Employment Rights Bill

Greg Smith Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Ahead of getting into the detail of the many amendments before us, which the Minister rattled through in just 10 minutes, let me say that overnight we learned that the Government are moving the responsibilities of one quango to another. They are moving the responsibilities of the Payment Systems Regulator to the Financial Conduct Authority, putting one quango into another. Conveniently, they already share a building. The Prime Minister has hailed that as “the latest step” in the Government’s attempt to “kick-start economic growth”, though the amendments we are discussing do the very opposite.

The Chancellor said:

“The regulatory system has become burdensome to the point of choking off innovation, investment and growth”,

but that is precisely what the Bill does. I do not know how the Government can say that with a straight face when, as we stand here today, blocking regulatory burdens cost every business in the land—small, medium or large—£5 billion.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

In the Chamber yesterday, it was quite clear that the Minister and his team did not fully understand the definition of a small business. I am sure that my hon. Friend the shadow Minister does understand it. Does he agree that that is fundamental to understanding why the balance of this legislation is wrong?

[Greg Smith]

My right hon. Friend makes a superb point, as she always does. Every single small business that I have talked to in my constituency is very concerned about the measures in this—

[Justin Madders]

On that point, will the shadow Minister give way?

[Greg Smith]

I will if, 24 hours on, he can name a small business that supports the Bill.

[Justin Madders]

I am asking the shadow Minister to give way, but the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) could have intervened on me during my speech. One of the reasons why there is so much confusion about the definition of a small business is that the shadow Minister moved an amendment in Committee that said that a small business

“means an organisation or person employing 500 or fewer employees”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 3 December 2024; c. 177.]

So if there is any confusion, it is on the Conservative Benches.

[Greg Smith]

Twenty-four hours later, the Minister still cannot name a small business that supports the Bill. That shows how out of their depth this trade union Government are when it comes to supporting businesses in this land. In the words of the Chancellor, this Bill is

“choking off innovation, investment and growth.”

To pretend otherwise would be taking the public for fools.

On new clauses 89 and 90, almost everything this Government have done is contradictory to the objective of growth, if that remains their objective this week. Whether it is the national insurance jobs tax, the changes to business rates or this Bill, everything they do seemingly goes against growing the economy. It is little surprise that, under Labour, the economy is flatlining.

The Prime Minister said earlier this year that everything the Government do will be subject to a “growth test”. However, the details of that test have been sparse, at best—so sparse, in fact, that people may well think it does not exist.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Could the shadow Minister describe Liz Truss’s growth test?

[Greg Smith]

Well, cut red tape for a start. We see from Lib Dem Members that “The Orange Book” tradition of the Liberal Democrats is well and truly dead; they now position themselves firmly to the left of the Labour party.

There is no greater evidence that the growth test does not exist than the Bill, because if such a test did exist, this Bill would fall at the first hurdle, but today I come with good news: I have two amendments that the Government can back this afternoon to help them to grow the economy. Those amendments are, of course, new clause 89 and new clause 90.

New clause 89 would require the certification officer to advance the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy, and new clause 90 would require the Secretary of State, who is again not in his place, to have regard to international competitiveness when passing regulations under part 4 of the Bill concerning the trade unions. The Government have been asking regulators for ideas to boost growth—it is a contradiction in terms to ask the regulator to boost growth—but we are happy to help them with their quest. The Government should be able to support these amendments. If they cannot, it shows that they are not serious about economic growth and, more tellingly, that they do not intend to use the powers in part 4 of the Bill to achieve growth or international economic competitiveness, because they do not intend to exercise them in a way that is compatible with those objectives.

New clause 88 on trade union political funds will, I am sure, get the Government a little bit hot under the collar. This is a “Labour party first, country second” Government. Nowhere is that clearer than in the changes that the Government are making to the political fund through the Bill. Let us be in no doubt that the changes have one simple purpose: to bolster the coffers of the Labour party.

Clause 52 will mean that members of trade unions will automatically contribute to their trade union’s political fund without being asked about it first. Members will have to opt out, rather than opt in, as they do at present. [Interruption.] Did someone want to try to defend that? No? Okay. If trade union subscriptions are to be used for party political campaigning, it should be a conscious decision of the trade union member to endorse such campaigning.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The shadow Minister may recall that in Committee, every single Labour member of the Committee declared sponsorship by the trade union movement. Does he agree with me that this clause is simply payback for the trade union movement, after its financial support for the Labour party?

[Greg Smith]

My hon. Friend served assiduously on the Committee, raising many good points, including the one that he just made, which I absolutely agree with. The public will be asking serious questions about this.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Greg Smith]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to try to defend that, I will give him the opportunity.

[Gareth Snell]

I am happy to declare my interest as a member of three trade unions, but I got less from them than the shadow Minister got from a small business—I think his declaration is £12,500. Does he feel the need to declare that, given that he is now making a case against legislation that would impact that company?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I am making a point about the trade union movement, which I have never been a part of, and certainly never received any money from. I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to look at all my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

[Gareth Snell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

For the avoidance of all doubt and in all transparency, I declare all my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for all to look at. They are all there for anybody to see.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

This argument about opting in and opting out of trade union levies goes back to at least the 1970s—probably beyond—when I remember arguing about it as an undergraduate. If there are to be levies that people have to opt out of, a defensible case can be made for them provided that the process of opting out is easy and advertised to every member. Does my hon. Friend know whether the Government propose to institute mechanisms to make it known to every member how easily they can opt out?

[Greg Smith]

My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. If we look at the detail of this Bill, it is very clear and obvious that the Government are trying to make it as difficult as possible for people to opt out of the trade union political fund. That is the very point of them changing this legislation.

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Greg Smith]

I will make a bit of progress, then I will come to the hon. Lady.

An opt-in is the default under consumer protection law and information law. Combined with the 10-year reminder change, it is highly likely that many trade union members will not be aware that their subscriptions are being used in this way or that they are eligible to save money on their trade union fees by not being a member of the political fund. Despite all the talk of supporting working people, it is clear that that concern simply does not apply when working people’s money is being taken to fund the Labour party and other political causes. We have tabled amendment 291 because we believe fundamentally that people should consent explicitly to what is, in effect, a subscription trap. Amendment 291 would simply maintain the status quo; it is the right thing to do.

[Mrs Russell]

I draw attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of Community and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many times such a ballot has actually resulted in the closure of a political fund? I think he will find that the answer is none.

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Lady is putting up a smoke-and-mirrors argument to try to cover the fact that the Government are changing the status quo from an opt-in system to an opt-out system. To me, it is just straightforward common sense that people would expect to have to opt in rather than, in this particularly egregious case, being casually reminded every 10 years that they could save a bit of money by opting out of a cause that they perhaps did not even agree with in the first place.

In fact, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), pledged to end auto-renewal subscriptions. When the Conservatives were in government, we passed the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which contained two significant proposals on subscription contracts that are notable here. One of those was reminder notices. Businesses need to provide notices to consumers to remind them that their subscription contract will renew and payment will be due unless the consumer cancels. The second proposal was to allow consumers to be able to exit a subscription contract in a straightforward, cost-effective and timely way. Businesses need to ensure that the process for terminating is not unduly onerous and that consumers can signal their intent to end the contract through a single communication.

The Labour party, which was then in opposition, supported those aims—in fact, the Bill did not go far enough for Labour at the time. On Report, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) tabled new clause 29, which the Labour party voted to add to the Bill. The new clause had a two-pronged approach. It required traders to ask consumers whether they wished to opt into subscriptions renewing automatically either

“after a period of six months and every six months thereafter, or…if the period between the consumer being charged for the first and second time is longer than six months, each time payment is due.”

The second aim of the new clause, which the Labour party used to support, would have required that if the consumer did not opt into the arrangement described, the trader had to

“provide a date by which the consumer must notify the trader of the consumer’s intention to renew the contract, which must be no earlier than 28 days before the renewal date.”

If the consumer did not provide a notification, the subscription contract could not renew.

Where am I going with this? [Interruption.] Government Members are chuntering too early, because there has been a considerable shift in the Labour party’s policy position on subscription traps. It seems to believe that consumers should be given every possible opportunity to cancel subscription contracts with businesses, but that it should be as hard as possible to cancel a subscription to the trade union political fund. Under amendment 292 and new clause 88, trade union members would have the same rights, pushed for by Labour, as other individuals with a subscription.

New schedule 2 could be used to give sweeping powers to Labour’s trade union paymasters, as the Secretary of State could reduce the threshold for trade union recognition to as little as 2% of the workforce. Trade unions could easily be imposed on workplaces across the country, with small employers being particularly vulnerable. In a workplace of 200 workers, fewer than five of them would be required for workplace recognition. Paired with the other measures in this Bill, that will strike fear into business owners across Britain, who could now be forced to deal with all-powerful trade unions as part of Labour’s return to the 1970s. The way in which Labour has gone about this is just another example of the shoddy nature of this Bill and of Labour’s approach to workplace regulations. The Attorney General has said that

“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values I have already outlined,”—

I am quoting him—

“but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.”

On facility time, amendments 293 and 295 would remove clause 54, “Facilities provided to trade union officials and learning representatives”, and clause 55, “Facilities for equality representatives”. They would remove the requirement to provide reasonable time off for facility time, the creation of facility time for equality representatives and clauses that will reduce transparency requirements over facility time, respectively. Together with amendment 296, they would prevent facility time for equality representatives from being provided unless the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory targets for performance. Trade union facility time already costs the Government nearly £100 million a year. Under the last Labour Government, the civil service spent 0.26% of its annual pay bill on facility time, compared with 0.04% in the private sector. Under the last Conservative Government, in 2022-23, the average for the civil service was 0.05%.

Labour councils are still the worst culprit. The transparency data collected by the Government in ’22-23 shows that Transport for London under the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has 881 full-time equivalent union officials on the books, costing £8 million a year. Bankrupt, Labour-run Birmingham city council has 30 full-time equivalent union officials on its central books, costing £1.2 million—no wonder that it went bankrupt. Furthermore, the council had 12 full-time equivalents in its maintained schools, costing £583,000.

Clauses 54 and 55 will increase that cost by giving more time off to public sector union officials at the taxpayer’s expense. That is not right when the Chancellor is asking Ministers to make cuts to their Departments across the board. Public services will be worse and the taxpayer will be expected to contribute more.

Furthermore, the Bill extends the right to facility time to equality representatives, who will now be allowed paid time off work to carry out activities for the purposes of

“promoting the value of equality in the workplace…arranging learning or training on matters relating to equality in the workplace…providing information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace…consulting with the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace”

and

“obtaining and analysing information relating to equality in the workplace”.

Those are all noble goals, but that should not be done at the taxpayer’s expense.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does the shadow Minister agree that the only jobs that will be created by these Bills are for people employed by trade unions?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before Mr Smith responds to that intervention, I must add that we have just shy of 40 people hoping to contribute to this debate, and I want to get them all in.

[Greg Smith]

As ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take your advice and will speed up. [Interruption.] The Minister urges me to carry on, but of course I would not ignore your advice—never say never again.

I make no comment on the value that those activities will add to public sector employers and their productivity. What I will say is that we have already seen this Government being happy to hand over large pay increases to trade unions with no guarantee of anything in return. That is why we have tabled amendments 293, 295 and 296, in an attempt to ensure that the taxpayer gets something out of this latest concession to the trade unions.

On amendment 297, trade unions can create significant disruption in the economy, whether by stopping work from taking place or preventing people from getting to work, school, hospital appointments or many other activities. We must strike a fair balance between the ability of trade unions to strike and the public whom we all serve.

Our amendment 297 will mean that vital public services such as the NHS can better plan and prepare for strikes. It simply seeks to keep the status quo of two weeks’ notice. Without adequate warning, constituents of Members from across the House are more likely to miss hospital appointments, not be able to travel to see loved ones or get to work, or suffer greater disruption when schools close due to strikes. That is part of the reason why, in the consultation on thresholds, 58% of those who responded supported retaining the 14-day period as it currently is, with 7% preferring a longer period. Two thirds of respondents therefore wanted the period to stay the same or be longer. Labour promised that it would work with business on this Bill, but its response to that consultation is just another example of the Government having their fingers in their ears and simply not listening. The reduction to 10 days is against the wishes of business and will do harm to all our constituents. That is why we have tabled amendment 297 to retain the notice period of 14 days.

On amendment 299, strikes should only take place when there is a clear mandate for them, but clause 58 will mean that strikes can happen with low thresholds by removing the 50% turnout requirement and the 40% support requirement. Combined with Government amendments to extend the mandate for strikes from six months to 12 months, this Bill allows unions to unleash waves of low-support, rolling strikes. Those costs will come on top of the national insurance jobs tax and changes to business rates—mistakes that the Government are already making—making it more difficult to run a business. That is why we have tabled amendment 299, which will remove clause 58.

