British Steel

Chris Law Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work and for the support that he has provided to me, officials and others because of his expertise in this space. He is right to thank staff; they have worked unbelievably hard, and I am very grateful for what they have done. He is also right to talk about how we ensure that the product market develops in the way that we want it to. We are looking at how we increase demand in the UK, as well as at procurement and other issues, so that we are not just trying to save our existing provision, but to expand our provision so that the steel industry can start to grow, instead of halving as it has done over the past 10 years under the Tories.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Despite recent comments by a Scotland Office Minister, may I make it crystal clear that it is not “manufacturing grievance” to suggest that Grangemouth, like Scunthorpe, should be nationalised to protect a critical economic and security asset that has been run down by foreign owners? What we have seen from the UK Government in the last weeks, including today, is that when push comes to shove, they can take bold action in crisis, as they have done in Scunthorpe. Therefore, is it not the case that if the UK Government fail to act in a similar fashion at Grangemouth, highly skilled jobs will be lost, Scotland’s only capacity to refine oil will be shut down and critical energy security will be further diminished?

[Sarah Jones]

We deeply regret the choices that INEOS has made. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Grangemouth does not provide the only refining capacity in the UK, but he is right to say it is the only provision in Scotland, which is why we intervened with a package of support and a £200 million commitment from the national wealth fund for what happens to the site. The hon. Gentleman is right to stand up for people in Grangemouth over the issues that they are facing, and we are doing all we can. As I said in my statement, the position in Scunthorpe was unique and particular, but that does not mean that we do not care just as much about the people in Grangemouth and that we will not ensure that we do everything that we can to pursue to the future development of that site in a way that supports jobs.

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Chris Law Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Increases to the national living wage and national minimum wage will always be supported by Scottish National party Members. Indeed, we have been pushing for the UK Government to adopt the real living wage for those of all ages since 2011. Disappointingly, we have to continue to do so, as the Labour party has failed to take the opportunity to do that, now that it is in government.

While we support the changes that are being introduced today, the SNP’s position is clear: we want the real living wage for all workers, not just a politically convenient definition of the living wage that falls short of meeting the actual costs of living, and not just for those who are 21 and over. The Resolution Foundation has the real living wage set at £12.60, whereas this regulation increases the national living wage for workers aged 21 or over from £11.44 to £12.21 per hour. It is evidently still short of where it needs to be.

Furthermore, for those aged between 18 and 21, the national living wage is 18% lower, at £10 per hour. Given that the Minister today said that there would be a consultation looking at the cost of living, can he tell me if rent is 18% lower for those under 21? Do 18-year-olds get a special rate on their electricity bills, or on petrol for their car? Do supermarkets give them an 18% discount?

[Jayne Kirkham]

On that point, will the hon. Member give way?

[Chris Law]

I will not, as I would like to make this point very clear, because it is important. The answer to my questions is obviously no. While I welcome the Minister’s comment that the national living wage may be looked at next year, and may be increased so that there is parity for everybody, we are not there yet. I would like the Government to go further, and I look forward to hearing more about how they will consult on doing so next year.

It is worth noting that in Scotland, the SNP Government have taken proactive steps to ensure that the real living wage is implemented wherever we have control, particularly in our public sector. The Scottish Government have paid all staff within their pay scheme, including NHS staff, the real living wage since 2011—that is 14 years ago. Scotland has the highest proportion of employees paid the living wage of any nation in the UK, with 25% of accredited real living wage employers in the UK based there. The Scottish Government are also providing funding to enable adult social care workers to be paid the living wage, benefiting up to 40,000 care workers, and they are working to ensure that all staff in private nurseries delivering our childcare pledge are paid the real living wage, too.

The Labour Government should demonstrate similar willingness to tackle the scourge of low pay. In their manifesto, they pledged to make changes in line with the real living wage, and to take into account the cost of living, but they have failed, at least today, to do so. They were voted in with a mantra of change, and it is in their power to legislate for the introduction of the real living wage for all, but so far, they have chosen not to. They must go further and adopt the living wage for people irrespective of their age, as the SNP has called on successive Governments to do for the past 14 years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Law Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

rose—

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Bloore. [Laughter.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Now it is Chris Law’s turn.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

T5. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The US President said that the EU was created to “screw over the US”. However, while the EU stood up for its economy and imposed a $28 billion counter-tariff, the UK is being screwed by the US, which has made it clear that the UK will not be an exception to its levies, despite the Prime Minister’s pleading. Will the Secretary of State tell me whether the Government are content to remain a bridge between the EU and the US if it is a bridge that the US continues to walk all over, risking the UK economy with every single step?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The simple position is that we will represent the UK’s national interest in this matter. The US has objections about its significant deficits in manufacturing goods with China and the EU, but that is not the relationship between the US and the UK, so there is a chance for the UK to pursue a different policy —one that produces greater benefits for every part of the UK than perhaps are available to other countries. Of course we are cognisant of the overall impact—no one wants to see this type of turmoil in the global economy—but our job is to deliver for the UK, and that is exactly what we are focused on doing.

Employment Rights Bill

Chris Law Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

In conclusion, I am pleased to have been afforded the opportunity to speak for a second time on Report. We have, in this Employment Rights Bill, a momentous uplift in workers’ rights and protections, which addresses the balance that has swung far too far in the opposite direction. However, the appetite remains for yet further improvements. I commend the Government for their work in bringing forward the legislation, which I wholeheartedly support. I look forward to working together further on the journey to delivering well-paid, secure and unionised employment.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Although I have broadly welcomed the Bill as it has progressed through the House, I have caveated that by stating that the Labour Government should be bolder and must go further in future for the rights and protections to become entrenched rather than rolled back. Indeed, on Second Reading I quoted the Scottish Trades Union Congress general Secretary, Roz Foyer, who summarised the Bill by saying:

“the Employment Rights Bill isn’t the terminus. It’s the first stop. This can be the foundations on which we can build.”

I agree.

[Antonia Bance]

The hon. Member may not have had a chance to look at the Government website and encounter the document entitled “Next Steps to Make Work Pay”, which sets out a programme of continuing work to improve rights at work and parental leave and the review of employment status to come. I am sure he will be glad to hear that.

[Chris Law]

No, I have not had the chance to look at the Government website, but I thank the hon. Member for raising that. As I have broadly said, I support the Bill, but there are reasons why I am contributing to the debate, not least because of a lack of devolution to the Scottish Parliament, which I will come to shortly.

On Second Reading, the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and local Government, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), made it explicitly clear that the foundations will not be built upon in the long term, as a future Conservative Government would simply repeal protections. He declared that

“many of the measures will be brought in through secondary legislation, therefore making it easier for a future Government to reverse some of the catastrophic changes.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 58.]

Employment rights for workers in Scotland cannot be dependent on the merry-go-round of Westminster politics. They have seen their rights attacked and diminished by years of Conservative Governments, and where the Bill reverses some of the worst excesses of those Governments’ policies, that must be protected and strengthened in the long term. Westminster cannot guarantee that for the people in Scotland, so I have tabled new clause 77, which would amend the Scotland Act 1998 to devolve employment and industrial relations to the Scottish Parliament.

Back in 2014, all Unionist parties, including the Labour party, promised maximum devolution for Scotland, as displayed on the front page of a national newspaper days before the independence referendum, in which Scotland voted no. This Labour Government have failed to devolve a single power to Holyrood since coming to power in July—not a single one—despite the Scottish Parliament voting for employment rights to be devolved.

In November, the STUC called on the UK Government to

“end the excuses and devolve powers over taxation, migration and, importantly, employment law from Westminster to Holyrood.”

Moreover, Scottish Labour’s 2021 election manifesto stated:

“We support further devolution of powers to Holyrood including borrowing and employment rights”.

Here is a question for Scottish Labour MPs: will they respect the wishes of the Scottish Parliament?

[Antonia Bance]

indicated dissent.

[Chris Law]

The hon. Member shakes her head, but I am speaking to Scottish Labour MPs.

