Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Across my constituency in recent weeks we have experienced severe delays to post in those areas served by the Huntingdon delivery office. That follows a recent restructuring of the workforce and changes to delivery routes. Rural communities and businesses, in particular, have been impacted, with missed hospital appointments and several businesses telling me that it is affecting their ability to receive and therefore pay invoices. Will the Minister urgently investigate those ongoing and worsening delays in Huntingdon, and write to me with the outcome of his findings?

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

I had to wait 50 minutes for a question, Mr Speaker, but this is an important one and I share the hon. Member’s concerns. We regularly meet Ofcom to discuss the performance of Royal Mail, and I will certainly write to him about the discussions we have in respect of his constituency.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What discussions has the Minister had with his counterpart in Northern Ireland about encouraging young people into casual hospitality employment, to teach them about the benefits of work and the importance of managing money?

Package Travel Regulations: Consultation

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Written Statements

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

The current Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 set a series of requirements for organisers of package holidays and linked travel arrangements and provide bespoke protections for travellers. As the way we book holidays evolves, it is important that these regulations remain fit for purpose—for both consumers and travel providers.

The Government’s previous 12-week call for evidence (18 September to 13 December 2023) targeted stakeholder engagement, and externally commissioned consumer research highlighted a number of areas within the regulations that may benefit from revision and reform. This is why we are launching this consultation.

We propose to retain the principle behind the regulations—that consumers should be offered protection when purchasing package holidays. However, there is room to improve the framework to achieve economic growth and regulatory simplification. The proposed changes to the regulations aim to facilitate growth, increase consumer choice, and simplify the existing regulations, making them easier for business to comply with and for consumers to understand.

We intend to look at the following areas as part of the consultation:

Reforming the domestic package market to exempt domestic (UK) holidays that do not contain a booked travel element from the regulations. Other existing consumer protections will still apply.

Reform Linked Travel Arrangements by either removing or simplifying the definition of LTAs.

Examine the case for setting a time limit for third parties to provide redress to organisers where the third party has contributed to the event but has not already provided redress directly to the consumer. This is to respond to difficulties some package organisers have in exercising their right to recoup refund moneys from suppliers.

Further technical changes to make clearer what services are within the scope of the regulations, and to reform measures around insolvency protection.

Next steps

To support these objectives, the Department for Business and Trade has published a consultation on the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018, which is available on www.gov.uk. The consultation will be open for 12 weeks. We encourage all interested stakeholders to respond. Subject to the outcome of this consultation, the Government will make a final decision on whether and how to change the regulations. I am placing a copy of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS577]

Non-disclosure Agreements

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Betts.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) on securing this debate. I remember sitting as the shadow Minister on Report of the Employment Rights Bill, listening to her speak about her amendment to the Bill in that debate. All too often, we sit in the main Chamber and listen to speeches from Members in all parts of the House that are, perhaps loosely, hung off handouts from Whips.

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

By you. [Laughter.]

[Greg Smith]

I can say in response to the Minister’s quip from a sedentary position that I have never spoken with a handout from the Whips.

Sometimes, we sit there in the main Chamber listening to the usual yah-boo of party politics, but every so often there is a speech—it can come from any part of the House—that makes our ears prick up a little bit and think, “They have a point.” The Member is making a genuine case about a real grievance or a real problem out there in our country that needs resolution, almost undoubtedly via primary legislation. I therefore congratulate the right hon. Lady on her passion and dedication to this cause, and on ensuring that we continue to debate it here in Westminster Hall this morning.

The right hon. Member was absolutely right to highlight the two-tier absurdity brought about under the current law. I was particularly struck by her point that 27 states in the United States of America have passed legislation on this issue. The United States is hardly a nation that is looked to for high-end employment rights. It is a country where, for example, most people get only two weeks’ holiday a year, and where maternity and paternity rights are far short of those we have here, so the fact that those 27 states have passed laws on this issue in varying respects is something that we should reflect on.

During the debate the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) spoke powerfully about the creative sector; the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) clearly brought extensive experience of this matter from her time as a solicitor; my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) brought his usual eloquence to supporting this cause; the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) gave powerful examples from his experience working for a trade union—the example he gave about a school setting was particularly powerful—and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) powerfully cited a local case. The hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who is Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, gave a particularly powerful speech, reminding us that of course this issue is not about banning NDAs in their entirety, but about stopping this very particular abuse.

In fact, the hon. Lady’s most powerful point—on top of the one about self-employment, which is a subject that I will always prick my ears up about, having been self-employed myself for 15 years before I entered this House in 2015—was that people are being forced into signing these agreements at the lowest ebb of their lives, at the time when they are at their most vulnerable. We should face that fact and reflect upon it.

I am grateful for this opportunity to continue the debate on non-disclosure agreements, which have become a tool that too often is used to silence victims of harassment, discrimination and abuse in the workplace. This is not just a matter of employment law; it is a fundamental issue of justice, accountability and transparency. At their worst, NDAs allow perpetrators to escape scrutiny, enabling toxic workplace cultures to persist unchecked. Undoubtedly, some victims, facing an imbalance of power, are pressured into signing away their right to speak out in exchange for a financial settlement. This not only denies individuals the justice they deserve, but prevents organisations, and indeed our society at large, from learning from past failure and making necessary change.

Of course, we are not in any way suggesting that every single NDA out there is inherently wrong. There are legitimate reasons for their use in protecting trade secrets or commercially sensitive information. However, when they are used to cover up wrongdoing, they become a shield for bad employers and an obstacle to a fair and open working environment. Like other Members, I believe that the vast majority of employers do act in good faith and are good people, but where it goes wrong and they are acting in bad faith or—let’s say it how it is—criminally, NDAs should not be a shield for that.

The Government have said they are committed to tackling workplace discrimination and harassment. There are elements of the Employment Rights Bill that the Opposition support, but we had a particular debate about the provisions on third-party harassment. I say this in a spirit of wanting to solve this problem: we all want to see harassment stamped out, but those provisions will have the unintended consequence of what we call the “banter ban”, whereby an employee can take their employer to court if they happen to overhear something that politically offends them in a hospitality setting or whatever it might be.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Betts.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) on securing this debate. As the shadow Minister said, her contribution on Report of the Employment Rights Bill was particularly powerful and certainly helped to shape some of my thinking about where we need to go on this. I am grateful, too, for all the thoughtful and considered contributions from all parts of the Chamber.

Let me pay my respects to the individuals whose stories we have heard both today and on Report—stories of awful exploitation, harassment and terrible treatment, which have been silent for far too long. As my right hon. Friend said, often we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in the workplace, and at the most vulnerable time for them. Often, only those who have the means and the confidence to take on their employer escape the clutches of NDAs.

I wish to acknowledge the comments made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, about the work that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) has done in this area. She has campaigned tirelessly, as have many Members, alongside organisations such as Can’t Buy My Silence to ensure that victims of sexual harassment, discrimination and bullying are able to speak up and get the help that they need.

Many of the issues that we are debating today are not new, but things have been talked about that I was not aware of, such as the classical music sector, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). Clearly, there is widespread concern about the use of non-disclosure agreements. I recognise that this is an important issue. As we know, NDAs or confidentiality clauses are legally binding. Their intention is to keep information confidential but, as many Members have said, they also have a legitimate role in contracts to protect trade secrets, intellectual property and commercially sensitive information.

[Josh Babarinde]

Does the Minister agree that the purpose of an NDA is, for example, to protect the identity of the 11 spices that KFC uses in its chicken, and not to protect sex pests? If so, what action will he take, as soon as possible, to protect those victims and survivors over the rich and the powerful?

[Justin Madders]

I shall come on to the action that we are taking a bit later. None the less, that is an important point: there are legitimate uses for NDAs and it is important that we get that balance right, making sure that those commercial and legitimate business interests are protected while, at the same time, not deliberately silencing victims. NDAs should never be used to silence victims of harassment or any other misconduct in the workplace.

There are important legal limits to the use of NDAs in the employment context. Any clauses of an NDA that were to stop a worker from blowing the whistle, for example by making a protected disclosure to a lawyer or a prescribed person, are not enforceable. The use of an NDA by an employer could also amount to a criminal offence if it is an attempt to pervert the course of justice or conceal a criminal offence. A settlement agreement under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and any confidentiality clauses it contains would be void if the worker did not receive independent advice on the terms and effects of that agreement.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service have both published guidance on NDAs to ensure that workers and employers understand those limitations, but we have heard from many hon. Members that the guidance is not being observed in practice as much as we would expect. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley mentioned the guidance from the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which has issued an updated warning notice to remind the legal profession that NDAs should never be used to try to prevent the lawful disclosure of serious misconduct or potential crime. The SRA is also clear that evidence of the use of inappropriate clauses in such agreements may lead to disciplinary action.

Nevertheless, we hear the calls to go further, and the issues raised today highlight some of the key areas that we want to further investigate. It is clear that there are still serious concerns about how employers are using NDAs to silence employees. We have heard today that victims often feel that they are left with little choice but to leave their employer, without any assurance that their employer is addressing the misconduct and dealing with the perpetrator.

[Martin Wrigley]

Does the Minister agree that we need to change the social contract for companies such that they no longer take all the benefits of limited liability and simply focus on shareholder value? Will he support my better business Bill—the Company Directors (Duties) Bill—which will have its Second Reading on 4 July, and meet me to discuss it? The Bill is backed by some 3,000 businesses, the Institute of Directors and others. As I mentioned, it would balance the responsibility of company directors with the interests of shareholders, employees and the environment; fundamentally change their basic responsibilities in how they run their companies; and therefore turn the purpose of the company to good, including that of the employees. It would prevent many of the circumstances that we are describing today.

[Justin Madders]

I have not seen the hon. Member’s Bill, and I suspect that its application is rather broader than just to the topic we are debating. We are looking at corporate governance, and in due course we intend to introduce legislation that may pick up on a number of the issues addressed by his Bill.

As we have touched on, a number of recent reports, such as the Women and Equalities Committee’s “Misogyny in music” and the Treasury Committee’s “Sexism in the City”, highlight that NDAs do not stand up in a court of law and are often used to chill victims.

The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) spoke about the good work of the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority. I understand that the Culture Secretary recently met the authority to discuss how they can work together to improve workplace standards and behaviour in the creative industries. We want to support the authority moving forward; that is a matter for the Culture Secretary, and I am sure that she continues to engage with it.

[Louise Haigh]

The Minister talked about protected disclosures, including in relation to criminal offences. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) said, this area of law is complex, and low-income workers in particular cannot access the kind of legal advice that she provided so authoritatively to her clients. Does the Minister agree that we therefore need to end the blanket use of NDAs so that it is much clearer that victims of abuse, harassment or discrimination cannot be silenced? It is next to impossible for them to navigate this complex area of law without specialist legal support, which they are clearly struggling to access.

