8, omit subsection (2)(a) and insert—

“(a) in subsection (1), omit “at one establishment” and insert “or more than 10% of the employer’s employees, whichever is the smaller number,”;”

This amendment would require an employer to consult with representatives of affected employees when proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees or at least 10% of their employees, whichever is the smaller number.

Amendment 317, page 39, line 9, at end insert—

“(2A) After section 189 (complaint and protective award), insert—

“189A Failure to comply with section 188 or 188A

Where the employer has failed to comply with the requirements under section 188 or section 188A, any proposal to dismiss employees as redundant shall be void and of no effect.””

This amendment would increase the sanction for failing to consult with representatives of affected employees by rendering the dismissal ineffective.

Government amendment 91.

Amendment 318, page 39, line 15, at end insert—

“(3A) In section 189(4), omit “but shall not exceed 90 days””

This amendment would remove the cap on the length of a protected period for which an employer is ordered to pay remuneration in protective awards.

Government amendments 92 to 97.

Amendment 302, in clause 26, page 40, line 26, leave out “120” and insert “52”.

This amendment applies the provisions for collective redundancy notices for ships’ crew to ships providing a service entering a harbour in Great Britain on at least 52 occasions in the relevant period.

Amendment 303, page 40, line 31, leave out “10” and insert “5”.

Amendment 273, in clause 28, page 46, line 28 at end insert―

“(ii) a public authority specified in Part 3 of Schedule 19,”.

This amendment would apply this section to public authorities in Scotland.

Amendment 4, page 47, line 3, at end insert—

“(c) supporting employees who provide or arrange care for a dependant with a long-term care need, as defined by the Carer’s Leave Act 2023.”

Government amendment 98.

Amendment 330, in clause 31, page 49, line 11, leave out from "Body" to the end of subsection (2)(b) and insert—

“that person being selected by agreement between officials of the trade unions and employers’ representatives who are members of the Negotiating Body and, in the event of a failure to agree chosen by the Central Arbitration Committee.”

This amendment would require the Chair of the Negotiating Body to be appointed by agreement between trade union and employers’ representatives or the Central Arbitration Committee rather than by regulations by the Secretary of State.

Government amendments 99 and 100.

Amendment 331, page 49, line 26, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and paragraph (b) and insert—

“equal numbers of persons nominated by—

(i) trade unions that represent the interests of social care workers; and

(ii) employers’ associations representing the interests of employers of social care workers.”

This amendment would require the regulations to establish the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body to provide for equal numbers of trade union representatives and employers’ representatives to be appointed to the Negotiating Body.

Government amendment 101.

Amendment 332, in clause 32, page 49, line 40, leave out from “are” to the end of paragraph (b) and insert—

“matters relating to or connected with matters in Section 178(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations No. 332, (Consolidation) Act 1992.”

This amendment would extend the remit of the negotiating body to the list of matters for collective bargaining set out in Section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

Government amendments 102 to 107.

Amendment 333, page 50, line 4, at end insert—

“(d) the training of social care workers;

(e) career progression of social care workers;

(f) a procedure for the resolution of disputes at employer, regional and national level which may refer a dispute to ACAS for conciliation and mediation and, if not then resolved, shall be entitled to refer the matter to the Central Arbitration Committee to resolve the dispute, the decision of the latter being binding;

(g) discipline and grievance procedures;

(h) any other matter agreed to be the subject of negotiation by the members of the Negotiating Body.”

This amendment would add additional matters to those within the Negotiating Body’s remit; namely, the training and career progression of social care workers, dispute resolution procedures and discipline and grievance procedures and other matters agreed by members of the Negotiating Body.

Government amendments 108 and 109.

Amendment 334, in clause 33, page 50, line 8, leave out from “means” to the end of subsection (1) and insert—

“an individual who, as paid work, provides social care for an adult, including an individual who, as paid work, supervises or manages individuals providing such care or is a director or similar officer of an organisation which provides such care.”

This amendment would bring the definition of social care worker in line with the definition of a “care worker” in Section 20(3) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

Government amendments 110 to 114.

Amendment 335, in clause 34, page 50, line 23, leave out subsections (1), (2) and (3) and insert—

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring the Negotiating Body, if it reaches an agreement about a matter within its remit, to submit the agreement to the Secretary of State.”

This amendment would remove almost all of Section 34 on the consideration of matters by the Negotiating Body, retaining the power in the regulations that agreements on matters by the Negotiating Body be referred to the Secretary of State.

Government amendments 115 to 126.

Amendment 336, in clause 35, page 51, line 22, leave out paragraphs (c) to (f).

This amendment removes the provisions about what happens where an agreement is referred back to the Negotiating Body in paragraphs (c) to (f) of Section 35(3).

Government amendments 127 to 129.

Amendment 337, page 51, line 36, leave out clause 36.

This amendment would remove Clause 36 on cases where the Negotiating Body is unable to reach an agreement about a matter

Government amendments 130 to 138.

Amendment 338, in clause 38, page 52, line 17, leave out from “remuneration” to the end of line 18 and insert—

“the worker’s remuneration is to be no less than that determined and paid in accordance with the agreement.”

This amendment relates to an agreement on a social care worker’s remuneration and is in line with sectoral collective bargaining by which a local agreement can be more but not less favourable than the national agreement.

Government amendments 139 and 140.

Amendment 339, page 52, line 25, leave out clause 39.

This amendment would remove Clause 39 on the power of the Secretary of State to deal with matters referred to the Negotiating Body.

Government amendments 141 to 153.

Amendment 340, page 55, line 16, leave out clause 45.

This amendment would remove Clause 45 which prevents agreements reached by the Negotiating Body being regarded as collective bargaining.

Government amendments 154 to 161.

Government new schedule 1—Agency workers: guaranteed hours and rights relating to shifts.

Government amendments 51 to 78 and 240.

Amendment 324, in schedule 2, page 127, line 14, at end insert—

“(1A) In section 98 of Part 10, in subsection (4)(b), at end insert “in the view of the employment tribunal”.”

This amendment would focus the determination of the question on whether a dismissal is fair or unfair on the judgment of the employment tribunal.

Amendment 325, page 127, line 14, at end insert—

“(1A) In section 98 of Part 10, in subsection (4), at end insert—

“(c) the tribunal shall take into account, in accordance with the rules of natural justice, whether or not there has been a fair investigation and a fair appeal.””

This amendment requires the employment tribunal to have regard to the rules of natural justice when determining whether or not a dismissal is fair.

Amendment 327, page 127, line 14, at end insert—

“(1A) In section 98, in subsection (1)(b) after “reason” insert “relating to the employee””

Amendment 5, page 127, line 37, leave out from “period” to the end of line 38 and insert—

“of not less than 3 months and not more than 9 months from the day on which the employee starts work.”

This amendment will ensure that the initial period of employment is between 3 and 9 months.

Amendment 326, page 127, line 38, at end insert—

“(4A) The initial period of employment specified in, or determined in accordance with the regulations shall in relation to a contract for a fixed or reasonably ascertainable term not be longer than ten percent of the duration of that term.”

Government amendment 241.

Amendment 319, page 129, line 29, at end insert—

“(5A) In section 139 (Redundancy), after subsection (1)(b) insert—

“(c) the fact that the requirements of that business—

(i) for employees with their existing contractual entitlements to carry out work of a particular kind, or

(ii) for employees with their existing contractual entitlements to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where the employee was employed by the employer,

have ceased or diminished.””

This amendment would provide for workers dismissed by a process of fire and rehire to reduce wages or other terms and conditions to be treated as redundant.

Amendment 320, page 129, line 29, at end insert—

“(5A) Omit section 155 (Qualifying period of employment).”

This amendment removes the qualifying period of two years of continuous employment for the right to a redundancy payment.

Amendment 321, page 129, line 29, at end insert—

“(5A) In section 162 (Amount of a redundancy payment), in subsection (2), for every reference to “week”, substitute “month”.”

This amendment would increase the calculation of the appropriate amount of redundancy pay for each specified period of employment.

Amendment 322, page 129, line 29, at end insert—

“(5A) In section 162 (Amount of a redundancy payment), omit subsection (3).”

This amendment would remove the 20-year cap on entitlement to a redundancy payment.

Amendment 323, page 129, line 29, at end insert—

“(5A) In section 162 (Amount of a redundancy payment), after subsection (3) insert—

“(4) For the purposes of this section, “year of employment” means “year of employment or part year of employment”.”

This amendment clarifies that, when redundancy pay is calculated, each part year worked is treated as a full year of employment.

Government amendments 242 and 243.

Amendment 343, in schedule 3, page 131, leave out lines 13 to 29.

This amendment would remove section 148B from Schedule 3 relating to matters within the remit of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.

Amendment 290, page 131, leave out from the beginning of line 14 to the end of line 29 and insert—

“(1) In the case of staff employed under section 148C, matters within the SSNB’s remit are limited to the establishment of a framework to which employers of school support staff must have regard when discharging their functions.

(2) A framework under subsection (1) must include information on—

(a) the remuneration of school support staff;

(b) the terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;

(c) the training of school support staff;

(d) career progression for school support staff; and

(e) related matters.”

(3) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(a) of section 148C, the matters within the SSSNB’s remit are matters relating to the following—

(a) the remuneration of school support staff;

(b) terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;

(c) the training of school support staff;

(d) career progression for school support staff.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, for the purposes of subsection 5—

(a) a payment or entitlement of a prescribed kind is, or is not, to be treated as remuneration;

(b) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;

(c) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to the training of school support staff;

(d) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to career progression for school support staff.”

This amendment would change the matters within the SSNB’s remit, limiting it to the creation of a framework to which school employers should have regard but do not need to follow.

Amendment 341, page 131, line 15, leave out from “are” to the end of line 19 and insert—

“matters relating to or connected with matters in Section 178(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.”

This amendment would extend the remit of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body to the list of matters for collective bargaining set out in Section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

Amendment 342, page 131, line 19, at end insert—

“(e) a procedure for the resolution of disputes at employer, regional and national level, including the power to refer a dispute to ACAS for conciliation and mediation and, if not then resolved, entitlement to refer the matter to the Central Arbitration Committee to resolve the dispute, the decision of the latter being binding;

(f) Any other matter agreed to be the subject of negotiation by the parties.”

This amendment would add a dispute resolution procedure to the matters within the remit of the the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.

Government amendments 244 and 245.

Amendment 344, page 139, leave out lines 3 to 34.

This amendment would remove section 148Q from Schedule 3 relating to guidance issued by the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.

Amendment 304, in schedule 4, page 144, line 22, at end insert—

“(ia) for “120 occasions” substitute “52 occasions”;”

This amendment applies the requirement for national minimum wage equivalence declarations to ships providing a service entering a harbour on more than 52 occasions during a relevant year.

Amendment 305, page 145, leave out from the beginning of line 35 to the end of line 3 on page 146 and insert “52 occasions”.