[Antonia Bance]

I care about the people of Scotland.

[Chris Law]

I care about the people of Scotland and what they say. Will Scottish Labour MPs listen to trade unions and deliver on the promises made by their party by supporting the new clause, or will they continue to follow instructions handed to them from No. 10? Silence. I thought so. They are too scared to stand up for the people of Scotland.

[Johanna Baxter]

The hon. Gentleman says that he is a big supporter of workers’ rights. Would he like to comment on the fact that for every year of the last nine years that I was lead negotiator for local government workers in Scotland, they had to have consultative ballots for industrial action just to get a decent pay rise out of the Scottish Government? Does that really mean standing up for workers in Scotland?

[Chris Law]

I thought I was asking a question of the Scottish Labour MPs, only to be asked another question. The hon. Lady will be well aware that the Scottish Government have worked collectively with both unions and other bodies to ensure that the living wage in Scotland is higher than in any other part of the UK. I remind her that it was Scottish Labour in November 2023 that voted with the SNP for employment rights to be evolved through the Scottish Parliament.

Throughout its existence, when powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, decisions are taken in the interests of the people of Scotland and outcomes improve: publicly owned rail and water, higher per-head education and health spend, free prescriptions, free tuition, a more humane welfare system and a progressive taxation system. Fair work practices are being delivered already by the SNP Scottish Government, such as supporting collective bargaining, achieving real living wage employer status and closing the gender pay gap faster than anywhere in the rest of the UK.

[Katrina Murray]

Does the hon. Member agree that it is an absolute failure of collective bargaining for the Scottish Government to have walked away from the commitments they made in a deal with health service unions two years ago on the reduction of the working week? They are failing to go through with reducing the working week by half an hour as of 1 April 2025.

[Chris Law]

I listened to the hon. Member with interest, but I suggest that she has that debate in the Scottish Parliament. After all, we are talking about the devolution of powers here in the UK Parliament.

A framework for collective bargaining in the adult care sector has been developed by the Scottish care unions—Unison, the GMB and Unite—along with the Scottish Government and care providers, with a Scottish social care joint council proposed. The Scottish care unions have intimated that the constitution, composition, remit and function of the Scottish social care joint council is preferable and should assume the role of the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body for England. Scotland already has a 10-year history of joint commitments to fair work, whereas England is only embarking on that journey. Furthermore, there is a need to extend sectoral bargaining to all sectors of the economy, not just adult social care.

Measures such as creating a single status of worker for all but the genuinely self-employed, strengthening protections for those with unfair contracts and increasing the minimum wage to at least the national living wage, and then in line with inflation, are all missing from the Bill. The SNP Scottish Government would support those measures if employment law were devolved, and they would be delivered if this Government respected the votes of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Labour manifesto.

Just as the Bill should be the first stop rather than the terminus, devolution is a process, not an event. Not only has devolution moved at a glacial pace, but we live in the world’s most asymmetrical political union, where each nation has differing devolved powers. Why is it that employment law is devolved in Northern Ireland but not in Scotland? I want to see employment rights strengthened continually rather than in a cycle of piecemeal progress when Labour is in power, only to be reversed when the Tories next get their turn. The gains for workers’ rights in the Bill must therefore be protected. That is why the SNP remains committed to advocating for, at a minimum, the urgent devolution of employment powers. That is the best way, short of independence, of protecting workers’ rights in Scotland.

“Chapter 4A

Chris Law Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

I apologise to the Minister because he has moved on, but I want to come back to the new level of statutory sick pay, which is £118.75 or 80% of an employee’s weekly earnings. An employee with weekly earnings of £125 would at present get £116.75, but under the new model, they would receive only £100. Is that correct?

[Justin Madders]

Yes, but the hon. Member forgets the fact that we are removing the waiting days. With the provisions on the lower earnings limit going, 1.3 million people will be accessing statutory sick pay. We think that that is the right balance and that it will leave people in a much better position. Of course, it is something that we will always continue to review.

Moving on to umbrella companies, we are aware of non-compliance in this market, where umbrella companies can be responsible for denying employment rights to those who work through them. New clause 36 will allow for the regulation of umbrella companies and for enforcement by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, and subsequently the Fair Work Agency. The specific requirements on umbrella companies will be set out in the relevant regulations, which set out the minimum standards of conduct for employment agencies and employment businesses. We will consult before amending these regulations, and we are committed to working with the sector to ensure that future regulation works effectively for umbrella companies. The amendment marks an important step towards ensuring non-compliant umbrella companies are no longer able to deny workers the rights they are owed.

The Government are moving a range of amendments in relation to part 3 of the Bill, which covers the adult social care negotiating body and the school support staff negotiating body. On the SSSNB, the Government are moving two technical amendments to correct incorrect cross-references. The body is an important part of delivering both the Government’s “Plan to Make Work Pay” and our opportunity mission. The Government will today commit to consult in the summer on whether agency workers should be brought into scope of the SSSNB in future legislation to support those missions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)]

As per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I am a member of GMB. My union membership has given me reassurance for many years that I have backing if I need it. I am conscious that although in this place we may be listened to when we speak up, for too many people insecurity and lack of respect at work are an everyday experience.

Businesses suffered under the failure of the previous Government to act when reform was needed. That was not in this area alone, of course, but today we are speaking about the relevant amendments. We can come back to their other failings another day—or perhaps on more than one other day—because this is the time for action and we are the party of business.

Everyone should have a contract that reflects the hours that they work. There is a place for flexibility, but people need to sort out transport and childcare and plan their household budgets, so we will ensure that agency and low or zero-hours contracts work for both sides—for businesses and workers. For too long, zero-hours contracts have often been at the expense of people who are just trying to make a living for themselves and their families. We will put a stop to that.

A day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay, and giving the Fair Work Agency the power to bring civil proceedings and issue penalties is an important move. The vast majority of employers respect the rights of the people who work for them and have nothing to fear from that. In fact, they will welcome the levelling of the playing field. As they tell us all the time, their good practice must not be undermined by the unscrupulous minority.

We also say that everyone should be free from harassment when they are at their place of work. The message that Conservative Members send when they object to that protection—to, among others, the many thousands of young women who have been harassed at work—is appalling. In contrast, we believe that everyone deserves respect at work, whatever the industry they work in. I want to reassure, among others, workers in the hospitality and retail industries that they matter, they deserve better and we are on their side. Further, when issues happen, it is to everyone’s benefit to resolve them quickly. We will fast-track decision making and back that up with robust fines. That helps businesses and workers and it minimises stress, cost and delay.

I am pleased that the Bill is welcomed by many of our leading employers, including Centrica, as already mentioned. I know Centrica well; it has a training academy in my constituency. Its chief executive, Chris, is fully supportive of the legislation as not just the right thing to do but as a foundation for a high-growth, high-skills economy and the progress that our country needs.

A stable workforce will help both employers and workers. The chaos of repeated strikes has damaged businesses and services and left our country reeling. The Conservative party may be instinctively opposed to empowering ordinary people, but on the Labour Benches, we say that these are the people who keep our country going and they have the full support of this Government.

[Chris Law]

I rise to speak to new clause 75 and to other new clauses and amendments in my name.

Last year, the Labour party committed to

“strengthen statutory sick pay, remove the lower earnings limit to make it available to all workers and remove the waiting period.”

Although the removal of the lower earnings limit and the waiting period are welcome, the fact remains that the UK’s statutory sick pay does not meet the needs of working people. The miserly increases to the rate—it has just been increased by £2 after five years—are far from the transformative change that Labour promised and will not help to deliver a healthier population and a growing economy. Indeed, only a few years ago, during the covid period, the Minister noted that the then Health Secretary had

“admitted that he could not live on statutory sick pay”.—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee Delegated Legislation Committee, 25 January 2021; c. 7.]