There is much in this Bill to speak to, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will not test your patience or the patience of the House further by going into those things. I look forward to a thorough debate that will further point out—not least through Conservative Members’ contributions—why the amendments to this Bill that the Government have tabled this afternoon will harm our economy, destroy jobs, and just give more power to the trade unions.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

“Chapter 4A

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

After 21 sittings in the Public Bill Committee, the Government are still tabling hundreds of amendments to the Bill. That highlights once again that their false political deadline of 100 days in which to publish the Bill was foolhardy. They should have taken better time.

This is a bad Bill. Although it contains many good and well-intentioned measures, the Government have failed to get the balance right between employees and employers. Although I welcome some of the Minister’s comments—not least on bereavement leave for pregnancy loss, on which we spoke at length and agreed in Committee—I am afraid that the Government have got the balance wrong in the vast majority of the Bill. The amendments in the names of right hon. and hon. Friends in His Majesty’s loyal Opposition seek to highlight how the Bill simply goes too far in too many regards: it will affect our economy, it will affect the number of people who have a job, and it will affect the willingness of employers—the wealth and job creators—to take on new staff, to grow, to put new product lines in place and to keep employing people.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and doff my cap to him for his 21 sittings in Committee. When the Regulatory Policy Committee considered the Bill, it said that eight of the 23 impact assessments were “not fit for purpose”. Is he any more confident that that has been rectified through the amendments?

[Greg Smith]

I am sorry to have to report to my hon. Friend that, no, I do not have greater confidence that the Bill will work. He is right that the RPC placed so much of the Bill in the red column—at severe risk—and identified it as “not fit for purpose”. Some of the amendments in my name and those of right hon. and hon. Friends, to which I will speak in more detail in a moment, seek to explore further the impact that the measures in the Bill will have on the economy, and to answer the point that he rightly outlined.

Fundamentally, we know that every Labour Government leave unemployment higher than when they started; the difference with this one is that they are actually legislating for that outcome.

I will turn first to new clause 83 and amendment 283. When we were in government, we banned exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts. We know that this flexibility works for many employees on zero-hours contracts, such as students and those with a summer job or other responsibilities—employees can value that. This Bill imposes a statist, top-down, “Government knows best” approach, which will limit flexibility for both employers and employees.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I visited the Nelson Arms in Farnham recently and met the publican, who employs a lot of people on zero-hours contracts, one of whom, in addition to working in the pub, works as a paramedic, because the flexibility allows him to do both jobs. These are the sorts of people who will be impacted by this legislation.

[Greg Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am attending a wedding in Farnham later this year, and I look forward to visiting the Nelson Arms and thanking his constituent for the service he also gives as a paramedic.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Is the shadow Minister aware that the TUC’s survey clearly shows that the vast majority of people on zero-hours contracts really want regular hours? Can he respond to that?

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman says it is “the vast majority”. I do not know whether it is the vast majority, but some people, of course, will want the guarantee of the hours he talks about. The point I am making is about allowing flexibility for those for whom it does work. I gave the example of students, and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) gave another example of someone for whom this flexibility works. That is not to say that there are not many people in our economy who do seek the change the hon. Gentleman wants, but it is not a universal rule, and it should not simply be applied to everyone. I gently invite him to reflect on the impact this will have on people such as those my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon referred to.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Has the shadow Minister actually read the Bill? Does he understand that the flexibility included is the flexibility to ask for guaranteed hours, and if a student or somebody doing a second job does not want those guaranteed hours, they do not need to have them?

[Greg Smith]

I am happy to confirm to the hon. Lady that I have read the Bill, and I have read a considerable number of documents from the House of Commons Library and many other organisations. I have spoken to a lot of businesses in my constituency, as well as further afield, who I can assure her are horrified at the Bill. The Minister was asked earlier to name a single small business that supported the Bill, and his answer was the Co-op and Centrica. The last time I looked, neither of those would be considered small businesses.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[Greg Smith]

I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Does it worry my hon. Friend that, once again, the Government have revealed they are desperately hoping that companies such Centrica do become small businesses?

[Greg Smith]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point in his stylish, witty manner.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, the Regulatory Policy Committee has given a red rating to the identification of options and choice of policy on zero-hours contracts and guaranteed hours in the Bill. That means the Government have not justified the necessity of clauses 1 to 6. What is the problem the Government are trying to solve with those clauses? Why are those clauses needed? We just do not know. The Bill, despite literally hundreds of Government amendments, remains silent about how these provisions will work in practice, which means the Government’s assessment that the administrative cost of the Bill to business in shift and workforce planning will be £320 million could well be an underestimate.

The deputy CEO of UKHospitality raised their concerns in Committee, saying:

“the Government are intending to leave it to case law and employment tribunal systems to figure out what ‘reasonable notice’ means.” ––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 43, Q39.]

That is an unacceptable way to legislate. Businesses crave certainty and a stable regulatory environment. This Bill provides anything but, and the result, as the chair of the CBI has said, is that it risks becoming

“an adventure playground for employment rights lawyers.”

[Dr Luke Evans]

My hon. Friend is a learned man and he may have seen the report in the Financial Times that, for the first time ever, the number of companies registered at Companies House has fallen. Does he think this Bill being on the horizon has anything to do with that, particularly given the points that have been made about it not being fit for purpose?

[Greg Smith]

My hon. Friend makes an exceptional point. The Bill categorically will be playing a part in that, along with the Budget of broken promises, the increase in employer NI and so on. I shudder to think what will happen when the Bill becomes law. We understand the parliamentary arithmetic—we understand that the Government will force this through, and that is the reason we have tabled new clause 83 and amendment 283.

--- Later in debate ---

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Greg Smith]

I will happily give way in one moment. Government Members should have their eyes open to the consequences of this badly thought out legislation. Perhaps the hon. Lady will open her eyes to that point.

[Uma Kumaran]

These measures will ensure protections for all the 2.4 million people in the UK with irregular work patterns, be it zero-hours contracts or agency contracts. Can the shadow Minister tell the House why he thinks agency workers do not deserve the same protections as everyone else?

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Lady makes a point that she made in Committee. It was good to debate with her and others in Committee—we had a genuine and robust debate. What I am arguing for is flexibility and a recognition of how the employment market and our economy works in real life. To treat everything with one universal rule will be a disaster for our economy. I fear that it will result in fewer people in work and fewer jobs in the economy, and it certainly will not deliver the growth that this Government pretend they want to see.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Greg Smith]

How can I resist the hon. Gentleman?

[Matt Western]

Does the shadow Minister not accept that it is due to the expendability of employees in the workplace that we have such a poor rate of productivity in this country, particularly compared with France and Germany?

[Greg Smith]

I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman, and we have worked together on a number of issues in recent years, but I do not accept his point. Is there room to improve productivity? Of course there is—there is room to improve productivity across all sectors all the time; we would not grow the economy if we could not do that. However, the Bill takes a sledgehammer to crack the proverbial nut. Applying a universal rule for all will not deliver what the hon. Gentleman nobly wishes to achieve in the economy. As is often the case in politics, the thing that divides us is not the end goal or the point we want to get to; it is the means of getting there. I do not think the Bill will deliver what he wants to achieve. He looks like he wants to intervene again. I want to make progress, but I will give him one last go.

[Matt Western]

The shadow Minister is being very generous. I am making a simple point: it is less motivating and of less interest to a company to invest in machinery and plant if it can ultimately change the structure of its workforce or expend them through fire and rehire. That is what is holding us back, and that is why we have a 20% deficit to France and Germany in terms of productivity.

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I do not see businesses out there that want to expend or get rid of their workforces, or disinvest in them, and he is giving a very pessimistic outlook of the way that the business environment runs in this country. Businesses want to innovate. They want to grow and employ more people. They want to make more money. Making money is not something people should look down their noses at—it is a fundamentally good thing that creates wealth, grows the economy, and increases the tax base to pay for the services that we all want. I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view of the world when it comes to the Bill and the point he is trying to make.

[Wendy Morton]

Listening to the debate, it is clear that there are Conservative Members who understand business, and who come to this place with years of experience—[Interruption.] If Labour Members would stop heckling for one moment, they might start to listen. If we want to increase productivity, that is about employees, but it is also about employers being able to invest in their staff through training, contracts, plant and machinery. It is a whole raft of things, none of which we can do if businesses are stifled with red tape and employment law, or measures that are basically about law through the courts.

[Greg Smith]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The crux of what she says is the difference between the approach of Conservative Members to economy and the way that Labour Members, and those on the other left-wing Benches, look at the economy. The left of British politics tends to view everything through the lens of business being bad, of all employers seeking to exploit their workforces, and of an image of a Victorian factory from a novel of that era. In reality, we must recognise the symbiotic relationship between employer and employee, because we do not grow the economy without things working in both their interests. The Bill seeks to tip the balance too far in one direction, forgetting that that will take away the incentive for employers—the wealth creators—to get on and grow.

Let me move to new clause 84 and amendment 284. Conservative Members have absolutely no issue with the right to request flexible working. Indeed, Conservatives in government passed the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023. That made it easier for employees to make flexible working requests, gave them a statutory right to do so, and required employers to consider and discuss any requests made by their employee more quickly. That legislation appears to be working. Indeed, the Regulatory Policy Committee has said that

“there is little evidence presented that employers are rejecting requests unreasonably.”

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I spent 13 years as a solicitor working in employment rights, predominantly for employees and periodically for employers, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that flexible working is not working for many mothers in this country. Many women are giving up jobs and becoming self-employed because their employers will not agree their flexible working requests.

[Greg Smith]

It is good to hear from a real solicitor who gives her wealth of knowledge to this area. I am not trying to suggest that everything is perfect and working well. I fully accept the fair and good point that the hon. Lady makes about many mothers getting back into the workplace or extending their careers, but the Bill is not the answer she is looking for, if she looks at it in more detail.

The RPC gave the Government’s impact assessment for flexible working provisions a red rating, and that goes to the nub of the point. Is there room for improvement? Of course there is, but the impact assessment for the flexible provisions in the Bill was given a red rating—not fit for purpose. Once again, I ask the Minister this: what problem are the Government trying to solve with clause 7? Before rushing to pile more red tape on businesses through the Bill, did the Government consider options such as raising awareness of the right to request flexible working? Our new clause 84 requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact that clause 7 will have on employment, wages and economic output.

[Mrs Russell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Smith]

One more crack, yes.

[Mrs Russell]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that women absolutely do know about the right to request flexible working, and that is not the source of the problems they are facing.

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Lady almost makes the point for me. Earlier, I made the very point that we introduced that right. It was working well, yet the RPC says that the provisions in the Bill will do nothing for it and are not fit for purpose—I thank her for her intervention.

New clause 84 calls for consideration of

“the likelihood of the costs of flexible working measures being passed on to employees through lower wages”,

and of the likely effect that the right to request flexible working will have on productivity, wage growth, equality of opportunity, job security, economic activity and employment. Equally, it requires that a report setting out that those findings

“must be laid before each House of Parliament no sooner than 18 weeks after the consultation has been initiated.”

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman has just said that there may be areas where we could go further on flexible working. Can he explain why the previous Government’s flexible working taskforce met just once last year, and just once the year before? As with the long-awaited employment Bill that never materialised, is it the case that this Government are bringing forward real measures because the previous Government vacated that territory?

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman, with whom we debated these matters at length in Committee, clearly has not listened to what I said. I detailed how we did legislate in this area, yet this Government are bringing forward a Bill that the RPC, in this respect, has given a red rating and said is not fit for purpose. I gently urge him to look again at this issue, and at where we can agree on areas that could go further or be different from measures set out in either existing or proposed legislation. We must understand the impact that measures in the Bill will have on the real economy.

Amendment 284 would ensure that clause 7 could not come into force until Parliament had approved that report. To put it simply, the genesis of the amendment is that the Government have not done their homework, and they have no idea what they are doing or why. We know that these provisions will damage business, which in turn will hurt workers, and we want Labour Members to acknowledge that it will be ordinary people who pay the price.

Let me turn to new clause 85 and amendments 285, 288 and 289. Clause 18, which makes employers liable for harassment of their employees by third parties, is another example of the Government putting more regulation on business without knowing the problem they are trying to solve. The independent Regulatory Policy Committee has said that the Government have not managed sufficiently to demonstrate the need for the third-party harassment provisions in the Bill, and has once again rated this impact assessment as red.

It should go without saying that Conservative Members do not condone any form of harassment in the workplace. When we were in government, we legislated to put a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to anticipate and prevent sexual harassment, a horrible, evil crime that is covered by other legislation to protect everybody in the country. I double underline that we are not condoning sexual harassment—indeed, we legislated clearly to clamp down on that evil and heinous crime. However, I would be interested in any evidence the Minister has for the prevalence of third-party harassment in the workplace, and of how clause 18 might solve that, because the Government have not produced that evidence so far.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Greg Smith]

I will make some progress, as I think I have demonstrated that I am not shy of giving way, and I will come back to the hon. Lady. The problem is that badly considered law, developed with no evidence base, is likely to cause problems, rather than to solve them. That is the law of unintended consequences. We are deeply concerned about not just the unclear liabilities that the clause places on employers, but the implications it has for freedom of expression.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that the third-party harassment protections

“raise complex questions about the appropriate balance between third parties’ rights to freedom of expression (as protected under Article 10 ECHR) and employees’ protection from harassment and their right to private and family life.”