This amendment applies the requirement for remuneration declarations to ships providing a service entering a harbour on more than 52 occasions during a relevant year.

Amendment 306, page 149, leave out lines 15 to 18 and insert “52 occasions”.

This amendment applies the requirement for safe working declarations to ships providing a service entering a harbour on more than 52 occasions during a relevant year.

Amendment 307, page 150, line 26, at end insert—

“Regulations relating to other working conditions

4H Regulations relating to other working conditions

(1) Regulations may specify conditions relating to other working conditions of seafarers who carry out work relating to the provision of a relevant service, including conditions about the provision of—

(a) sick pay,

(b) holiday pay

(c) pensions,

(d) training on matters other than those specified in section 4E(5).

(2) In this Act, regulations under subsection (1) are referred to as “regulations relating to other working conditions”.

(3) Regulations relating to other working conditions may impose requirements on the operator of a relevant service.

(4) Regulations relating to other working conditions may apply to—

(a) all relevant services, or

(b) one or more relevant services of a specified description.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (5)(b), a service may be described by reference to (among other things) the route operated by the service.

Declarations relating to other working conditions

4I Request for declaration relating to other working conditions

(1) Subsection (2) applies where a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service to which regulations relating to other working conditions apply will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least 52 occasions during a relevant year (see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”).

(2) The harbour authority must, within such period as is determined by regulations under this subsection, request that the operator of the service provide the authority with a declaration relating to other working conditions in respect of the service for the relevant year.

(3) The duty under subsection (2) is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 16(1)(a).

(4) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—

(a) in England and Wales, to a fine, or

(b) in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

4J Nature of declaration relating to other working conditions

(1) A declaration relating to other working conditions in respect of a service for a relevant year is a declaration within any of subsections (2) to (5).

(2) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided before the beginning of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the relevant working conditions will be met in relation to the service in the relevant year.

(3) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that the relevant working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year.

(4) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that—

(a) the relevant working conditions have been met in relation to the service in so much of the relevant year as has already occurred, and

(b) the relevant working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year.

(5) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided after the end of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the relevant working conditions were met in relation to the service in the relevant year.

(6) For the purposes of this section the relevant working conditions are met in relation to a service at a particular time if at that time the service is operated in compliance with regulations under section 4H(1) that apply to the service.

(7) References in subsection (6) to the operation of a service include references to its operation outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.”

This amendment inserts an additional power to make regulations and matching declaration requirements for a broader range of working conditions of seafarers.

Amendment 308, page 151, line 17, at end insert—

“(iv) section 4J(4) or (5),”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.

Amendment 309, page 151, line 39, at end insert—

“(iv) within subsection (3) of section 4J (and not also within subsection (4) of that section),”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.

Amendment 310, page 152, line 7, leave out “or safe working declaration” and insert—

“safe working declaration or declaration relating to other working conditions”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.

Amendment 311, page 152, line 12, leave out “or safe working declaration” and insert “safe working declaration or declaration relating to other working conditions”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.

Amendment 312, page 152, line 30, at end insert—

“(iii) information relating to matters that are the subject of regulations relating to other working conditions.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.

Amendment 313, page 153, line 27, at end insert “or

“(d) a declaration relating to other working conditions;

“declaration relating to other working conditions” has the meaning given by section 4J(1);”.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.

Amendment 314, page 153, line 31, at end insert—

“regulations relating to other working conditions has the meaning given by section 4H(2);”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.

New clause 96—Annual report on application of changes in Parts 4 and 5 to seafarers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament an annual report extent to which the changes provided for in Parts 4 and 5 of this Act (“the relevant changes”) apply to seafarers.

(2) Each annual report must describe—

(a) so far as appropriate, whether each relevant change applies or is intended to apply at the time of its commencement to seafarers on a relevant service within the meaning given by section 1 of the Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023;

(b) any proposals by the Secretary of State to apply any relevant change to such seafarers subsequent to commencement;

(c) the extent to which the application of the relevant changes to seafarers is affected by any change or prospective change to the Maritime Labour Convention, adopted on 23 February 2006 by the International Labour Organisation.

(3) The first annual report under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament within three months of the passing of this Act.”

Government amendments 227 to 235.

Amendment 6, in clause 129, page 119, line 25, at end insert—

“(aa) section [Working Time Council];”.

This amendment is consequential on NC25.

Amendment 301, page 120, line 11, at end insert—

“(q) section [Annual report on application of changes to employment rights to seafarers];

(r) section [Annual report on provisions relating to seafarers]

(s) section [Annual report on application of changes in Parts 4 and 5 to seafarers]”

This amendment provides for the coming into force of NC94, NC95 and NC96 two months after the passing of the Act.

Amendment 283, page 120, line 13, at end insert—

“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force sections 1 to 6 of this Act until the findings of the report under section [Impact on employment tribunals: sections 1 to 6] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”

This amendment would prevent the Bill’s provisions on zero hours workers coming into force until the review of the impact on the employment tribunals of the Bill’s provisions on zero hours workers had been assessed and approved by Parliament.

Amendment 284, page 120, line 13, at end insert—

“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force section 7 of this Act until the findings of the report under section [Consultation and assessment on the right to request flexible working] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”

Amendment 285, page 120, line 13, at end insert—

“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force section 18 of this Act until the findings of the report under section [Employer duties on harassment: impact assessment] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”

Amendment 286, page 120, line 13, at end insert—

“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force section 21 and Schedule 2 of this Act until the findings of the report under section [Unfair dismissal: impact assessment] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”

Government amendments 246, 248 and 250.

Amendment 274, in schedule 10, page 190, line 36, leave out paragraph 17 and insert—

“(17) In section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination etc at work), in subsection (1)(a)―

(a) for “3” substitute “6”; and

(b) at end insert―

“(ab) for cases involving sexual harassment, the period of 12 months starting with the date of the act to which the complaint relates, or””.

This amendment would increase to 12 months the time limit for bringing employment tribunal claims relating to sexual harassment.

Government amendments 262 and 263.

[Justin Madders]

I start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I have done throughout the passage of the Bill. I thank Members in all parts of the House for their valuable contributions throughout the passage of the Bill to date, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) for her assistance in taking the Bill through Committee, and the other members of the Public Bill Committee for providing substantial debate and scrutiny.

The Government’s plan to make work pay is a core part of our mission to grow the economy, raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all. It will tackle the low pay, poor working conditions and poor job security that have been holding our economy back. The Bill is the first phase of delivering our plan to make work pay, supporting employers, workers and unions by raising the minimum floor of employment rights, raising living standards across the country and levelling the playing field for those businesses that are engaged in good practice.

This is a landmark Bill that, once implemented, will represent the biggest upgrade in employment rights for a generation. It is therefore important that we get the detail right. The amendments being put forward by the Government directly demonstrate our commitment to full and comprehensive consultation on the detail of the plan to make work pay. On 4 March, we published five consultation responses relating to key areas of the Bill. That package represents the first phase of formal public consultations on how best to put our plans into practice. We have also undertaken extensive engagement with more than 150 stakeholder organisations, in addition to the formal consultations.

We have made great efforts to listen to the range of views from businesses, trade unions, representative organisations, civil society and others. The insights gained have been invaluable in informing the amendments to ensure the Bill works in practice, both for workers and for businesses of all sizes across the whole country. The amendments will strengthen the Bill, providing further detail and clarity on measures and ensuring such measures can be implemented in a straightforward way.

I turn to the detail of the amendments. The Government have tabled a range of amendments in relation to zero-hours measures. These amendments will help ensure that the zero-hours contract reforms work for workers and employers, supporting a culture where secure work and prosperous growth go hand in hand. Amendments in relation to clause 1, covering the right to guaranteed hours, will clarify requirements where a worker works for an employer under more than one contract at the same time; clarify that under a guaranteed hours offer, if it is accepted, work must be provided by the employer for the hours set out and that those hours must be worked by the worker; and enable a worker to take a case to an employment tribunal on the ground that an employer deliberately structured the worker’s hours or offered work in such a way as to make a reduced guaranteed hours offer or to avoid having to make an offer at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I have begun to consider it, as that legislation is now a quarter of a century old and needs looking at in the light of experiences in a number of the scandals that have been mentioned. We are considering where we go next on whistleblowing legislation.

To conclude, Britain’s working people and businesses are the driving force of the UK economy, and the Bill will help to create a labour market that delivers for both. It will deliver significant benefits to the UK, including better working conditions, more secure work, reduced inequalities and improved industrial relations. I appreciate that I have outlined a lot of detail today, but it is important to remember that, as is typical with any legislation of this nature, many of the policies will be provided for through regulations and, in some cases, through codes of practice. We expect further consultations on these reforms to begin later in the year, when we will seek significant input from stakeholders.

I am grateful for Members’ efforts to improve the Bill, and for their scrutiny and debate so far. I look forward to hearing further debate this afternoon.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

After 21 sittings in the Public Bill Committee, the Government are still tabling hundreds of amendments to the Bill. That highlights once again that their false political deadline of 100 days in which to publish the Bill was foolhardy. They should have taken better time.

This is a bad Bill. Although it contains many good and well-intentioned measures, the Government have failed to get the balance right between employees and employers. Although I welcome some of the Minister’s comments—not least on bereavement leave for pregnancy loss, on which we spoke at length and agreed in Committee—I am afraid that the Government have got the balance wrong in the vast majority of the Bill. The amendments in the names of right hon. and hon. Friends in His Majesty’s loyal Opposition seek to highlight how the Bill simply goes too far in too many regards: it will affect our economy, it will affect the number of people who have a job, and it will affect the willingness of employers—the wealth and job creators—to take on new staff, to grow, to put new product lines in place and to keep employing people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Russell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The shadow Minister is in danger of misleading the House. Nothing that he has referred to is a crime. Sexual harassment, as dealt with in this Bill, is a civil matter dealt with by tribunal.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. That was in fact a point of debate, rather than a point of order.

[Greg Smith]

I will get back to James Murray, the legal director of Doyle Clayton, who has pointed out that this clause could well cause difficulties for universities in offering those platforms to discuss issues where people have differing views. He said:

“If we think about a speaker that has been invited—say it’s a controversial gender critical speaker, like Julie Bindel or Kathleen Stock—someone might somewhat disingenuously say”

that they are an employee of the university and that they find what they say to be deeply harassing. He also said:

“The concern is that this will shift the balance away from free speech and universities will be more risk averse as they won’t want to be held liable for third-party harassment.”

Why do the Government want to run that risk?

There is then the burden on businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Select Committee, I want to make clear that I will then call Steve Darling, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Immediately after Mr Darling, there will be a six-minute time limit. I call Liam Byrne.

[Liam Byrne]

Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am going to be very brief—I will just make three quick points—and will do my best to salvage a degree of consensus from the conflict that has characterised this debate at its outset.