To be clear, the UK is lagging behind in its provision of SSP, offering one of the least generous systems in the OECD. While the Labour Government propose a rate of £118.75 a week, or 80% of average weekly earnings—whichever is lower—numerous other European countries, such as Austria, Germany, Iceland and Luxembourg either provide full salary payments or cover a portion of earnings ranging from 50% to 90%. Amendment 272 would bring the UK into closer alignment with other OECD countries.

With limited coverage and relatively low rates, many workers and particularly low-income and part-time employees are left without sufficient financial support when they fall ill. Such a gap in sick pay provision impacts workers’ wellbeing, exacerbating financial stress during illness, and can discourage people from taking the necessary time off to recover. It contributes to poorer health outcomes, undermining longer, healthier working lives across the UK population. Surely no one in this House wants that to continue.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation states that the most effective way of strengthening sick pay is by increasing the rate. There are numerous amendments that would do that, including new clause 76 in my name, which would gradually increase the rate of statutory sick pay over the next five years, taking it to at least 80% of the rate of the national living wage, and others that propose SSP to be the higher of a prescribed rate or percentage of usual weekly earnings. Moreover, a report by WPI Economics shows that sick pay reforms could result in a net financial benefit to this country of more than £4 billion. It also found that the positive effects of sick pay reform would particularly help the increasing proportion of the British workforce who manage long-term conditions and ensure that fewer workers fall out of the job market entirely.

As an example, many people with multiple sclerosis need to take time off work for varying lengths of time for reasons related to their condition. Some people with MS are well supported by their employers through occupational sick pay—of course we support that—and can take the time off work that they need on full pay. When people with MS can get the financial support they need while they are off work, they can often stay in work for longer, as they can better manage their symptoms in the long term. This needs to be the same for all those with MS and other long-term conditions who rely on SSP.

New clause 75 would require the Secretary of State to consider such a change, with the aim of properly reforming this outdated and inflexible system. Changes for those with such conditions could include SSP being paid at an hourly rate, rather than a daily rate, to enable people to work half or part days on a gradual, phased return to work, or changing the restrictions on how people can claim and use SSP so that it is fairer for people with fluctuating conditions by extending eligibility timeframes. Sadly, however, I suspect that the Labour party is looking to slash welfare spending, as has been reported today—700,000 disabled people being pushed into poverty will be no joy to many—and that it has little interest in making such supportive and progressive change. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

The Labour Government’s lack of gumption in their approach to SSP is illustrative of the timidity of their approach in this Employment Rights Bill. Yes, the Bill makes improvements to the rights of working people and, yes, it reverses some of the worst excesses of the Tory Government, but it could have done so much more. Where is the straightforward system defining a single status of worker to replace the maze of confusing classifications, designed to limit protections, that continue to exist? Where are the increased provisions for collective bargaining to alleviate low pay? Where have the promises disappeared to of the right to switch off, which would ensure better work-life balance?

This was the opportunity to legislate to entrench employment rights and to ensure a fairer deal for workers and a healthier, more equitable and more productive economy and society. Unfortunately, this Bill is left wanting. I hope that, if the Labour party is serious about its manifesto commitments, the Minister will look at these new clauses and amendments.

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I welcome the Report stage of this Bill. I proudly declare my membership of Unite and the Communication Workers Union and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

This Bill will see the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights for a generation. It is an agenda for change—change that is desperately needed. Working class people keep this country cared for. They keep our streets clean, our shelves stacked and our public services running, but the imbalance of power in our workplace is plain to see. The P&O scandal was testament to that. This Bill represents a crucial first step in redressing that imbalance, especially amendment 80 on sick pay. It strengthens both collective and individual rights and puts more money in the pockets of working people.

I therefore welcome the Government’s amendment to the Bill ensuring that everyone gets sick pay from the first day they are ill, including those previously excluded for earning too little. Currently, around 1.2 million workers are excluded from statutory sick pay altogether, and the present three-day wait is extremely hard for those on low pay who often budget on a week-to-week basis. Me and my husband were those people who lived week to week and dragged ourselves into work when we were not well, because if we did not work, we did not eat when my children were small. The fact that the Bill rectifies that is extremely welcome.

The pandemic exposed just how inadequate current levels of sick pay are. I therefore urge the Government to ensure that as many workers as possible benefit from the measures in the Bill. In particular, they should look at what they can do to increase the rate of statutory sick pay over time, as we currently have one of the lowest rates of sick pay across the developed countries. I hope the Government continue to consider the impact of the removal of the lower earnings limit to ensure that everybody benefits from the measures in this Bill.

Overall, these changes will be transformative for working people in my constituency. As a working-class woman from a council estate, it does my heart good to be able to stand in this place supporting changes that will make the lives of working people better and give them the rewards they so deserve.

Department for Business and Trade

Chris Law Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

I speak today as a member of the Business and Trade Committee and as the MP for Livingston constituency, determined to see this Department play its vital part in delivering the Government’s No. 1 mission of economic growth and economic renewal, all underpinned by a pro-worker, pro-business approach. One of the crucial elements in delivering that mission is the delivery of a modern and ambitious industrial strategy. It is towards that industrial strategy that I will primarily address my remarks.

It is my belief that the UK economy is in a moment of peril. Fourteen Tory years of underfunding, instability, and a lack of investment in our people and infrastructure have left us with anaemic growth. If we do not get the next few years right, that trend will continue, despite the best efforts of our business leaders and our workers. However, I also see opportunity. The Business and Trade Committee went around the country gathering evidence for our report and speaking to those with a stake in our economy—from sole traders to global corporates, from trade unions to academics. Time after time, we heard and saw the same thing: the huge optimism and potential for our country and the businesses that power it. What those people wanted from Government was stability, predictability and coherence. If we as a Government can provide that, they believe that they can unleash our country’s potential.

There was universal positivity about the Government’s focus on an industrial strategy—a belief that it will drive investment, create high-quality jobs and ensure that businesses, including those in my constituency of Livingston, thrive in the economy of the future. Economic prosperity does not happen by accident; it takes businesses, business leaders and workers. It requires vision, leadership, and a Government willing to invest in the industries that will power our future. The Green Paper sets out how the strategy will support growth sectors, drive productivity, and ensure that Britain remains a world leader in financial services, fintech, manufacturing, green technology, life sciences and more. These are not just abstract commitments; they have tangible benefits for people and businesses in my constituency of Livingston, and across Scotland and the wider UK.

Take, for example, the significant opportunities in Scotland’s renewable sector. With the right industrial strategy, we can fully harness the nation’s potential in onshore and offshore wind, hydrogen production, sustainable aviation fuel and battery technology, creating well-paid, secure, future-facing employment across Livingston constituency and elsewhere that benefits workers, families and communities alike. Contrast this approach by DBT and the wider Labour Government, rooted in a long-term strategy and tangible investment, with the record of the SNP Scottish Government over the past 18 years. It is frankly staggering that Scotland— a country with truly extraordinary economic potential, not least in the area of renewable energy—still lacks a dedicated industrial strategy. Not only that: under successive First Ministers, businesses of all sizes were shunned, and their growing concerns about Scottish Government economic policy were ignored.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gregor Poynton]

Go ahead—I would like to hear the hon. Member’s intervention.

[Chris Law]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman would like to hear it. What I just heard was breathtaking. I remind him that Scotland’s economy is one of the best performing in the UK. Since 2007, Scotland’s GDP per person has grown by 10.5%, outperforming the UK’s 6.5%, while productivity has risen at an annual rate of 1%. I would be curious to know what figures he is working from, because it is a topsy-turvy world, since Scotland has had the highest rate of foreign direct investment in the UK for the past nine years in a row outside of London.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Obviously, increasing investment in Scotland’s economy is crucial to delivering the SNP Government’s priorities, which are improving public services, supporting a thriving economy, tackling the climate emergency and eradicating child poverty. I want to put this on the record again, just to be very clear in this House about the facts: Scotland’s economy makes it one of the best-performing parts of the UK. Its GDP has outgrown the rest of the UK by 50% since 2007, and productivity is at an average rate of 1.1%. It is vital that the spending of the Department for Business and Trade complements the Scottish Government’s efforts to increase investment and ensure economic prosperity.

