Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces;
Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026
Debate between Ian Lavery and Antonia Bance(2Â weeks, 4Â days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I should start by declaring my interests as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Minister for her engagement on these issues with the trade union movement and those of us who are trade union MPs, and for continuing to champion this agenda in Government. I also congratulate her on her recent promotion.
I wanted to note how important employment access rights are. Contrary to what the Opposition spokesperson has said, those of us who sit on the Business and Trade Committee did a careful examination of the access rights, and when asked, the business representatives that joined us on our panel representing hospitality and retail agreed that the cost of facilitating access would be basically negligible. It is clear that trade union access to workplaces and trade union recognition bring significant benefits to workers in all sizes of workplace, not least that they are more likely to be better paid and work in safer and more family friendly workplaces.
Turning to these regulations specifically, the right of access was a clear manifesto commitment and we must deliver it in a way that is meaningful and effective in practice, knowing that hostile employers with deep pockets and access to specialist lawyers will push back hard. That is why I am here today: because I still have some concerns about the code of practice and the regulations.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to review and consult on these measures shortly after implementation to make sure that we get them right. On enforcement, the proposed cap on fines of £500,000 is unlikely to act as an effective deterrent for some of the world’s largest corporations. I know, having welcomed the valiant GMB members of BHX5, Amazon’s Coventry warehouse, to Parliament and to the Select Committee, that Ministers should seriously consider replacing it with penalties based on a percentage of global turnover such as in the enforcement regime for GDPR breaches. That will provide a more proper deterrent and stop US-style union busting coming over here.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I refer Members to my declaration of interests; I am secretary of the trade union group of Labour MPs, Mr Stringer. Does my hon. Friend recognise that these union-busting firms in America—Amazon, for example—paid up to $14.2 million to bust unions and refuse union access? That is one of the reasons why we have to make sure that the £500,000 cap has the total review and overhaul it needs to protect workers in the workplace.
Antonia Bance
I agree with my hon. Friend, as he would expect. He is right to raise the scale of investment that countries such as Amazon have made in union busting. The Amazon executives who joined us at the Business and Trade Committee two years ago seemed barely familiar with UK employment rights legislation and the UK labour market environment. We do not want US-style union busting in the United Kingdom.
There is a real risk that hostile employers could use vexatious complaints as a tactic to impede union access to workplaces and it cannot be right that unions might be fined for going to talk to workers. It should also not be the case that unions should have to bear the cost of expensive legal advice to enforce access rights or defend themselves against vexatious complaints. If the employers are found to have broken the code of practice, the fines are paid to the Treasury rather than the workers or unions who have suffered the detriment. As Members would expect, I do not think that we should exempt smaller workplaces and we should amp up workers’ protection from victimisation and stop workers losing pay if they engage with unions during the access process. Model access agreements should include clear protections on those points.
I am so glad that Ministers have promised a review and consultation shortly after the implementation of these regulations. I strongly welcome that commitment. The review must lead swiftly to strengthened regulations and a strengthened code of practice. The right of access is critical to improving life at work and we must ensure that those rights work well in practice, as intended in the manifesto that Labour MPs stood on.
Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces
Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026
Debate between Ian Lavery and Antonia Bance(2Â weeks, 4Â days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I should start by declaring my interests as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Minister for her engagement on these issues with the trade union movement and those of us who are trade union MPs, and for continuing to champion this agenda in Government. I also congratulate her on her recent promotion.
I wanted to note how important employment access rights are. Contrary to what the Opposition spokesperson has said, those of us who sit on the Business and Trade Committee did a careful examination of the access rights, and when asked, the business representatives that joined us on our panel representing hospitality and retail agreed that the cost of facilitating access would be basically negligible. It is clear that trade union access to workplaces and trade union recognition bring significant benefits to workers in all sizes of workplace, not least that they are more likely to be better paid and work in safer and more family friendly workplaces.
Turning to these regulations specifically, the right of access was a clear manifesto commitment and we must deliver it in a way that is meaningful and effective in practice, knowing that hostile employers with deep pockets and access to specialist lawyers will push back hard. That is why I am here today: because I still have some concerns about the code of practice and the regulations.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to review and consult on these measures shortly after implementation to make sure that we get them right. On enforcement, the proposed cap on fines of £500,000 is unlikely to act as an effective deterrent for some of the world’s largest corporations. I know, having welcomed the valiant GMB members of BHX5, Amazon’s Coventry warehouse, to Parliament and to the Select Committee, that Ministers should seriously consider replacing it with penalties based on a percentage of global turnover such as in the enforcement regime for GDPR breaches. That will provide a more proper deterrent and stop US-style union busting coming over here.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I refer Members to my declaration of interests; I am secretary of the trade union group of Labour MPs, Mr Stringer. Does my hon. Friend recognise that these union-busting firms in America—Amazon, for example—paid up to $14.2 million to bust unions and refuse union access? That is one of the reasons why we have to make sure that the £500,000 cap has the total review and overhaul it needs to protect workers in the workplace.
Antonia Bance
I agree with my hon. Friend, as he would expect. He is right to raise the scale of investment that countries such as Amazon have made in union busting. The Amazon executives who joined us at the Business and Trade Committee two years ago seemed barely familiar with UK employment rights legislation and the UK labour market environment. We do not want US-style union busting in the United Kingdom.
There is a real risk that hostile employers could use vexatious complaints as a tactic to impede union access to workplaces and it cannot be right that unions might be fined for going to talk to workers. It should also not be the case that unions should have to bear the cost of expensive legal advice to enforce access rights or defend themselves against vexatious complaints. If the employers are found to have broken the code of practice, the fines are paid to the Treasury rather than the workers or unions who have suffered the detriment. As Members would expect, I do not think that we should exempt smaller workplaces and we should amp up workers’ protection from victimisation and stop workers losing pay if they engage with unions during the access process. Model access agreements should include clear protections on those points.
I am so glad that Ministers have promised a review and consultation shortly after the implementation of these regulations. I strongly welcome that commitment. The review must lead swiftly to strengthened regulations and a strengthened code of practice. The right of access is critical to improving life at work and we must ensure that those rights work well in practice, as intended in the manifesto that Labour MPs stood on.