If there are a couple of things that unite us across this House, it is that we all believe in fair play, and we all believe in an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work. However, the reality is that millions of workers in this country are simply not earning their fair share of the wealth that we produce together. If labour income were the same share of national income as it was back in the 1950s, something like £12,000 a year would go into the pay packets of every single one of the 33.8 million workers in this country. As such, following a decade that has seen 4 million people trapped in low pay and during which we have had a living standards crisis, it behoves each and every one of us to think more creatively and constructively about how we support workers in this economy to earn a good life for them and their family.

We on the Business and Trade Committee have the privilege of hearing from some of the best employers in the country, but we also have the duty of interrogating many firms that, frankly, have been letting down our country. I will highlight three examples, in order to illustrate some of the amendments that have been tabled in my name and in the names of other right hon. and hon. Members. They are not amendments that I wish to press to a Division; they are probing amendments, on which I think the Minister needs to provide the House with some answers.

I will start with McDonald’s, which I referenced in an earlier intervention. It is one of the most significant employers in our country, employing over 200,000 people. Some 90% of McDonald’s workers are on zero-hours contracts. On the day of our hearing, a BBC investigation by Zoe Conway, its employment correspondent, exposed the reality that hundreds of McDonald’s employees were contacting the BBC and the EHRC with allegations of the most appalling harassment. We heard about the case of a 17-year-old McDonald’s worker who alleged that she was being asked for sex in return for a manager giving her the shifts that she wanted—how on earth can that be acceptable in today’s economy? Yet when we put that point to the chief executive of McDonald’s and asked, “Do you think that the imbalance of power that has flourished in McDonald’s because 90% of your workers are on zero-hours contracts has anything to do with this litany of abuse, or with 700 workers contacting their solicitors to bring a case against McDonald’s?”, the answer was no. It was an absolutely extraordinary denial of reality.

We then heard from Evri, which, as many people know, is one of the most significant courier firms in the country, employing tens of thousands of people. Mr Hugo Martin came before our Committee to give evidence, and told us that all at Evri was sweetness and light. However, the Committee has now received hundreds upon hundreds of complaints from whistleblowers, alleging that they are being cheated and undercut, most recently through the rate cuts, the packet racket which is still persisting, health and safety abuses at work, intimidation, bullying and harassment. They are being told repeatedly that their shifts will be cut, or that they will be out of the door if they do not work six days a week. Our constituents are experiencing this completely unacceptable behaviour.

I must be careful about scope at this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but we also heard from the company Shein, which could not even tell us whether the products that it made contained cotton from China. We were simply trying to understand whether workers in our country were being undercut by an abuse of modern slavery practices abroad.

I say to the House that although we may have our differences on the Bill, we must accept the reality that millions of people in this country—millions of the people we are sent here to represent—are being treated in a way that should be unacceptable in a 21st-century economy. What the good employers told the Committee, time and again, was that they supported the spirit of the Bill, although of course they had concerns about the detail, and it is good that the Minister is listening. What they did not want to see persist was the situation that they feared, in which the good firms were being undercut by the bad. We must have a level playing field in this country: that will be a necessity if we are to win a global race to the top.

My amendments 275 to 277 suggest alterations to the zero hours regime that the Minister has set out. I think we should abolish the definition of “low hours” in contracts. I accept the evidence that was given to us by Paddy Lillis, the brilliant general secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, that retaining the definition creates a risk of loopholes that will be exploited by bad employers.

Amendments 278 to 281, which might be termed the McDonald’s amendments, urge the Secretary of State to put on the face of the Bill a definition of “reasonable notice” in relation to the moving of shifts and the compensation that should be entailed in the event of unreasonable shift movements. We need to ensure that our workers, particularly young workers, are never again subjected to the kind of abuse that we have seen unfold at McDonald’s. Those days must be consigned to the past.

New clause 80, which might be described as the Evri amendment, creates an obligation and duty for the Secretary of State to bring to the House, within six months of the Bill’s coming into the force, the final version of a review of the single status of workers. We heard compelling evidence from the director of Labour Market Enforcement, who told us that the Government, Ministers and civil servants could consult

“until the cows come home”.

We could put off the consultation about the different definitions of “worker” for ever and a day, when what we need to do is end the kind of abuse that we see at Evri now. Ensuring that these loopholes are closed so that bogus self-employment is no longer a loophole through which bad employers abuse honest workers: I should like to see the Minister step up to that requirement.

New clause 81, which we might call the Shein amendment, requires the Government to update the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and section 54 in particular, to ensure that the employment rights granted in the Bill are not undermined by companies operating in this country that are abusing this legislation. At the time the Modern Slavery Act was world-leading legislation, but we heard clear evidence from companies such as Tesco that this country risked becoming a “dumping ground” for bad products produced by workers exploited abroad. We cannot allow this country, which led the abolition of slavery, to be a country in which we have second-class protections against modern slavery in the 21st century, and I should therefore welcome a commitment from the Minister on when the Act will be updated.

We welcome some of the Government amendments, particularly the enhanced protection for agency workers and the action on umbrella companies. Both are recommendations in the Committee’s excellent report, which I commend to all Members. I hope that, as a result of this debate, we can salvage some consensus. The Bill will go through today, and this will be the biggest overhaul of employment rights in the country. We must ensure that it lasts for the future, and the more we can do to bring a cross-party consensus around that simple idea that all workers—all constituents—in the country should have the right, the power and the freedom to earn a good life for themselves and their families, and the sooner we can do it, the better.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The holy grail sought by all Governments, of whichever hue, is economic growth. I therefore think it important for us to look through the lens of economic growth, and to think about whether the Bill drives it. I recall from my time in Committee, where I spent many hours listening to the oratory of the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), that we spoke a great deal about productivity and whether it would be driven by the Bill.

I have spoken about the possible impact of the Bill to people in my community, including representatives of Enlightened HR and Alison Bennett, a human resources consultant, for whom its destination was very welcome. Indeed, we have heard from many other people who have been consulted that the Bill’s destination and aspirations are correct and appropriate, but it is a question of how we get there and whether the Government have achieved the right balance between employers and employees. That is important, because the last thing we want the Bill to do is have a chilling effect on the economy. We are only too well aware that the national insurance contributions that are set to kick in next month are already having that negative impact, and we do not want this well-intended Bill to echo that further.

There are 250 amendments before us at this late stage of the legislation. The Minister says that that is due to levels of consultation and so forth and should be welcomed, and that we are trimming our sails, but if that is the case, and if the Minister was in such listening mode in Committee, why did the Government accept no Opposition amendments whatsoever? I should welcome some reflections from the Minister when he winds up the debate.

As a Liberal Democrat, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions, I can say that carers are at the front and centre of our world. What is effectively the population of Portsmouth—200,000 people a year, or 600 a day—walk away from the employment market to take up caring occupations and, in many instances, support family members. That has an £8 billion annual impact on our economy, which leaves us less productive. I hope that the Government will give serious thought to our amendment to make leave for carers a paid opportunity, because giving them that flexibility and that breathing space would unlock more people for our employment market.

Our proposal to make caring a protected characteristic is extremely important. We have already heard about harassment and discrimination in connection with other parts of the Bill, but this would help immensely to support carers. Doubling the pay of those taking adoption leave is also important, as is support for people who take caring roles such as kinship care. I hope that the Ministers will take those family roles into account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antonia Bance]

Does the right hon. Member accept that someone choosing to take on an irregular contract when they are at the high end of the pay scale with significant professional skills and expectations for the future is very different from the endemic insecurity at the bottom of the labour market, which is where zero-hours contracts are concentrated? Some 83% of people on a zero-hours contract—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I think the hon. Lady is in fact making her speech, rather than an intervention. [Interruption.] Oh, her speech will come tomorrow.

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Member is right: of course those things are different, but with the dawning realisation I had back then, I started to wonder who else might take a zero-hours contract? Yes, it is true that disproportionately they are young people, but for quite a lot of people a zero-hours contract is for a second job. I would be interested to hear from the Government their assessment of that. It turned out, when we looked at this in 2016, that one of the biggest users of zero-hours contracts in the country was none other than the national health service, so that it could cope with increases in demand. These were people who had a permanent job as well, but who could, as bank staff, supply other hours when that was needed.

For this Government, it is totemic to do something about zero-hours contracts because of that Labour mythology. For the unions, there is also another reason. This is classic insider-outsider theory, with a shift in remuneration from people who are not in work to people who are already in work, and it pushes up what is called the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. In plain English, it is bad for jobs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must know that because, as we all know, she is most definitely an economist—she has worked as an economist, she has trained as an economist and she is an economist—and this is classical economic reality.

For whom might zero-hours contracts work well? They work well for any employer with an unpredictable, variable need for workers—from the events business to the NHS, as I have mentioned—and there are other obvious cases in tourism, agriculture and food. However, some people may just choose to have that flexibility. Over the last two years it has been a seller’s market to go into teaching, but some people have still chosen to become a supply teacher because, for whatever reason, for them that works well.

The other group for whom this may work are those furthest from the labour market, who have perhaps been out of work for a very long time, who perhaps are ex-offenders, or who for some other reason find it difficult to immediately land a regular, full-time job. When this is combined with universal credit—which, by the way, the right hon. Member for Islington North also wanted to abolish—it can work very well, because the top-up payment can be adjusted according to how much someone earns week to week.

This Bill is bound to have unintended consequences. We do not know exactly which ones they will be, but I will suggest some of them. It could suppress seasonal peaks in employment—for tourism in the summer, but also at Christmas time—because employers will not want to take on the liability from the reference period. It could deter people from second jobs, which will be bad for growth. It could mean people move from contracted employment to self-employment or casual work. It could mean a move from permanent contracts to temporary contracts and, yes, it could hit our national health service and other important public sector employers.

I do not doubt that this piece of legislation will be good for unions, but it will be bad for the economy and bad for growth, and it will be especially bad for people in the hardest circumstances who so badly want to get back to work, and for whom this kind of contract can also be that important first step.

Department for Business and Trade

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liam Byrne]

My hon. Friend is right, but we have to look to the future. We have to understand how Government will connect together and ensure a transformation in regional transport and connectivity. So many parts of our country are bedevilled by a lack of internet connectivity, so they cannot access the kind of applications that might give them access to artificial intelligence, for example, or to international markets. They cannot get access to the internet full stop. We have to think boldly about how we join Government together in a revolutionary way.

Finally, I wanted to mention the Post Office. When we look at these accounts in the round, we see a 44.8% increase in the amount allocated, taking the figure up to nearly £6 billion a year. That is partly driven by £444 million for the British Business Bank, but it is overwhelmingly driven by about £1.3 billion extra for the Post Office. The good step has been taken of increasing funding for the Post Office compensation scheme, but that money is still not going out the door fast enough. I accept that that has improved, but the Committee will return with some tougher questions for Ministers in the light of their response to our recent report.