Increasing trade and attracting inward investment are critical for Scotland. In 2023, Scotland secured a record number of foreign direct investment projects, maintaining its position as the top performing UK area outside London for the ninth year running. According to Ernst and Young’s annual analysis, 142 FDI projects were secured in Scotland, which is double the UK’s growth rate. Scotland is clearly the best place to invest in these islands. However, this success must not be jeopardised by decisions by the UK Government. Obviously, the pressure employers are feeling on national insurance is negatively impacting on Scottish businesses, limiting their capacity to contribute to the economy. This tax on jobs undermines efforts to support businesses, entrepreneurs and investment.

Labour’s political choice to remain outside the EU single market and customs union is costing the UK billions every year. Brexit—a decision Scotland never voted for— continues to hurt Scottish businesses, trade opportunities and economic prospects. A January 2025 analysis by the office of the chief economic adviser estimates that Brexit trade barriers could cost Scotland £4 billion, with exports potentially down 7.2% or £3 billion compared with EU membership. Scotland’s future therefore lies in the EU and the European single market. The Labour Government must acknowledge that standing outside the EU is driving down investment and growth.

This will be crystalised by the potential trade war being initiated by President Trump as part of the “America first” trade policy. Free trade, a long-established principle, is under significant strain, bringing uncertainty for trade, with the USA and other nations imposing tariffs. I would speak about the vulnerable whisky industry, which needs to be revisited. I heard only today that the Government are withdrawing the idea of making English whisky a single malt, and I am pleased to hear that.

I will finish by saying that the UK must recognise the value of Scotland’s industries and potential emerging sectors. Scotland is at the forefront of the energy transition and cutting-age technologies, presenting substantial opportunities for future growth. I look forward to hearing more about investments in Scotland, particularly in those sectors.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Law Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

This Government inherited very high energy costs from the previous Government, who had taken no action to make our country more energy secure. We are powering through to have clean, green, home-grown energy that will bring costs down and make sure we are secure as a country and not reliant on the whims of global leaders and the price of oil and gas. We will bring those costs down and we will support our industry, which I am afraid the previous Government failed to do.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Over the past week, the UK Government have committed to support a runway in London, a football stadium in Manchester and a science corridor for Oxford and Cambridge, yet for the past year, Conservative and Labour Governments have failed to act to secure the long-term future of Grangemouth, after INEOS announced the closure of the oil refinery. Despite general election promises to step in and save the plant, why are the Labour Government willing to jeopardise jobs at Grangemouth, the country’s energy security, which the Minister has just spoken passionately about the need to secure, and the wider industrial strategy through this inaction?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Member will be pleased to hear that we have re- established a working group with the Scottish First Minister and the Welsh and Northern Irish leaderships to make sure we are working collectively, because we do not want to take a party political approach to the growth of all our nations. We are collaborating well with the Scottish Government on Grangemouth, where we are working at pace and putting in investment and support. We are working to transition people from North sea oil and gas into the new energies of the future. There is the passport that we published, and we have set up Great British Energy, which will be headquartered in Aberdeen. A lot of work is going on, and we need the Scottish Government to support us in that work. We will work in partnership, because that is what will create good jobs.

Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Chris Law Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 51

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 (2) to (4).

(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.”—(Chris Law.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

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

It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I believe this is the last of the new clauses to the Bill.

It is imperative that employment rights are universal. Everyone should have access to them, regardless of their circumstances. That cannot just be theoretical; it needs to be applied in practice too. Although the Bill increases workers’ rights for many people, which I fully support, it will make no difference to their realities if they do not have the ability to access those rights or to seek redress when they are breached. To make the Bill as worth while and effective as it can be, we must take every possible action to strengthen it and to ensure that no one is denied their rights. We must do our utmost to prevent scenarios in which denial of employment rights and exploitation can exist.

I have therefore tabled this new clause on access to employment rights for workers on temporary visas. I know that most of us in this room will have had constituents on those visas who have been exploited. If we accept the new clause, it will compel the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill being passed, to commission an independent report on the extent to which workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law.

Workers on temporary visas consistently report that they are unable to assert the basic rights derived from being a worker in the UK. Why is that? Because they are dependent on their employer for not only their job but their ability to live in this country. More often than not, they do not have the same safety nets that others benefit from. For people in that situation, the stakes are simply so much higher.

We know that migrant workers, who often incur large debts to migrate to the UK to work—to address labour shortages—simply cannot afford to report abuse, if doing so risks their jobs and visas. They are justifiably fearful that their employer, who sponsors their visa, will punish them and that they will be left without redress. Time and again, we see cases of workers who face unsafe conditions—including in my constituency and, I am sure, in those of everyone in this room. Whether it is underpayment or sexual harassment, they do not feel able to do anything about it, for fear of deportation. That lets exploitation run rife.

By not addressing this issue, we are allowing a huge blind spot in the UK’s employment rights framework to continue unchecked. Until the Government address temporary and restrictive visas, the gap between workers only widens, entrenching the UK’s tiered workforce and leaving migrant workers behind. That is simply unacceptable. Restrictive visas have created a tiered workforce, where migrant workers face significant barriers to enforcing their rights, driving a race to the bottom in pay and conditions across the UK labour market.

Such visas often limit the sectors in which workers are permitted to work or the employers for which they can work. Workers’ immigration sponsors may also be their employers or responsible for placing them in employment. This results in a vicious cycle, in which migrant workers are doubly punished for speaking out, first by unscrupulous employers and then by immigration enforcement, with a resulting loss of work, income and immigration status. That has allowed a proliferation of abuses, from non-payment of wages to overwork and sexual assault, among a litany of other labour and criminal law violations.

It is important to recognise that workers’ experiences of exploitation can vary, but all these instances need addressed. At one end of the scale, there is decent, well-paid work, with bad practices such as breaches of employment rights culminating, at the opposite end, in severe labour exploitation, such as human trafficking and forced labour. Where minor breaches of rights occur and are not sufficiently addressed, it increases the risk of more severe exploitation further along, as well as driving down workplace standards. Surely the new Labour Government find that totally unacceptable?

In working on the new clause, I engaged with Focus on Labour Exploitation—I have a briefing from it here, which I am happy to share with the Minister. FLEX is a research and policy organisation working towards an end to labour exploitation, and its recent research and policy work has focused on sectors where workers are known to be at higher risk of exploitation.

The new clause, which is intended to be friendly and collaborative, would lead to an investigation into the extent of these issues and how they can be addressed. Any immigration system that does not proactively include mechanisms that enable workers to report exploitation—and ultimately leave an exploitative employer without jeopardising their employment, accommodation and immigration status—inevitably has exploitation baked into its design. To meet its aims, the Employment Rights Bill needs to address that.

It is especially important that the use of restrictive or short-term visas is not allowed to prevent improvements in working conditions and pay in certain work sectors by facilitating access to workers who, due to immigration restrictions, are unable to challenge poor working conditions. One option open to the Government to combat that would be to introduce a UK workplace justice visa, drawing on international best practice. Such a visa would provide 12 months of renewable limited leave for those who have visas dependent on their employment and who have experienced labour exploitation or lost their employment and limited leave through no fault of their own. That would ensure that migrants with work visas who experience such issues have a route to remain and settle in the UK, to enable them to leave abusive work situations and, most importantly, to access justice. The new clause does not propose such a visa, but it is one option the Secretary of State should strongly consider as a way of supporting workers on temporary visas in the assertion of their employment rights.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration of interests and my membership of the trade unions Community and Unison.

I will note a couple of useful points in response to the important arguments of the hon. Member for Dundee Central about migrant workers and the conditionality of visas. I have worked on migration issues for a long time, so I sympathise with the objectives and the direction that he puts forward.