We are already struggling to ensure freedom of speech at our universities—places that should be guardians of free, open and challenging debate.

[Wera Hobhouse]

It was of course my private Member’s Bill that the previous Government supported, but only partly, because third-party harassment was scrubbed out of the Bill; I am very pleased that the new Government are reintroducing that bit. The question is: why does the hon. Gentleman support the idea that employers should prevent sexual harassment in the workplace and demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps, but think that for third parties that impacts on freedom of speech? It does not make sense.

[Greg Smith]

If the hon. Lady will allow me to continue, it will become clear why we take such a position; I will give some concrete examples in a few moments of where the law of unintended consequences will kick in on this provision.

A 2022 study by the Higher Education Policy Institute found that quiet no-platforming, where students decide not to invite otherwise suitable speakers to an event because of their views, was more common than reported cases of no-platforming. Speakers quietly no-platformed include Alex Salmond, Liam Neeson, Harry Enfield, Tony Blair—one that those on the Labour Benches might blink at—and Peter Hitchens. Although this clause is well meaning, it is likely to make matters worse. As James Murray, the legal director of Doyle Clayton, has pointed out, this clause could well cause difficulties for universities in offering a platform to discuss issues on which those listening may have differing views.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the problem in universities. It has particularly found form in no-platforming speakers deemed to be unacceptable or to make people feel uncomfortable because of their views on transsexuals, for example. Kathleen Stock, a distinguished academic and a feminist, was no-platformed in exactly that way because of her view that sex is a biological fact. This clause needs to be examined in that context. I welcome much about this Bill—particularly on trade unions and zero-hours contracts, as it happens—but I feel that this one area needs to be looked at again by the Government, for the very reasons that my hon. Friend made clear.

[Greg Smith]

I totally agree with my right hon. Friend that this area needs to be looked at again to ensure that those unintended consequences that challenge freedom of speech in this country are not allowed to come through. I double-underline that we have no truck with harassment: we absolutely believe that it should be stamped out, using criminal law where necessary, to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice. This Bill opens the door to unintended consequences.

[Antonia Bance]

I will help the hon. Gentleman to come back to the point. Two in three young women have experienced sexual harassment or verbal abuse in the workplace. It is important that where they are in customer-facing roles, they are protected from abuse both by their colleagues and managers and by their customers. That is particularly important if they work in a university bar, another sort of bar or a shop or retail setting. I was very pleased to have taken the first piece of evidence about the nature and extent of workplace sexual harassment when I worked for the TUC in 2015, and I am sad that it has taken us a decade to get to the point where we say, “No more sexual harassment by customers and clients.” The Conservative party could have achieved that much more quickly if it had just accepted the private Member’s Bill put forward by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse).

[Greg Smith]

I do not think that the hon. Lady is actually disagreeing with what I have said so far. Sexual harassment is clearly a crime—it is already a crime—and any perpetrator of it should be brought to justice. That is covered by different law.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Greg Smith]

In a moment. To answer the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance), the point I am getting at is not about sexual harassment or anything else covered in the criminal law. For example, if somebody who is waiting on tables or serving at a bar in a hospitality setting overhears a conversation that they find themselves deeply offended by—perhaps around the situation in Israel and Gaza right now—this Bill—

[Nadia Whittome]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment. This Bill would criminalise and bring in the banter police and so on just because people are expressing a perfectly legitimate political view that somebody else finds offensive. I double-underline that sexual harassment is absolutely—

[Mrs Russell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The shadow Minister is in danger of misleading the House. Nothing that he has referred to is a crime. Sexual harassment, as dealt with in this Bill, is a civil matter dealt with by tribunal.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. That was in fact a point of debate, rather than a point of order.

[Greg Smith]

I will get back to James Murray, the legal director of Doyle Clayton, who has pointed out that this clause could well cause difficulties for universities in offering those platforms to discuss issues where people have differing views. He said:

“If we think about a speaker that has been invited—say it’s a controversial gender critical speaker, like Julie Bindel or Kathleen Stock—someone might somewhat disingenuously say”

that they are an employee of the university and that they find what they say to be deeply harassing. He also said:

“The concern is that this will shift the balance away from free speech and universities will be more risk averse as they won’t want to be held liable for third-party harassment.”

Why do the Government want to run that risk?

There is then the burden on businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector.

[Laurence Turner]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman has had a go; he may come back later.

Kate Nicholls, the chief executive of UKHospitality, said that staff in restaurants, bars, pubs and hotels work in a “social environment” where

“there are jokes and people are boisterous”.

She said that while everyone wants to ensure that their staff are protected,

“we don’t want to be policing our customers”,

and she is concerned that this clause could add “undue restrictions”. If someone works in a pub or a comedy club, for example, there is a high risk that they might hear comments that they do not like, but it is wrong to restrict free speech just because somebody does not like something. The unintended consequence of this provision is likely to be a chilling effect on free speech and unclear responsibilities for employers about where they need to draw the line.

[Wera Hobhouse]

rose—

[Laurence Turner]

rose—

[Greg Smith]

I will make some progress. I have been on my feet for a long time, and I know that a lot of people wish to speak in this debate.

In other words, this clause could well function as a banter ban at best, and as a restriction on academic debate and inquiry. Due to our concern about how this clause will operate, especially in the higher education and hospitality sectors, we have tabled amendment 289, which would carve out the hospitality sector and sports venues from clause 18. We believe those are the sectors where the potential for unintended consequences from this clause will be the greatest.

It is because we believe that clause 18 will create problems, rather than solve them, that we have tabled new clause 85, which would require the Secretary of State to report on the clause. The report must include the extent to which the prevalence of third-party harassment makes the case for the measures in clause 18, including an assessment of the impact of the clause on free speech, an assessment of the likely costs of the clause to employers, an assessment of which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment through no fault of the employer, and proposals for mitigations that can be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations. We will require the Secretary of State to lay a report setting those out before each House of Parliament, and amendment 285 would prevent clause 18 from coming into force until that report is approved by Parliament.

The Government need to go away and think again, and that is what our amendments are designed to achieve. If the Government are not willing to do so, we have also tabled amendment 288, which would leave the clause out of the Bill entirely, so great is our concern about the unintended consequences it could have.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Greg Smith]

Once more.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Since we were discussing this issue for the best part of the previous Parliament, can I ask the shadow Minister whether there is a misunderstanding about what this part of the Bill does? It is about a preventive duty, not predicting everything that could happen in the hospitality sector, for example. The guidance is to make sure that everybody knows that their workplace will protect people from harassment—that is what an employer needs to do. What is the problem with that?

[Greg Smith]

I am not sure that the hon. Lady has firmly grasped what the Bill says in this respect. Of course we want to protect everybody in our society—that is the first duty of Government—but I do not think she has fully considered the unintended consequences in the real world, particularly in the hospitality sector.

I will speak briefly to new clause 86 and amendments 286 and 287. Clause 21 and schedule 2 are another example of the Government rushing to legislate in an attempt to meet an arbitrary deadline set by the Deputy Prime Minister, with chaotic results. Clause 21 will remove the qualifying period for unfair dismissal. Again, the Regulatory Policy Committee slapped a red rating on the Government’s impact assessment for these provisions, meaning that the Government have not adequately justified the need for them. They have admitted that they do not have robust data on the incidence of dismissal for those under two years of employment. In other words, yet again, we do not know whether there is even an actual problem with unfair dismissal for this Bill to try to solve.

The British Chambers of Commerce has said that

“Members say that there would be a reduced hiring appetite were this legislation to come in, and that they would be less likely to recruit new employees due to the risk and difficulty, particularly under the day one rights, unless there were at least a nine-month probation period”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 8.]

As such, our new clause 86 requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of clause 21 and schedule 2, and amendment 286 requires Parliament specifically to approve that impact before these sections of the Bill can come into force.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Greg Smith]

I am mindful of time, and I do not wish to incur Madam Deputy Speaker’s wrath, so I will make progress.

We have also tabled amendment 287, which would remove clause 21 from the Bill entirely, so concerned are we about how damaging it will be to both employers and employees, particularly those who will not get work as a direct consequence of these requirements.

Our new clause 87 seems a perfectly sensible thing to ask for: a simple requirement that the Secretary of State must have regard to the objectives of economic growth and improving the international competitiveness of the UK economy when making regulations under parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. If agreed to, though, it would of course be a wrecking amendment, because the Government do not know how they intend to give effect to the provisions on guaranteed hours, the extension of those provisions to agency workers or the provisions on unfair dismissal, to name but a few. All of those things will be left to regulations after the Bill is passed, without proper scrutiny from this place, and it will be working people who pay the price.

Our new clause 91 would clamp down on public sector employers using positive discrimination under sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010 where it causes detriment to other employees, and would promote merit-based employment practices. Taxpayers rightly expect that their money should be spent well, and part of offering value for money is that taxpayer money should be ruthlessly focused on improving the public services on which all of our constituents rely. That always means hiring on merit.

Amendment 290, which deals with the school support staff negotiating body, is the last of our amendments that I will speak to. In 2010, the then Conservative Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, abolished the school support staff negotiating body. The Conservative Government had a clear and principled reason for this: employers should have the flexibility to set pay and conditions locally, rather than having a top-down, centralised framework imposed on them. It was to allow school leaders—who know better than politicians in Whitehall—to innovate and do what works best for their schools, their pupils and their employees. Instead of giving employers flexibility to do what works best for them, the Government are re-establishing a national terms and conditions handbook, training, career progression routes and pay rates for school support staff that all school employers will be obliged to follow. We believe that the current arrangements for employing school support staff are working well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I have explained that I do not wish to incur Madam Deputy Speaker’s wrath, which I fear is close at this point, so I will make some progress.

The current arrangements have also allowed for innovation that is beneficial for pupils. We believe that school employers must retain a degree of freedom and flexibility to recruit, develop, remunerate and deploy their staff for the benefit of the children in their community, to achieve their particular aims from a school improvement or inclusion perspective. I urge the Government to consider this.

There are many more amendments that I could speak to, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will not. I will only say that this is a bad bit of legislation, and some of the amendments we are considering, particularly those tabled by the Government, make the Bill worse in many respects. They add to the already heavy burden on business, a burden that will combat growth—will slap down growth—and will mean that the Government will not achieve the objectives they have set out to achieve in their landmarks, missions, road signs and whatever else they have announced. I therefore urge the Government to consider our amendments, go back, and tame the worst excesses of this job-destroying Bill.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Plant Oxford Site

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if we will make a statement on the Plant Oxford site.

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

This Government are determined to see a strong, thriving UK automotive industry. We recognise the vital role that the British motor industry plays within our manufacturing landscape, employing more than 150,000 people, with tens of thousands more working in the wider supply chain. That is why we are ploughing £2 billion into the sector’s green transition and £300 million to encourage the uptake of new, clean, green electric vehicles—a big incentive for the global automotive sector to invest in the UK. Building on this momentum, our modern industrial strategy will back automotive companies that want to invest in Britain and drive long-term sustainable UK growth.

BMW has taken a commercial decision to delay the production of two new electric Mini models at its Oxford plant. Undoubtedly, that news will be unsettling for the company’s many hard-working employees, not least those working directly on the production line, but I must stress that BMW remains committed to its investment in the UK. It is by no means unusual for a manufacturer to adjust its product line-up or production start dates for commercial reasons.

We are proud that BMW considers Oxford to be at the heart of Mini production. As a Government, we are throwing our weight behind its investment. We want big automotive brands from Britain and around the world to lie at the heart of our growth mission and plan for change, creating well-paid jobs and putting more money into people’s pockets. As part of that effort, this Government are working closely with BMW as it reviews its investment timelines, ensuring that more cars are built right here in the United Kingdom.

[Greg Smith]

I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I expected the Secretary of State to hide from talk of CVs, but it seems that also applies to EVs. This weekend we saw the disastrous consequences of Labour’s rigid approach to net zero: BMW hitting the brakes on a £600 million investment in Plant Oxford. That deal, from 2023, would have secured 4,000 high-quality jobs and was a strong vote of confidence in the UK. Like other deals, it was possible only because the previous Government were willing to be pragmatic. The Conservatives made the sensible decision to delay the ban on internal combustion engine cars, bringing the UK into line with major global economies such as France, Germany, Sweden and Canada, but Labour said it knew better, restoring the 2030 phase-out date in its manifesto.

When the negative impacts of that approach became clear, the Government launched a fast-track consultation on the zero emission vehicle mandate, pitifully attempting to buy themselves time. Surely, no consultation is necessary. The effects of their puritanical ZEV obsession is already clear: Jaguar Land Rover says that the ZEV mandate is causing disruption to the market; Vauxhall has confirmed that it will shut down its Luton factory, citing the ZEV mandate as making the plant less economically viable; and now the future of Plant Oxford—the home of the Mini since 1959—is uncertain.