My final point, which I urge on both the Minister and his colleagues in the Treasury, is that we cannot transform the Post Office into the organisation it could be by drip-drip-dripping the funding for modernisation through to it. The Post Office needs a proper five-year to 10-year funding plan so that it can genuinely become the organisation that it could be. When these accounts were published by the Department, they were qualified and late. I know that civil servants have to work hard to iron out a number of problems, and we have asked the permanent secretary for monthly updates on how he is doing in bringing the kind of clarity that this House should expect. I thank the civil servants and the Department for the extraordinary work that they do; they are absolutely mission-critical to the hopes of so many of us in this country and to our becoming the fastest-growing economy in the G7.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I will have to put Back-Bench Members on an immediate five-minute time limit, which may well go down in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregor Poynton]

I am afraid the hon. Member often falls into the trap of thinking that being just a little bit better than the Tories is good enough for Scotland. I see Scotland as much more than that.

While this Government are providing businesses with the certainty that they need to plan for the future, the SNP has been content to manage decline without a plan to stimulate growth or attract investment. It failed on delivering green jobs, despite grand promises on renewable energy that never materialised, and failed to support manufacturing, leaving companies without backing. Contrast that with the UK Labour Government’s crucial action to protect jobs and investment at Grangemouth, a site of huge economic importance to Scotland. The Prime Minister’s announcement of £200 million from the national wealth fund represents a clear and unequivocal commitment to ensuring that Grangemouth remains a hub of economic and industrial activity. This investment will not only safeguard existing jobs but unlock new opportunities in green energy and advanced manufacturing.

That is Government working in the interests of business, workers and our long-term prosperity. It is in that spirit that I hope and believe that Grangemouth will become a central part in DBT’s industrial strategy and its thinking and work for years to come. The SNP Scottish Government and previous Tory Governments had years to act but failed to do so. They have squandered opportunities and failed to plan for Grangemouth or for Scotland’s economic future. This Labour Government have stepped up and secured a future for Grangemouth workers, providing them with a training guarantee and working with industry partners to build long-term resilience for the site. The contrast could not be sharper.

I look forward to working with my dedicated and talented collegiate Committee colleagues from all parties as we continue to scrutinise the work of the Department. This Government are committed to driving growth and building an economy that works for everyone. The opportunity to get ahead is what everyone wants for their family. That is why I am in politics, driven to ensure that no one in this country is held back by their circumstances. A modern industrial strategy is key to making that happen.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I will now reduce the time limit to four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. There is now a three-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I hope the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) will pass on my thanks to her son for his service. I do wonder how Lord Nelson would feel about the increasing necessity for us to align with our English channel neighbours.

Labour’s national insurance hike will hit small businesses, social care providers and local GP services across the country. This rise will have dire consequences for the many historic villages and towns of my rural constituency. In recent years, small businesses have increasingly been forced out of our historic high streets and replaced by soulless international chain stores and restaurants with the resources to cope with inflation. Over time, our high streets are losing their unique character.

Among the small businesses that will suffer are pubs and breweries, which generate approximately £15 billion of tax revenues each year. According to UKHospitality, the economic value of the hospitality industry in Tewkesbury is £67 million a year. Last month, I visited the Plough in Prestbury, where I spoke with the landlord, Emma, who told me that this one establishment is worth £100,000 a year to HMRC. Having diversified and restructured to the nth degree, she is now accumulating debt to stay solvent. The pub is also her home. How do the Government expect to accrue revenue if they tax such businesses into oblivion?

Small local businesses are vital to the unique identities of rural high streets across the country. They are often the backbone of local economies, and it is important that we do not inadvertently force them to the wall. This single policy will have such an outsized impact—I hope the Government will review this decision with economic growth in mind.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

To wind up for the Liberal Democrats, I call Clive Jones.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I offer my thanks to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), for delivering a powerful opening speech and for securing this important debate. I absolutely agree that public procurement should be more focused on buying British, and that access to finance needs to be improved sooner rather than later, so that our defence industries can upskill and respond to what is going to be a growing need. The Department for Business and Trade is synonymous with what Britain truly needs. Britain needs growth—most of us in this Chamber will agree with that. Businesses need confidence in the UK as a place to invest.

We have a Government who are staring stagnation in the face and failing to learn the lessons from the Conservative party’s economic vandalism, which stretched household finances to the brink. Businesses are now left bracing for further pain once the Chancellor’s job tax comes into force. Like many others, I am particularly concerned about the impact it will have on the hospitality sector and the great British pub. Last Saturday, I visited the Station Tap in my constituency, which has been a pub for 150 years. While I pulled one of the worst pints of my life, the owners shared their concerns about the Budget. The rise in national insurance contributions for just this one pub will add £12,000 to its business costs every year. It is no wonder that in a survey by the British Chambers of Commerce, 82% of firms said that the rise in national insurance contributions will impact their business, forcing them to change their plans, make redundancies and stop investing in people and in growth.

Changes to NICs were not the only issue with the Budget that the Station Tap’s owners raised with me. It is overwhelmingly obvious that business rates are broken. They asked me to give a clear message to the Minister that business rates are outdated and need meaningful reform—most importantly, sooner rather than later. We would not be in a position where I seemingly have a new business raising this matter with me every week if the Government were getting on with the work quickly. The owners are especially concerned about the planned reduction in relief for hospitality, which could cost independent publicans £3,000 to £5,000 a year.

Other businesses in Wokingham warned that the loss of the relief could see their businesses pushed to the brink. Wokingham has some of the best pubs in the country—The Queen’s Head, the Queen’s Oak, the Duke’s Head and the Walter Arms, to name just a few. The Government should be championing those pubs. What steps are they taking to monitor the impact of the reduction in business rates relief, and the rise in national insurance contributions on pubs? If the Minister’s monitoring reveals that this Government’s policies are leading to a higher rate of business closures or are deterring investment, will he implore the Treasury to reverse the taxes and, instead, tax the big banks, implement a proper tax on the super-profits of oil and gas companies and tackle tax avoidance by properly investing in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs?

People across the UK are watching with concern as the United States engages in economic sabotage of the global economy. In the UK, Britain’s steel sector is bracing itself for the pain of Trump’s tariffs, which are set to be applied next week. This will negatively impact our manufacturers, forcing price rises or reduced sales to the United States. Will the Minister urgently update the House on his Department’s efforts to ensure that the UK is excluded from the steel and aluminium tariffs?

It would also be helpful to understand what retaliatory action the Government would take if these tariffs were applied and whether it would include some action against Elon Musk’s Tesla. Nobody wants a trade war. It is bad for business, bad for consumers and bad for diplomatic relations. However, if we are to be attacked, we must ensure that we simply do not take it on the chin. That is why I admire the confidence of our great Commonwealth and NATO ally, Canada.

Donald Trump is trying to undo our western alliance, threatening to annex a nation that shares our King, and seeking to weaken its economy as a staging ground for that proposed takeover. The Canadian Prime Minister and the Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition in Canada are united in wanting to be at the negotiating table to get the deal done with the UK as soon as possible. As for Canada becoming the 51st state of the USA, I do not know any Canadians who are interested in that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind the Liberal Democrat spokesman to bring his remarks to a close so that we have time to hear from the Minister and the shadow Minister.

[Clive Jones]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We need to take action to deepen bilateral trade with Canada. Does the Minister share Canada’s sentiment about strengthening our economies? Does he agree that we need to take tougher action to stand up for our Canadian friends? Will the UK return to the negotiating table and start working on a trade deal with Canada as soon as possible?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Neonatal Care Leave and Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:

That the draft Statutory Neonatal Care Pay (General) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.

[Justin Madders]

I am delighted to move regulations under the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, which originated as a private Member’s Bill in the previous Parliament. I therefore pay tribute to Stuart McDonald, the former Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, and Baroness Wyld for successfully steering the legislation through both Houses, so that it could secure Royal Assent in 2023.

The Act established new statutory entitlements to neonatal care leave and neonatal care pay for employed parents if their child starts to receive neonatal care within 28 days of birth and goes on to spend seven or more continuous days in care. These regulations are another step towards implementing neonatal care leave and pay in April 2025, and they are the first to be brought before the House under the Act.

There is currently no statutory entitlement to such rights for parents of children who require neonatal care. Parents in this difficult situation have had to rely on existing rights, such as maternity leave or annual leave, to be there to care for their baby and to support their partner. This approach has understandably caused additional stress for parents. Some mothers report that they had to leave work because they were not ready to return at the end of their maternity leave. As paternity leave is limited to two weeks, some fathers and partners have had to rely on statutory unpaid parental leave or the compassion of their employers to take time off work.

Around 40,000 babies a year spend more than a week in neonatal care. Once provisions on neonatal care leave and pay come into force in April, we estimate that around 60,000 parents will be eligible, and that around 34,000 parents will take up paid leave each year. Neonatal care leave will enable eligible parents to take a minimum of one week’s leave and a maximum of 12 weeks’ leave, depending on how long their baby receives neonatal care, on top of their other parental leave entitlements. It will be a day one right for employees.

Statutory neonatal care pay, like other family-related pay rights, will be available to employees who also meet continuity of service and minimum earnings tests. Eligible employees must have worked for their employer for at least 26 weeks, ending with the relevant week, and earn on average at least £125 a week before tax. If eligible, a parent will be able to claim a flat rate of £187.18 a week in 2025-26, or 90% of their average earnings, whichever amount is lower.

Employers will administer the statutory payments on behalf of the Government. Small employers will be able to recover 103% of the statutory payment from the Exchequer, while larger employers can recover 92% of payments and will therefore incur wage-like costs equivalent to 8% of the statutory payments they make. This is a similar arrangement to that in place for other parental payments.

Together, these regulations will provide protection and support for parents at an incredibly challenging time. These entitlements provide a floor, and employers can and should go further if they are able.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

I commend the Minister for bringing the statutory instruments before the House. They introduce much-needed and long-overdue support for new families, which I am sure will be welcomed by Members across the House.

As every parent will know, the time after childbirth is a time like no other. It is both incredibly special and incomparably difficult, with lasting effects on the wellbeing of parents, carers and their babies. I pay tribute to my constituent Ashley Wiseman. In 2018, she gave birth prematurely to twins at 24 weeks. Her first child Esme was sadly born sleeping. Her second child Isla was born 50 minutes later. Isla was admitted to neonatal care at Basildon hospital before being transferred to the Royal London hospital.

Ashley met me and told me about the fear and uncertainty that she felt at that time, the impossible choice that her family faced between returning to work or being beside their sick child, and the financial burden of travelling to visit Isla once she moved to the Royal London hospital. Ashley described what we would all find impossible to imagine: long stays on the ward, some of her darkest days, and Isla being given just a 2% chance of survival. After seven months in a neonatal intensive care unit, Isla was discharged, and last month she celebrated her seventh birthday.