The new clause essentially proposes an investigation or information-gathering exercise. The new Government have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee, which is a body of experts that is independent of the Government or the Home Office, to look into issues around the conditionality of visas and the different types of worker visa to which he referred. The MAC is doing a lot of important work, and I think it is the appropriate location for that research. I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which is also looking into some of the changes that are happening. I reassure the hon. Member that a lot of the work and thinking on this issue is already getting under way.

The hon. Member raised some substantive points. First, on seasonal or temporary workers who find themselves at risk of exploitation, he referred to the distinction between those whose immigration status is permanent or secure and those whose status is conditional on their employer. I think the point he is driving at with that distinction goes to the heart of the immigration system overall. We have a system in which conditionalities are applied to visa status, whether that is for someone who has come to do a job, for someone who has applied to do a university course or for someone who is in a relationship. He is driving at a philosophical problem in the immigration system, rather than a technical one.

Where employers abuse the system, there are two points to address. First, it is a breach of immigration law and not necessarily of employment law. The hon. Member drew attention to the fact that they lose their sponsorship capacity. When that situation occurs, it is appropriate that we look at it through Home Office immigration regulations. That can be much more effective than trying to crowbar quite a specific point into the UK-wide labour market.

[Chris Law]

The hon. Member’s last point is an important one. When I approached this area of work to decide whether it fitted this Committee or whether it should be considered in immigration legislation, I took some advice. I appreciate, from a home affairs point of view, that this might not be the place for that point. However, it is the place for talking about it, and that is why the new clause has been accepted by the Clerks for debate today. I appreciate that this might also be an issue for the Home Office, but it is clearly an issue for the Minister in charge of employment rights, because at the end of the day it is not immigration rules that need to be changed. This is about making sure that employment rights are fit for everyone, regardless of whether they are here on a temporary or a permanent visa.

[Chris Murray]

That is a very helpful intervention, because it draws me on to my final point. There is a distinction between what rights there are and what rights are enforced. We have seen from the discussion around the fair work agency and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority that the issue is that rights are not enforced. The good part of this Bill is that it sets up a fair work agency that will look at enforcement.

Not supporting the new clause does not mean not recognising the objective that it puts forward. The argument is that this point should and could be dealt with more effectively through other legislative avenues, such as the modern slavery legislation brought in by the previous Government, which they then completely gutted. Looking at how the labour exploitation components of that legislation could be strengthened would deal more effectively with the issues that the hon. Member is raising via his new clause.

[Justin Madders]

Let me start by reaffirming our strong view that every worker has the full right to protection under the laws of this country. That includes migrant workers, as is clear from our plan to make work pay, which recognises that particularly vulnerable sectors are open to abuse from unscrupulous employers. The immigration framework is an important part of ensuring that those who come to this country under visas and sponsorship are protected and that modern slavery abuse is tackled.

Sponsorship is a privilege that comes with certain responsibilities for sponsors to ensure that they adhere to employment rights in the United Kingdom. They must have full responsibility for the work that workers are conducting, and in all cases they must ensure that those they sponsor are paid appropriately and that they act in compliance with relevant legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh says, a lot of work is ongoing in this area, particularly from the Home Office, which recently announced that it would ban from future sponsorship any business found guilty of serious employment law breaches, including failing to pay the national minimum wage.

We are committed to strengthening the enforcement of rights more broadly through the fair work agency. The Committee has heard plenty of evidence that the current system of enforcement is fragmented. Unfortunately, as we know, that often means that not everyone gets the protection that they should have. One of the essential functions of the new fair work agency will be to produce a strategy setting out its assessment of the scale and nature of non-compliance with labour market rules. This is to ensure that the risks of abuse across all sectors and groups of workers are properly understood and captured. In producing the strategy, the fair work agency will need to consult with an advisory board made up of trade unions, business and independent experts. That will ensure that we get a broad view of the gaps and risks in the labour market.

The hon. Member for Dundee Central suggests that this area is a blind spot for the Government. I can assure him that it is not. I have had conversations with the Director of Labour Market Enforcement about the issue, and plenty of work is under way at the Home Office. The hon. Member need only consider the Low Pay Commission’s report to see that the issue is clearly on our radar. An additional report would not add anything to the work that is already under way. I therefore ask him to withdraw his new clause.

[Chris Law]

I appreciate the comments that have been made in this short debate. Just to be clear, the new clause is about issues that are not currently protected under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and are often under-reported. I welcome the Minister’s comments about the fair work agency and the recent Low Pay Commission report, but I must ask about the timeframe. My suggestion—I will try to work with him on this—is that the timeframe be six months beyond the passing of the Bill, so that we can get decisions made. Perhaps the Secretary of State could let us know what kind of timeframe we are talking about, to give us peace of mind that action will be taken for those who are most vulnerable and have come here from overseas. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Schedule 1

Warrants under Part 5: further provision

“Part 1

Application of this Schedule

1 This Schedule applies in relation to—

(a) applications for warrants under section (Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant) or 83, and

(b) warrants issued under section (Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant) or 83.

Part 2

Warrants: applications and safeguards

Applications for warrants

2 (1) Where an enforcement officer applies for a warrant, the officer must—

(a) state the ground on which the application is made,

(b) state the provision of this Act under which the warrant would be issued,

(c) specify the premises which it is desired to enter, and

(d) identify, so far as is practicable, the purpose for which entry is desired.

(2) An application for a warrant must be made without notice and must be supported by an information in writing or, in Scotland, evidence on oath.

(3) The officer must answer on oath any question that the justice hearing the application asks the officer.

Safeguards in connection with power of entry conferred by warrant

3 A warrant authorises an entry on one occasion only.

4 (1) A warrant must specify—

(a) the name of the person who applies for it,

(b) the date on which it is issued,

(c) the provision of this Act under which it is issued, and

(d) the premises to be entered.

(2) A warrant must identify, so far as is practicable, the purpose for which entry is desired.

5 (1) Two copies are to be made of a warrant.

(2) In the case of a warrant issued in electronic form, the copies must be clearly marked as copies.

(3) In the case of a warrant issued otherwise than in electronic form, the copies must be clearly certified as copies.

Part 3

Execution of warrants

Warrant to be executed within three months

6 Execution of a warrant must be within three months from the date of its issue.

Time of entry

7 Execution of a warrant must be at a reasonable time, unless it appears to the officer executing it that there are grounds for suspecting that the purpose of entering the premises may be frustrated if the officer seeks to enter at a reasonable time.

Evidence of authority etc

8 (1) Where the occupier of premises to be entered under a warrant is present at the time when an enforcement officer seeks to execute the warrant, the following requirements must be satisfied—

(a) the officer must produce to the occupier documentary evidence of the fact that the officer is an enforcement officer;

(b) if the officer is asked for it, the occupier must be told the officer’s name;

(c) the officer must produce the warrant to the occupier;

(d) the officer must supply the occupier with a copy of the warrant that is marked or certified as a copy in accordance with paragraph 5.

(2) Where—

(a) the occupier of premises to be entered under a warrant is not present when an enforcement officer seeks to execute it, but

(b) some other person who appears to the officer to be in charge of the premises is present,

sub-paragraph (1) has effect as if any reference to the occupier were a reference to that other person.

(3) If there is no person present who appears to the enforcement officer to be in charge of the premises, the officer must leave a copy of the warrant, marked or certified as a copy in accordance with paragraph 5, in a prominent place on the premises.

Securing premises after entry

9 An enforcement officer who enters premises under a warrant must take reasonable steps to ensure that when the officer leaves the premises they are as secure as they were before the officer entered.

Return and retention of warrants

10 (1) A warrant which—

(a) has been executed, or

(b) has not been executed within the time authorised for its execution,

must be returned to the appropriate person.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) the appropriate person is—

(a) in the case of a warrant issued in England and Wales, the designated officer for the local justice area in which the justice was acting when the warrant was issued;

(b) in the case of a warrant issued in Scotland by a justice of the peace, the clerk of the justice of the peace court in the sheriffdom for which the justice of the peace was appointed;

(c) in the case of a warrant issued in Scotland by a sheriff or a summary sheriff, the sheriff clerk;

(d) in the case of a warrant issued in Northern Ireland, the clerk of petty sessions.