Labour’s reckless policies have shattered industry confidence, with consumer demand for EVs dropping off a cliff and numbers only just about sustained by subsidised fleet sales. Will the Minister do the right thing: stop hiding behind consultations and acknowledge that the Government’s ideological approach to net zero will lead only to economic disaster for our automotive sector and consumers alike?

[Sarah Jones]

It is hard to know where to start. The “puritanical ZEV obsession” was, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a Conservative policy from the last Government. The only changes made to that policy under the last Prime Minister dampened demand by changing the deadline, and hampered manufacturers by not ensuring flexibility or pragmatism in how the policy operated—it was the worst of both worlds.

By contrast, Labour and the Government are acting with pragmatism. We are listening to industry and working at pace to get this right. We are also creating the conditions in which the automotive industry can thrive. That means delivering not just the economic and political stability so lacking under the previous Government, but an industrial strategy that will deliver growth, including in the automotive industry; investing £2 billion in automotive transition through the Budget; investing in research and development; supporting and talking to our industries; and understanding the global climate.

It was really clear in BMW’s statement that there were macroeconomic global and commercial reasons why the decision to delay was made, but BMW is clear that it is still committed to this investment in the UK. I have talked to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who is liaising closely with workers and unions, as would be expected. We will continue to work to ensure the right economic and political climate, so that these industries can grow.

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, and I welcome the introduction of these two statutory instruments, which have been a long time coming. In 2019, the Conservatives made a manifesto commitment to introduce neonatal care leave. It was a shame that in that election, and in the most recent, no such commitment was made by the Labour party, now in government. That is no surprise, however; just like with all their good ideas, it usually turns out that they were ours.

Our commitment to introducing neonatal care leave led to our support of the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, which was stewarded by the former Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, Stuart C McDonald and Baroness Wyld. That Act is the reason why the Government are introducing these statutory instruments today.

I am pleased that, with reservations, we will support the measures, so that we can continue to build on the sensible improvements to workers’ rights that we, as Conservatives, introduced in government. We introduced shared parental leave, giving more choice and flexibility to families, and carers leave, giving employees more time off to give or arrange care for their families. We supported flexible working, giving employers and employees more flexibility over working practices, and we achieved all that while increasing employment and wages, a thing that the Government are now realising is no easy feat.

The result of our reforms to workers’ rights is that Britain has some of the most generous maternity and paternity leave globally, meaning families are able to spend more time with their newborns. Those achievements were reached by working with businesses and employees. We worked with businesses not just out of courtesy, but because we know that without consulting businesses and taking on board their concerns, no progress will be made, no matter how good the intention. That is not something this Government have done, which is why their Employment Rights Bill is driving up unemployment before it has even been passed.

In the plan to make work pay, the Government committed to rights from an employee’s first day, but for neonatal care pay, that is not the case. Will the Minister confirm whether this is the first step in rolling back on day one rights? Under the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, the right to neonatal care leave and pay will come into force in less than two months. Why have the Government waited to introduce the instruments until now, leaving businesses less than eight weeks to prepare and plan? We have heard that the Prime Minister has requested a growth test on all policies. Has the Minister conducted a growth test on this policy? If not, why not?

More generally, this Government’s record on health, in particular women’s health, has been disappointing. At the end of last month, the Health Secretary dropped women’s health targets and those for women’s health hubs. That decision will impact 600,000 women on waiting lists, lead to preventable disease progression and lead to more women attending A&E, unable to work, care or live a fulfilled life. The Labour manifesto made a commitment to prioritise women’s health, but this Government are making a habit of taking with one hand to give with the other. Will the Minister confirm whether he raised his concerns over the cancellation of health targets, which have an impact on these measures, with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care?

[Chris Vince]

The shadow Minister talks about targets, but was it not his own Government that got rid of the targets for A&E waiting times, and then failed to meet their lowered targets?

[Greg Smith]

It is a brave Labour politician who talks about health targets when, for so long, the NHS in Wales was performing, and continues to perform, worse than in England when it was run by the Conservatives.

To conclude, we will support these statutory instruments because they will support the 40,000 families who faced the incredibly difficult and worrisome experience of having a child in neonatal care. The instruments will build on our achievements that made the UK one of the best places in the world to be the parents of a newborn, and I hope the Government can continue to make progress.

I end by again thanking the former Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and Baroness Wyld. I also thank Bliss and the Smallest Things for their consistent work that has kept neonatal care pay and leave at the top of all of our agendas.

Draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. I am pleased to see that this statutory instrument builds on the good work of the previous Conservative Government in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, which received Royal Assent in May 2024, under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

As the Minister said, the instrument amends legislation in consequence of part 3, part 4 and chapter 2 of part 5 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which I shall refer to as the DMCCA henceforth. Part 3 of the DMCCA updates powers to investigate and enforce consumer protection law. Part 4 gives consumers protections in respect of unfair commercial practices, subscription contracts and prepayments to savings schemes, and regulates the provision of alternative dispute resolution for consumer contract disputes. Chapter 2 of part 5 confers statutory authority for UK regulators to provide investigative assistance to overseas regulators that have functions corresponding to those of UK regulators in relation to competition consumer protection and digital markets. The draft regulations update references across the statute book to the legislation that parts 3 and 4 of the Act replace, ensuring that regulators and others can disclose information to enable consumer enforcers to investigate and enforce breaches of consumer protections.

I welcome the measures taken by the Government in this statutory instrument, which builds on the work of the previous Government, but given the importance of the legislation, I would like the Minister to provide further clarity on a couple of points. The instrument updates various pieces of legislation that restrict disclosure of information to allow disclosure for the purposes of part 4 of the DMCCA. It also amends the Water Resources Act 1991 to allow disclosure for the purposes of part 3, part 4 and chapter 2 of part 5 of the DMCCA. Will the Minister elaborate on the protections in place to ensure that information sharing is handled appropriately and remains secure?

On perhaps more of a political note, my second question is about one of the DMCCA’s purposes, which is to provide consumers with protections against subscription traps. As the Minister well knows from our long time together in the Employment Rights Bill Committee, the Employment Rights Bill will automatically opt in trade union members to a political fund unless they expressly opt out. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position on subscription traps? Are they holding businesses and trade unions to different standards?

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

When consumer confidence is low, business confidence is low, and nowhere is that more visible than in our automotive sector, with UK car production slumping to its lowest level since 1954. Autocar magazine warned today that the zero emission vehicle mandate

“is currently the industry’s biggest headache, as…consumer demand is not there to meet the stringent regulations which are increasing each year.”

When policy fails, it is sensible to admit it and change course. Will the Minister accept that the ZEV mandate flies in the face of what consumers actually want, and that a radically different path is required to boost business confidence in our automotive sector?

[Gareth Thomas]

No, I do not accept that, and I would gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the policy to which he has referred was introduced by his party. I recognise that there are many aspects of the Conservative party’s record about which he and his colleagues are probably embarrassed. The Liz Truss Budget—which the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), helped to write—did huge damage to our country and to consumer confidence. The measures that the Chancellor announced yesterday, for example, will drive growth forward, and that is one of the reasons why businesses backed them so strongly yesterday.

[Greg Smith]

It normally takes longer than six months for a Government to drift that far from reality. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has predicted that just 775,000 cars will roll off production lines in 2025, compared to 1.3 million in 2019. Today’s edition of The Telegraph reports:

“The slump has been accelerated by a slowdown in demand across Europe, particularly by drivers shunning new electric vehicles”.

Why does the Minister persist in a policy to undermine our automotive businesses by forcing them to make a product that people just do not want to buy? Is it not time to get the state out of the way, let our innovators innovate, and boost automotive businesses’ confidence by letting them deliver to actual consumer demand?

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten the extra investment that Nissan has announced, and the extra investment that has been announced by a number of other car manufacturers. He and his colleagues were very clear in opposing the measures that we took in the Budget, including measures that backed investment in the automotive sector, and they set out no plans to pay for that investment. I gently encourage him to reflect a little further on the mistakes that his party made in government, which have caused some of the problems that we are having to sort out now.

Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am grateful to the Minister for outlining in such detail the provisions of the draft regulations, which build on legislation passed by the last Conservative Government. The broad picture is that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition welcome and support them and will not seek to divide the Committee on them. Essentially, they will expand the category of individuals who can apply to Companies House to have their information protected under the ROE and will allow trust information on the ROE that is currently restricted from public inspection to be accessed by application, subject to certain requirements.

Although I stress that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support the draft regulations, I have two sets of questions to which I would be grateful for an answer from the Minister, either directly this morning or in writing later.

First, who makes the assessment of who meets the threshold for being considered at risk of intimidation or violence? Is there a published list of criteria for meeting the threshold? Is there any means for applicants to appeal the decision?

Secondly, once an applicant has been successful in their application to have their information protected, how often will they need to reapply? How frequently will Companies House review their status?

Solar Farms: Agricultural Land

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Savage]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we should be prioritising locations that do not impact on our ability to meet our food security needs.

The environmental benefits of solar farms are not as clearcut as some would have us believe. Yes, they produce clean energy, but at what cost? Large installations can alter local ecosystems, potentially contaminate soil and even increase local temperatures due to heat absorption by the dark panels—and let us not forget the human cost. Tenant farmers face eviction. Land values are skyrocketing, making it harder for new farmers to enter the industry, and we risk losing the very character of our rural communities that underpins local tourism and our national identity.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I agree with every word the hon. Lady has said so far. Does she agree with me that if we are to protect food security and give it equal billing with energy security and national security, not just solar installations are inappropriate, but the ancillary projects like those I am seeing in my constituency? For example, we have battery storage and National Grid coming along and saying it has to completely rebuild all of the substations on—guess what?—more agricultural land. This is a much bigger problem than just solar.

[Dr Savage]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member’s points. I am not against solar energy—far from it—but we need to be smart about how we implement it and all the associated infrastructure. Why not require all new homes to be fitted with solar panels, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) in his sunshine Bill? Why not use the vast roof spaces of warehouses, public buildings and car parks? These are sensible, minimally intrusive ways to contribute to our net zero goals.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on securing this important debate and the number of interventions she received in such a short period of time reflects the strength of feeling.

Before I set out the Government’s approach, I reassure the hon. Lady and her constituents that we agree on most things in this space. We agree that we should be using renewables—whatever they are, wherever they are—in the best way possible. We agree that we need to look at our responsibilities in terms of the climate, agriculture, the countryside and food production. The Government take all those responsibilities very seriously and look them at very carefully. We agree that if we are building solar panels, for example, we should build on brownfield sites first. If we cannot, we should build on areas of lower-quality land first. We agree that food security is enormously important for this country. In the global conditions we find ourselves in, where there is more uncertainty—as we saw with the war in Ukraine and what followed with our energy prices—we need to be mindful of those things. When it comes to the principles, we agree.

I will set out the Government’s overall approach to our clean power mission, which might help to put the debate in context. We, like the hon. Member for South Cotswolds, have been clear from the start that the only way to tackle climate change, secure our energy supply, bring down bills and drive economic growth is through clean energy. The rapid deployment of clean energy infrastructure is essential for our future security and economy.

[Greg Smith]

Is it not the case that the Government are just plumping for the technology that is available right now, in the form of thousands of acres of solar, when we need 2,000 acres of solar panels to produce enough electricity for just 50,000 homes on current usage? A small modular reactor needs just two football pitches for 1 million homes. As I have said many times, why on earth are the Government messing about with solar given its impacts on food security, which the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) mentioned?

[Sarah Jones]

The previous Government messed around with solar quite a lot—we are building on what the previous Government did, up to a point. The answer is to look at all the technologies that are available to us. SMRs are enormously attractive in lots of different ways, and lots of colleagues have been talking to us about them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a process for the development of SMRs. We need all the tools in our armoury and we need to make sure we are using the most modern technology available. He makes a fair point on that front.

Sustainable power generated here in Britain will reduce our contribution to the damaging effects of climate change and our dependence on the volatile global fossil fuel market. It is already creating thousands of highly skilled jobs and will continue to do so. Instead of delaying the inevitable, we have set ourselves a target to push to clean power by 2030. The clean power action plan, published last month, sets out how we will get there, including the likely technology mix required. It is clear that solar will play a major role.

Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Ashley Fox]

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

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

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

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

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

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

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

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I rise to strongly support the new clause. We have seen throughout our debates in Committee that there are opportunities for changing the weather around our employment world, whether it is around foster carers, adoption or volunteering—the subject of new clause 38, championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster), which we will discuss later.

I hope that this new clause falls on fertile ground because, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater has highlighted, volunteering across the piece has significantly reduced. We need to change the weather around the employment world and make sure that people feel able and confident to volunteer, as we know that policing is a particular challenge.