Out of such a traumatic and stressful time, Ashley created Isla’s Journey, a charity offering support to families of babies in neonatal wards. The charity provides care packs for new parents at over 80 NICU wards across the UK. That simple support makes a huge difference to families by allowing parents to spend as much time as possible beside their baby, and the changes brought forward today will achieve the same thing. By providing a statutory right to paid leave for working families with babies in neonatal care, the regulations will remove the unimaginable and impossible choice for new parents of either returning to work to pay their bills or staying beside their desperately ill child.

It is difficult enough to have a child in the neonatal intensive care unit. Parents being with their new baby in the early days is vital for their mental and emotional wellbeing, as well as for the early life chances of the baby. The benefits of things like skin-to-skin contact and those early bonding experiences cannot be overstated, and that sometimes feels like an impossible task for parents whose baby is in the NICU. This legislative change removes one of those barriers to these early experiences being a joyful time for parents whose babies have an extra way to go when they are first born.

As Ashley and other parents can attest, there is still more to be done. For example, Isla’s Journey advocates for a travel support fund for parents, because when a child is admitted to a neonatal ward miles from home, parents have to make long and costly journeys to spend time with their baby. While the new regulations will take away the compounding financial burden of a loss of income, the travel still comes at a significant cost. Unless they are an in-patient, mothers and other parents are not provided with basic amenities, such as a meal, on the ward. When Isla was transferred to the Royal London hospital, Ashley said that it became near impossible to give her body the correct nutrition she needed to breastfeed. When her child’s life was so fragile, she often did not want to leave her side for a moment, even to find something to eat. Other parents have chosen not to eat to pay for their travel to the hospital.

While I welcome the measures the Government are taking in the statutory instruments to remove worries around leave and pay for parents at an unimaginably difficult time, I ask that the Minister takes away those suggestions for how the Government can go further and perhaps meet me and the team at Isla’s Journey to discuss measures that can make parents’ lives that little bit easier. Making those changes would improve the wellbeing of families with babies in the NICU and the life chances of those babies so that parents could focus on what truly matters most to them: the care of their child.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I remind the House that it is courteous for Members who wish to speak to be present for all the opening speeches.

Local Post Offices

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this very timely debate on the future of post offices. Sadly, few of us have come here today with positive experiences; instead, alongside our constituents, we are concerned about the declining presence of post offices in our communities. In recent times the Post Office has been in the news for all the wrong reasons, with no worse example than the Horizon IT scandal—a shameful, unforgivable wrong done to 900 postmasters, which undermined public faith in the service.

However, public faith in the Post Office has been betrayed in other ways too. The recent speculation on the future of directly managed branches has caused genuine panic and concern to my constituents. I appreciate efforts by the Post Office to reassure people that no formal decision has yet been made, but I fully understand why so many of my constituents believe that closure or service reduction is inevitable. So many post offices have already shut their doors across the UK as the directly managed branch model has been replaced, and that shift towards franchising has left many communities fearing that the post office is no longer a permanent fixture in their high streets or shopping centres. That is because what was once a simple public service has increasingly had its future decided by profitability, rather than the needs and demands of the community, and yet for my constituents, the post office is more than just a place to send parcels and letters; it represents a trusted and valued institution. That is why the Post Office has been around for nearly 400 years.

When Post Office officials emailed me to say that directly managed branches were flawed because they had “no retail offering”, it felt as though there was a disconnect between those who use the service and those who manage it. The No. 1 duty of the post office should be to provide a public service. Whether retail offerings are available in addition should be a secondary consideration, not something motivating the closure or outsourcing of these branches.

Given the news that WH Smith, which manages around 200 post offices, is looking to sell all its high street stores, the franchising model ought to be reviewed as a matter of urgency. I was already concerned about the future of our post offices, but this news only compounds my fears. As with the directly managed branches, my thoughts are with those employed in the WH Smith branches, who will be feeling anxious about what this news means for them. Post Office officials have confirmed that they are in talks with relevant trade unions regarding the ongoing consultation, but I sincerely hope that those are genuine discussions and that the concerns of the workforce are listened to carefully.

In an area such as Springburn, which already has a high unemployment rate, it would be unacceptable for local jobs to be lost. The Springburn Crown post office is the last directly managed branch in my constituency. It occupies a space in Springburn shopping centre, which is well connected and well used by people across the north-east of Glasgow. I recently met the community group Spirit of Springburn to discuss the future of the Crown post office. The community are rightly worried about what closure would mean and raised with me their concerns about the detrimental impact it would have on not just Springburn but the wider north-east of Glasgow. They reminded me that not long ago, the Springburn area had four bank branches. All those branches have now closed—a familiar story in constituencies across the UK, as the last Government presided over 9,500 bank branch closures. Those closures caused massive damage to our high streets and shopping centres and made banking much more difficult for too many. When those closures occurred, the post office was always designated as the place for people to continue to access their bank. In fact, when Lloyds bank announced yesterday plans to close its own high street stores, it said that people should go to the post office to continue using banking services, but how can people do that if there are no local post offices left?

The reality is that Springburn Crown post office really is the last bank in town, and now even that is at risk. It is profoundly unfair for my constituents to find themselves in this worrying situation, and they deserve urgent reassurance that Springburn post office will not close. That is the appeal I am making to the Government today, and it is also the case being made by the local community. Indeed, the vice-chair of Spirit of Springburn, Emma Porter, has written to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade to do just that—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Lady will recognise that she was on a time limit, and in order to accommodate all the other Members who wish to speak, I am going to reduce it to five minutes. I call Matt Vickers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this debate. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) has already summarised a lot of the excellent contributions from the Government side.

It is clear from today’s debate that we all know that post office branches are essential to our local communities and the local economy. It saddens me that this Government inherited a Post Office in such a precarious position. Having discussed the matter with senior Post Office staff and the Minister, I know that the organisation is facing serious financial challenges, and I am grateful for the engagement of the Government and the Minister on the issue. That forms the backdrop to the announcement that the Post Office is considering the future of the remaining 115 directly managed branches, which has been referenced countless times today, with a franchising model being considered for them.

I remain especially concerned about the future of the Morley post office on Queen Street. Morley sits in the heart of my constituency. It is a town of around 50,000 people and one of the key locations that people come to for financial services and shops. The directly managed branch is vital for my constituents and for those who rely on the services that it provides, and I have been looking for certainty that it will remain on the high street where it belongs. I know the strength of feeling from my constituents, as more than 2,500 people have signed my petition to keep the branch open. It is clear that after the closure of many bank branches across Morley, the post office is a lifeline for those who need it. The numbers back that up—it is not just my testimony. While other directly managed branches have seen a 34% drop in footfall since 2019 because of the pandemic, the Morley post office is only 3% down. We use our post office.

A word on bank branches and banking hubs: I have been actively pursuing a banking hub for Morley town centre, especially with the recent news that NatWest is due to pull out of the town this year. NatWest even pointed to the post office on its way out and said, “Don’t worry—you have that service there,” despite the threat of closure. I have been in touch with Link, one of the organisations that determines which areas gets banking hubs, and it tells me that Morley does not yet meet the criteria for a banking hub because we still have one branch left. While I have many questions about the criteria, we will have to save them for another debate and another time.

While Morley does not meet Link’s criteria, and while I continue to have those discussions with Link, we cannot have a situation where my post office closes. Thankfully, the continued operation of Morley’s post office will not prevent us from securing a banking hub in future, so there is no reason why we should not do everything in our power to keep the post office open, and that is exactly what I am doing. As I stated, the branch is very much in demand. It is used by local businesses that trade on our high street. Business owners such as Castlepoint, which owns and operates Morley market, have contacted me directly about their concerns about the branch closing.

Post Office research shows that three in 10 SMEs use a post office once a week, whether to post parcels to customers or deposit their cash takings. Losing this branch, which is surrounded by so many businesses in Morley, would make us all worse off. I know that the direction of travel for the Post Office is to move towards the franchising model that we have heard so much about today, and I remain hopeful that a suitable postmaster will be found to take over the branch, but I am also clear that the branch should remain on the high street. Having it in an accessible place in Morley town centre is very important for both residents and businesses, and I will continue to make that case as strongly as I can. It is why I have requested that those interested in taking over the franchise in Morley contact me. I am keen to support their bids, assuming that they are in the best interests of Morley and the town centre.

Finally, I ask the Minister whether there is any threat to the number of services that a directly managed branch can offer if it transitions to a franchised branch. I reassure all my communities in Leeds South West and Morley that I will work tirelessly to ensure that this branch remains open. It is crucial that the services that the post office provides in Morley town centre remain there for many years to come.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on securing the debate. The contributions throughout have been unified in highlighting that post offices are a focal point of our communities. They are a vital part of our society and our high streets, with millions of people depending on them every week. They are community hubs, providing access to communication, banking and other vital services. That is particularly important for those with restricted access, such as older people or those in more rural populations with little email connectivity. There are villages that fit that exact description in my constituency of Wokingham, such as Finchampstead, Swallowfield and Hurst. That is why I am deeply concerned about the news that 115 post office branches may be closed, with around 1,000 jobs at risk of being lost. It has the potential to increase social isolation for some of the most vulnerable groups in the UK.

I am especially concerned that the Post Office is reviewing proposals to replace existing branches. Specifically, it is looking for alternatives to its wholly owned branches, and considering franchise arrangements where a third party could take them on instead. That opens up lots of risks. In my constituency of Wokingham, the post office in Hurst was unexpectedly closed a few weeks ago. It was located in a shop that many considered a pillar of the community. Through no fault of the post office, the tenants running the shop had to close its doors. Losing a post office can really harm a small village such as Hurst, and the proposed solution that people should travel to Wokingham or Twyford to access services is simply not possible for all residents. Public transport links are limited, and those who rely on the post office are less likely to drive.

If the Post Office estate is reliant on third parties, it has no control, and there is the worrying potential that situations like that in Hurst will become increasingly commonplace. A future in which losing a local service once means that it is gone forever—very few are replaced once they are gone—with little chance of appeal is a failure of Government policy. That is especially relevant considering the potential loss of 500 WHSmith shops across the UK, many of which house post office branches, such as the one in Wokingham town centre.

The high street is struggling and the Government need to act urgently to turn things around. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the Post Office is on a sustainable footing for the long term? Will the Minister commit to ensuring that none of the 115 post offices will close until a consultation with each local community has been undertaken? Has the Minister met representatives from the Post Office to draw up plans in case it loses hundreds of its sites due to WHSmith’s financial issues?

The BBC reported today that Ofcom has proposed cutting the delivery of second-class letters to every other weekday and scrapping deliveries on Saturdays. That would harm services for millions of households and small businesses. Royal Mail executives should be working night and day to turn the company around and fix the postal service. The new owners agreed to the existing delivery targets when they took over the company, and they should stick to them. I would appreciate it if the Minister could address my points and offer reassurances that our communities will receive the great service they deserve.