[Justin Madders]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point: this is a complex area for individuals to navigate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) spoke about her experiences in the profession, with which I am familiar. Non-legally qualified consultants often simply apply boilerplate clauses to agreements, which has a practical impact on the victim’s ability to explain how their employment ended. I have seen agreements that prevent people from even confirming that they have reached a settlement, which makes it doubly difficult for them to explain that when seeking future employment prospects. My hon. Friend also talked about the financial contribution that employers provide towards that advice, which does not always cover the cost of taking proper advice, rather than going through a rubber-stamping exercise. Both those issues highlight the inequality of arms in the workplace when disputes arise.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made an excellent contribution, as always. He was absolutely right to highlight that the original intention behind NDAs has been distorted. They were about commercial confidentiality and protecting business interests, but they are being used for wider, less justifiable purposes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) raised the terrible case of Mohammed al-Fayed. He was right to say that we do not know how many victims there are; some will not come forward because the gagging orders still prevent them from speaking out or make them feel that they cannot do so. Of course, we addressed that to some extent in the Employment Rights Bill, in which we now make it clear that a complaint of sexual harassment qualifies as a protected disclosure under the whistleblowing Act. We will never know whether that kind of protection would have prevented the atrocities committed by Mohammed al-Fayed, but it would at least have given people some reassurance that they could speak out and have additional protections.

[Mrs Russell]

As I understand it, the whistleblowing provisions in the Employment Rights Bill will let people go to the police or a regulator, but they do not automatically mean that they can go to the media, although they might be able to in some circumstances. If the Minister does not mind my saying so, what he has described is possibly not a blanket solution to the problem.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend highlights some of the limitations of the whistleblowing Act, in terms of what qualifies as a protected disclosure. As I have commented previously, that legislation needs to be looked at again.

The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) talked about the widespread use of NDAs in the NHS. That highlights that there is no sector of the economy in which such agreements are not in use.

The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) talked about the use of NDAs in Government Departments. I will make inquiries about that and get back to him, and I will pass on the comments of the hon. Member for Newton Abbot to the Department of Health and Social Care.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North, Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, gave an informative and well researched speech, as always. She was right that this is not just about protecting victims; there is a wider issue relating to the growth agenda. These issues are debilitating and damaging for victims and can have an impact on their ability to return to work. She made the important point that it is nearly always the victim who has to leave their employment and move on. As we have heard, they do not always have a clear explanation to give prospective employers about why they have had to leave. It is usually the man, who is often in a position of greater power, who stays in work, and sometimes advances off the back of the claim. That relates to the culture in organisations: victims are not protected and perpetrators are often supported because they are seen to be in a more powerful position in the workplace. My hon. Friend also made an important point about protecting self-employed people and contractors in particular industries. We will need to consider that further.

On the current legislation being passed, we are pressing ahead with plans to commence the provisions relevant to NDAs in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 and the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, as a number of hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley, mentioned. When commenced, section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act will ensure that clauses in NDAs cannot be legally enforced where they seek to prevent victims of crime from reporting a crime, co-operating with regulators or accessing confidential advice and support. It will provide that clauses in NDAs that seek to prevent disclosures that are necessary to access confidential advice and support needed to cope with and recover from the impact of crime are unenforceable.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne, talked about a new mother’s experiences of discrimination and the consequences of that. The Employment Rights Bill will provide a new baseline of protection, enhanced dismissal protections for pregnant women and mothers, extra requirements to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment—something that has been a matter of considerable debate—and protection of workers against third-party harassment. It will also make it clear that the disclosure of information can be a protected disclosure. We think all those things will improve the workplace experience, but I hear the calls to go further.

We know that there are calls to roll out the approach in higher education to the whole economy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley provided a clear example of how the provisions in the Employment Rights Bill will not apply to an outsourced worker working in higher education. The legislation has not yet been enacted, but the Government intend to press on with it shortly. I share concerns that something needs to be done, but the changes that have been proposed through amendments to the Employment Rights Bill would need a significant amount of engagement with workers, employers and stakeholders, as well as an assessment of the impact on sectors and across the economy.

This is a complex area of policy, as we have heard today, and it is important to take a balanced approach to make sure that we reach the right end point. There are different views and opinions. There are organisations and hon. Members calling for a ban on NDAs in specific circumstances. Some advocate for a greater say for victims in when they can be legitimately used. Others warn about unintended consequences for victims who are looking to settle a claim to avoid the stress of litigation.

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous with his time. I completely accept that there are different versions of the amendment that could be successful and I accept the need to consider the impact on businesses. Will the Minister meet me and other interested Members to look at a way in which this amendment could be written that would satisfy him and the Government? We have heard today that there is support from the official Opposition and the Lib Dems. There is every chance that this could receive serious cross-party support in the other place and pass into the Employment Rights Bill. Will he meet me and others to discuss exactly what the amendment could look like?

[Justin Madders]

I am always happy to meet my right hon. Friend. It would be good to get cross-party support on our Employment Rights Bill—something that has been sadly lacking in the Commons so far. The shadow Minister is grinning knowingly—I am not sure whether that means we shall ever get him on board for the whole package. I am happy to work with individual Members. I would just note that there was a consultation under the shadow Minister’s party’s watch, and a number of proposals were developed that never saw the light of day because the previous Government did not introduce an employment rights Bill. His late conversion to this cause is welcome, but he should recognise that his party perhaps did not do enough in government. Some of the recommendations made under the previous Government did not go as far as is reflected in the general mood of the Chamber today.

There is a range of issues that we need to consider to get this right, such as whether some sectors, such as the creative industries, need particular protection, and the different relationships—we have heard about self-employed people and how this would operate for those in the gig economy. We can have the debate about whether they are self-employed or workers: I am sure that will be returned to on many occasions. We also need to consider the international approach—we have heard some examples from across the pond, and Ireland recently introduced its own legislation—and how the legislation will apply to different groups with protected characteristics.

It is important to ensure that any work we do does not create a new loophole for clever lawyers to exploit, so it should be future-proofed as much as possible. We also need to ensure that any legislation includes an option for a victim to freely choose to have an NDA without pressure, if that is what they want. We need an awful lot of discussion to get that right. Hon. Members have mentioned access to justice and legal advice that is timely, correct and affordable. A cultural shift from employers is also important. Legislation can say what it wants, but unless we get employers to tackle rather than protect the perpetrators of these terrible acts, we will continue to debate these matters.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley said, I am happy to work with hon. Members. I recognise that non-disclosure agreements are important and need looking at. I thank her for securing the debate and am happy to continue working with her and other hon. Members to get this right.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Justin Madders Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for what has been an interesting and, at times, informed debate on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in opening, the Government’s primary mission is economic growth to help rejuvenate our high streets and promote innovation, and this legislation is an important element in that drive and will further cement the UK as a world-leader in product regulation and safety. The legislation will have real-world impacts that we can all relate to. As we have heard, product safety failures can have devastating consequences, and we are determined that our regulatory framework be as agile and flexible as possible in its response to new threats and complex modern supply chains but without stifling innovation.

There have been an awful lot of contributions, and I will try to cover as many of them as I can. I think it is appropriate that I start by referencing the excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), which lit up the whole House. He is, of course, the first meteorologist to have spoken in this Chamber—

[Hon. Members]

Metrologist!

[Justin Madders]

Metrologist. He may well be on the Bill Committee, because he has definitely talked his way on to it with his insight into this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) almost matched him in terms of technical specificity, and his historical knowledge was also very important. He has just finished sitting on a Bill Committee with me, but he is talking his way on to this one as well—perhaps I should not say that, because it might encourage colleagues not to speak in future debates.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), were among a number of Members who talked about the issue of e-bikes, which is a real concern. I am sure the whole House has been moved by the tragic cases of e-bike fires that we too often hear about. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the tragic death of Sofia Duarte. I met her mother last year to talk about what we can do through this Bill to prevent such tragedies from happening again.

In the wake of the increasing number of fires associated with e-bikes and lithium-ion batteries, there have been calls from businesses, trade associations, consumer groups and parliamentarians to tighten up the law. This legislation will allow us to ensure that the UK’s product safety framework can keep up with technological developments, including on e-bikes. The powers in the Bill will allow us to update regulations to ensure the best protections for consumers and consistency with the majority of reputable retailers.

The Government are currently considering how best to use the powers in the Bill to regulate these products in an efficient and proportionate way, in particular to ensure that products that can pose a greater risk, such as lithium-ion batteries and e-bikes and e-scooters, are safe. That includes bringing forward powers in the Bill to better define online marketplaces and confer additional duties on them to help stop the sale of unsafe products, including converter kits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler) pointed out, this is a fast-moving environment, and the Bill will give us the flexibility to tackle that.

[Clive Jones]

Does the Minister agree that if a UK manufacturer wants to produce a product for the UK market, it should produce it to UK regulations, and if it wants to export it to Europe, it is sensible to produce that product to EU regulations, which will open up a massive market on our doorstep? Keeping up with EU regulations will generally be good for the British business economy and help economic growth.

[Justin Madders]

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson tempts me to set out a statement of policy, which the Bill is not intended to do. We want to give ourselves maximum flexibility in our ability to deal with issues as they arise. He talked in his speech about online marketplaces, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) talked about unsafe toys and button batteries, citing the fact that investigations have discovered that up to 90% of products purchased in online marketplaces are unsafe. Because we recognise that online marketplaces are in desperate need of regulation, the Bill will give us powers to clarify and modernise responsibilities for online marketplaces in a flexible and proportionate way, to protect consumers and create a fair playing field for law-abiding businesses. It will enable the Government to modernise the responsibilities of online supply chain actors.

While the growth of e-commerce has provided consumers with greater choice and convenience, it cannot be at the expense of consumer safety. We will continue to engage with consumer groups, businesses and online marketplaces in the development of specific online marketplace requirements to ensure that they are proportionate and to mitigate any costs to consumers. I can also confirm that it is the intention of the Government to consult on the duties for online marketplaces soon after Royal Assent and to bring forward subsequent regulations as soon as is practically possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) spoke with his customary passion about the ceramics industry in the Potteries. I acknowledge his ideas for protecting the industry. I am not sure whether this Bill is the right vehicle for his suggestion, but I will take it away and come back to him.

It is probably worth talking about the issue that seemed to vex Opposition Members rather a lot, which is whether this Bill is in some way a reset to EU laws by the back door. It is about domestic regulation and we are not rejoining the EU by the back door. The Bill is about giving us flexibility to ensure product regulation, now and in the future, that is tailored to the needs of the UK. Of course, there will be some instances when we will want to take a similar approach to the EU, but there will be other times when we will want to take our own approach. Those decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 gave significant powers to the Executive, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham, quoted me on that Act. It reformed 7,000 regulations, ranging across every function of society. Its regulations were far broader than those proposed in this Bill and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee called it “hyper-skeletal”, which is some way beyond the criticisms it levelled against this Bill.

Turning to the reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition, it is worth restating that the Bill is not about rejoining the EU. David Cameron commented that he wanted the Conservative party to

“stop banging on about Europe”,

but there seems to be some way to go before his words reach fruition, despite the fact that we left five years ago. The Bill gives us the necessary powers to ensure public regulation, now and in the future, meets the interests of the UK. The powers set out in the Bill will be used solely and exclusively in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers.

I recognise that the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee raised concerns about this being a skeleton Bill, but the Government have considered those concerns and other representations made by Members in the other place. Our existing product regulations are necessary to keep consumers safe, and to provide clarity and a level playing field for businesses. They extend to many thousands of pages and cover a huge amount of technical detail. As the noble and learned Lord Pannick said in the other place,

“the practical reality is that technical regulations of the breadth and complexity that will be produced cannot sensibly be enacted by primary legislation.”

He went on to say that if we are required to use primary legislation every time we wanted to make a regulation on product safety, there would be

“little, if any, time for anything else.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 2025; Vol. 843, c. 1716.]