(3) A warrant that is returned under this paragraph must be retained by the person to whom it is returned for a period of 12 months.

(4) If during that period the occupier of the premises to which the warrant relates asks to inspect it, the occupier must be allowed to do so.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new Schedule makes further provision about applications for, and the execution of, warrants under Part 5.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 2

Increase in time limits for making claims

“Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977

1 (1) In regulation 11 of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 (S.I. 1977/500) (time off for safety representatives), in paragraph (2), for ‘three’, in both places it occurs, substitute ‘six’.

(2) In regulation 12 of those Regulations—

(a) in paragraph (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(c) in paragraph (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

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

(2) In section 66 (unjustifiable discipline by union), in subsection (2)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(3) In section 68A (unauthorised deduction of union subscriptions), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(4) In section 70C (collective bargaining: obligations relating to training), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(5) In section 87 (unlawful deduction of contributions to political fund), in subsection (2)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(6) In section 139 (refusal of employment on grounds related to union membership), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(7) In section 145C (inducements), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(8) In section 147 (detriment for trade union activities), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(9) In section 171 (time off for trade union activities), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(10) In section 189 (consultation in collective redundancy), in subsection (5)—

(a) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (c), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(11) In section 192 (remuneration under protective award), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(12) In paragraph 157 of Schedule A1 (detriment in relation to trade union recognition), in sub-paragraph (1)(a), for ‘3’ substitute ‘six’.

Pension Schemes Act 1993

3 In section 126 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (unpaid pension contributions), in subsection (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Employment Rights Act 1996

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

(2) In section 11 (written statements), in subsection (4)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(3) In section 23 (protection of wages)—

(a) in subsection (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in subsection (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(4) In section 27N (information relating to tips etc)—

(a) in subsection (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in subsection (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(5) In section 34 (guarantee payments), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(6) In section 48 (detriment in employment), in subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(7) In section 51 (time off for public duties), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(8) In section 54 (time off following redundancy), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(9) In section 57 (time off for ante-natal care), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(10) In section 57ZC (time off for ante-natal care: agency workers), in subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(11) In section 57ZF (time off to accompany to ante-natal appointment), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(12) In section 57ZH (time off to accompany to ante-natal appointment: agency workers), in subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(13) In section 57ZM (time off to attend adoption appointments), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(14) In section 57ZQ (time off to attend adoption appointments: agency workers), in subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(15) In section 57B (time off for dependants), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(16) In section 60 (time off for pension scheme trustees), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(17) In section 63 (time off for employee representatives), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(18) In section 63C (time off for study or training), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(19) In section 63I (requests in relation to study or training), in subsection (5)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(20) In section 70 (rights following suspension from work)—

(a) in subsection (2)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in subsection (5)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(21) In section 70A (rights of agency worker where supply is ended on maternity grounds)—

(a) in subsection (2)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in subsection (5)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(22) In section 80 (parental leave), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(23) In section 80H (right to request flexible working), in subsection (5)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(24) In section 80N (carer’s leave), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(25) In section 111 (unfair dismissal), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(26) In section 188 (rights on insolvency of employer), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996

5 (1) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996/1513) (time off for representatives of employee safety etc), for ‘three’, in both places it occurs, substitute ‘six’.

(2) In paragraph 3A of that Schedule—

(a) in sub-paragraph (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(c) in sub-paragraph (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Working Time Regulations 1998

6 In regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/1833) (rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for the words from ‘three months’ to ‘six months)’ substitute ‘six months’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), omit ‘three or, as the case may be,’.

National Minimum Wage Act 1998

7 In section 11 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (access to records)—

(a) in subsection (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in subsection (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Employment Relations Act 1999

8 In section 11 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999

9 (1) In regulation 27 of the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999/3323) (time off for members of a European Works Council etc)—

(a) in the heading, for ‘tribunals’ substitute ‘employment tribunals in Great Britain’;

(b) in paragraph (1), for the words from ‘complaint,’ to ‘, that’ substitute ‘complaint to an employment tribunal in Great Britain that’;

(c) in paragraph (2)—

(i) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(ii) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(d) omit paragraph (2B).

(2) In the heading of regulation 27A of those Regulations (extension of time limit to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings), at the end insert ‘in Great Britain’.

(3) After regulation 27A of those Regulations insert—

‘Right to time off: complaints to industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland

(1) An employee may present a complaint to an industrial tribunal in Northern Ireland that the employee’s employer–

(a) has unreasonably refused to permit the employee to take time off as required by regulation 25; or

(b) has failed to pay the whole or any part of any amount to which the employee is entitled under regulation 26.

(2) A tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this regulation unless it is presented–

(a) before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which the time off was taken or on which it is alleged the time off should have been permitted; or

(b) within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of that period of three months.

(3) Regulation 27B (extension of time limit to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings in Northern Ireland) applies for the purposes of paragraph (2).

(4) Where a tribunal finds a complaint under this regulation well-founded, the tribunal shall make a declaration to that effect.

(5) If the complaint is that the employer has unreasonably refused to permit the employee to take time off, the tribunal shall also order the employer to pay to the employee an amount equal to the remuneration to which the employee would have been entitled under regulation 26 if the employer had not refused.

(6) If the complaint is that the employer has failed to pay the employee the whole or part of any amount to which the employee is entitled under regulation 26, the tribunal shall also order the employer to pay to the employee the amount which it finds due to the employee.’

(4) In regulation 27B of those Regulations (extension of time limit to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings in Northern Ireland)—

(a) in paragraph (2), for ‘27(2)(a)’ substitute ‘27AA(2)(a)’;

(b) in paragraph (3), for ‘27(2)(a)’ substitute ‘27AA(2)(a)’;

(c) in paragraph (4), for ‘27(2)(b)’ substitute ‘27AA(2)(b)’.

Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003

10 In regulation 18 of the Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/3049) (merchant shipping: rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004

11 In regulation 18 of the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/756) (civil aviation: rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea-fishermen) Regulations 2004

12 In regulation 19 of the Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea-fishermen) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1713) (fishing vessels: rights to rest and leave), in paragraph (2)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006

13 (1) The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246) are amended as follows.

(2) In regulation 12 (notification of employee liability information), in paragraph (2)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

(3) In regulation 15 (information and consultation requirements), in paragraph (12)—

(a) in the words before sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in the words after sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008

14 In regulation 17 of the Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1660) (cross-border railway services: rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

European Public Limited-Liability Company (Employee Involvement) (Great Britain) Regulations 2009

15 In regulation 28 of the European Public Limited-Liability Company (Employee Involvement) (Great Britain) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/2401) (time off for members of special negotiating body etc), in paragraph (2)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Agency Workers Regulations 2010

16 In regulation 18 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/93) (rights of agency workers), in paragraph (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.

Equality Act 2010

17 In section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination etc at work), in subsection (1)(a), for “3” substitute “6”.

Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018

18 In regulation 26 of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/58) (rights of seafarers to leave), in paragraph (6), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new Schedule would increase time limits for making claims in employment tribunals (and, in certain cases, industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland) from three months to six months.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 3

Seafarers’ wages and working conditions

“Amendment of Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023

1 The Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 (“the Act”) is amended in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 23.

Part 1 of the Act: relevant services

2 For the italic heading before section 1 substitute—

‘Part 1

Relevant services’.

3 In section 1 (services to which this Act applies)—

(a) for the heading substitute ‘Relevant services’;

(b) in subsection (1), for ‘This Act applies to’ substitute ‘In this Act, “relevant service” means’;

(c) in subsection (2), for ‘this Act does not apply to’ substitute ‘“relevant service” does not include’;

(d) for subsection (4) substitute—

‘(4) In this Act, “ship”—

(a) includes—

(i) any kind of vessel used in navigation, and

(ii) hovercraft;

(b) includes a ship which is registered in a State other than the United Kingdom.’

Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Act: non-qualifying seafarers

4 After section 1 insert—

‘Part 2

Remuneration of seafarers

Chapter 1

Non-qualifying seafarers’.

5 In section 2 (non-qualifying seafarers), in paragraph (a), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.

Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Act: national minimum wage equivalence declarations

6 For the italic heading before section 3 substitute—

‘Chapter 2

National minimum wage equivalence declarations’.

7 In section 3 (request for declaration)—

(a) in the heading, after ‘for’ insert ‘equivalence’;

(b) in subsection (1)—

(i) for ‘Act applies’ substitute ‘Chapter applies (see subsection (4A))’;

(ii) at the end insert ‘(see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”)’;

(c) after subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) This Chapter applies to a relevant service, subject to provision made by remuneration regulations in reliance on section 4A(6).’;

(d) omit subsections (5) and (6).

8 In section 4 (nature of declaration)—

(a) in the heading, after ‘of’ insert ‘equivalence’;

(b) after subsection (5) insert—

‘(5A) For the meaning of “UK work”, see section 19.

(5B) For the meaning of “national minimum wage equivalent”, see section 4D(1).’;

(c) omit subsections (6) to (10).

Chapters 3 and 4 of Part 2 of the Act: remuneration regulations and declarations

9 After section 4 insert—

‘Chapter 3

Remuneration regulations and declarations

Remuneration regulations

4A Remuneration regulations

(1) Regulations may specify requirements relating to the remuneration of non-qualifying seafarers in respect of their work carried out in relation to the provision of a relevant service (whether or not in the territorial waters of the United Kingdom).

(2) In this Act, regulations under subsection (1) are referred to as “remuneration regulations”.

(3) Remuneration regulations may relate to remuneration in respect of only some of the work carried out in relation to the provision of a relevant service, and may frame such provision by reference to the waters in which the work is carried out or in any other way.

(4) Remuneration regulations may apply to—

(a) all relevant services, or

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

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b), a service may be described by reference to (among other things) the route operated by the service.

(6) Remuneration regulations may provide that Chapter 2 does not apply to any extent to a relevant service to which the regulations apply.

Remuneration declarations

4B Request for remuneration declaration

(1) Subsection (2) applies where a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service to which remuneration regulations apply will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least—

(a) 120 occasions, or

(b) if remuneration regulations specify a higher number in relation to services of a specified description and the service is of that description, that higher number of 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 remuneration declaration 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.

4C Nature of remuneration declaration

(1) A remuneration declaration 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—

(a) in the relevant year there will be no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or

(b) in the relevant year non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service will be remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them.

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

(a) in what remains of the relevant year there will be no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or

(b) in what remains of the relevant year non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service will be remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them.

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

(a) in so much of the relevant year as has already occurred—

(i) there have been no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or

(ii) non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service have been remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them, and

(b) in what remains of the relevant year—

(i) there will be no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or

(ii) non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service will be remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them.

(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—

(a) in the relevant year there were no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or

(b) in the relevant year non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service were remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them.

Chapter 4

Chapters 2 and 3: supplementary regulations

4D Regulations about national minimum wage equivalent etc

(1) For the purposes of this Part, the national minimum wage equivalent is an hourly rate specified in regulations.

(2) Regulations may make provision for determining for the purposes of this Part—

(a) the hourly rate at which a non-qualifying seafarer is remunerated in any period in respect of any work, and

(b) whether, or the extent to which, a non-qualifying seafarer’s work in relation to a relevant service is UK work.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2)(a) may in particular make—

(a) any provision referred to in section 2(2) to (6) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998;

(b) provision relating to currency conversion.

(4) Subsection (5) applies for the purposes of—

(a) section 4, and

(b) remuneration regulations that are framed by reference to the national minimum wage equivalent.

(5) The Secretary of State must in making regulations under this section seek to secure that a non-qualifying seafarer is remunerated at a rate equal to the national minimum wage equivalent only if their remuneration is in all the circumstances broadly equivalent to the remuneration they would receive if they qualified for the national minimum wage.’

Part 3 of the Act: seafarers’ working conditions

10 After section 4D (inserted by paragraph 9 of this Schedule) insert—

‘Part 3

Seafarers’ working conditions

Safe working regulations

4E Safe working regulations

(1) In this Part, “seafarer” means a person who works on a ship providing a relevant service.

(2) Regulations may specify conditions relating to the working pattern and rest requirements of seafarers who carry out work relating to the provision of a relevant service, including conditions about—

(a) their maximum periods of work in a specified period;

(b) their minimum periods of rest in a specified period.

(3) Regulations may make provision for the purpose of managing and mitigating risks arising from fatigue suffered by seafarers when carrying out their work relating to the provision of a relevant service.

(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, among other things—

(a) require the operator of a relevant service to produce a plan to manage and mitigate risks arising from fatigue suffered by seafarers when carrying out their work relating to the provision of the service (a “fatigue management plan”);

(b) make provision about the contents of such a plan by reference to a specified document as amended from time to time.

(5) Regulations may make provision for and in connection with the training of seafarers who carry out work relating to the provision of a relevant service, for the purpose of ensuring—

(a) the safety of the ship on which they work,

(b) the safety of things on the ship, or

(c) the health or safety of persons on the ship.

(6) In this Act, regulations under subsection (2), (3) or (5) are referred to as “safe working regulations”.

(7) Safe working regulations may impose requirements on the operator of a relevant service.

(8) Safe working regulations may apply to—

(a) all relevant services, or

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

(9) For the purposes of subsection (8)(b), a service may be described by reference to (among other things) the route operated by the service.

Safe working declarations

4F Request for safe working declaration

(1) Subsection (2) applies where a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service to which safe working regulations apply will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least—

(a) 120 occasions, or

(b) if safe working regulations specify a higher number in relation to services of a specified description and the service is of that description, that higher number of 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 safe working declaration 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.

4G Nature of safe working declaration

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

(b) the safe 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 safe working conditions were met in relation to the service in the relevant year.

(6) For the purposes of this section the safe working conditions are met in relation to a service at a particular time if at that time—

(a) the service is operated in compliance with regulations under section 4E(2) or (3) that apply to the service,

(b) the service is operated in compliance with a fatigue management plan that is required for the service by regulations under section 4E(3) (see section 4E(4)), and

(c) the service is operated in compliance with regulations under section 4E(5) 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.’

Part 4 of the Act: enforcement of Parts 2 and 3

11 After section 4G (inserted by paragraph 10 of this Schedule) insert—

‘Part 4

Enforcement of Parts 2 and 3

Offence of operating service inconsistently with declaration’.

12 In section 5 (offence of operating service inconsistently with declaration)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;

(ii) in paragraph (a), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’;

(b) in subsections (2), (3) and (4), omit ‘equivalence’.

13 (1) Section 6 (imposition of surcharges: failure to provide declaration in time) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a)—

(a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;

(b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.

(3) In subsection (1)(b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.

(4) In subsection (2)(b)(ii), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.

(5) In subsection (3)(b)(ii), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.

(6) In subsection (5)(a), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.

(7) In subsection (5)(b), for ‘section 4(4) or (5).’ substitute ‘—

(i) section 4(4) or (5),

(ii) section 4C(4) or (5), or

(iii) section 4G(4) or (5),

(whichever applies).’

(8) In subsection (6)—

(a) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’;

(b) in the definition of ‘prescribed period’, for ‘3(5)(a)’ substitute ‘16A(1)(a)’;

(c) in the definition of ‘prescribed form and manner’, for ‘3(5)(b) and (c)’ substitute ‘16A(1)(b) and (c)’.

14 In section 7 (imposition of surcharges: in-year declaration that is prospective only), in subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (a)—

(i) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;

(ii) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’;

(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘3(5)’ substitute ‘16A(1)’;

(c) in paragraph (c), for the words from ‘within subsection (3)’ to the end substitute ‘—

(i) within subsection (3) of section 4 (and not also within subsection (4) of that section),

(ii) within subsection (3) of section 4C (and not also within subsection (4) of that section), or

(iii) within subsection (3) of section 4G (and not also within subsection (4) of that section),

(whichever applies).’