Post office branches provide a place to do banking for millions of people across the country, and that is the case in Wokingham, but another area of concern is the lack of resilience in our local financial services. The WHSmith-located post office in Wokingham is too small and the staff are too busy with all their other tasks. One constituent had to wait about 45 minutes to withdraw £15. That is why I and local campaigners like Lynn Forbes hope that we can get a banking hub. However, our application has been declined. If the WHSmith in Wokingham town centre were to close, our already limited options would be reduced further.

Link, which provides the banking hubs, is encouraged within the current legislation to consider the protection of face-to-face banking, but it is not explicitly empowered to take that into account when making a final decision on whether to establish a banking hub. Instead, it just focuses on cash access. Will the Minister explain why the protection of face-to-face services is not considered, and will he introduce further legislation to require their protection?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

Funnily enough, I am aware of that statistic; my hon. Friend makes his point powerfully.

We were clear in our manifesto that that we would seek to strengthen the Post Office network in consultation with postmasters, trade unions and customers, and that remains very much our ambition. That is one of the reasons why we are working closely with the Post Office in providing funding to support the replacement of the Horizon computer system. The Post Office’s future lies particularly in cash and banking. With the right support from the financial services industry and engagement with groups such as Cash Access UK, there is clearly more that the Post Office could offer on the high street through banking hubs and the Post Office network. We are beginning to work with the Post Office to improve its banking offer on the high street.

The Government are strongly committed to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the Post Office. It is a national asset that provides an invaluable public service in all our constituencies. There are certainly challenges ahead, but we continue to work with the Post Office to ensure that it is fit for the future. We always welcome views on the network. I thank those hon. Members who secured the debate and all other hon. Members for their contributions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Gideon Amos to wind up.

Post Office Redress and Funding

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to provide an update to the House about the Government’s Post Office redress schemes and funding.

No one in this House—no one in this country—will have failed to be moved by the plight of postmasters caught up in the Horizon scandal. The fact that they suffered so much over so many years is both unconscionable and inexcusable. The Government are determined to do right by them and to learn from the mistakes of the past. That is why, before the election in July, we promised to ensure swift and fair redress for postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal and, in the past five months, we have made significant progress.

To date, compensation has more than doubled since the Government took office, with £499 million paid to 3,300 victims. Of that amount, £79 million has been paid to 232 people from the Horizon convictions redress scheme, which we set up in July. As of 29 November, the Ministry of Justice had notified more than 520 people in England and Wales that their convictions have been quashed by the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024. The relevant justice authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland are also continuing to notify individuals within their jurisdictions.

While the progress we have made is positive, we know there are still complex cases to resolve, and we need to speed up other parts of the redress process. Many postmasters are still yet to be compensated or have their cases reconsidered. I am conscious that for the victims of the Horizon scandal, justice delayed is justice denied, and that our responsibility in Government is to work to make the compensation process as effective as possible. That is why we have asked the Post Office to write to over 16,000 former postmasters, encouraging them to come forward if they believe they have a genuine claim. I can confirm those letters have been sent. We want to ensure that every postmaster who is eligible for redress under the Horizon shortfall scheme has the opportunity to apply for it.

On more complex cases, notably in the group litigation order and the Horizon convictions redress scheme, for which my department is, and should be seen to be, directly responsible, we have agreed a new target for 90% of challenge cases in the GLO and HCRS to receive a substantive response within 40 days. We have moved in additional staff, and Sir Gary Hickinbottom, who is already assisting us with the overturned conviction cases, has been appointed chair of the independent panel for the HCRS.

We are looking again at the arguments for providing additional redress to postmaster family members who were affected by the scandal, and to the employees of postmasters. I will report back to the House on that in due course. The Horizon compensation advisory board recommended the establishment of an appeals process for the Horizon shortfall scheme that is independent of the Post Office and Government, and we accepted that recommendation in September. We are in the process of assembling a team of independent external lawyers to help deliver the appeals process. We expect that contract to be awarded in January. I will be able to provide a further update on the appeals process early in the new year.

There are still concerns about the responsibility of the Post Office to deliver the Horizon shortfall scheme and the overturned convictions scheme. The Government are considering the merits of my Department taking over that responsibility, but the benefits of such a move must clearly outweigh the potential disruption. We are carefully considering what intervention we may take.

Thanks to a small group of postmasters and their families coming forward this year, as well as to parliamentarians including Lord Beamish, we now know that issues at the Post Office went beyond Horizon, and that some postmasters may have been affected by earlier systems such as Capture. The Government have responded with swift, significant action. The Kroll investigation published its report into Capture on 30 September, with a further addendum made on 18 October. From that report we have concluded that there are postmasters who may have fallen victim to flaws in Capture software.

Most of us will not be able to comprehend fully what it was like to be accused of mistakes never made, ill intent never harboured and crimes never committed. Some postmasters have told us that, like victims of the Horizon scandal, they were shunned by their local communities—by their customers, friends and neighbours. I speak on behalf of the whole Government in expressing how sorry I am for what those postmasters and their families have gone through. For that and all they were forced to endure, they deserve not just redress but the restoration of their good names.

Uncovering exactly what happened in each case will be a challenging exercise given the passage of time and the lack of records and evidence. However, we are keen to apply the lessons that we have learned from previous redress schemes, and to take account of the needs of this group of victims. The Government will develop our proposals through engagement with postmasters and other key stakeholders, such as the Horizon compensation advisory board and legal experts. Over the coming months, we want to determine the scope of the financial redress and the eligibility criteria, so that we can bring both redress and closure to the impacted postmasters and their families. I expect to provide a further update to the House on that matter in the spring.

Next year, we also expect to receive Sir Wyn Williams’s report. The Post Office Horizon IT inquiry has reviewed the oral evidence that was submitted to it over the course of the last two years. I am thankful to Sir Wyn Williams for his excellent chairing of the inquiry, which closed yesterday. I am also thankful to the Horizon compensation advisory board for the report that it published earlier this year. In case Members are not aware, the board is recommending that a new independent body be set up to deliver any future redress schemes on behalf of the Government, as well as to act in a role similar to that of an ombudsman. The goal is, of course, to reduce the chances of future scandals—or at least to expose them more quickly.

The Government welcome those recommendations. Any recommendation that might prevent harm, or at least help the Government be more responsive to it, is worthy of serious consideration. The potential impact of such a body would be wide ranging, with potential implications for existing redress schemes in the NHS, which need to be considered alongside other issues. We will therefore take time to consult and consider in particular the view of the Williams inquiry before reaching a conclusion. We intend to give a full response within six months of the publication of the Williams inquiry report.

For too long, decisions about the future of the Post Office have been put off. That neglect has allowed significant issues at the heart of the company to grow and take root. As previously set out, we will publish a Green Paper in the first half of next year to seek the public’s views, insights and experiences to help shape the future of the Post Office. In the meantime, we are taking steps to continue to support the post office network and the important services it provides. I can announce that we are providing a further £37.5 million to subsidise the post office network this year. The interim chair of the Post Office, Nigel Railton, is rightly shifting the focus of the business from headquarters to postmasters; the Post Office is also reviewing its costs, as its financial position continues to be challenging. He has announced ambitions for a new deal for postmasters, and I am pleased that the Post Office is going to make an immediate one-off payment to postmasters to increase their remuneration, in recognition of the pressures that postmasters face. That payment is expected to be delivered this month.

We are working with the senior leadership of the Post Office on future opportunities, beginning with banking, so that the company can increase its product offers and commercial revenue and reduce its costs in communities across the UK. Together, we hope these steps will enable the Post Office to move forward, working better with its postmasters and better serving the needs of its customers. This Government are attempting to fix the foundations, deal with the injustices of the past, and invest in a different future for the Post Office so that it can sit at the heart of our communities as a trusted institution once more. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his willingness to work with us collaboratively on providing redress not only to the victims of the Horizon scandal, but to the victims of the Capture software issues.

The shadow Secretary of State referenced the Kroll report. As he and, I suspect, other Members of the House who have followed this issue closely will be aware, Kroll did not take a specific view on convictions. We are aware that a small number of sub-postmasters—those who believed they were victims of using the Capture software, given the shortfalls it generated and the way they were treated by the Post Office as a result—have referred their claims to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. We have instructed the Post Office to work at speed to review what evidence it can provide to the CCRC to help it make decisions on the safety of those convictions. Similarly, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is looking at a number of cases, and we have similarly instructed the Post Office to co-operate with it as quickly as it can.

On Capture redress, yesterday we met sub-postmasters who have campaigned on Capture, and indeed Lord Beamish, to update them on the steps we will take. We will work at pace. As I said in my statement, we face a significant challenge with the amount of evidence available. For example, no central record has as yet been found of the number of Capture users or of who they were. We are nevertheless going to be working to design a redress scheme. We will consult sub-postmasters and the Horizon compensation advisory board. As I have said, I will bring forward an update on where we have got to by next spring.

On the 16,000 letters that the Post Office has sent out, I can confirm that they have gone out very recently—the shadow Secretary of State will forgive me if I do not have the exact dates. He rightly aired again the concern about the responsibility of Fujitsu, which is felt across the House. I am sure that he will recognise that we need to wait for Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry to report, to give us a better understanding of the scale of Fujitsu’s responsibilities and, therefore, its potential liabilities. We have said that we will respond to the inquiry’s recommendations at pace, and certainly within six months. I am sure that he will opine on Fujitsu, and we will respond accordingly.

On the Horizon convictions redress scheme, the then Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), and I had the pleasure of appearing before the Business and Trade Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), to update it on progress in overturning the convictions following the legislation last summer. She committed the Ministry to completing its work of assessing the cases by the end of January, and I understand that it still intends to do so. We have already paid out some £79 million as part of our responsibilities to provide redress to those whose convictions were overturned.

Lastly, on the network subsidy uplift, the shadow Secretary of State will understand that the money is just for this year. Spending review discussions are taking place across Government, and the Post Office is an active part of those discussions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

I welcome much of the Minister’s statement today. Redress is being paid out faster, but the truth is that 70% of the budget for redress has still not been paid. The Select Committee will be supplying its advice on how we make that faster in a report that we will release on new year’s day. The Minister has set out details for the House about the Capture victims who have been identified. Does he believe that many of those victims were convicted? If they were, would it not be right to have those convictions automatically overturned, in the way that we have done for other victims of this appalling scandal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend that the first report of his Committee has looked at the Post Office redress schemes. He will know that progress has been made, but as I alluded to in my opening statement, we recognise that there is still significantly more to do, particularly with the complex cases. Specifically on convictions and Capture, I have to tell the House that at this stage we do not know how many people were convicted as a result of the Capture software. We are aware of a small number of cases. As I have said, a number of cases are with the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. We have instructed the Post Office to review all its records—we know it has some records available for the 1991 to 1999 period—and to get what information it does have to those two bodies, so that they can opine as quickly as is feasible on the safety of those convictions. It is right that that is the first step we take. We will wait to see the judgment. In the meantime, we will get on with designing a redress scheme for all those who were not convicted but who suffered as a result of the Capture software.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for sharing his statement in advance.