Conservative Members seem to have forgotten that since the Consumer Protection Act 1987, Governments of all stripes have recognised the need to make product safety regulations by secondary legislation. Since 1987, the Conservatives have been in power for 24 years, so they had more than enough time to find another way of dealing with product safety, but they did not choose to do that. We are taking a pragmatic approach. We have taken notice of some of the concerns raised about the powers of the Bill: we have removed a number of Henry VIII powers, introduced a consultation requirement, added additional affirmative resolution procedures and published a code of conduct that sets out the controls that we will have to ensure regulations are proportionate and evidence based. I am grateful to Members of the other place for setting out some of their concerns.

As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), pointed out, the Conservatives did not introduce the Bill in the last Parliament; I am happy to confirm that that was the case. That shows that there was a gap in the law that needed filling and the Conservatives failed to act on it.

Some of the important consumer groups in this country, such as Which?, recognised that action was needed. Sue Davies, head of consumer rights, protections and food policy said:

“It’s encouraging that the government is prioritising a Bill that should address the huge gap in consumer protections which allows online marketplaces to facilitate the sale of unsafe and illegal products without facing repercussions.”

If Members vote for the reasoned amendment, we will not be having any of those protections. I do not think any responsible party would move an amendment along those lines.

This Government are never going to compromise on safety. The Bill is essential to strengthening the rules and regulations needed to protect consumers, businesses and the public. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Double British Summer Time

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing this debate. I am grateful for her insights and remarks on this important topic, which, as she explained, impacts on everyone’s lives in one way or another. She described the clocks changing as a bit of a faff, which I think we can all appreciate. She then went on to discuss the reasons she advocates for this change in great detail. In my remarks, I will go on to explain why there are also potential negatives to what is being proposed.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, seasonal clock changes were first proposed in the early 1900s to extend daylight hours for recreation, to improve health and to save on lighting costs. At the time, clocks were set to Greenwich mean time all year round, resulting in early sunrises and sunsets in the summer. The idea gained traction during the first world war because of the need to conserve coal, which led to the adoption of changes in 1916. Biannual clock changes have continued ever since, with a brief deviation from the pattern during the second world war, when double British summer time was introduced, and between 1968 and 1972, when the clocks were put forward but not back as part of an experiment. I think those were also the first four years of my parents’ marriage, an experiment that thankfully has lasted much longer. It was eventually discontinued, however, due to inconclusive results regarding its effect on road casualties.

About 70 countries worldwide currently adopt some form of daylight saving. British summer time is the UK’s version of European summer time, which follows the same pattern by changing the clocks twice a year by one hour. This synchronisation allows for smooth transactions in trade, travel and communication across Europe.

The Government are aware that the issue of daylight saving has, at times, attracted extensive public and political debate, with suggestions to adopt British double summer time. British double summer time was introduced for a short period during the second world war, as I have mentioned. By extending daylight hours into the evening, it reduced the need for artificial lighting, thereby conserving fuel. Introducing British double summer time would result in clocks remaining one hour ahead of Greenwich mean time in the winter and moving two hours ahead in the summer.

By observing British summer time, the UK maintains a one-hour difference with European countries throughout the year. This would not be the case under British double summer time. Using Germany as an example, the time difference with it would vary between winter and summer. In winter, both the UK and Germany would be one hour ahead of GMT, resulting in no time difference. During summer, the UK would be one hour ahead of Germany.

The Government believe that the current daylight saving arrangements represent the optimal use of the available daylight across the UK. Changing the current arrangements would impact all citizens in the UK and Northern Ireland and would require public consultation and assessment of the impact on businesses across all sectors of the economy.

As my hon. Friend has mentioned, there would of course be benefits to moving to double British summer time. We know that darker hours exacerbate mental health conditions, particularly seasonal affective disorder. The shorter days and reduced natural daylight, as a result of clock changes, can worsen symptoms according to the charity Change Mental Health.

We also know that there is evidence that enforced clock changes can disrupt sleep health, especially in a forward direction such as that which currently occurs in March—and will be happening again in three days’ time. However, we also know from the British Sleep Society that natural daylight in the morning is critical for alignment of our internal body clocks. Moving to double British summer time would cause darker mornings, especially in winter.

We are also aware of some evidence that abolishing clock changes would reduce road accidents. Analysis from the RAC Foundation and Road Safety Analysis shows that between 2012 and 2017 there was a 2% increase in road accidents over the two fortnightly periods when the clock changes took place. In terms of energy use, keeping to GMT plus 1 during the winter months might be expected to reduce overall energy use, as people use less artificial light in the evenings. However, the effects are likely to be small in magnitude, and may even be uncertain—there might be no effect at all.

The most significant effects are likely to be associated with lighting demand as demand switches from the evening to the morning. While there might be some benefits, there would be a risk of the UK energy system being affected by the time zone choices of neighbouring countries with which it trades gas and electricity. For example, the time difference between the UK and France means that peak demand is staggered across the two countries and allows for interconnectors to play a role in meeting peak demand throughout the year. This results in lower energy generation required in Great Britain and lower prices for consumers. If the time difference were to change, that could have impacts across the energy system, including on the benefits assumed from interconnection.

There might also be road safety impacts. Advancing the clock in spring creates a short-term disruption in sleeping patterns, which can cause fatigue. This can lead to inattention, poor decision making and delayed reaction times, all of which are contributing factors to road traffic accidents. Summer time arrangements have led to concerns about the disrupted biorhythms of animals, with respect to changing milking and feeding schedules, although of course these impacts are expected to be reduced due to the deployment of new equipment, artificial lighting and automated technologies.

The approach to daylight saving is a complex area, given the importance of just-in-time supply chains to many industries. Many sectors and businesses, example in the aviation industry, would need considerable notice of any such change.

There have been examinations of all this in the past. Following a call for evidence, the House of Lords report “Clock changes: is it time for change?” found that the abolition of seasonal changes of time in the UK in any circumstances would require adjustments in sectors ranging from transport to energy and software development. Such adjustments would bring some transition costs, which could be burdensome for industries when scheduling, especially internationally, which would be a concern, particularly for aviation. In that report, the European Union Committee concluded that it did not receive compelling evidence to suggest that the current system of seasonal changes is problematic for the UK, while noting that there is a lack of contemporary studies on the subject.

Moving to double British summer time would create a time border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, if Ireland maintained its current approach to time. That non-alignment could cause problems for transport, particularly aviation, tourism, trade and business in general, with higher impacts if there was only a part-year alignment. This view is not only held by UK industries and representing bodies; it was also reported in EU and non-EU countries’ responses to a 2018 European Commission consultation.

In the UK, seasonal changes of time facilitate lighter evenings for over half the year and reduce morning darkness in winter. The latter effect is particularly pronounced in northern parts of the UK, especially Scotland. Double British summer time in the north of Scotland would mean no daylight in the winter before 10 am, while in the rest of Scotland sunrise would be at 9 am. Opponents of change point out that in Scotland children would have to travel to and from school in darkness. As pointed out by the Scottish Government in their written evidence to the Lords Committee, farm vehicles and other large vehicles would spend more time on the roads during the hours of darkness, further adding to the risks.

In 2012 the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills published a review of the scope, quality and robustness of available evidence regarding clock changes. The review found that there are challenges in looking at the overall picture of the impacts that might occur across a range of issues, including energy consumption and road traffic accidents.

To conclude, this Government will always listen carefully to any arguments that are put forward around how to mitigate challenges and provide support, particularly in areas such as mental health. We appreciate the concerns raised about the potential impact of clock changes on mental health and road safety, and we will always welcome views on how we can enhance our existing measures and initiatives.

As set out in our “Get Britain Working” White Paper, the Government are committed to expanding access to NHS talking therapies for adults with common mental health conditions such as depression, including seasonal affective disorder. This Government treat road safety with the utmost seriousness, and we are committed to reducing the numbers of those killed and injured on our roads. My ministerial colleagues at the Department for Transport are developing the first road safety strategy in over a decade, and will set out more details in due course.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard again for securing the debate. She has raised some interesting points, but the evidence for the case for change is not overwhelming. However, I will take this opportunity to remind everyone that the clocks go forward on Sunday, and it is also Mother’s Day.

Question put and agreed to.

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.

The purpose of the regulations is to increase the national living wage rate and the national minimum wage rates on 1 April 2025. The regulations were laid in draft before Parliament on 4 February and approved by the other place on 17 March.

The Government are committed to making work pay. The plan to make work pay will tackle the low pay, poor working conditions and poor job security that have been holding our economy back for far too long. Earlier this month, the House approved passage of the landmark Employment Rights Bill, which will benefit more than 10 million workers in every corner of the country and deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. Some aspects of the Bill and accompanying legislation and guidance will not come into effect for some time as the Government continue to engage with stakeholders, businesses and trade unions on its implementation. When we took office last year, however, we committed to taking immediate action where we could, and on the minimum wage we have done so.

One of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government was the creation of the national minimum wage, which eliminated the extreme low pay that was blighting our country. We are proud to say that one of the first actions taken by this Labour Government within a month of last year’s general election was to overhaul the remit to the Low Pay Commission. For the first time, the remit now explicitly includes the cost of living as one of the key factors to be considered when making national living wage recommendations. We have begun the journey towards creating a genuine living wage, as well as extending that to all workers aged over 18 by moving towards a single adult rate.

Before turning to the precise details of the regulations, I want to extend my thanks to the Low Pay Commission. The commissioners and their officials have worked diligently and efficiently, particularly after the updates to the remit were made, and we were pleased to accept all their recommendations. That is testament to their social partnership model and expert analysis and engagement, which ensure that the Government can deliver on their ambitious agenda, but without adversely impacting on businesses, the labour market or the wider economy.

Turning to the detail of the regulations, which, after parliamentary approval, will take effect on 1 April, the national living wage rate, which currently applies to workers aged 21 and over, will increase from £11.44 to £12.21. That represents a rise of 77p or 6.7%, which is well above all measures and projections of inflation, therefore delivering real terms pay increases to an estimated 3 million workers.

We will also be delivering large increases to the other national minimum wage rates. The 18 to 20-year-old rate will increase by £1.40 from £8.60 an hour to £10 an hour. That is a record 16.3% increase for that age group. It means that a full-time worker on the 18-to-20 minimum wage rate will see their gross annual earnings increased by around £2,500 a year—a well-earned pay rise and a significant step towards parity with the headline rate. The national minimum wage rate for 18 to 20-year-olds will be equal to 82% of the national living wage in 2025, compared with 75% in 2024.

The minimum wage rate for workers above school leaving age but under 18 years old will increase from £6.40 to £7.55 an hour—a large rise of £1.15 or 18%. The same rise will apply to the apprenticeship minimum wage rate, which applies to apprentices aged under 19 or in the first year of their apprenticeship. Finally, the accommodation offset rate, which is the maximum daily amount that an employer can charge a worker for accommodation without it affecting their pay for minimum wage purposes, will increase by 6.7%, or 67p, to £10.66.

I draw Members’ attention to the comprehensive impact assessment, which the Department published alongside this legislation. As they may have noted, the impact assessment, which includes an equalities assessment, has received a green fit-for-purpose rating from the independent Regulatory Policy Committee. As I have touched on, we estimate that the increases to the minimum wage rates will deliver a direct pay increase for over 3 million workers, while an additional 4 million could benefit from the positive spill-over effects. The minimum wage has greatly reduced pay inequality in the UK, with the share of low-paid jobs in hourly terms estimated at 3.4% in 2024. That is a record low, and down from 21.9% in 1999.