I welcome the Government’s plans to invest in neighbourhood policing. Special officers are often involved in that. People feel confident when they see a uniformed officer on the street. The public do not care whether it is a paid officer or a special officer; it is a trusted individual. The more we can drive that agenda, as I know from my residents in Torbay, the more it will be welcomed. I look forward to a strong endorsement from the Minister.

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Christopher. I start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater on the new clause and join him in paying tribute to his constituent Emma-Elizabeth Murphy and all special constables who perform the vital work that Members have spoken in support of. We recognise and value the vital role that special constables play, which includes supporting neighbourhood policing. We are committed to ensuring that police forces have the support that they need from the Government to tackle important matters of public safety.

Special constables, along with the full range of police volunteers, bring valuable and diverse skills that complement the roles that officers and staff play in delivering the best service to the public. We recognise that there has been a fall in the number of special constables over recent years. Further work needs to be done to understand exactly the reasons for that. Initial consideration suggests that a range of factors has led to the reduction in the number of special constables. It is not clear whether the new clause would reverse that trend or what its impact on business would be—the hon. Member for Bridgwater has been a constant critic of the Bill’s impact on businesses—so we need to understand that better.

We are already doing a range of work to support special constables and employment rights more broadly. We are introducing the neighbourhood policing guarantee, which will put thousands of additional police officers, police community support officers and special constables on our streets and restore patrols in town centres across the country.

Many employers already support their employees to volunteer in a special constabulary. Under the Employer Supported Policing scheme, led by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, a number of organisations across a range of sectors have committed to supporting members of their workforce to serve as special constables, in recognition of the opportunities to build new skills and support local communities. The Home Office is also supporting the NPCC to develop and implement initiatives to improve the recruitment and retention of special constables. That includes developing a refreshed national citizens in policing strategy and a national special constabulary working group.

I will not be able to accept the new clause, but I am sympathetic to the case that has been made. In preparation for dealing with it, I learned that that the initial legislation that introduced time off for certain public duties is now 50 years old, so it seems time to consider this issue in the round, and the role of special constables will no doubt be included in that. The Home Office will clearly have an important say. As I said, a number of factors has led to the decline in the number of special constables in recent years.

[Greg Smith]

The new clause has been tabled for some weeks now. Has the Minister engaged with the Home Secretary, the Policing Minister or any officials in the Home Office? Have they presented a view on this proposal yet?

[Justin Madders]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I commend the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling new clause 35. It is not the Opposition’s intention to support it at this stage, but I want to be clear that the principle behind it is fundamentally good: ensuring carers are not left on a financial sticky wicket, which is a very real problem in the country. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Torbay said that it was a probing amendment, but we believe that it is not currently fully thought through. We can all agree—I would be surprised if we did not—on saluting the incredible work that carers do up and down the land. They are all heroes in their own right and they do incredible work to look after those they care for. Their work merits a genuine use of the word “amazing”. It is a word that has been applied to far too many things in this world that are not amazing, but I think we can all agree that the work carers do genuinely is amazing.

Our rationale for saying that this new clause is not thought through enough is that it does not produce realistic solutions to solving the financial gap for carers, which we acknowledge exists. I would be interested to know the rates of payment the Liberal Democrats think would be appropriate for carer’s leave, how the rates they envisage have been benchmarked, and if they have understood the likelihood of take-up of carer’s leave and therefore the ability of employers to absorb this cost. The hon. Gentleman was very clear about that 10.6 million figure he gave. Any solution that seeks to close the financial gap must accept some of the realities and take on board the costings that will have to come from somewhere to ensure that that financial burden can be met, notwithstanding the acceptance that carers need more support for—I repeat—their amazing work. That is why we believe this new clause just does not work at this time, and I would be surprised if our position were that different from the Government’s.

[The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)]

I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my membership of the National Education Union and USDAW.

New clause 35 would commit the Government to introducing an entitlement for employees with caring responsibilities, to be paid at their usual wage level, while taking carer’s leave. It would give carers an entitlement of up to a week of paid leave and require employers to cover the cost.

I want to underline that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting employed unpaid carers. In the October 2024 Budget, we increased the earnings disregard for carers from £151 to £196, meaning that they can earn up to £196 without losing any of their carer’s allowance. In effect, that means that they can work 16 hours a week at the national living wage.

We have two concerns about the new clause. First, it would introduce significant new costs for employers without giving consideration to the potential impact on businesses, in particular small ones. Secondly, under the proposed approach, individuals taking carer’s leave would be treated more favourably than employees taking other forms of leave to care for family members, such as maternity or paternity leave, where a flat statutory rate is available. There is no clear rationale for taking a different approach, and it could raise questions about differential treatment of different groups. For those reasons, the Government do not support the new clause.

However, supporting carers who want to work alongside managing their caring responsibilities is an important element of our plans to modernise the world of work, which will ensure that there are good jobs for carers and a skilled workforce for employers. The Carer’s Leave Act 2023 gave employed carers a new right to time off work to care for a dependant with long-term care needs. We will review that measure and consider whether any further support is required. That will include looking at potential options for paid leave. The review will draw on evidence from carers and employers and learn from their experiences, so that we can understand what is working in the current system and identify where improvements may be needed. Through that work, we will also engage closely with smaller employers and sector bodies to ensure that we fully understand the potential impacts and benefits that further policy development could bring for them. It is right that we allow the review to run its course to enable an evidence-based decision on whether there is more we can do to support working carers while balancing impacts on businesses.

I heard what the hon. Member for Torbay said about the new clause being a probing amendment, and I hope that what I have said gives him reassurance about our commitment to that review. I therefore invite him to withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

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

The new clause would ensure that workers in the early stages of an employment dispute, such as a disciplinary or grievance hearing, can be supported by those who are qualified, rather than just by trade union representatives or similar colleagues. It would allow for matters to be brought to a head much sooner and prevent cases from necessarily going to tribunal, which clogs up the tribunal system. I hope the Government will take the new clause in the positive sprit in which we tabled it.

[Greg Smith]

I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Torbay said. On one level, I would be interested to know why the Liberal Democrats think the expansion is needed, where the shortfalls are in the current right to be accompanied, and what benefits the new right would bring. I think that what the hon. Gentleman is proposing could be done through existing legislation in many respects.

That said, representatives of the charity and third sector who seek to represent those in the teaching profession have welcomed the new clause, because the teaching unions have a bit of a monopoly at the moment. Although my mother has been retired for many years, she always joined a union through considerably gritted teeth—she may have been the only Conservative in the staff room, but she gritted her teeth. In fact, she may even have taught for many years in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield. The teaching unions have that monopoly because of the insurances and so on that they give to teachers. The new clause would widen things out and allow teachers who do not wish to join a union to get the support they need—accompaniment at a hearing—from a charity or third sector organisation, which may be welcome.

We need more clarity on the impact that would have on the teaching profession, which is why we do not think the new clause should be accepted at this time. However, the hon. Member for Torbay has opened the door on an area that it is important for us to explore as the Bill proceeds, and perhaps in future legislation.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling the new clause. I think its origins are in written evidence to the Committee from the edu-legal organisation Edapt, which has been raising this issue with successive Governments for a number of years.

It is important to set out the position under current law. Section 10(3) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 explains that when a worker is asked to attend a disciplinary or grievance hearing they are entitled to bring a companion who is either a fellow worker, an official employed by a trade union, or a workplace trade union representative that the union has reasonably certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion at such hearings. Employers are free but not obliged to allow workers to be accompanied by someone who does not fall into those categories. Some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed, such as a professional support body, partner, spouse or legal representative.

As one of the initial steps in resolving tensions when the worker-employer relationship has broken down, the provisions of the 1999 Act seek to keep disciplinary and grievance procedures internal to a workplace. Expanding the types of organisations that can be involved in representing workers could lead to hearings requiring legal representation for both worker and employer. We certainly do not want to see internal disciplinary or grievance hearings ending up in a legal battle. That would invariably increase the cost of holding a hearing and potentially decrease the chances of an amicable resolution. Equally, introducing increased legal expertise from outside the workplace could increase the likelihood of a tribunal. Workers and employers may judge ACAS conciliation or mediation unlikely to resolve a dispute because legal arguments have been made during an internal disciplinary hearing. We certainly believe that amicable resolutions are the swiftest way for justice to be delivered.

The new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to set out and define in regulations the professional bodies that could represent employees in disciplinary and grievance hearings. Although, as the shadow Minister said, this measure relates specifically to the education sector, one can easily see a whole range of organisations beginning to knock on the door. It would raise all sorts of questions about regulations, standards and enforcement, and it would inevitably expand quite quickly.

As the shadow Minister said, it is not clear beyond the written submission to the Committee where the demand is for the expansion of this right. Employers are of course entitled to nominate individuals or organisations for recognition. The Government are clear that trade unions are best placed to provide workplace representation. The legislation is fit for purpose in terms of ensuring that that is done in a proportionate and balanced way. On that basis, we reject the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

The new clause would not set things in stone. We are saying, “Let’s go and consult.” There is a real opportunity here. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, who helped to propose this measure; it is his brainchild. I think it is a real golden opportunity, and I am sure the Minister will grasp it with both hands and get it over the line for us. I will be pressing the new clause to a vote.

[Greg Smith]

I heard very clearly what the hon. Member for Torbay proposed on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I think we all salute everybody who volunteers. We can all celebrate people who give up their time freely to do something worthy in our constituencies, communities and neighbourhoods—including the Scout and Girlguiding groups that the hon. Gentleman spoke of.

It is clear from the passion with which the hon. Gentleman spoke that the Liberal Democrats are still pining for the coalition days, when the big society was the centrepiece of the vision that the Prime Minister—now my right hon. Friend the noble Lord Cameron—had for this country. On one level, I had thought that one of the greatest successes of the coalition Government was—until the 2024 general election—the electoral annihilation of the Liberal Democrats, but they are still pining for many of the things that my party and theirs did together in that coalition period.

In theory, the new clause is actually very appealing; we all want to support people to do good and give their time freely in their communities, neighbourhoods and areas—in our constituencies. But where I take issue with the hon. Gentleman is that, time and again in this Committee, too much has been left to yet another consultation. While I hear his argument, “What harm would another one do?”, I think we are consultationed out at the moment. I do not think it would be helpful either for the Government, in achieving what they wish to achieve through this very wide-reaching piece of legislation—albeit with disagreement from the Opposition Benches—or for employers to have to take on yet another strand of burden in this regard, so the Opposition will not be supporting new clause 38.

However, we do want to explore ways in which volunteering can be more greatly encouraged in all of our communities. As a starting point, although consideration of the definition of volunteering would be included as part of the hon. Gentleman’s proposed consultation, we need a better definition before we consider any wider consultation on time off and so on. At the moment, it is far too wide-open a goal and too broad a word. If we asked everybody in the country to give their definition of volunteering, we would probably get 70 million different answers. If we had greater clarity about what we are really talking about—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater’s very clear and defined proposal on special constables, which of course is an incredibly worthwhile and nation-enhancing bit of volunteering—then we could potentially get somewhere, but at the moment, volunteering could mean literally anything to anyone. That is not to undermine the good work that people do day in, day out across our country, but we need greater clarity.

[Justin Madders]

Let us start where we can all agree: volunteering is a very important part of our society and we want to do everything we can to encourage it. It is a central part of civic life and has a positive impact on our society, and we all pay tribute to the volunteers in our communities. There are large employers that have impact days and corporate social responsibility days where they come into the community—there are a number of examples in my constituency where that has happened. Larger employers, in particular, have been able to pool their resources and have a real benefit in their communities.

However, as the shadow Minister outlined, the Government will be undertaking a significant number of consultations, and we do not wish to add to that at this stage. We want to focus on the priorities in our “Make Work Pay” agenda. In particular, we want to see how the enhanced right to flexible working will benefit people’s ability to volunteer. We believe that when we implement the new rights to flexible working in the earlier parts of the Bill, they will enable employees to access flexible working requests in order to fit in their volunteering, and that further legislation is not necessary at this time.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is delivering the Know Your Neighbourhood fund, which has a key focus to ensure that learning is shared

“on how people in disadvantaged areas can be supported to volunteer and improve their social connections”.

So there is work going on in Government, and a recognition that volunteering is an important part of the fabric of our society, but, as has been indicated, we do not wish to undertake additional consultations at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith]

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

The new clause would require the Certification Officer to publish a report on the impact on various sectors of the economy of introducing a four-day week. The Certification Officer is responsible for ensuring that trade unions carry out their statutory duties, and it is important that it is aware of the impacts of this policy, which various elements of the labour movement and the trade union movement have supported.

We have seen just how effective the four-day week has been where it has been tried. Let us take the example of South Cambridgeshire district council, which introduced it for its workers in 2023. The Mail reported last week that one in six staff have a second job during their day off. That is despite the council’s website stating that the time off is to allow workers to “recover and re-energise” for the “more intense” four-day week. It is full-time pay for part-time work, and then some.