Honest, hard-working people had their lives totally wrecked by this scandal, and it is a great shame that it happened over a number of years, and that there was dither and delay over it for far too many years. I welcome the steps that he has outlined this afternoon. I welcome the suggestions made to him about an independent body for compensation. However, this scandal must never happen again. One way this Chamber could ensure that is the case is by having a duty of candour on officials, as the Liberal Democrats have called for. I hope he will give that serious consideration, to stop such a scandal ever happening again. Finally, there is a real opportunity, should the Government choose to take it, to set up an office for whistleblowers through the Employment Rights Bill, which is currently making its way through the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

I am listening in detail about the processes you are going through looking for more information on Horizon. You have mentioned Capture, which goes back to 1992—30 years ago. You have mentioned a lack of information and that you are looking for more detail—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Three times, “you”—it needs to be “he” or “the Minister”, please.

[Chris Law]

Bad habits—must get rid of them. My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am concerned about the Capture system, which is more than 30 years old and had 19 different versions. We do not know who used it, and we do not know who has been convicted for it. The people who have been convicted are probably dying every other week just now. The Minister talks about working at pace, but can he make a flying sprint to get to those people urgently, to ensure that investigations are carried out and that compensation deserved is duly received?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

I understand completely the frustration of sub-postmasters who have waited so long to get redress and have their cases heard. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that there are four Horizon scandal compensation schemes. In the case of the convictions that were overturned by this House this year, the fourth compensation scheme, the Horizon convictions redress scheme, was set up on 30 July and has begun paying out significant sums of money to sub-postmasters who have had their convictions overturned—some £79 million, as of the end of November. As I said earlier, the MOJ has sought to contact all individuals who had their convictions overturned as a result of that legislation. It has said that it will complete its work by the end of January and I understand that it is on course to do so, but I am acutely aware of the right hon. Gentleman’s point. It is why we continue to look, as much as we can, at what further efforts we can take to speed the delivery of compensation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Last but by no means least, I call Emma Foody.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement and his commitment to providing redress as soon as possible. One of my constituents, a former sub-postmaster who wished to remain anonymous, attended a surgery recently to share their experience. Accused of stealing over £40,000 due to the Horizon system, they lost their home, their job and their business, and were forced to pay thousands from their and their family’s savings. Compounding the financial loss was the reputational loss: ostracised by the community, experiencing racial abuse and forced to move away—appalling in its own right but, as we have heard today, just one of many, many examples. Does the Minister agree that any redress must address not just the financial loss, but the further damage done to people’s lives as a result of the actions of the Post Office?

Budget Resolutions

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Jonathan Reynolds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the next speaker, I wish to make a short and hopefully helpful statement. It is about the way in which Members are called to speak in debates. Members who wish to catch my eye, or indeed the eye of Mr Speaker himself or any of the other Deputy Speakers, should write to Mr Speaker in advance. Those who have not written in may still be called, but priority will be given to those who have applied in writing in advance.

Members who have applied to speak, but no longer wish to do so, should notify the Speaker’s Office as soon as possible. Once you have written in to request to speak, you should turn up in the Chamber for the start of the debate and for all contributions from the Front Bench. You should be present in the Chamber for most of the debate. If you are not able to be here because of other commitments, then you should withdraw your application to speak.

Selection of speakers in debates is at the discretion of the Chair. The Chair, however, cannot predict precisely when a Member might expect to speak. When a very large number of Members have put in to speak, as we have seen over the course of the entire Budget debate, it may not be possible to get you all in, even with the use of time limits. If for any reason you need to be briefly absent from the Chamber during the debate in which you are down to speak, you should notify the Chair, but a prolonged absence may result in your name being removed from the list.

May I ask Members not to crowd the Chair, please, to make requests about when they are likely to be called? Please go through your Whip. It is very distracting and difficult for the Chair, particularly if there are a large number of interventions and a large number of Members trying to speak to me. Please go through your Whip, who will be able to handle those requests appropriately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Let us reflect on where we are today—the first day of the constructive Opposition. The new Leader of the Conservative party stood at the Dispatch Box two hours ago and called for both tax cuts and massive public spending on defence. How are you going to pay for projects that you promised but never delivered, and that you knew you could never pay for?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The Secretary of State knows better than to say “you”.

[Andrew Griffith]

We would have got a better answer from ChatGPT. The reality is that the Budget not only increased taxes in the outyears by £40 billion a year but increased borrowing by £140 billion over the course of the plans—yet despite that largesse, there was no room to fulfil the mandate of British researchers and continue to invest in the supercomputer and infrastructure that they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

Well, my—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I will hear the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. The Government are enormously lucky, given the spike in gilt yields over the preceding weeks and subsequent to the Budget, that the previous Government dealt with the aftermath of the financial regulatory failure in respect of liability-driven investment. We dealt with that, and as a result we have a more stable financial system, which has been able, so far, to survive what the Government have done.

In evidence taken by the Treasury Committee yesterday, Richard Hughes explained, and I shall say this slowly, that an increase to interest rates of just 0.3%—one third of 1%—would wipe out all the headroom. That is in the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook, and is no doubt why the OBR gives the Government only a 54% chance of hitting their targets. That is barely better than the odds on a coin toss.

So there we have it. The Government spent months talking up their credentials on enterprise. They looked business owners in the eye and told them that they would have their back and support them, but 120 days later they went back on their promise—a prawn cocktail offensive with a nasty dose of indigestion. They have crushed confidence and destroyed investment. They have checked any incentive for growth. They have left thousands of enterprising strivers wondering when the day will come when the shutters on their shops are not lifted any more. I dare the Secretary of State to stand before the 4.8 million family business owners and tell them that this is a Budget that will work for them. Risk takers and wealth creators deserve a Government who have their back, invest in infrastructure and do not embolden the inefficiencies of the public sector. Be in no doubt: while the Government keep growth, innovation and entrepreneurs in their crosshairs, the Conservatives will always be on the side of business.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to speak about the first Labour Budget in 14 years. For my constituents, the last fourteen years have been difficult. Too often, they felt that the then Government were not on their side. That Government did not hear that austerity left us not only with deteriorating public services but more fragile communities. They did not reform the planning system, which would have alleviated the housing crisis and stopped the 20% to 30% rent increases that left many of my constituents facing eviction during a cost of living crisis. They did not take the difficult decisions to protect the economy, and left our new Government with a black hole to fill.

We heard loud and clear in July that government must be different. This Budget offers that. We have a rise to the national living wage and to the rate for under-21s, which will make work pay whatever someone’s age. Funding of over £25 billion for the NHS over the next two years will deliver more doctors and tens of thousands of extra appointments, helping hospitals such as St Thomas’, just over the river in my constituency.

As the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I have heard a lot from our local authorities, which have borne the brunt of the failure to tackle the housing crisis. Councils have been forgotten, with devastating consequences for communities. Yesterday, at our first public Committee meeting, we heard from homelessness organisations and local authority representatives on the state of temporary accommodation. Councils are having to spend unsustainable amounts to fill gaps in that area, which is driving them to near bankruptcy. In London alone, 70% of local authority housing budgets are being absorbed by temporary accommodation. That means less money for repairs and maintenance of housing stock, which leaves tenants feeling the increase in the crisis.

The human impact is even more shocking. As I speak, over 150,000 children are in temporary accommodation across England. In the last five years, 55 children have died in circumstances linked to temporary accommodation; 42 of them were under the age of one. That should shock and shame us. Those deaths are not coincidental. Yesterday, the Committee heard about families living in one room. That can stunt a child’s growth because they are not able to do the things they should, such as crawling. We heard about how a child’s ability to form social attachments with peers can be affected by the lack of consistency caused by constant moving. We heard about how parents are often plunged into mental health crises because of the stress of raising a family in those conditions, which further isolates the child.

The Government can and must do better. I welcome the steps in this Budget to supplement the affordable housing programme, increase homelessness spending and scale back right to buy to boost our social housing stock, but they must be first steps. We need further significant change in the upcoming funding settlement, and the next Budget must truly start to address that crisis. I am particularly worried about the freeze to local housing allowance rate, because it is a lifeline for people who are struggling. That is covered by the Department for Work and Pensions, but the measure could have a significant impact on attempts to tackle the homelessness crisis, so it must be addressed in upcoming statements.

The deep harm caused by the last 14 years cannot and will not be fixed overnight. The Budget is the first in my five years in this House that gives us a glimmer of hope and a road map for fixing our broken public services. I congratulate the Chancellor and her team on getting on with the job so quickly, but I will be a voice for the thousands of families who continue to fall through the cracks with no safety net beneath them. They cannot afford to wait any longer for help—they need it now. I urge the Government to give attention to people in crisis, such as those in temporary accommodation. We cannot, as a Labour Government, risk failing a generation of young people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. I absolutely agree that they should be exempt; I think the rise in national insurance contributions is the wrong thing to do, full stop, but if it is going to go ahead, there must be exemptions. In my own area, for example, one local hospice in Hertfordshire will see its national insurance contributions go up by £150,000. Its warning is very clear: that if this rise goes ahead, beds will have to close.

People must see opportunities in enterprise as well, but the rise in national insurance contributions will hit small businesses hard, especially those on the high street. The success of our high streets really matters, not just for growth but for confidence: for so many people, the high street is the most visual and visceral mark of whether or not the economy is thriving. I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate later today whether the Government intend to bring forward a high streets strategy, and if so, when we might see it.

I have been inundated with messages from small businesses on my high street in St Albans. Here are just some of the quotes: one business said that

“the reality of last week’s budget will mean no more investment and no further recruitment as was planned and in all likelihood redundancies.”

Another small business said:

“I provide employment locally, raise money for local charities and have created a much-loved addition to our town centre…I am worried about how much longer I can go on.”

One business said that it

“would be impacted mainly with our business rates increase and my plea is that that can’t happen. The high street challenges are hard enough as they are”

without having to face

“an uncertain Christmas trading period.”

Other colleagues have mentioned the impact on medical charities, hospices and GPs. In Hertfordshire, the local medical committee said:

“Since 2014 we have seen 56 practices close or merge across Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, representing 35% of the 216 practices that existed back in 2014.”

GP practices need certainty as to whether any of these costs will be passed on to them at a time when they are already feeling the squeeze. I can guess what the Minister may say: he may encourage Members on the Opposition Benches to indicate how we would raise taxes instead. In the spirit of constructive opposition, we Liberal Democrats urge the Government to think again, because we believe the burden of fixing our public services should fall on the shoulders of the big banks, the gambling companies and the big tech companies, not the small businesses that are the beating heart of our communities. Suppressing small business is not the route to growth.