But the work does not stop there, as we continue to build towards a genuine living wage and the extension of eligibility to workers aged between 18 and 20 by ending the discriminatory age bands. To that end, we will publish in due course a fresh remit to the Low Pay Commission, asking it to recommend minimum wage rates to apply from next April. As part of this, the Low Pay Commission will consult about the appropriate trajectory towards the single adult rate as we ensure that this is delivered without adverse impacts on youth employment as well as participation in training and education. Like the previous Labour Government, with their creation of the minimum wage over a quarter of a century ago, this Labour Government will be proud to leave a profound legacy for workers’ rights, because we are making work pay and we are proud to make more progress on this by supporting this instrument today. I commend the regulations to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

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

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will begin by addressing the many contributions that were made to what I think was, overall, a very positive debate. I welcome the support of the Liberal Democrats, and also welcome the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) to the Chamber: it is good to see her back in her place. She made some important points about the social care sector. We know that the abuse of travel time reimbursement is a huge issue. The Low Pay Commission is keen to look into it, and I am sure that once the fair work agency is up and running, it will focus on it as well.

The hon. Lady’s colleague, the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), also talked about the importance of that sector. Our impact assessment has established that about one in five social care workers will receive a direct pay rise as a result of the increases announced today. As would be expected, before making its recommendations the Low Commission has consulted widely with, among others, representatives of social care workers. We believe that they have been undervalued for far too long, which is why we are introducing the first ever fair pay agreement in the adult social care sector so that care professionals are recognised and rewarded for the important work that they do. While I appreciate the hon. Member’s wish for a separate rate for care workers, we think we are taking the right measures to recognise and value them. The operation of different rates brings a range of challenges relating to enforcement and to clarity for employers, which we think is important.

There were, I have to say, a number of excellent speeches from the Labour Benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) made the positive economic case and referred to the wealth of evidence in support of increases in the minimum wage. On the Labour Benches, we passionately believe that increased protections at work and increases in the minimum wage are good not just for individuals but for the wider economy. She mentioned the many young people in her constituency who will benefit from the moves to parity for the 18 to 20 age band with the adult rate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) has great knowledge and experience in this area. She said that this is the beginning of the journey. That is right. We recognise that it will take time to achieve our ambitions for the Low Pay Commission for the people in this country, but it is a journey we are determined to finish.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) took us back into the depths of history. I must declare that I am one of those who can remember what it was like before the minimum wage. When I tell my children how much I used to earn in my first jobs, they cannot believe it. But it was true: that is what the world was like before the minimum wage. She also reminded us of the doom-laden warnings we got from the Conservative Opposition at the time. We heard a small echo of that tonight, but I think history has proved that those warnings were wrong.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) spoke passionately about the issues with in-work poverty, which is one of the key things that we must change in this country. For too long, people have not had work pay for them. Earnings have not kept up with the cost of living and that is one of the reasons why the Low Pay Commission’s remit has changed.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. The Low Pay Commission previously said that about 300,000 people are not being paid the minimum wage despite being on it—they are being underpaid. Will he update the House on the Government’s progress to ensure that all people on the minimum wage are paid the minimum wage?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point that those rights are only as good as the ability of the Government to enforce them. As we know, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has a very effective system to deliver on the minimum wage and we will shortly be releasing our latest round of naming and shaming of those employers who have not done the right thing. We hope that the fair work agency, when it is established, will be even more effective at delivering fairness across the country and ensuring that everyone gets the minimum wage they deserve. We know there are particular sectors where there are acute challenges.

I turn to the points made by the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law), about the bills and costs of an 18-year-old being the same as those for an adult. That is something I absolutely understand. It is why we changed the Low Pay Commission’s remit to ensure that we eventually get parity for that age group on the full adult rate. It is also why we have changed the remit of the Low Pay Commission to move towards a real living wage for all adults. We understand that that is such an important thing for us to deliver on. He may feel that we are not quite there yet, and we must ensure we take evidence as we go along from businesses on how it impacts on particular sectors and particular parts of society, but 18 to 20-year-olds are getting a £2,500 pay rise this year as a result of the regulations. That is something I am sure he will welcome.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) raised very well the regional impacts of the wage increase in his part of the world. It is the case that the regulations will mean 140,000 workers in the north-east, or 14.5% of the total workforce in that region, will benefit from the increase. We should all be absolutely delighted about that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) also raised in-work poverty. That is why the remit is being changed. We want to ensure that in-work poverty is consigned to the history books.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) set out in stark terms the figures associated with the regulations. I may mention them again at some point before I finish. They are the bold numbers that will go directly into people’s pockets and that we can show as tangible proof of a Labour Government delivering for working people.

My hon. Friend also raised the matter of the empty Opposition Benches. I do not want to equate that with meaning that the Conservatives do not support these increases, as I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), said that they did. I do put her on notice, though, that her party leader has been less than full in her support for the minimum wage, so I hope that the shadow Minister’s support for today’s measures has not damaged her career prospects. It may well be that there is another leader in a few months anyway, and that things will be looking up. We do hope that the Conservatives continue to support the minimum wage as we move forward and that they do not change tack now that they have entered opposition.

However, the shadow Minister did raise a number of important questions, which I will now try to address. She raised the impact on public sector workers. Of course, pay for most frontline workers is set through pay review body processes, which do take account of national living wage increases as part of their processes. We do not believe that many public sector workers will be directly affected by this change, but it is something the Departments will take into account when they set their budgets.

The shadow Minister also asked about the cumulative impact of the changes. The impact assessment does show that this year’s upratings will represent a 0.14% increase in the UK-wide wage bill, which I think is incredibly good value for what we are delivering into people’s pockets. Of course, the total impact of the Employment Rights Bill is, at most, 0.4% of the total wage bill.

The hon. Lady raised questions about burdens on SMEs. The Low Pay Commission does take into account the impact on business as part of its operations. It looks at the competitiveness of individual businesses, the labour market and the wider economy, drawing on extensive labour market pay analysis and stakeholder evidence when recommending rates, and we would expect the commission to do exactly the same next year. Small businesses have, of course, had support from this Government. We have increased the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, meaning that 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance contributions at all, and more than half of employers will gain or see no change from this measure. We have also extended business rates relief for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors.

The hon. Lady raised concerns about the impact of the measures on young people. The youth guarantee will ensure that every young person has access to education or training to help them to find a job, and we are transforming the apprenticeship levy to ensure that young people get the opportunities they deserve.

The shadow Minister raised concerns about the overall labour market. I would just make the point that payroll employment is actually higher now than it was this time last year, and the latest labour force survey last week showed record numbers of people in work. Perhaps the negative headlines that we have been seeing are not actually the reality of the situation. I like to deal with facts, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the facts are that these regulations will put more money into the pockets of workers around the country—around 200,000 workers in Scotland, 160,000 workers in Northern Ireland and 150,000 workers in Wales. This will make a real difference to people: £1,400 for a full-time worker and £2,500 for someone on the 18-to-20 rate.

This is truly a worthwhile exercise, and we thank the Low Pay Commission for its work, as well as HMRC, which enforces on behalf of the Department, and ACAS, which offers impartial advice and expertise to ensure that workplace disputes can be resolved and workers’ rights can be upheld. This is a meaningful change being delivered by this Government that delivers a powerful message: this Government, and indeed this Parliament, are committed to making work pay. These real-terms increases to the minimum wage will end insecurity at work. I commend these regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before the House on 4 February, be approved.

St Patrick’s Day: UK Bank Holiday

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this Adjournment debate. I know that he is not familiar with the operation of Adjournment debates, so I am glad that he has found his way here this evening. If he wants to intervene, he will have about 10 minutes to do so—we would not want that streak to be broken, would we?

I wish the hon. Gentleman and everyone a belated but very happy St Patrick’s day. I enjoyed hearing his contribution on what St Patrick’s day means to him and to his community in Northern Ireland. I know that he has spoken very passionately about this subject on a number of occasions, as we would expect. In preparation for this debate, I contacted my family historian—my mum—to understand my Irish roots. Going back several generations, I have a fair bit over there, so I am pleased to report that I had one pint of Guinness yesterday to mark the occasion.

The Government appreciate the deep cultural and religious significance of St Patrick’s day to many nationalists and Unionists across Northern Ireland, some of whom revere St Patrick for his role in the arrival and growth of Christianity on the island. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, he is for everybody. It is also a cherished day for those who serve and have served in the Irish regiments of the British Army, with the annual presentation of the shamrock to the Irish Guards by members of the royal family. The familial relationship with Ireland and Northern Ireland is so important to people across the UK, as it is to this Government. By way of just one example, our NHS is stronger for the contributions of the many Irish nationals who serve in it today and have done since its founding. The most recent statistics, from June 2023, showed that nearly 14,000 members of NHS staff were Irish, including doctors, nurses, and of course support staff.

Following the recent general election in Ireland, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Tánaiste have discussed the strength of the bilateral relationship, our shared commitment to the Good Friday agreement, and the importance of upholding political stability in Northern Ireland. We have also increased engagement between the two Governments, especially through the new Prime Minister-Taoiseach summits. The first of those summits took place on 5 March, about a mile from where I live in my constituency, although for some reason my invite did not quite reach me—I do not know why that was. It was clear from that summit that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have agreed a joint vision for co-operation through to 2030, which will bring our two countries together like never before. Through the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and the British-Irish Council, we engage regularly with the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive on matters of shared concern.

Of course, many people across the world look forward to the annual St Patrick’s day celebrations, which showcase the significant contributions of Irish people. This year, we saw parades through the cities of Belfast, Cardiff, Glasgow, Liverpool and Leeds, and here in London in Trafalgar Square.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justin Madders]

If the hon. Member wants to intervene, he knows how to.

[Jim Shannon]

I thought it was important that I should do so, although I wanted to do so anyway. The diaspora in England, Scotland and Wales is massive. It is not just in the NHS, as the Minister has referred to; it is also in the construction business. Whenever I come over on the plane from Belfast or return, I see workers going over to build in London and then going back on the weekend. The diaspora includes farmers and businessmen. The connections between England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are enormous, and may I say, Minister, that the diaspora wants to have St Patrick’s day as a UK bank holiday as well.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am sure that if I did some polling, there would be support, but I will come on to some of the reasons why we may not be able to grant him his wish on this occasion.

During the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s recent visit to Washington, he participated in the annual St Patrick’s day events and engaged with the US Administration, congressional members, business leaders and key stakeholders. He promoted Northern Ireland as a fantastic place to invest, work and live, highlighting its unique access to both the UK’s internal market and the EU’s single market. I am very pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), is in the Chamber tonight. She has been very active during St Patrick’s season, attending receptions for community and business leaders in Stormont and Westminster.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

Lá fhéile Pádraig sona daoibh go léir—happy St Patrick’s day. St Patrick’s day is a time to bring people together, often in our local pubs. Will the Minister join me in thanking Irish pub landlords up and down the country, including Michael Duffy and Joe Duffy, who run the Chancery and the Jolly Woodman in Beckenham?

[Justin Madders]

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Duffys on operating those pubs. I wonder whether he will be visiting them shortly to remind them of the good publicity he has given to a local business in his constituency.