It would be extremely helpful for all concerned if we had a little more transparent information about the effects the four-day week might have on the economy as a whole if introduced more widely. That is why we have tabled new clause 42, which would require the Certification Officer, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the economic and financial impact of introducing a four-day week.

The report would be required to cover the retail and wholesale industry; the manufacturing industry; the finance and insurance industry; the health and social care industry; the construction industry; the education industry; the public sector and defence industry; the transport and storage industry; the arts and recreation industry; and agriculture, mining and fishing. To ensure that the report is balanced, the Certification Officer must consult business owners, workers and consumers, although that, of course, is not an exhaustive list.

For full transparency, we would like to make sure that any submissions that are received are published, preferably in a way that can be questioned in this House. The new clause aims to introduce a “look before you leap” ethos into the Government’s policymaking. Given the state of the Bill, I would argue that that is very much needed.

[Steve Darling]

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has had a road to Damascus moment on the need for further consultation on the Bill. I am delighted that the Conservatives believe that consultation is a good thing, unlike my Conservative council colleagues in Torbay. I look forward to the Minister looking kindly on the new clause, which shows that the Conservatives believe in consultation. I would ask that he please grasp this opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

As should be clear, no plans are included in the Bill to mandate a four-day week for five days’ pay. Compressed hours already exist in some workplaces, but that does not always mean working fewer hours. Businesses can refuse a request if it does not suit their needs. Therefore, any assessment of a four-day week is unnecessary, and I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.

[Greg Smith]

I listened carefully to the Minister’s response. The four-day week is subject to much media interest at the moment, and it is important that we keep a close eye on moves to shorten the working week, given the impact it would have on productivity and growth in our economy going forward. For the time being, I am happy not to press the new clause, but the Opposition are concerned, and we will keep an incredibly close eye on the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 46

Adoption pay: self-employed persons

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

(a) self-employed, or

(b) contractors.

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Steve Darling]

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

The new clause would extend statutory adoption pay to those who are self-employed or contractors. I must declare something of an interest, although I do not formally need to, because I am adopted myself, and this issue is extremely close to my heart. When I was leader of the Torbay unitary council, we went from “failing” to “good” for our children’s services within two years. That is probably the biggest achievement of my life. Again, it was something I was driven on because I am adopted. In the ’70s, I was very fortunate to be adopted by Eric and Penny. Eric was not a toolmaker, but he was a lorry driver, and would potentially have benefited had there been an opportunity such as the one I have outlined in the new clause.

I encourage colleagues to step back slightly and to reflect on the challenges in social care, and particularly children’s social care, and on the heavy costs—I am sure colleagues are only too aware of them—to local authorities, which have a responsibility for children’s services. For those kids who need support, the best people are foster carers or those who adopt. When there is a lack of such people—when there is not that capacity—kids might have to be picked up by the private sector, and hard-pressed local authorities often have to pay through the nose for that. The new clause is about changing the weather again around support for youngsters in need. By extending statutory adoption pay to those who are self-employed or contractors, we would enhance the pool of those who can participate.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for her help with the new clause. Earlier this week, she led a worthwhile debate on this issue, and I acknowledge the positive feedback the Minister in that debate gave on the proposals. I look forward to hearing from this Minister how the Government could take the proposals in this probing amendment forward.

[Greg Smith]

I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Torbay. The issues he raises are worthy of debate, but as he said this is a probing amendment, so these are matters for a future occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Greg Smith]

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition cannot support new clause 51. The horrible practices outlined by the hon. Member for Dundee Central need to be tackled, but the Bill will already do that. I actually find myself in agreement with parts of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said. There are other routes within immigration law where such things can and should be tackled. No matter how much we disagree with parts of the Bill, if we take the view that the law must apply equally to everybody whether or not they are a British citizen, it is unnecessarily to carve out a particular section of people through new clause 51, when there is other legislation to deal with the abuses that no one on the Committee or in the House wants to see.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I will be brief. The clauses are simple and standard, and they appear in most legislation.

Clause 113 will allow the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments—that is, amendments that are immediately consequent upon a provision in the Bill—to primary or secondary legislation. Consequential amendments are necessary changes to other legislation to ensure that the law works alongside the changes to the law made in the Bill. Subsection (2) will allow the power to be used to amend primary legislation where we would not expect to be burdened with further primary legislation to make changes. Subsection (4) sets out that regulations that amend primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, thus maintaining Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the provisions made under the power.

Clause 114 will allow the Secretary of State to make two types of provision. The first type is a transitional provision, which can be used specifically to assist the changeover from the state of the law before the Bill comes into force to the state of the law when it is fully in force. The second type is a saving provision, which can be used to preserve certain elements of the old law even after the new law comes into effect. They are used to maintain specific rights, obligations or legal effects that existed under the old law so that the changes will not apply in certain pre-existing cases.

We have ensured that the powers conferred on the Secretary of State to make provisions under clauses 113 and 114 are limited. As I say, the clauses are customary provisions. I commend them to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

As the Minister says, the clauses are standard in a lot of legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 113 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 115

Regulations

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move amendment 164, in clause 115, page 104, line 2, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives when making any regulations under this Act—

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

(b) its growth in the medium to long term.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term when making any regulations under the Act.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 165, in clause 115, page 104, line 2, at end insert—

“(3A) No regulations may be made under this Act unless the Secretary of State has—

(a) consulted such persons as they consider relevant to the proposed regulations; and

(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament a report of that consultation.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult and publish a report of that consultation before making any regulations under the Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I think this will be the last set of amendments we discuss, so let us ensure that they are good ones. Amendment 164 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term when making any regulations under the Bill. Amendment 165 would require the Secretary of State to undertake consultations on all regulations published under the Bill.

The effects of the Chancellor’s Budget of broken promises are apparent for all to see. On 7 January, the yield on a 30-year gilt broke a 27-year record, at 5.198%. That is the highest figure since the Debt Management Office was created in 1998. On Monday, the yield rose to 5.461%. That is not abstract; it reflects dwindling confidence in the UK economy, puts extra pressure on the Government’s headroom against their own fiscal rules and could lead to taxpayers paying billions more just to service the Government’s debts.

The Chancellor has chosen to increase borrowing by an average of £32 billion a year for the next five years. That is the largest fiscal loosening in any fiscal event in recent years. It will add substantial pressure to those debt repayments. Earlier this week, The i Paper reported that average two-year and five-year fixed deals for those with 25% equity or deposit are now expected to rise above 5% in the coming weeks, causing more financial pain for buyers and those trying to remortgage.

The Budget, the rise in employer national insurance contributions and, importantly, the provisions in the Bill could not be described as pro-growth, yet the Government repeatedly assure us that growth is the one thing they will deliver, which will unlock everything else.

Amendment 164 would restore the Government’s good intentions and get them back on track. It would ensure that the Secretary of State has regard to the need to ensure growth when making regulations under the Bill. On the basis of all the evidence that we have seen since the general election, growth is clearly not front and centre in the Government’s thinking when they are making policy. It must be.

Amendment 165 would ensure that the Secretary of State consults properly before making regulations under the extensive powers in the Bill. It is merely to hold the Government to their word: they acknowledge that in many respects the policy in the Bill is undercooked and needs further work before implementation.

With these final amendments that the Committee will discuss, let us lay down the gauntlet and see whether the Government will put their money where their mouth is. If the Government are serious about growth, they will surely accept amendment 164.

[Steve Darling]

Throughout our debates, Conservative colleagues have been critical of the Government for not having an oven-ready Bill and emphasising the need for further consultation. I have sympathy with that, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham. However, the last Conservative amendment that we will consider in Committee would require consultation, so I wonder whether the Labour party’s proposals have worn the Conservatives down into believing in it. I am delighted by that; perhaps they have changed their minds on the rest of the Bill, too. I hope that the Minister will grasp the opportunity with both hands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

The shadow Minister’s amendment 164, as he said, would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the UK’s growth and international competitiveness when making any regulations under the Bill. As the shadow Minister knows, the Government are committed to getting growth in this country back on track and to maintaining and strengthening our international standing. I noticed that in his litany of negative economic news, he forgot to mention today’s growth figures, which show us back in positive territory.

Our employment rights framework is about ensuring that the economy works for everyone. The Government believe our plan to make work pay will bring the UK back in line internationally and tackle issues with low growth, productivity and pay. The plan is not only a core part of the mission to grow the economy, but crucial to delivering on our milestone to raise living standards across the country and to create opportunities for all. It sits alongside work on planning reform, the skills revolution, tackling inactivity and launching our vision for a modern industrial strategy. The strategy will enable the UK’s already world-leading services and manufacturing sectors to adapt and grow, seizing opportunities internationally to lead in new sectors, with high-quality, well-paid jobs. It will be grounded in long-term stability, a renewed commitment to free and fair trade, and a pro-business approach focused on reducing barriers to investment in the UK.

We have committed to full and detailed engagement with businesses and trade unions alike as we develop the detail of regulations under the Bill. Our published impact assessment evaluates a wide range of evidence and concludes that the package could have a direct and positive impact on growth. Our intention is to refine our analysis as policy development continues, including by publishing updated option assessments and impact assessments, alongside future consultations and secondary legislation, to meet our better regulation requirements. In developing the detail of regulations, our officials and Ministers will pay close heed to the potential impacts on growth, as well as to our international comparability. We are committed to ensuring that we get support across the country among workers and employers alike.

Amendment 165 would require the Secretary of State to consult, and to publish a report of consultation that has been undertaken on specific measures, before making any regulations under the Bill. As was noted by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, those on the Conservative Benches have taken a rather vacillating approach to consultation during the passage of the Bill, but we have been clear that we are pro-business and pro-worker. That is reflected in our approach, not just in Committee but with engagement since before the Bill’s publication, to ensure that our plan to make work pay is delivered.

As the Committee knows, we have committed to full and comprehensive consultation with all stakeholders. We began in October with an initial consultation package and, as set out in the “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document, we will consult further on the implementation of the Bill’s measures. Alongside formal consultations, we have conducted extensive engagement on how best to put our plans into practice. We have already held and attended about 40 meetings of external stakeholders related to “Make Work Pay”. Eighteen of those meetings have been specific to businesses, eight specific to trade unions, and seven held in a tripartite setting.

I have written to the shadow Minister with details of the engagement that has already taken place. The figures are not exhaustive and do not include officials’ meetings or recurring meetings with external organisations to discuss a range of topics. I therefore suggest that we are engaging and consulting fully and that the amendment is not necessary.

[Greg Smith]

Well, there we have it. The Government who say they are pro-growth have shown their true colours and will not back our amendment to prove their intentions towards growth. This whole Bill is a socialist charter and we know that we cannot have socialism and growth at the same time. The history books have taught us that time and again.

We deeply regret the Government’s resistance to these two amendments. We will continue to be the party that champions business, growth and getting our economy going again, while this Government do everything they can, in this Bill and in their Budget and in so many other ways, to hold our economy back.

[Michael Wheeler]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Greg Smith]

Of course I will. Bring it on.

[Michael Wheeler]

I am going to try an entirely new tactic to derail the shadow Minister mid-stride. This is a genuine question, and I hope he answers it. Does he agree that throughout our line-by-line discussion of the Bill, he has been most generous with his time in accepting interventions that I believe to have been valuable?

[Greg Smith]

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is for others to judge whether any Member of this House has been generous or otherwise.

What I can say, as we come towards the end of our debate on the final amendments and move on to the final clauses, is that we have had a good debate in this Bill Committee. It has not been one of those where those on the Government Benches are told to be quiet in the interest of getting on with it. We have had a genuine debate and a back and forth. Although we have not always agreed, and it looks like we do not agree on the amendments we are debating right now, we have had a debate. Our constituents sent us all here to represent them in arguments over ideas, concepts and values, and practical steps to meet the ideas and values that we hold dear, and we have done so. I agree with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

On amendments 164 and 165, I repeat that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition regret that the Government do not wish to accept these pro-growth amendments. I will not press them for now, but we may well be seeing them very soon, when the Bill returns to the main Chamber on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[Justin Madders]

I hope the Committee will agree that, like other clauses we have debated in part 6, clause 115 is a straightforward and customary provision. It sets out various procedural aspects that are relevant to the making of regulations under the Bill by statutory instrument, with the exception of commencement regulations, which I will speak to separately as they are dealt with in clause 118.

Subsection (2) sets out that regulations made under the Bill may make different provision for different purposes, and that they may contain supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provisions. Subsections (4) and (5) explain what is meant by references in the Bill to the negative procedure and the affirmative procedure. The delegated powers memorandum sets out each power in the Bill, as introduced, and justifies the procedure set out in the relevant clause.

[Greg Smith]

I reiterate that we think the clause could have been improved by our amendments, but, for the time being, that is not to be the case.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 115 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 116

Financial provision

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 117 to 119 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for taking us through those standard clauses at the end of the Bill. The only thing worthy of comment, which has come up during our debates on many of the clauses, is the variable commencement timings of some of the provisions, as listed in clause 118. I appreciate that that can happen in legislation from time to time, but the variable timescale adds an element of confusion for businesses. Some provisions will be commenced immediately, some after two months, and some after longer than that.

