Draft Protection Against Detriment (Industrial Action) Regulations 2026

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 General Committees

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

I was going to say it is a great pleasure to be on this Committee, but it is an even greater pleasure after that wonderful remark. I am very grateful, and it is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. It is also a great pleasure to see the Minister, as usual; I thank her very much indeed for her explanation of the Government’s intentions for the draft regulations before us.

As I think I have stressed at every Delegated Legislation Committee under this Department, it is important that these changes strike the right balance—in this instance, between ensuring that employees are able to exercise their right to industrial action in certain circumstances and in accordance with the law, and the interests of businesses and employers upon whom our future prosperity depends.

To that end, I have a few questions about the measures. At the end of part one of the explanatory memorandum it states that guidance covering these regulations will be updated next month, in October. Does that mean that employers will be left in the dark about the specifics of their new, added responsibilities until the date that these regulations come into effect? More broadly, that seems to be a recurring theme of statutory instruments laid by this Department.

I suggest that the hon. Lady and her colleagues try to put themselves in the position of a business, particularly a small business. Whether or not one agrees with the Government’s regulatory changes, businesses deserve fair and reasonable time to plan before regulations come into effect. That is good for everybody. I am afraid that, consistently, guidance and regulation come at the same time, which gives no time for due planning so that businesses can get ready. Will the Minister commit today to publishing guidance ahead of regulation coming in, so that employers have advance sight, notice and guidance? That would be appreciated by all companies, big and small, in all our constituencies.

Secondly, following the Government consultation on these regulations earlier in the year, some respondents suggested that reducing the perceived risks to participation in industrial action could lead to more frequent and prolonged disputes with trade unions. I appreciate that the Government may not be concerned with trade union-created disputes becoming more frequent, but the public and businesses certainly are. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s response to those specific concerns in the public consultation? They were not addressed in the formal Government response, and it would be good to hear the official response.

Thirdly, the law firm Dentons has made clear that employment tribunals will determine on the facts of each case whether a worker has suffered a detriment. But we know that the Government are already facing an unprecedented and growing backlog in the employment tribunals system. In the most recent statistics, which are from March 2026, there were 64,000 single claim open cases awaiting resolution. That is a 55% increase compared with the same period in 2024-25, and a 42% increase in the last year alone. We know that the Justice Committee felt required to launch an inquiry into the issue, and the Law Society has described the situation as “urgent”, stating:

“It is alarming to see employment tribunal backlogs continuing to spiral”.

What conversations has the Minister had with her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice on the impact of the Government’s employment policies in creating this additional backlog? Has an impact assessment been carried out by either her Department or the MOJ to determine how these specific regulations might further exacerbate what is quite a worrying backlog?

Fourthly, during the passage of the Employment Rights Act through both Houses, the Opposition repeatedly tabled amendments that sought to put beyond doubt that protection from detriment for employees who engage in behaviour such as intimidation on picket lines, protest on company premises or at the personal residence of managers, or the harassment of non-striking workers is withheld. The Government chose at that time—many times, actually—to reject those amendments, suggesting that such behaviours would already not entitle protection. For the record, can the Minister state categorically that, if workers engage in those kinds of behaviours, which I think we would all disagree with, these regulations will not leave employers unable to take action against those serious perpetrators?

Finally, paragraph 6.6 of the explanatory memorandum refers to the deduction of pay by an employer from a worker who takes industrial action. That is allowed under common law and unchanged by the regulations, but the paragraph also explains that

“the question of precisely how much pay may lawfully be deducted”

can be “complex”, and that the Government’s view is that the common law is not sufficiently developed in this area.

That matters when we are debating these regulations, because employers deemed to have made an excessive pay deduction could be liable to have a complaint brought against them under section 236A of the 1992 Act. It seems, therefore, that the Government admit that this is a potential or actual grey area, but that they will not provide the clarity that we have sought, not least before these regulations come into effect. That could lead to serious consequences for employers.

I realise that there are a few questions there, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could provide more clarity on them. If she cannot provide the answers today, I would be grateful if she could write to me with them. My final remark, if I may, Ms Vaz, is that we last met in a delegated legislation Committee on 8 July and—it happens from time to time—the Minister was not able to answer all my questions in that Committee. I wrote to her on 9 July. She is a very diligent person, and I know she will be horrified to learn that she has not yet responded to me, 55 days later. I gently request that she ask her officials to send that response as soon as possible.