Turning to the nub of the hon. Member for Strangford’s speech, St Patrick’s day is of course already a bank holiday in Northern Ireland, providing its people with the opportunity to mark that important cultural and religious occasion. The Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 specifies which days in each year are bank holidays, and contains provisions for appointing additional or substitute days. That Act designates 17 March as a bank holiday in Northern Ireland. The decision to create an additional bank holiday in Northern Ireland for St Patrick’s day was taken against the backdrop of Northern Ireland’s economic, social, cultural and legal systems. The current pattern of bank holidays is well established, and I am afraid that the Government do not have any plans to extend the St Patrick’s day bank holiday to other parts of the UK.

Bank holidays are devolved to the Scottish Government, so Scottish Ministers are responsible for decisions about bank holidays in Scotland. I will therefore speak about the merits of a St Patrick’s day bank holiday in Wales and England only.

An additional bank holiday in England and Wales for St Patrick’s day would benefit those who celebrate it, including members of the Irish diaspora in the UK. Certain sectors of the economy, such as pubs and restaurants, might also benefit from increased expenditure on a bank holiday. It is a significant tourism draw to Northern Ireland, too, so I would expect that extending the bank holiday would draw more visitors from England and Wales over there. However, the overall cost to the economy of an additional bank holiday is considerable.

The latest analysis estimates that the costs to the UK economy of a one-off bank holiday is around £2 billion. That estimate is derived from the impact assessment for the platinum jubilee bank holiday weekend held in 2022. An additional bank holiday would also impact on public services. Bank holidays require the closure of schools, courts and tribunals. It may disrupt certain NHS services, such as routine operations. I also point out that there is no statutory right to time off for bank or public holidays specifically. Any right to time off or extra pay for working on a bank holiday depends on the terms of an employee’s contract of employment, and like other terms and conditions of employment, it is a matter for negotiation between employers and workers. Even if the St Patrick’s day bank holiday were extended to England and Wales, not all workers would be able to take it off. For example, many NHS and emergency service workers, many of whom we have already heard are from Ireland, might still be required to work. We regularly receive requests for bank holidays to mark various historical, cultural, religious and sporting events.

[Adam Jogee]

Many people born on the island of Ireland, whether north or south, like my wife, made Newcastle-under-Lyme their home. Like many of them, I was celebrating St Patrick’s day at the weekend at the Sneyd Arms on Higherland, an excellent local pub. As the Minister has just touched on other bank holidays, will he find time at some other stage to meet me to discuss the benefits of making St George’s day a bank holiday?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend tempts me to talk about another bank holiday, but I am afraid that there would be the same arguments about the economic cost, although I think we should celebrate St George’s day more in this country.

Although we have no plans for a St Patrick’s day bank holiday in England and Wales, the Government strongly encourage employers to respond flexibly to any requests for leave, be that to celebrate St Patrick’s day or any other significant religious or cultural events, whether that is Diwali, Vaisakhi, Magna Carta day, Remembrance Day or St George’s day. It is important that we can take time out to celebrate these events. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for securing this important debate. The message of unity that he came to us with from St Patrick is one that I share with him.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)]

3. What steps his Department is taking to improve the regulatory environment.

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

The regulatory environment does not work as well as it should. Unnecessary red tape is choking competitiveness, creating unnecessary burdens for business and putting up barriers to growth. That is why we are introducing a Government-wide target to reduce the administrative costs of regulation by 25% by the end of this Parliament. That will be supported by a baselining exercise to understand the administrative costs of regulation to businesses. The Prime Minister will set out more details later today. This is just the beginning; details of our ambitious action plan to reform the regulatory landscape will be set out shortly.

[Callum Anderson]

Over eight years and four Prime Ministers, the last Conservative Government commissioned review after review into UK corporate governance and audit reform, and delivered absolutely nothing. For UK plc to be globally competitive, we need robust corporate governance frameworks which balance the needs of investors and society for information with the administrative burdens on companies. Will the Minister update the House on what progress his Department is making on bringing forward an audit reform and corporate governance Bill?

[Justin Madders]

As my hon. Friend is right to recognise, this issue has been around for some time, and the Government have announced their intention to publish a draft audit reform and corporate governance Bill for scrutiny in this Session. Investors and the public need access to truthful reporting from our most important businesses on their finances and related issues. My Department continues to progress that important work, and a timetable for the publication of the Bill will be confirmed in the usual way for draft legislation in due course.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Since leaving the European Union, we have been diverging progressively and passively —not making an active decision to diverge because it is good for us, but because we cannot keep up with the number of regulations coming through the European Union. That has been particularly disadvantageous for energy trading. What conversations has the Minister had with Government colleagues around aligning with the EU on emissions trading?

[Justin Madders]

That is an important question. The Minister with responsibility for emissions trading, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), is in charge of that matter, and it is one of the discussions we are having as part of the EU reset.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to support high street businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

7. What steps his Department is taking to help microbusinesses comply with the general product safety regulations.

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

The Government are committed to supporting microbusinesses to comply with the general product safety regulation. For Northern Ireland, we have published additional guidance for businesses, and we will publish an update in the coming weeks, in the light of feedback we have received. We will continue to engage with businesses to ensure that they can trade freely across the UK. Businesses targeting the EU market may use the Government’s export support service. Since October 2024, the Department’s export academy has delivered eight free online GPSR training sessions to almost 5,000 attendees.

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank the Minister for his answer. My constituent George Stevens runs a microbusiness in Lydd making handcrafted stringed instruments; it has been running for over 30 years and he has many EU customers. He is deeply worried about Brexit-related red tape, which is holding back his EU exports. Can the Minister give him an assurance that, as a result of the proposed measures, he will now find it easier to trade with the EU?

[Justin Madders]

Microbusinesses such as that of Mr Stevens are central to the Government’s growth mission. We are committed to strengthening our relationship with the EU and to tackle trade barriers and frictions, and we regularly engage directly with businesses and their representative organisations to understand the difficulties they face. Our export support services help small and medium-sized enterprises navigate opportunities in EU markets and get the practical help they need to do so. For example, the Unlock Europe programme, which was launched in December as part of the export academy, offers practical guidance to help UK businesses enhance their exporting potential to the EU.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

Our country’s very high electricity costs are another huge problem facing businesses in my constituency and nationally. Reintegrating our power markets with Europe’s through the single-day ahead coupling system would cost our country nothing, save costs for businesses, reduce carbon dioxide and make our power markets more efficient. Will the Minister take fast steps to reintegrate our electricity markets with those of our European neighbours?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member for his tangential question relating to GPSR. He makes an important point about energy costs, and we are working closely with the EU on how to build on that, and of course the industrial strategy will also be looking very closely at how energy costs can be brought down for businesses.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

8. If he will take steps to reduce employment regulation for businesses.

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

The plan to make work pay is central to our plan for change, to grow the economy, raise living standards and create opportunities for all. It will tackle low pay, poor working conditions and job insecurity, creating long-term growth and investment to support businesses. Insights gained from our ongoing engagement with businesses will help us ensure proportionate and effective policy. Our plan to make work pay will ensure a level playing field, so that employers that are trying to do the right thing are not undercut.

[Katie Lam]

I sent a survey about how the Government have treated business to every registered company in the Weald of Kent, and they are terrified. Some 80% of them—four in five—are less likely to hire following soaring taxes and the truly dire Employment Rights Bill. The Regulatory Policy Committee found the Government’s own impact assessment for the Bill not fit for purpose. Will the Minister conduct a proper assessment of the damage the Bill will do, or should I send him mine?

[Justin Madders]

I am always grateful for advice. If the hon. Lady is conducting surveys, she might look at the one that said that 76 of her constituents supported the plans in the Bill to bring in day one rights for sick pay. The importance of this Bill cannot be overstated. We have a plan to bring businesses up to a standard where work is respected and people have security and dignity. If the hon. Lady cannot understand that, then she needs to get out a bit more.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to support trade union recognition in the workplace.

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

The Government are committed to simplifying the process and law around trade union recognition so that working people have a more meaningful right to organise through trade unions—of course, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in this respect. Through the Employment Rights Bill, we are reforming the process for statutory recognition applications; with existing thresholds presenting too high a hurdle in modern workplaces, they are increasingly fragmented. We are also taking steps to strengthen protections against unfair practices during the recognition process, which we debated at length yesterday.

[Josh Newbury]

In January, Bidfood, a food wholesaler and major employer in my constituency, announced overnight that it would derecognise the GMB and Unite the union, removing the ability of thousands of workers across the country to collectively bargain through their trade unions. The unions fear that Bidfood workers could now be left at risk of fire and rehire before protections in this Government’s Employment Rights Bill come into force. Does the Minister agree that employers should not be trying to dodge protections under the Government’s plan to make work pay, and will he join me in supporting the GMB and Unite as they seek to protect their workers at Bidfood?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases, but I am deeply troubled by what he has said. I can be clear that the Government are determined to reset industrial relations, so that employers and trade unions work together in partnership rather than in conflict, as we have heard. We encourage all employers to engage with unions in the spirit of co-operation and collaboration. Working in that way benefits employers and workers alike. As he knows, the Employment Rights Bill will end the unscrupulous practice of fire and rehire, which has no place in a modern economy and workplace, so if any company is thinking of doing that, it should think again.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I very much welcome the Minister’s response. After I worked in my mum and dad’s shop, I joined the firm Henry Denny and I was required to join the union. I was not sure about joining, but when I did so I found out that the union backed me as a worker against the employers whenever they were bringing in things that were wrong. So I encourage everybody who joins a workforce to join a union, because it will protect them whenever they need help.

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Member could not have put it better. He has explained the benefits of trade union membership, which is something that Members on the Conservative Benches clearly do not understand.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

T7. The big six supermarkets are acting like a cartel, forcing unfair prices on farmers and pursuing unscrupulous practices such as farm washing. Does the Minister agree with me that we should look again at the Groceries Code Adjudicator and consider whether it is fit for purpose?

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

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The Groceries Code Adjudicator’s annual survey shows high levels of compliance by the supermarkets. However, a statutory review will actually commence next month, and I would encourage her and all stakeholders to contribute to it.

[Mr Speaker]

Now it is Chris Law’s turn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

The invest in women taskforce aims to drive investment in female-powered businesses at every stage. That includes putting more money in the hands of female investors, as we know that women back women. Does the Minister agree that one solution to tackling the gender disparity in investment decision-making roles is to set a minimum level of female representation for all investment committees that receive British Business Bank funding?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a strong correlation between the proportion of women on an investment committee and the proportion of female founders receiving investment. My Department leads on the investing in women code, whose 270 signatories commit to supporting female entrepreneurship. One of the key metrics we check is the gender balance on investment committees and investment teams. I am pleased to say that the code signatories significantly outperform the wider market in their support for female founders. Investment funds backed by the British Business Bank are expected to sign up to the code and the bank itself is a signatory.

Employment Rights Bill

Justin Madders Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 40—Political funds: requirement to pass political resolution.

Government new clause 41—Industrial action ballots: support thresholds.

Government new clause 42—Notice of industrial action ballot and sample voting paper for employers.

Government new clause 43—Period after which industrial action ballot ceases to be effective.

Government new clause 44—Power to give notice of underpayment.

Government new clause 45—Calculation of the required sum.

Government new clause 46—Period to which notice of underpayment may relate.

Government new clause 47—Notices of underpayment: further provision.

Government new clause 48—Penalties for underpayment.

Government new clause 49—Further provision about penalties.

Government new clause 50—Suspension of penalty where criminal proceedings have been brought etc.