With that, we come to the end of our debates on the clauses and will move on to decide on measures that we have already debated. As I said in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles in the last debate, we have had a good debate in Committee. We have clearly outlined a number of areas where the two major parties in the House of Commons disagree on the approach to the Bill, but let nobody be in any doubt that we have gone through it line by line and debated it in a good level of detail.

I will end simply by saying that although clause 119 gives the short title of the Bill and says that

“This Act may be cited as the Employment Rights Act 2025”,

the Opposition’s view is that it will, in reality, be the Employment (Job Losses) Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 116 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 117

Extent

Amendments made: 206, in clause 117, page 104, line 22, for

“Part 3 of this Act extends”

substitute

“Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 3 of this Act extend”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 207.

Amendment 207, in clause 117, page 104, line 22, at end insert—

“(ba) Chapter 3 of Part 3 of this Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland;”.

This amendment states the extent of the new Chapter proposed to be formed by NC48 and NS3.

Amendment 107, in clause 117, page 104, line 24, at end insert—

“(1A) Sections (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: removal of waiting period) and (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: lower earnings limit etc) (statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland) extend to Northern Ireland only.”

This amendment is consequential on amendments NC5 and NC6; it limits the extent of new clauses (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: removal of waiting period) and (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: lower earnings limit etc) to Northern Ireland only.

Amendment 108, in clause 117, page 104, line 27, leave out “An amendment or repeal” and insert

“Except as set out in subsection (4), an amendment, repeal or revocation”.

This amendment is consequential on NS2 and amendment 109.

Amendment 109, in clause 117, page 104, line 28, leave out “amended or repealed.” and insert

“amended, repealed or revoked.

(4) In Schedule (Increase in time limits for making claims) (increase in time limits for making claims)—

(a) the amendments made by paragraph 9(3) and (4) extend to Northern Ireland only;

(b) the amendments made by paragraphs 10, 12 and 13 extend to England and Wales and Scotland only.”—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment would limit the extent of certain amendments in NS2 so that they only extend to Northern Ireland or Great Britain (where they would otherwise extend to both). This is to ensure that the increase in time limits in those cases only applies in relation to employment tribunals in Great Britain.

Clause 117, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 118

Commencement

Amendment made: 110, in clause 118, page 105, line 17, at end insert—

“(na) section (Employment outside Great Britain) (employment outside Great Britain);”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment would bring NC7 into force two months after Royal Assent.

Clause 118, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Title

Amendments made: 208, in title, line 6, after

“Adult Social Care Negotiating Body;”

insert

“to amend the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023;”.

This amendment is consequential on NS3.

Amendment 209, in title, line 6, after

“Adult Social Care Negotiating Body;”

insert

“to make provision for the implementation of international agreements relating to maritime employment;”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC52.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Justin Madders]

I wish to thank you, Sir Christopher, and the other Chairs who have presided over this lengthy Bill Committee. I also thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers and Hansard reporters. I thank all members of the Committee who have participated in what has been a healthy and engaging debate. No doubt there will be more discussions and debates to come as the Bill progresses. I also thank the officials Cal Stewart, Jack Masterman and Shelley Torey.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Christopher. All good things must come to an end, and sadly that includes this Committee. I echo the thanks given by the Minister to the workers—to everyone who has supported the Committee—and I thank our Front Benchers, who have done a sterling job and from time to time gently and appropriately warded us off our individual enthusiasms. Perhaps that was just me.

Work on what became this Bill began a long time ago. It is hard to believe that almost five years have passed since my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles and I first became involved in the discussions. To name contributors is to commit the sin of omission. That is the case too for the staff of the Labour party, due to the party’s professional code of modesty, but I would like to place a few names on the record. They include my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Kate Dearden) and for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), who previously ably represented the Community and Unison unions respectively, including through the Labour party’s national policy forum. That was in itself an exhaustive process. I just say to hon. Members that if they liked this Committee, they would have loved the NPF. I am sorry to disappoint Opposition Members, but there was no smoke in those rooms, and no beer. There were occasionally sandwiches.

I would be in error if I did not personally thank Jaden Wilkins in my office and the staff of the TUC for their consistently excellent research publications. I also thank some of the GMB figures who made critical contributions during that time, including the national political officers during that period—Tom Warnett, Caitlin Prowle and Gavin Sibthorpe, who put in more hours than anyone—the national legal officer, Barry Smith, and the staff of the research and policy department, Anna Barnes, Ross Holden and Cassie Farmer. Finally, I would like to mention the staff of the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation: Robbie Scott, Kieran Maxwell and Helen Pearce—the best political organiser in the labour movement, who herded cats and moved mountains.

[Greg Smith]

I echo the thanks that the Minister gave, particularly to the Clerks of the Committee, the wider Scrutiny Unit and everyone else who has worked so hard. These Bills are an enormous amount of hard work for the staff of the House, particularly the Clerks, and it is always appreciated by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Likewise, from the Doorkeepers and Hansard to everyone who prepares the room for us, it is an enormous job of work, and we thank them most sincerely. The Bill will shortly move on to Report, when the battle will recommence. In the meantime, Sir Christopher, I thank you and the other Chairs of the Committee for your chairmanship. We look forward to the next round.

[Steve Darling]

I echo the thanks to you, Sir Christopher, and the other Chairs who have ably chaired the Committee. I thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers and Hansard, who have reported throughout. I thank colleagues for the good-natured way that the Bill has been debated. This is my first Bill Committee, and I look forward with gusto to my next one. I also thank Laura Green, who has ably supported me throughout the Committee.

Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

I beg to move amendment 183, in schedule 6, page 135, line 6, leave out “‘Secretary of State’.” and insert

“‘Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority or the Secretary of State’.”

This amendment would ensure that section 12(2) of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which makes it an offence for a person to be in possession or control of a “relevant document” that is false or has been improperly obtained with the intention of inducing someone to believe that the person has a licence under that Act, continues to apply in respect of documents issued by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in connection with a licence before its abolition.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Mundell. As is customary, I refer to my declaration of interests and to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The amendment is essential to upholding legal continuity and to preventing any ambiguity or loopholes in enforcement. It will ensure that provisions under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 remain enforceable. Without the amendment, there is a risk that any improper conduct in relation to documents issued before the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority could fall outside the scope of enforcement.

Fraudulent licences have been used to exploit vulnerable workers and to mislead employers, particularly in industries such as agriculture and food processing. The amendment will strengthen deterrence against document fraud and ensure that enforcement agencies retain the tools that they need to protect workers effectively.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

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

As the Minister has outlined, Government amendment 183 will ensure that section 12(2) of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which makes it an offence for a person to be in possession or control of a relevant document that is false or has been improperly obtained with the intention of inducing someone to believe that the person has a licence under the Act, continues to apply in respect of documents issued by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in connection with a licence before its abolition.

Clause 109 will abolish the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, a non-departmental public body that investigates reports of worker exploitation and illegal activity such as human trafficking, forced labour and illegal labour provision, as well as making offences under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Employment Agencies Act 1973. Significantly, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority also issues licences to employment agencies, labour providers or gangmasters who provide workers in the sectors of agriculture, horticulture, shellfish gathering and any associated processing or packaging. That is important work; we do not in any way, shape or form deviate from that.

The Government amendment will rightly ensure that providing false licences remains an offence, including where that was identified before the Bill receives Royal Assent and becomes an Act at some point this year, but I would like to be reassured about the work of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in connection with the provisions of the Bill. For example, what will happen to the staff at the authority once it has been abolished? The Bill provides for the transfer of staff, property rights and liabilities to the Secretary of State. Does the Secretary of State envisage redundancies or envisage that the same staff will continue to do the same work under a different ultimate authority? Will the reorganisation lead to any disruption? I think we all accept that any change will bring with it some level of disruption, but how can the disruption be minimised?

Likewise, the amendment appears to ensure continuity with existing legislation once the Bill has passed. I will be grateful if the Minister can confirm that that is the case. If any new powers are being taken, please could they be explained?

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Schedule 6 outlines consequential amendments to other legislation and will ensure consistency with the provisions introduced by the Bill. It will also ensure that our legislative framework is cohesive and functional.

The amendments will make essential technical adjustments to section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to reflect the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers with enforcement officers, as defined in part 5 of the Bill. They will update references, revise definitions and ensure consistency between this Bill and existing legislation. The amendments will avoid confusion and ensure that our statutory framework functions effectively. I commend these minor technical amendments to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining these further minor amendments to section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, being made as a result of the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers with enforcement officers under part 5 of the Bill. The amendments are another consequence of centralising the different enforcement agencies that operate under the auspices of the fair work agency.

I would be grateful to have the Minister’s reassurance that all current enforcement work will still be able to be carried out to the same standard during the period of reorganisation. In the previous debate, he indicated that he did not expect disruption; I gently put it to him that that is probably on the optimistic end of the scale. No matter the good intention behind any reorganisation, or the will, endless planning and everything that goes into it from a lot of good people putting in a lot of hard work, the reality is that any reorganisation can cause disruption, either in its own right or through unexpected events.

I will give a parallel closer to home. In my constituency, Buckinghamshire unitary council was created to go live just as the pandemic was starting. Four district councils and a county council were put together at the point at which we were all sent home, so everyone was working from home and having to rise to a local authority’s duties to put in place resilience measures to support people through the pandemic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

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

[Greg Smith]

All of Buckinghamshire.

[Justin Madders]

All of Buckinghamshire, yes—with the hon. Member right in the middle where he truly belongs. I do recall that the previous Government decided to set up the UK Health Security Agency in the middle of the pandemic, which was a challenging time to do that. It has been shown that the people doing the job day to day can continue to do it while the institutional reform carries on, making it more likely that they will be effective in carrying out their work through the sharing of resources, evidence and expertise, as well as, hopefully, a more unified approach to enforcement. Clearly, we want those doing the day-to-day work to be able to carry on doing that and a number of these amendments enable them to do that. We hope that, as the agency forms and more joint working is developed, they will become more effective.

Amendment 104 agreed to.

Amendments made: 105, in schedule 6, page 140, line 26, at end insert—

‘(4A) In subsection (10), for “Any other” substitute “A”.’

See the explanatory statement for amendment 104.

Amendment 106, in schedule 6, page 140, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—

‘(5) For subsection (11) substitute—

“(11) In this section—

“enforcement officer” has the meaning given by section 72(3)

of the Employment Rights Act 2025;

“labour market offence” has the same meaning as in Part 5 of that Act (see section 112(1) of that Act).”’—(Justin Madders.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 104.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Schedule 6 makes consequential amendments to existing legislation to ensure consistency with the new provisions introduced by the Bill. The amendments make essential technical adjustments to the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, updating references and ensuring consistency between the Bill and existing legislation.

Government amendment 184 omits section 19A(10A) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, which makes provision for the disclosure of settlement terms to an enforcement officer appointed under section 37M of the same Act. Section 37M is repealed by the Bill, as it has been superseded by the new provisions of the Bill on the appointment of fair work agency officers. Clauses 98 and 99(1) of the Bill provide gateways for the disclosure of information to fair work agency officers. Government amendment 184 repeals section 19A(10A), as the provision is no longer required in the light of the new provisions introduced by the Bill. Government amendment 188 is consequential to Government amendment 184. The amendment prevents confusion and ensures our statutory framework continues to function effectively.

[Greg Smith]

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

“recovery of sums payable under settlements”

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

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

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

(b) that declaration is made.”

 

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

[Sir Ashley Fox]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful for the Minister’s brief explanation of Government amendments 185 to 187, which enable the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling the director general of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to deal with complaints and misconduct relating to enforcement officers who exercise police powers. Amendments 186 and 187 allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to deal with complaints. Misconduct relating to enforcement officers created by the Bill who exercise the powers in amendment 185 is consequential to amendments 186 and 187. Amendment 186 states that the Secretary of State

“may make regulations conferring functions on the Director General in relation to enforcement officers acting in the exercise of functions conferred on them by virtue of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.”

Can the Minister provide examples of the sorts of functions it is envisaged the Secretary of State will confer by regulations and how those powers will be used? Probably more significant to this debate and to give us the full picture, will the Independent Office for Police Conduct be granted greater powers to investigate misconduct claims? Will it have additional sanctions compared to that which it is already able to impose? If so, what are they and what will be the resourcing implications for the Independent Office for Police Conduct to take on oversight of the reorganisation?

We can all accept that many elements of the public sector are incredibly stretched. Whenever any reorganisation comes about or there is a need to oversee new bodies, there will be a resource implication. No matter how well intentioned the provisions of the Bill and the three amendments are, there will be a resource implication, even if it is a minor one. It is important that the Government acknowledge that and make a clear, unambiguous commitment to the resourcing of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to take on oversight of the reorganisation and future enforcement officers and their functions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 190, in schedule 6, page 144, line 10, at end insert—

“Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022

92B In Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (extraction of information from electronic devices: authorised persons in relation to all purposes within section 37), after the entry relating to section 15 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 insert—

‘A person who is an enforcement officer for the purposes of Part 5 of the Employment Rights Act 2025.’”