15 (1) Section 8 (imposition of surcharges: operating inconsistently with declaration) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a)—

(a) for ‘service to which this Act applies” substitute ‘relevant service’;

(b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.

(3) In subsection (3), after ‘equivalence declaration’ insert ‘, remuneration declaration or safe working declaration (as the case may be)’;

(4) In subsection (4)(a)—

(a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;

(b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.

(5) In subsection (6), after ‘equivalence declaration’ insert ‘, remuneration declaration or safe working declaration (as the case may be)’.

16 In section 11 (refusal of harbour access for failure to pay surcharge), in subsection (1), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.

17 (1) Section 12 (provision of information by operators) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;

(b) in paragraphs (a) and (b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (b), at the beginning insert ‘for the purposes of Part 2,’;

(b) after paragraph (b) insert—

‘(c) for the purposes of Part 3—

(i) information relating to the working pattern, working conditions or training of persons working on ships providing the service;

(ii) a fatigue management plan produced by the operator of the service (see section 4E(4)(a)).’

(4) In subsection (5), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.

18 In section 13 (provision of information by harbour authorities), in subsection (2)(b), omit ‘equivalence’.

19 In section 14 (inspections), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;

(b) in paragraphs (a) and (b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.

Part 5 of the Act: general and final provisions

20 After section 15 insert—

‘Part 5

General and final provisions’.

21 After section 16 insert—

‘16A Regulations about declarations

(1) Regulations may make provision—

(a) as to the period within which declarations are to be provided;

(b) as to the wording of declarations and the form in which they are to be provided;

(c) as to the manner in which declarations are to be provided.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) may specify a single form combining different kinds of declarations (but a requirement to provide a declaration in such a form does not require an operator of a service to provide a declaration which a harbour authority has not requested the operator to provide).’

22 In section 17 (regulations)—

(a) in the heading, at the end insert ‘: general’;

(b) in subsection (2)(a), for sub-paragraph (i) (but not the ‘or’ after it) substitute—

‘(i) relevant service,’.

23 (1) Section 19 (general interpretation) is amended as follows.

(2) After the definition of ‘the data protection legislation’ insert—

‘“declaration” (without more) means—

(a) an equivalence declaration,

(b) a remuneration declaration, or

(c) a safe working declaration;’.

(3) Omit the definition of ‘national minimum wage equivalent’.

(4) In the definition of ‘operator’, for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.

(5) After the definition of ‘operator’ insert—

‘“relevant service” has the meaning given by section 1;’.

(6) In the definition of ‘relevant year’, for ‘has the meaning given by section 3(6);’ substitute ‘means—

(a) the period of 12 months beginning with a date specified in regulations, and

(b) each successive period of 12 months;’.

(7) After the definition of ‘relevant year’ insert—

‘“remuneration declaration” has the meaning given by section 4C(1);

“remuneration regulations” has the meaning given by section 4A(2);

“safe working declaration” has the meaning given by section 4G(1);

“safe working regulations” has the meaning given by section 4E(6);’.

(8) In the definition of ‘UK work’, for ‘has the meaning given by section 4(10)’ substitute ‘means work which is carried out in the United Kingdom or its territorial waters’.

Amendment of title of the Act

24 (1) The Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 may be cited as the Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023.

(2) For the words ‘Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023’ wherever they occur in any enactment substitute ‘Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023’.”—(Justin Madders.)

This schedule amends the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 to give the Secretary of State power to make regulations specifying conditions relating to the wages and working conditions of seafarers working on ships providing services currently covered by that Act. Those conditions are enforceable in the same way as existing provisions of that Act.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 113

Power to make consequential amendments

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Law]

It would be easy for me to express exactly what the hon. Member for Torbay has just said in thanking everybody who has been involved. My only concern as we go to the next stage is that of all the amendments we have discussed and all the measures that have been proposed, not a single one has been adopted. There is an issue with that in general, because the Government have such a large majority. I guess that is not a bad thing for Labour Members, but it has meant that we have lacked the ability to really pull things apart. I hope that will come at the next stage. That is my only disappointment, but I wanted to put it on the record, because I know that it is a concern shared by other Members on both sides of the House. I hope that the Minister is listening so that we can get far more robust and real opportunities to amend and improve the Bill, which we all wish to see.

[The Chair]

May I thank everybody for their kind remarks? I know I speak for all other Chairs when I say that it has been a very good-natured Committee. Almost everybody has been in a new role: for some people it was their first Standing Committee, for others it was their first leading for the Opposition, and for some it was their first real Committee as a Minister. Everybody has performed pretty well—you should all be able to thank yourselves for that. I also thank the Clerks—behind every amendment is a heck of a lot of work by them—the Hansard reporters, who have done their job assiduously, and the Badge Messengers and Doorkeepers and everybody else involved, not forgetting the electricians who managed to ensure that we kept the lights going.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Harland & Wolff

Chris Law Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am sorry if the hon. Lady missed it, but I was clear that what we have announced today does not change the provisions in the original contract agreed by the former Conservative Government. What has changed is that we have saved all four of these yards, at a time when we could have lost them all through the inability of the previous Government to take the action required, so it is an incredibly positive story. We have saved the position of those yards and guaranteed those jobs, and not for months but for years to come.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

I take this opportunity to wish you a merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I thank the Secretary of State very much for what is wonderful news for all four sites across the UK. Obviously, I am going to be slightly biased towards the two in Scotland, one in Arnish on the Isle of Lewis and the other in Methil in Fife—that is very welcome news in the week before Christmas. I also thank the Government for their co-operation with the Scottish Government over the past months, particularly in the early days when UK Labour had come into government, and I put on record the work that the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, Kate Forbes, has contributed.

I have a couple of questions. First, given that we are moving forward, are the workers’ current terms and conditions going to continue as they are? Secondly, I have listened to what has been said about future contracts. We know that both yards in Scotland will be protected for the next two years, but can the Secretary of State tell us a little bit more about the longer-term sustainable footing, not least because this company has changed hands three times in the past four years?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations and questions. It was really important to us that we keep all four yards together—there had been an assessment that, for understandable reasons, the Belfast yard was more commercially valuable, so there was a real chance that any unstructured rescue package could have lost the two Scottish yards. There were question marks about those yards in particular, so keeping the business together and protecting the future of those workers was hugely important to us, and I am delighted that we have been able to achieve that.

The job guarantees for the non-Belfast yards will last for two years. The guarantee is for 90% of the overall job numbers, simply to provide the usual degree of flexibility in running that business, but that guarantee covers the majority of the workforce and keeps them in place. The deal also comes with investment in those Scottish yards, so whatever the future holds, those yards will be even more competitive and more able to bid for the kinds of contracts that will secure the long-term prosperity we are all seeking. I am always genuinely willing to work with colleagues across any part of the UK to secure the kind of outcome we have achieved today, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising that.

Post Office Redress and Funding

Chris Law Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I have looked at this issue, which came up at the Select Committee. We write out to ask for further information in order to be able to justify the payment of more compensation, not to query the information that has been provided by sub-postmasters to date. To try to provide reassurance on that point, we are making that explicit in the letters that we send out to sub-postmasters. We are anxious to reduce the stress and concern and, essentially, the trauma that people have gone through already. We do not want that process to be repeated, if at all possible, during the compensation process. Asking for more information is designed to enable us to offer more and fairer compensation to the individuals concerned.

[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?

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point—it is something I feel acutely. I have met a number of the sub-postmasters who used the Capture software and were treated very badly as a result by the Post Office, so I am acutely conscious of our collective responsibility to those individuals and their families. Some of the sub-postmasters who used Capture software have already passed away, which only underlines the points he and I have made. I can assure the House that we will work at pace. We are working with the Post Office, and have asked the organisation to go through its records so that we can identify, inasmuch as we can, how many people were potentially victims of Capture. We are also supporting the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in looking at whether convictions are safe.