Government new clause 51—Appeals against notices of underpayment.

Government new clause 52—Withdrawal of notice of underpayment.

Government new clause 53—Replacement notice of underpayment.

Government new clause 54—Effect of replacement notice of underpayment.

Government new clause 55—Enforcement of requirement to pay sums due to individuals.

Government new clause 56—Enforcement of requirement to pay penalty.

Government new clause 57—Power to bring proceedings in employment tribunal.

Government new clause 58—Power to provide legal assistance.

Government new clause 59—Recovery of costs of legal assistance.

Government new clause 60—Power to recover costs of enforcement.

New clause 8—Prison officers: inducements to withhold services—

“In section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (Inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline)—

(a) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (a);

(b) omit subsection (1A);

(c) omit subsection (7).”

This new clause would repeal provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that prohibit inducing a prison officer to take (or continue to take) any industrial action.

New clause 9—Inducement of prison officers: exempted persons—

“After section 127A of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline), insert—

“Section 127B: Prison officers and trade unions: exempted persons

Section 127 (inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline) does not apply to—

(a) Any listed trade union representing prison officers, or

(b) any person acting on behalf of a listed trade union representing prison officers.””

This new clause would repeal, with respect to trade unions representing prison officers, provisions that prohibit the inducement of industrial action or indiscipline by a prison officer.

New clause 19—Right to be accompanied—

“(1) Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3), after paragraph (b) insert—

“(ba) person who has been reasonably certified in writing by a Professional Body as having experience of, or as having received training in, acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary or grievance hearings, or”

(3) After subsection (7) insert—

“(8) In this section, “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (9).

(9) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.””

This new clause would expand the right to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings.

New clause 28—Enforcement against companies subject to insolvency or voluntary liquidation—

“(1) A Labour Market Enforcement Strategy under section 81 must include—

(a) the Secretary of State’s assessment of—

(i) the scale and nature of non-compliance with employment tribunal awards due to insolvency or voluntary liquidation during the period of three years ending immediately before the strategy period;

(ii) the scale and nature of such non-compliance involving phoenixing during the same period; and

(iii) the likely scale and nature of such non-compliance during the strategy period;

(b) a proposal for the strategy period setting out how enforcement functions of the Secretary of State are to be exercised in relation to such non-compliance.

(2) An annual report under section 82 must include―

(a) an assessment of the effect of the applicable strategy on the scale and nature of non-compliance with employment tribunal awards, including non-compliance due to insolvency or voluntary liquidation, and

(b) an assessment of the effect of the applicable strategy on the scale and nature of non-compliance involving phoenixing.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “phoenixing” means the practice of dissolving or otherwise closing a business and establishing a new one with a similar purpose, with the effect of avoiding the enforcement of employment tribunal awards or other debts.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to include, in the Labour Market Enforcement Strategy and annual reports under this Bill, information about non-compliance with employment tribunal awards by, and enforcement against, companies ordered to pay such awards that have been subject to insolvency or voluntary liquidation, including in instances in which the directors go on to set up a similar company to avoid enforcement.

New clause 29—Trade union representatives: right not to suffer career detriment—

“(1) In Part V of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Protection from suffering detriment in employment), after section 47(1A), insert—

“(1B) This section applies where the detriment in question relates to matters of internal promotion or progression.”

(2) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended in accordance with subsections (3) to (6).

(3) In the italic title before section 137, after “Access to employment”, add “and career progression”.

(4) After section 138, insert—

“138A Career progression

(1) An employer must ensure that any employee undertaking trade union representative duties does not experience detriment in matters of internal career progression as a result of the employee’s trade union activities.

(2) Where an employee who is a trade union representative has not been appointed to a more senior role, in circumstances in which the employee met the minimum criteria for the role and demonstrated that criteria through the application, the employer must provide a written statement.

(3) The written statement under subsection (2) must include evidence to demonstrate that the decision not to appoint the employee was not affected by the employee’s trade union activities.

138B Career progression: support for trade union representatives

An employer must have in place a policy to support the career progression of employees who are trade union representatives. The policy must set out―

(a) how the employees will be supported in matters of internal progression and promotion; and

(b) how the employer will consider trade union experience in assessing applications for more senior roles.””

(5) In section 140(1), after “section 138” insert “or 138A”.

(6) In section 142(1), after “section 138” insert “or 138A”.””

This new clause would enhance protections to trade union representatives, extending them to cover detriment in matters of career progression, and would require employers to demonstrate that they have not denied promotion to trade union representatives as a result of their trade union activities. It would also require employers to have a policy in place to support the career progression of employees who are trade union representatives.

New clause 31—Removal of secondary action provisions—

“In the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, omit section 224 (secondary action).”

New clause 64—Duties of trade unions—

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

(2) In section 219 (protection from certain tort liabilities), after subsection (4) insert—

“(5) But subsection (4) does not have effect in relation to any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute which relates wholly or mainly to proposals by an employer to vary terms and conditions of employment of two or more employees accompanied by the threat (explicit or implied) of dismissal if that variation is not agreed.””

New clause 65—Personal Liability for breach of tribunal orders—

“(1) Where, in relation to a body corporate—

(a) a financial order made by an employment tribunal or agreed by the claimant and the body corporate; or

-(b) an order of reinstatement or re-engagement made by an employment tribunal or agreed by the claimant and the body corporate

has not been fulfilled by the date specified in the order or agreement, without reasonable excuse, and that failure is proved—

(a) to have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer of the body, or

(b) to be attributable to any neglect on the part of such an officer,

that officer shall be personally liable to reimburse the claimant in whose favour the order had been made or agreed.

(2) An officer found liable for reimbursement under subsection (1) may be disqualified as a director or prevented from becoming a director.”

New clause 66—Public sector contracting: trade union recognition—

“(1) The Procurement Act 2023 is amended as follows.

(2) In Part (2) (principles and objectives), after section 14A insert—

“14B Obligations of contractors to recognise trade unions

(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that any contract entered into by a—

(a) government department;

(b) executive agency of government;

(c) non departmental public body; or

(d) non Ministerial department,

is compliant with the requirements set out in subsection (2).

(2) A contract under subsection (1) must─

(a) recognise an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining, and

(b) take steps to ensure that any sub-contractor to the contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract recognises an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “recognises”, “independent trade union” and “collective bargaining” have the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

(4) An independent trade union may make a complaint against a contracting authority, which is a party to a public contract, that it or a contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract is in breach of the term in subsection (2).

(5) The complaint may be made to the Central Arbitration Committee.

(6) If the Central Arbitration Committee finds the complaint to be well founded, it shall grant a declaration to that effect.

(7) Where the Central Arbitration Committee makes a declaration in accordance with subsection (6), it shall order that the respondent contracting authority shall take whatever steps appear to the Central Arbitration Committee as necessary to ensure that the contracting authority and every contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract comply with the implied term in subsection (2).

(8) The steps that may be taken under subsection (7) include termination of the contract, which shall not be regarded as a breach of contract by the contracting authority concerned if a principal reason for the termination is compliance with an order of the Central Arbitration Committee under (7).

(9) An appeal lies on a point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal by either party to proceedings brought under subsection (5).””

New clause 67—Sectoral collective bargaining: 80 per cent coverage—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an action plan to achieve, within five years, that the principal terms and conditions of employment of at least 80 percent of workers in the United Kingdom are determined by collective agreement.

(2) The action plan under subsection (1) must be informed by consultation with organisations representing employers and trade unions.”

New clause 68—Sectoral collective bargaining: other sectors—

“(1) Regulations under this Act may include regulations for collective bargaining in other sectors of the economy.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1)—

(a) may only be made following consultation with representatives of workers and employers in those sectors; and

(b) may provide that agreements reached by such collective bargaining shall apply to the workers and employers in the relevant sector save to the extent that a previous or subsequent collective agreement has provided a more favourable term or condition.”

New clause 69—Statement of trade union rights—

“Every employee, worker and self-employed person has the right—

(a) to join an independent trade union of his choice, subject only to its rules;

(b) to take part in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time, subject only to its rules.”

New clause 70—Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces—

“In part 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (trade unions), before Chapter 5A, insert—

“Chapter 5ZA

RIGHT OF TRADE UNIONS TO ACCESS WORKPLACES

70ZA Right of access

(1) A designated official of an independent trade union shall have a right to enter premises occupied by an employer in order to access a workplace or workplaces, subject to the conditions set out below.

(2) An employer shall not—

(a) refuse entry to a designated trade union official seeking to exercise his or her right of access under sub-section (1), or

(b) otherwise obstruct such an official in the exercise of his or her right of access under sub-section (1).

(3) A “designated trade union official” means a person nominated by the trade union to exercise the right of access on its behalf.

70ZB Access purposes

(1) The right of access may be exercised for the access purposes.

(2) The access purposes are to—

(a) meet, represent, recruit or organize workers (whether or not they are members of a trade union); and

(b) facilitate collective bargaining.

70ZC Notice to employer

(1) The right of access may be exercised only after the designated official of an independent trade union has given notice of an intention to do so to the employer whose premises it is proposed to enter for the purposes of access to a workplace or workplaces.

(2) The notice must be—

(a) in writing; and

(b) given at least 24 hours before it is intended to exercise the right of access;

(3) The notice required to be given under subsection (2) shall—

(a) specify the purpose for which entry is sought; and

(b) identify the workers or categories of workers the designated official intends to meet, represent, recruit or organize.

(4) The right of access may be exercised without giving notice where there are exceptional circumstances such as to justify access without prior notice.

(5) Whether circumstances are exceptional shall be determined by having regard to the relevant provisions of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS.

70ZD Access conditions

(1) The right of access is subject to the following conditions.

(2) The right of access may be exercised—

(a) only at a reasonable time, and

(b) subject to reasonable conditions imposed by the employer.

(3) What is reasonable for the purposes of subsection (2) shall be determined by having regard to the relevant provisions of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS.

70ZE Dwellings

(1) The right of access does not apply to any part of premises which are used exclusively as a dwelling.

(2) Where sub-section (1) applies and only where sub-section (1) applies, the employer shall provide a reasonable, suitable, and alternative venue to enable the right of access to be exercised.

(3) What is reasonable and suitable for the purposes of subsection (2) shall be determined by having regard to the relevant provisions of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS.

70ZF Enforcement of right of access

(1) Where an employer refuses or obstructs access contrary to section 70ZA, a complaint may be made to the CAC by the trade union of which the designated official is a representative.

(2) Where the CAC finds the complaint to be well-founded it shall make a declaration to that effect and may make an order requiring the employer to comply with section 70ZA, subject to such conditions as the CAC may determine.

(3) If the CAC makes a declaration under subsection (2) the trade union may, within the period of three months beginning with the date on which the declaration is made, make an application to the Employment Appeal Tribunal for a penalty notice to be issued.

(4) Where such an application is made, the Employment Appeal Tribunal shall issue a written penalty notice to the employer requiring the employer to pay a penalty to the trade union in respect of each refusal or obstruction of access unless satisfied, on hearing representations from the employer, that the refusal or obstruction of access resulted from a reason beyond the employer’s control or that the employer has some other reasonable excuse.

(5) If the CAC makes an order under subsection (2) the order shall be recorded in the High Court and on being recorded may be enforced as if it were an order of the High Court.