The business rates reforms in the Budget not only fall short of what we need, but actually make things worse in the short term. The last Conservative Government promised to reform the business rates system, but failed to do so. The current system penalises bricks-and-mortar retailers, while out-of-town retailers manage to get off almost scot- free. Pubs, high street shops and the rest of the hospitality sector have been hit really hard, with the discount being reduced from 75% to 40%. That is going to have a major impact. St Albans is renowned for its pubs—as many of the more long-established Members will remember, I talk about the pubs in St Albans on many occasions. We have more pubs per square mile than anywhere else in the UK, but those pubs will now face additional business rates bills of between £5,000 and £35,000. Some fear that this could push them over the edge.

Over the past few days, much has been said about food security as well. We Liberal Democrats agree that the loopholes that are being exploited by big corporations that buy up swathes of our land must be closed, but we are concerned that the Government’s approach is rather crude—that as they try to close those loopholes, some family farms will be collateral damage. Again in the spirit of constructive opposition, I encourage the Government to look again at our proposal for a proper family farming test, as is used in some other countries.

Finally, I will say a word or two about investment. We Liberal Democrats believe that the Government have done the right thing in changing the fiscal rules, and in principle, we believe in the importance of borrowing for productive investment. However—once again, I say this in the spirit of constructive opposition—I think the Government have put all of their growth eggs in the building back basket. I understand why they may be doing that. However, given the Trump presidency and the prospects of potential tariffs and trade wars that could drive up the price of products such as semiconductors and construction materials, there is a very real risk that the investment that the Government make will not reap the rewards that we all hope for—through changes in the global climate, rather than any fault of their own. We need a resilient economy, so I praise the Government for investing, but urge them to look at the question of resilience. At this time, it is even more important that we look to small businesses and high streets for growth, so I urge the Government to think again and unleash the power of our high streets and small businesses, rather than hamper them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Irene Campbell to make her maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. There will have to be a time limit, but after we have heard all the maiden speeches. I call David Williams to make his maiden speech.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am really pleased to follow the excellent maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), and I look forward to many more such speeches as the afternoon goes on.

It is an absolute honour to represent Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, an area that has made me who I am. I am also proud to speak in this incredibly important debate. This Government take seriously the need to boost household incomes and to lift families out of poverty. I am delighted that the increase in the national living wage outlined in the Budget will put an extra £1,400 in the pockets of thousands of workers across Stoke-on-Trent and Kidsgrove.

In memory of Sharlotte-Sky Naglis, I would like to thank my predecessor, Jonathan Gullis, who campaigned to change the law to allow blood samples to be tested without consent where loss of life has occurred following dangerous driving. I said to Sharlotte’s mum last week, “I will continue to fight for this critical legislation, though I know nothing can make up for the loss of your child.”

I will also say thank you to Baroness Anderson, who put the national scandal of holiday hunger firmly on the radar during her time in this House. So many children up and down our country are now fed during school holidays.

I did not set out to become an MP. After studying at Keele University—one of our two great local universities—I worked in a local Sure Start centre. I saw how mums had been let down by the state, but I also saw how, with a hand up from the new Labour Government at the time, they were able to get back on their feet. I then worked for the YMCA, where we set up training schemes, secured funding to reopen youth clubs that were closed under austerity, and supported young people into affordable housing.

However, 14 years of Conservative Government left our services on their knees and levelling up was a failed promise. We faced a 97% cut in spending on youth services in my constituency alone. Our Sure Start centres were hollowed out. Annual household incomes have fallen behind rising living costs. Indeed, in some areas of my constituency as many as two thirds of families live in poverty and weekly earnings are some £100 lower than the England average.

I put myself forward to be an MP to break this cycle of broken promises. Our young people locally should not feel they need to move away for well-paid work. I want our families to live in affordable, decent homes, and I want high-quality care for everyone who needs it—real investment, high-quality public services, restoring hope to our people.

My dad once told me, “People like us don’t become MPs.” While, thankfully, he was wrong, because I am here today, many people still believe that where we are born will forever dictate our life’s direction. That is why I am a member of the Labour party, because we believe that everybody, no matter where they are from, should have equal access to opportunities.

I am incredibly proud of my background. My mum and my grandad worked in our local potbanks—H&R Johnson, Richard Tiles and Dunn Bennett and Co. My mum and dad met in the old Adulte ballroom in Burslem. My weekends as a child were spent at Burslem and Tunstall markets, playing out in Tunstall park—after mass, of course—and doing our weekly shop in the Normid hypermarket in Talke Pits. Having worked locally for over 20 years, I know how blessed we are to have so many local people, charities, businesses and faith groups that provide vital support to our community. Whether it is the Chell Area Family Action Group, Middleport Matters, the Hubb Foundation or excellent community organisers like June Cartwright, Anne Marie and Colin, or Mark Porter, I am so grateful for the contributions they make to our towns.

Our history is one of hard-working people, from the potters and the miners, who powered us through the industrial revolution, to the public sector workers who care for us and the business owners who create opportunities for our community. Our history is forged by our people, who have contributed enormously to our local economy and the success of our country: Reginald Mitchell, from Butt Lane, the engineer behind the Spitfire, which helped lead us to victory in the second world war; Clarice Cliff, a pioneering potter who took on a male-dominated industry to make a name for herself; and A. R. Wood, our best-known architect, who created some of our most beautiful buildings including the Burslem school of art and the Queen’s theatre.

These buildings, and our many other historical sites, are ready to have new life breathed into them. We need new spaces for small businesses and new homes for our families, and I want to see our history build our future. In my constituency, we are proud of our past and ambitious for our future, and I know that ambition will be matched by our new Labour Government.

Traces of our proud history can be found in our bottle kilns; whether Moorcroft Pottery in Cobridge or Moorland Pottery in Burslem, it fills me with pride to see the flames of our history continue to burn in these modern times. And I am part of what we call “the turnover club”, and I have attracted some bemused looks as I walk around the cafés in Westminster and lift each plate, bowl and saucer to see where it was crafted; I am pleased to see that so many were made at the Steelite factory in Burslem or at Churchill in Sandyford. I am so proud that my constituency continues to lead the way in ceramics production.

Finally, I would like to pay tribute to my friend and predecessor, Joan Walley, who represented Stoke-on-Trent North for 37 years. Joan truly embodies what it means to be a good constituency MP. In her maiden speech she spoke eloquently about the quality of housing. Her fight for improved living standards continues to this day, and I am incredibly proud to be a part of a Labour Government who have delivered their commitment to working people through their first Budget in 14 years.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Charlotte Cane to make her maiden speech.

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I want to thank those who elected me as the first MP for the new Ely and East Cambridgeshire constituency, although I follow in the Liberal footsteps of Clement Freud and others before him. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on making her first speech to this House; her constituency sounds almost, but not quite, as beautiful as mine. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) on his first speech. My mum is a member of “the turnover club” and I became an honorary member when I came to this House because I felt I needed to check the saucers so that I could report back to her; so I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from.

Ely and East Cambridgeshire contains part of the old North East Cambridgeshire constituency and most of South East Cambridgeshire. I thank the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) for being so helpful in passing over casework from constituents and I thank Lucy Frazer KC for representing South East Cambridgeshire and in particular for supporting the much-needed upgrade to Ely rail junction. I was disappointed to hear nothing about funding for that in the Budget. We all want economic growth for this country and the Government need to help us fix Ely junction if we are to get freight to and from the ports and allow us to have that growth. I am a chartered accountant so I know that the business case is unanswerable and I urge the Chancellor to put the funding for the Ely junction upgrade in the spring spending review.

My constituents have a range of occupations: we have farmers, we have people in horseracing, and we have cutting-edge technology. Going back to the comments of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, I was amazed to be invited to accompany Almath Crucibles to receive the King’s award for innovation—people have been making crucibles for 8,000 years, yet it has come up with an innovation, which, as an archaeologist, I found utterly amazing. I was also amazed to look at how they make those crucibles in my constituency; they make them with fantastic materials, but they do so in a way that our parents would recognise from the pottery industry. It is stunning.

We are also a beautiful constituency, with an amazing natural environment. We have chalk grasslands, wetland peat and the River Great Ouse running through it all. Over the centuries, people have added things: have ditches, dykes and lodes that help control the water in the fens; and the Devil’s dyke, which runs from my home village of Reach through to Woodditton, a beautiful, probably late Saxon earthwork and a chalk grassland. Watching over all that, we have the “ship of the fens”, which many say is one of the best cathedrals in Europe. Personally, I think it is the best but I would not claim to be an expert in cathedrals.

The National Trust is doing a lot of work near me with Wicken fen, as it has a vision to enlarge the wetland peat area to protect the biodiversity that depends on it and, as we heard in an earlier debate, capture the carbon that is within. I was lucky enough to visit recently, and was promised that we might see a kingfisher. We did indeed see that beautiful kingfisher going back and forth across the river. It was fantastic.

However, there are some downsides to my constituency. It is very expensive to buy or rent a home, which is pricing out young people and families. The median price of a house in my constituency is 11 times the average salary, and the rental market follows on from that, basically. It is unaffordable for many people. On top of that, a lot of our affordable housing is badly insulated, and people rely on oil for their heating. Across my constituency, there are families who cannot afford to heat their homes. As the Government are rebuilding Britain, which I hope that we can do, they should ensure that homes are built that are affordable for people to live in—not just homes that have an affordable price or rent but that are energy-efficient so that they are cheap to run. We must also ensure that we have the infrastructure and support around those homes, whether that is doctors, dentists, schools, green space or water. We need to have all those things.

On the subject of dentists, Ely and East Cambridgeshire is a dental desert. I am horrified to say that people cannot get on an NHS dental list in my constituency. That has to change. I have met people who have spent their life savings on dental treatment or people who, for heaven’s sake, have done it themselves. It is horrendous and we have to address it.

My great-grandfather grew up in the workhouse around Stoke-on-Trent. My parents were the first people in their families to go to university, and they always brought me up to believe that I could do anything I wanted as long as I worked hard on it. I first stood for Parliament in 1987, and mum and dad helped me with that campaign. Sadly, my dad died a few years ago, but my mum supported my election campaign this year, and I know that dad would have been really pleased to see me elected to this House, just as mum was.

I now have to correct an error I made on election night. I did not expect to win, so I had not written a victory speech. I remembered most of the people I had to thank but, as my husband and my children have repeatedly reminded me since, I forgot to thank them, so I am delighted to put on record, and in Hansard no less, my thanks to my husband, Jon, and my children, David and Kathryn, for their unswerving support and encouragement. This might sound a bit odd, but I also need to thank Fosters mill, which is a 19th-century windmill in Swaffham Prior that is still going strong. Its Prior’s oats fuelled my campaign and now give me a breakfast boost each morning to get me through the day. I have to thank my agent Lorna Dupré for running a wonderful campaign and all my campaign team for delivering leaflets and doing all the canvassing. Most of all, I want to thank the people of Ely and East Cambridgeshire for engaging in the conversations and putting their trust in me to be their MP. I will do my utmost to make sure that their voices are heard in this House. I will also try to be the very best local MP possible.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

There will be a three-minute time limit after the next speaker. I call Michelle Welsh to make her maiden speech.