This amendment would authorise enforcement officers under Part 5 of the Bill to exercise the powers conferred by section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to extract information stored on electronic devices for the purposes of, among other things, criminal investigations.

Government amendment 190 is another technical amendment to ensure continuity and effectiveness of the enforcement power under section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The Bill provides the building blocks for us to set up the fair work agency, which involves transferring enforcement functions that are currently split between multiple bodies, including the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. The GLAA office currently exercises its power across the UK under section 37 of the 2022 Act. Without this amendment, enforcement officers in England, Wales and Scotland would not have access to critical investigatory powers under that Act. Only officers enforcing the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 in Northern Ireland would retain those powers, creating an unjustifiable enforcement gap.

Investigations increasingly rely on access to electronic data, such as payroll records and communication logs. Excluding fair work agency officers from these powers would severely hinder their ability to obtain critical information, leaving them ill-equipped to tackle non-compliance and labour exploitation effectively.

The amendment ensures that enforcement powers remain consistent across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, aligning with the policy aim of the fair work agency to deliver robust and uniform enforcement. Fair work agency officers would exercise the section 37 power in relation to labour market offences. That expands the scope of the power, as currently the power is exercised by GLAA officers only in connection with enforcement of the 2004 Act.

This amendment would mean that the power is used by fair work agency officers to enforce the broader range of legislation under their remit, which means that the power could be exercised in relation to any labour market offence, instead of just offences under the 2004 Act. That will prevent any disparity in enforcement capabilities that could undermine efforts to protect vulnerable workers and uphold compliance.

This amendment corrects a minor technical oversight during the drafting process, ensuring that the legislation accurately reflects operational needs. It aligns with the overarching policy intention to ensure that there is no reduction in enforcement capability as enforcement bodies transfer into the fair work agency, and it directly addresses concerns and strengthens the Bill’s overall effectiveness. In conclusion, this amendment is essential to prevent enforcement gaps, ensure parity across jurisdictions, and equip enforcement officers with the tools that they need to combat exploitation in the modern economy.

[Greg Smith]

As the Minister outlined in his opening remarks, Government amendment 190 would authorise enforcement officers, under part 5 of the Bill, to exercise the powers conferred by section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to extract information stored on electronic devices for the purposes of, among other things, criminal investigations.

As I understand it, the power conferred by section 37 of the 2022 Act may be exercised only for the purposes of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting crime; helping to locate a missing person; or protecting a child or at-risk adult from neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm. How often does the Minister envisage that that power would be needed when enforcing employment law?

It is a very important power in the cases that I have outlined—not least for the critical work of protecting children and at-risk adults from neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm—but, I repeat, how often does the Minister envisage that it will be needed in employment law? What safeguards will be in place to prevent an inappropriate or intrusive use of the power? It seems an odd fit in this Bill.

Those matters are all rightly—I have double underlined that word—covered in other parts of legislation and enforced daily by the police and other agencies. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition salute everyone involved in the prevention of harm and the prosecution of its perpetrators, but I repeat that the power seems an odd fit with this Bill.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Government amendment 190 seeks to amend the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 by extending the powers conferred by section 37 of that Act to enforcement officers for the purposes of part 5 of this Bill. Section 37 of the 2022 Act allows the authorities to extract information shared on electronic devices for the purposes, among other things, of criminal investigations. I have some familiarity with these issues from my time working with the police, security and intelligence agencies and other public bodies with investigatory responsibilities when I worked in the Home Office between 2010 and 2015. Then, we were confronted with the danger that changing technology meant that the ability of these important public agencies to access the communications data necessary for their work was diminishing. That was because the nature of the way we communicate was changing from conventional phone calls and written material to internet-based communication. That obviously included methods such as messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal but also messaging within other apps like Facebook or even within online gaming systems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

Through this morning’s debate on the 10 Government amendments to schedule 6, most of the points about the schedule have been well aired. As we consider whether it should fully stand part of the Bill, however, I genuinely believe that a number of questions posed—in particular by my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk and for Bridgwater—on the practicalities of the transfer of some of the powers have not been adequately addressed during the debate by the Minister.

We do not challenge or seek to undermine in any way, shape or form the intention of the schedule. I appreciate the Minister’s willingness to write to me on a couple of the points I made, and I accept the good faith in which that offer was made, but any transition involves some disruption. That is simply a fact of life, and I think that the Government would do well, given the good intent of what the schedule seeks to do, to reassure not just the Committee, but the whole House and the country at large, that that disruption will in fact be minimised and practical steps taken to make that the case.

Fundamentally, however, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition understand and accept the necessity of the schedule. We just think that some unanswered questions remain.

[Steve Darling]

I echo the shadow Minister, who sits to my right—in more ways than one. Definitely, further clarity from the Minister would be welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

The schedule sets out transitional and savings provisions. It ensures a smooth changeover from the existing enforcement framework to the new provisions introduced by the Bill. That is of course important because it makes our legislative framework cohesive and functional.

Government amendment 191 is a necessary technical provision to ensure that the transition of enforcement responsibilities under part 5 of the Bill is well ordered. By clarifying that actions taken not just “by” but “in relation” to enforcement officers will continue to have effect as if done in relation to the Secretary of State, we are safeguarding a continuity in enforcement processes and ensuring no disruption to ongoing cases or decisions, which I am sure Members will be relieved to hear.

Government amendment 192 makes a consequential change to align with Government amendment 191, and Government amendments 197 and 200 make minor drafting changes in schedule 7. They do not affect the substance of the Bill, but they improve its clarity and accuracy. I hope that hon. Members will support what I imagine are uncontroversial amendments and support achieving the aim of ensuring continuity and cohesiveness as we move forward. On that note, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

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

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

[Sir Ashley Fox]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

Government amendment 193 ensures that the transitional provision in paragraph 6 of schedule 7 would apply in relation to officers acting for the purposes of part 2A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, which relates to the enforcement of employment tribunal awards. The function of such officers is being transferred to the Secretary of State by the Bill. Amendments 194 and 195 are similar to some of the amendments in the previous group—I fully accept that these are minor drafting changes.

Overall, the changes introduced by this group look as though they ensure legal continuity so that the fair work agency can act as the enforcement authority. That seems sensible, given the policy direction behind the Employment Rights Bill that has been outlined by the Minister and the wider Government. However, I ask again for updates on ensuring the effectiveness of the enforcement of employment law during the period of transition, and about the processes that will be put in place to minimise disruption for businesses, which we have spoken about at length earlier, and to ensure effective enforcement. Again, it is hard to envisage why this set of amendments were not considered at first publication of the Bill; they seem entirely sensible, but it is a mystery why they were lacking the first time round.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Amendment 196 will ensure that there is a smooth transition in the frameworks. Amendment 198 is a transitional provision ensuring that anything done by a labour abuse prevention officer before the abolition of the GLAA continues to have effect as if done under the fair work agency. Amendment 199 is another transitional provision for warrants that have been granted under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, but not yet executed. It allows those warrants to have the same effect as before. It is a continuation of the amendments we have debated this morning, ensuring that enforcement officers have continuity when delivering their functions.

[Greg Smith]

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

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

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

[Sir Ashley Fox]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Existing enforcement bodies will have obtained information prior to the creation of the fair work agency. This information may be needed by the Secretary of State once part 5 of the Bill comes into force. Schedule 7 therefore provides for transitional and saving provisions to enable that. Amendments 201 and 202 provide that information obtained by officers acting under existing legislation prior to the coming into force of part 5 of the Bill, and which is held by the Secretary of State, can be used or disclosed in accordance with clause 98.

[Greg Smith]

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

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

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

[Sir Ashley Fox]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 203, in schedule 7, page 148, line 20, at end insert—

“9A The repeal of section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (inspection) by paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 does not prevent the use in evidence against a person, in criminal proceedings taking place on or after the day on which that repeal comes into force, of a statement made before that day by the person in compliance with a requirement under that section (subject to subsection (2B) of that section).”

Section 9(3) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 provides that a statement made by a person in compliance with a requirement made under that section to provide information may be used in evidence in criminal proceedings against the person. This amendment enables such a statement to be used in criminal proceedings taking place after the repeal of section 9 by the Bill.

Schedule 7 sets out transitional and savings provisions ensuring a smooth changeover from the existing enforcement framework to the new provisions. That is important, as Members have debated at length already. Amendment 203 addresses the repeal of section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the evidentiary treatment of statements obtained under that provision. The amendment will ensure that such statements can continue to be used in criminal proceedings post repeal, subject to existing protections against self-incrimination under section 9(2B). This is a targeted, proportionate and necessary amendment, which safeguards the integrity of enforcement proceedings during a period of legislative transition. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

As the Minister outlined, Government amendment 203 relates to section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, which provides that a statement made by a person in compliance with a requirement under that section to provide information may be used in evidence in criminal proceedings against the person. The amendment enables such a statement to be used in criminal proceedings taking place after the repeal of section 9 by the Bill.

Similar to the previous two groups of amendments we have considered, this is a sensible amendment to make sure that nothing falls through the cracks as enforcement functions transfer to the fair work agency. It is all part of a continuing theme, and the points that I made in the previous debate apply as much to amendment 203 as they did to the previous amendments.

I understand what the Minister said about every Bill being subject, during its passage, to a number of technical amendments by Governments of all different political compositions. I gently it put back to him that this Bill seems to have had an extremely high number of technical Government amendments, and that all tracks back to the unnecessary speed with which it was presented to Parliament.

Government amendment 204 contains transitional provision to ensure that once the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority under the Modern Slavery Act 2015—

[The Chair]

Order. We will debate amendment 204 separately.

[Greg Smith]

I am sorry, Mr Mundell.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 204, in schedule 7, page 148, line 28, at end insert—

“10A (1) Where—

(a) a slavery and trafficking prevention order requires a person to notify the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in accordance with section 19 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”), and

(b) immediately before the day on which paragraph 53 of Schedule 6 comes into force, that requirement has not been complied with,

that requirement has effect, on and after that day, as a requirement to notify the Secretary of State.

(2) On and after the coming into force of paragraph 54 of Schedule 6, the reference in section 20(2)(g) of the 2015 Act (as amended by that paragraph) to a slavery and trafficking prevention order made on an application under section 15 of that Act by the Secretary of State includes a reference to such an order made on an application under that section by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.

(3) In this paragraph “slavery and trafficking prevention order” has the same meaning as in the 2015 Act.

10B (1) Where—

(a) a slavery and trafficking risk order requires a person to notify the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in accordance with section 26 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”), and

(b) immediately before the day on which paragraph 56 of Schedule 6 comes into force, that requirement has not been complied with,

that requirement has effect, on and after that day, as a requirement to notify the Secretary of State.

(2) On and after the coming into force of paragraph 57 of Schedule 6, the reference in section 27(2)(g) of the 2015 Act (as amended by that paragraph) to a slavery and trafficking risk order made on an application under section 23 of that Act by the Secretary of State includes a reference to such an order made on an application under that section by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.

(3) In this paragraph “slavery and trafficking risk order” has the same meaning as in the 2015 Act.”

This amendment contains transitional provision to ensure that, once the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 have been transferred to the Secretary of State, that Act continues to operate as intended.

The amendment is essential to ensure the seamless and effective operation of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 during the transition of functions from the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority to the Secretary of State. At its core, it is about continuity and clarity. Slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders are critical tools in the fight against modern slavery. They impose important requirements on individuals for the purpose of protecting people from being victims of modern slavery, including requirements to notify enforcement authorities, and those obligations must remain enforceable.

Without the amendment, there is a clear risk that existing legal obligations could become unclear, creating loopholes for offenders to exploit. The amendment ensures that notification requirements transfer seamlessly to the Secretary of State, safeguarding our ability to hold individuals accountable and protect victims of exploitation. It also ensures that where an application is made to vary, renew or discharge a slavery and trafficking order, the courts can treat orders originally made by the GLAA as if they had been made by the Secretary of State. That provides legal certainty for courts, enforcement agencies and affected individuals alike.

This is a technical but vital amendment that protects the integrity of the legal framework and ensures continuity.

[Greg Smith]

Apologies for my premature comments on amendment 204, Mr Mundell; I accidently believed it had been grouped with the previous amendment.

Amendment 204 contains transitional provision to ensure that, once the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 have been transferred to the Secretary of State, that Act continues to operate as intended. I would be grateful for the Minister’s assessment of how the creation of the fair work agency will allow for more effective identification and prevention of modern slavery offences. As we debate the amendment, it is important that we are fully appraised of the detail and the assessment that the Minister, the wider Department for Business and Trade and the Government have made. This is an important matter that all Committee members, and Members of the wider House of Commons, take incredibly seriously, and I urge the Minister to do so.