70ZG Penalty notice

(1) A penalty notice issued under section 70ZF(4) shall specify—

(a) the amount of the penalty which is payable;

(b) the date before which the penalty must be paid; and

(c) the failure and period to which the penalty relates.

(2) A penalty set by the Employment Appeal Tribunal under section 70ZF(4) may not exceed a prescribed amount.

(3) Matters to be taken into account by the Employment Appeal Tribunal when setting the amount of the penalty shall include—

(a) the gravity of each refusal or obstruction of access;

(b) the period of time over which each refusal or obstruction of access occurred;

(c) the number of occasions on which each refusal or obstruction of access occurred;

(d) the reason for each refusal or obstruction of access;

(e) the number of workers affected by each refusal or obstruction of access; and

(f) the number of workers employed by the undertaking.

(4) The Employment Appeal Tribunal shall also take into account any previous refusal or obstruction of access to a designated official of the independent trade union to which the application relates.

(5) If the specified date in a penalty notice for payment of the penalty has passed and—

(a) the period during which an appeal may be made has expired without an appeal having been made; or

(b) such an appeal has been made and determined, the trade union may recover from the employer, as a civil debt due to it, any amount payable under the penalty notice which remains outstanding.

(6) The making of an appeal suspends the effect of a penalty notice pending the outcome of the appeal.

70ZH Other provisions relating to trade union access

(1) Sections 70ZA-70ZG are in addition and without prejudice to any other provisions relating to trade union access to workers.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt, the latter include but are not confined to—

(a) Section 188(5A) of this Act

(b) Sections 198A and 198B of this Act;

(c) Schedule A1, paragraphs 26 and 118 of this Act;

(d) ACAS Code of Practice on time off for trade union duties and activities issued under section 199 of this Act, for the time being in force; and

(e) Any collective agreement which makes more favourable provision.””

New clause 82—Fair Work Agency: review of resourcing—

(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the resources available to the Fair Work Agency.

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

This new clause asks the Secretary of State to review the resources available to the Fair Work Agency to ensure that enforcement of provisions in the Act are effective.

New clause 88—Rules as to political fund—

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

(2) In subsection (1) of section 84 (Contributions to political fund from members of the union), after subsection (1), insert—

“(1A) An opt-in notice under subsection (1) must include the member of the trade union’s consent to annual renewal of the contribution to the political fund (a “renewal opt-in”).

(1B) The renewal opt-in must be sent by the member of the trade union─ (a) within six months of the initial opt-in and every six months thereafter, or (b) each time payment is due, at least 28 days before payment is taken, whichever is longer.

(1C) If the member of the trade union does not provide a renewal opt-in, the trade union must provide a date by which the member must notify the trade union of their consent to continued contribution towards the political fund, which must be no earlier than 28 days before the next payment to the political fund is due.

(1D) If the member has not—

(a)opted into an arrangement under subsection (1A) or (1B), or

(b) given notification of their consent to continued contributions by the date specified under subsection (1C),

their payments to the political fund must cease before the renewal date.””

This new clause will ensure that trade union members are asked whether they wish their contribution to the political fund to renew automatically and would require that, if the member does not wish to renew their contribution, the union must provide a date by which the member has to confirm they wish to continue to contribute.

New clause 89—Certification Officer: growth duty—

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

(2) In section 254 (The Certification Officer), after subsection (2), insert—

“(2A) In discharging the functions of the Certification Office, the Certification Officer must, so far as reasonably possible, act in such a way as to advance the following objectives—

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

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

This new clause would require the Certification Officer to advance the objectives of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.

New clause 90—Regulations under Part 4—

“When making regulations under Part 4 of this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives—

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

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

This amendment would require the Secretary of State, when making regulations under Part 4 of the Bill, to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.

New clause 98—Pressure to impose union recognition requirement—

“In the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, omit section 225 (Pressure to impose union recognition requirement).”

This new clause would remove section 225 from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 on pressure to impose union recognition requirement.

New clause 99—Electronic balloting—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a statutory instrument containing an order under section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004.

(2) That order must specify that—

(a) permissible means may, in the case of any description of ballot or election, include (or consist of) electronic voting; and

(b) any ballot or election including (or consisting of) electronic voting must be conducted pursuant to section 230 (Conduct of ballot) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

(3) The Secretary of State must not make an order under this section until a consultation with the Trades Union Congress and the Certification Officer has been conducted.

(4) An order under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make an order for electronic voting in a ballot or election pursuant to section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004 within six months of the passing of this Act, and following consultation with the TUC.

New clause 100—Notice to employers of industrial action: amendment—

“In section 234A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, omit subsections (3) to (9) and insert—-

“(3) For the purposes of this section a relevant notice is one in writing which—

(a) identifies—

(i) the day or the first of the days on which, at the time of the service of the relevant notice, the union proposes to call industrial action; and

(ii) the categories of employee the union intends to call on to take industrial action; and

(b) must be provided to the employer as early as practicable after the ballot result is known and the decision to take industrial action in furtherance of it has been taken.

(4) If the industrial action relates to an event which has already taken place, no relevant notice shall be required.””

This new clause replaces the provisions in section 234A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to define a relevant notice for industrial action, when one must be provided and when one is not required.

New clause 103—Public sector contracting: trade union recognition—

“(1) The Procurement Act 2023 is amended as follows.

(2) In Part (2) (principles and objectives), after section 14A insert—

“14B Obligations of contractors to recognise trade unions

(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that any contract entered into after the coming into force of this Act by a—

(a) government department;

(b) executive agency of government;

(c) non departmental public body; or

(d) non Ministerial department,

is compliant with the requirements set out in subsection (2).

(2) A contract under subsection (1) must require the contractor to such a contracting authority to—

(a) recognise an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining, and

(b) take steps to ensure that any sub-contractor to the contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract recognises an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “recognises”, “independent trade union” and “collective bargaining” have the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

(4) An independent trade union may make a complaint against a contracting authority, which is a party to a public contract, that it or a contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract is in breach of the term in subsection (2).

(5) The complaint may be made to the Central Arbitration Committee.

(6) If the Central Arbitration Committee finds the complaint to be well founded, it shall grant a declaration to that effect.

(7) Where the Central Arbitration Committee makes a declaration in accordance with subsection (6), it shall order that the respondent contracting authority shall take whatever steps appear to the Central Arbitration Committee as necessary to ensure that the contracting authority and every contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract comply with the implied term in subsection (2).

(8) The steps that may be taken under subsection (7) include termination of the contract, which shall not be regarded as a breach of contract by the contracting authority concerned if a principal reason for the termination is compliance with an order of the Central Arbitration Committee under subsection (7).

(9) An appeal lies on a point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal by either party to proceedings brought under subsection (5).””

This new clause is designed to ensure that all public contractors comply with the duty to recognise a trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining and that such contractors take steps to ensure that any sub-contractors do the same. The terms “contracting authority” and “public contract” are defined in section 2 and 3 of the Procurement Act.

New clause 106—Collective bargaining—

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

(2) In section 209, after “industrial relations” insert—

“and in particular to encourage the extension of collective bargaining and the development and, where necessary, reform of collective bargaining machinery.””

This would add duties around collective bargaining to the general duty of ACAS.

New clause 107—Whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract—

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

(2) For section 179, substitute—

“179 Whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract

(1) A collective agreement shall be conclusively presumed to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract unless the agreement—

(a) is in writing, and

(b) contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties do not intend that the agreement shall be a legally enforceable contract.

(2) A collective agreement which satisfies those conditions shall be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract.

(3) If a collective agreement is in writing and contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties intend that one or more parts of the agreement specified in that provision, but not the whole of the agreement, shall not be a legally enforceable contract, then—

(a) the specified part or parts shall be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract, and

(b) the remainder of the agreement shall be conclusively presumed to have been intended by the parties to be such a contract.

(4) A part of a collective agreement which by virtue of subsection (3)(a) is not a legally enforceable contract may be referred to for the purpose of interpreting a part of the agreement which is such a contract.””

This new clause replaces Section 179 on whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

New clause 108—Industrial action: workers’ rights—

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

(2) After section 219, insert—

“219A Right to strike

Every worker shall have the right to take industrial action, whether or not in breach of any contract, subject to the provisions of this Part.”

(3) Omit section 223 (Action taken because of dismissal for taking unofficial action).”

This new clause would establish a clearer right to strike and remove provisions from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that make strike action unlawful on the grounds that it turns out (retrospectively) that the action the worker took was unofficial.

New clause 109—Industrial action and ballots—

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

(2) Omit—

(a) section 224 (Secondary action)

(b) 225 (Pressure to impose union recognition requirement)

(c) 226A (Notice of ballot and sample voting paper for employers)

(d) 228 (Separate workplace ballots), and

(e) 228A (Separate workplaces: single and aggregate ballots).

(3) In section 234 (Period after which ballot ceases to be effective), omit subsections (1) to (5) and substitute:

“(1) Industrial action that is regarded as having the support of a ballot shall cease to be so regarded when─

(a) the dispute which gave rise to it ceases, or

(b) the union has taken no steps to pursue the dispute for a period of six months.”

(4) In subsection (1) of section 244, (Meaning of “trade dispute" in Part V)—

(a) omit “a dispute between workers and their employer” and substitute “a dispute between workers and one or more employers”.

(b) omit “which relates wholly or mainly to” and substitute “connected with”.

(5) In subsection (5) of section 244, omit “a worker employed by that employer” and substitute “a worker employed by an employer”.”

This new clause would remove provisions that ban all forms of secondary action; make changes to the definition of “trade dispute”; enable industrial action to be taken to achieve recognition for collective bargaining; remove obligation on a TU to provide a ballot paper to the employer; give TUs more freedom to choose which constituencies they will ballot; and remove an obligation on the union in a long running dispute to re-run the ballot every six months.

New clause 110—Review into the impact on small businesses—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a review on the impact of Part 4 (Trade Unions and Industrial Action, etc) of this Act on small and medium-sized enterprises.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must have regard to—

(a) administrative costs;

(b) legal costs; and

(c) tax changes affecting small and medium-sized enterprises taking effect from the 2025-26 financial year.

(3) For the purposes of this section, small and medium-sized enterprises are businesses employing 250 or fewer employees.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a review on the impact of Part 4 of this Bill, on Trade Unions and Industrial Action, on SMEs within 3 months of the passage of this Act.

New clause 111—Legal aid in employment tribunals—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the options for expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the impact employers' compliance with measures contained within this Act; and

(b) the impact on employees’ personal finances.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals within 3 months of the passage of this Act.

New clause 112—Review of single enforcement body—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a review on the impact of a single enforcement body as provided for under Part 5.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must assess the impact of the single enforcement body with the impact between 2019 and 2025 of the following four enforcement bodies—

(a) Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA)

(b) Employment Agencies Standards Inspectorate (EAS)

(c) His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC)

(d) Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

(3) The review under subsection (1) must have regard to—

(a) business compliance costs

(b) Employers’ compliance with employment law

(c) the number of employees seeking support in relation to employment disputes.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of a single enforcement body compared with separate enforcement bodies within 3 months of the passage of this Act.

Amendment 270, page 61, line 14 leave out clause 50.

New clause 70 is intended to replace clause 50.

Government amendments 162 to 164.

Amendment 282, clause 50, page 61, line 31, after “workplace” insert, or

“(b) the right to use to any digital communications tools used by workers in the workplace.”

This amendment aims to ensure that access for unions to workplaces includes digital means of communication with workers.

Government amendments 165 to 185.

Amendment 271, clause 51, page 69, line 18, at end insert—

“(2A) In paragraph 22 (collective bargaining: recognition)—

(a) leave out sub-paragraph (1)(b) and insert—

“the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf’.”

(b) leave out subparagraphs (3), (4) and (5).

(2B) In paragraph 25 (collective bargaining: recognition)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (3)(a) leave out “20 working days” and substitute “10 working days”, and

(b) leave out sub-paragraph (3)(b).

(c) after sub-paragraph (4)(a) insert “(aa) by secure electronic voting,”

(d) in sub-paragraph (4)(c) leave out “and b” and substitute “to (c)”

(e) after sub-paragraph (4)(c) insert—

“(d) only amongst those who are employed in the proposed bargaining unit and were so employed at the time the application was made”.

(2C) In paragraph 26 after sub-paragraph (4) insert—

“(3A) In the event that the union (or unions) consider that such access has been unreasonably refused, it (or they) may apply to the CAC for a declaration and order that access be granted and in the event that such a declaration or order is made and the union (or unions) consider that such a declaration or order has been breached it (or they) may apply to the High Court for relief.”

(2D) In paragraph 26 after sub-paragraph (4B) insert—

“(4BA) The sixth duty is to refrain from any act or omission, direct or indirect, likely to encourage a union member or members to resign from union membership or likely to discourage a person from joining a union or any particular union.

(4BB) It shall be unlawful to compel a worker or workers by threat of detriment or dismissal to attend any meeting in which the employer, its servants or agents expresses the view directly or indirectly that—

(a) membership of a union or any union; or

(b) recognition for the purposes of collective bargaining of a union or any union by the employer,

is undesirable.”

(2E) In paragraph 27B(2) leave out “must be made on or before the first working day after” and substitute “must be made within 20 working days after”.

(2F) In paragraph 29 (collective bargaining: recognition) leave out sub-paragraph (3)(b).

(2G) In paragraph 35(1) leave out “a collective agreement under which a union (or unions) are recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining” and substitute “a collective agreement under which an independent union (or independent unions) are recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining”.

(2H) In paragraph 35(1) after “in the rules” insert “‘in relation to all pay, hours and holidays”.

(2I) In paragraph 39(2)(a) leave out “years” and substitute “months”.

(2J) In paragraph 40(2)(a) leave out “years” and substitute “months”.

(2K) In paragraph 41(2)(a) leave out “years” and substitute “months”.

This amendment makes changes to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 regarding union recognition and balloting.

Amendment 291, page 71, line 1, leave out clause 52.

Amendment 292, clause 52, page 71, line 6, at end insert—

“(2A) In subsection (1) of section 82 (Rules as to political fund), after paragraph (d) insert—

“(e) that trade union members who have not opted out of the political fund must signal, in writing, their agreement to continue contributing to the fund at the end of a period of 12 months after last opting into the fund, and

(f) that trade union members must be given an annual notice about their right to opt out of the political fund.

(1B) A notice under subsection (1)(f) must include a form that enables the member to opt out of the fund.””

This amendment would require trade unions to notify their members every year of their right to opt out of the political fund, and to obtain an annual opt-in to the political fund from their members.

Government amendments 186 to 191.

Amendment 293, page 73, line 6, leave out clause 54.

Amendment 294, page 74, line 14, leave out clause 55.

Amendment 296, clause 55, page 75, line 3, after “employee”, insert—

“, and

(c) in relation to a public sector employer, the performance condition is met.

(3A) The performance condition is met if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the public sector employer is meeting any performance standards set out in a relevant enactment.”

This amendment prevents facility time for equality representatives from being provided unless the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory targets for performance.

Amendment 295, page 78, line 5, leave out clause 56.

Amendment 299, page 78, line 30, leave out clause 58.

Government amendments 192 to 199.

Amendment 315, page 79, line 28, leave out clause 60.

This amendment would leave out Clause 60 on electronic balloting for industrial action. NC99 is intended to replace clause 60.

Government amendments 200 to 201.

Amendment 297, clause 61, page 80, line 6, leave out “seventh” and insert “fourteenth”.

This amendment would increase, from seven to 14 days, the notice period that trade unions are required to adhere to when notifying employers that they plan to take industrial action.

Government amendment 202.

Amendment 348, page 80, line 9, at end insert—

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

(4) In section 231 (Information as to result of ballot), omit from “shall” to after “told” and insert—

“display, reasonably prominently on its website, on a webpage reasonably easy to find and which is freely accessible to the general public—”

(5) Omit section 231A.”

This amendment would change the requirements for notification about the results of a union ballot.

Amendment 346, clause 62, page 80, line 19, at end insert—

“(3) In section 220 (Peaceful picketing)—

(a) in subsection (1), after “attend”, insert “a place of work”;

(b) omit subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b); and

(c) omit subsections (2) to (4).”

This amendment, along with amendment 348, would remove the restriction confining pickets to a worker’s place of work.

Amendment 300, clause 63, page 83, line 9, at end insert—

“236E Actions short of a strike: exemption

(1) The right of a worker not to be subjected to detriment under section 236A does not apply in cases where the worker is involved in one or more of the following activities—

(a) intimidation at picket lines;

(b) protests organised by trade unions in furtherance of a dispute—

(i) at the premises of a company;

(ii) at the private residences of senior managers; or

(iii) at the premises of other organisations that are connected with the dispute;

(c) harassment or bullying of non-striking workers, or those who are covering for striking workers;

(d) victimisation or harassment of senior managers; or

(e) action aimed at damaging property or disrupting business contingency planning.

(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that the circumstances under subsection (1), in which the right of a worker not to be subjected to detriment do not apply, are set out in a code of practice.”

This amendment would disapply the right not to suffer detriment as a result of industrial action in certain circumstances.

Government amendments 203 to 226 and 236 to 239.

Government new schedule 2—Trade union recognition.

Government amendments 247, 249, 251 to 261.

New clause 77—Employment Law: Scotland Act—

“(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows—

(2) In Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, omit section H1 (Employment and industrial relations).”

This new clause would remove matters related to employment from the list of the reserved matters that remain the responsibility of the UK Parliament alone and would enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate on those matters.

[Justin Madders]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare my membership and financial interests in trade unions, as I have done throughout the passage of the Bill.

I thank Members from both sides of the House for their contributions to yesterday’s debate. I look forward to another good debate today as we work together to ensure that the Bill works in practice for workers and businesses of all sizes across the whole country. Similarly to yesterday, I will use my opening remarks to explain to the House the amendments put forward by the Government in parts 4 and 5 of the Bill.

The Government are moving a number of amendments that represent a significant step forward in modernising our industrial framework. Amendments to clause 50 will strengthen the provisions of trade union access rights. They will ensure that the framework functions effectively and delivers on our commitment to modernise working practices. They will streamline access provisions by allowing a single Central Arbitration Committee member to make a fast-track decision on whether access should take place. In making a decision about whether it is a single person or a panel that will consider the application, the CAC will be required to have regard to the complexity of the case, as well as whether the proposed terms of the agreement are model terms. Various criteria will be prescribed in secondary legislation following consultation.

The amendments will also clarify that supporting a worker is a legitimate purpose for access, and they will provide a power to bring forward secondary legislation to make further provision as to how the CAC is to determine the level of penalty fines for non-compliance with access agreements. They will expand access rights, enabling access agreements to cover communicating with workers in ways that do not involve entering premises—for example, connecting digitally using technology—therefore modernising our antiquated industrial relations framework.

New clause 39, new schedule 2 and associated amendments insert new provisions into the Bill, replacing clause 51, and will address unfair practices and access arrangements in the recognition and derecognition process. The amendments will extend the application of unfair practice protections to the point at which the CAC accepts an application for recognition or derecognition, and will ensure that employers cannot increase the size of the bargaining unit for the purposes of the recognition application after the application is made. That will end the deliberate gaming of the system that we have seen in recent years.

The amendments will also delete the second test for determining an unfair practice complaint, which currently requires the CAC to consider how an alleged unfair practice may have affected workers’ votes in the recognition, or derecognition, ballots. They will extend the time limit in which unfair practices can be reported after the ballot closes to five working days. They will ensure that an employer cannot recognise a non-independent trade union after receiving a request for voluntary recognition from an independent trade union as a means of thwarting the independent trade union’s subsequent application to the CAC for statutory recognition.

We will bring forward and formalise the process for agreeing access arrangements between the employer and the union during the recognition and derecognition process. These amendments will streamline the recognition process, reduce opportunities for unfair practices to occur, and ensure that unions that seek recognition have a fair and transparent statutory route to enable them to do so.

Today’s amendments on industrial action rules will reduce the costly, complex and bureaucratic requirements on unions in relation to industrial action and ballot notices, while ensuring that employers have the necessary notice and information to prepare for industrial action. New clause 42 will simplify notice to employers of industrial action ballots and industrial action, reducing the chance of spurious challenge and making the information required more proportionate. New clause 43 will extend industrial action mandates from six to 12 months, reducing the need for repeated ballots. Amendments to clause 61 will mean that the notice period for industrial action will be set at 10 days, giving businesses time to prepare and safeguarding workers’ rights. Amendments to clause 58 will mean that the 50% ballot turnout threshold repeal will be subject to commencement on a date to be set in secondary legislation.

Turning to political fund ballots, new clause 40 and associated amendments remove the requirement for unions to hold a ballot every 10 years on maintaining a political fund. Instead, unions will provide reminders about members’ right to opt out every 10 years, ensuring transparency without imposing costly and time-consuming ballots.

The Bill will bring together the various agencies and enforcement bodies that enforce employment rights in the new Fair Work Agency, so that where employers are not doing what is right, a simplified and strengthened enforcement system will protect workers and ensure justice in the workplace. The Fair Work Agency needs the right tools to do the job. A series of amendments form a package that will give the Fair Work Agency the tools that it needs to hold all employers to account more effectively. That is fair for workers and businesses.

The Government are moving amendments to introduce new powers that are key to the Fair Work Agency’s core enforcement role. New clauses 44 to 56 create a civil penalty regime. Under the regime, enforcement officers will be able to issue notices of underpayment, and impose a penalty on employers who have underpaid individuals, in breach of statutory pay rights that are within the remit of the Fair Work Agency. As a result, the agency may be able to help workers get the money they are owed more quickly than if they had to go through an employment tribunal. Where proceedings before the tribunal are necessary, we want the Fair Work Agency to be able to support individuals and ensure that the tribunal’s time is used as effectively as possible. New clause 57 does that by enabling the agency to bring proceedings before the employment tribunal if individuals are unwilling or unable to. Under clause 58, the agency can also offer advice and assistance to individuals bringing employment-related cases before the courts or tribunals.

The Government are also moving amendments to upgrade the powers that the Fair Work Agency will need to tackle labour abuse effectively. The Bill Committee heard from stakeholders, including Eleanor Lyons, the UK Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, about bad practices in the social care sector. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority is prevented from investigating many cases because they do not meet the modern slavery threshold. The Fraud Act 2006 covers situations that amount to labour abuse but fall short of being modern slavery. Today we are bringing forward two amendments that will deliver the Government’s commitment to give the Fair Work Agency the strong powers that it needs to tackle labour exploitation. We will enable Fair Work Agency enforcement officers to use their powers to investigate such cases, helping the agency to protect the most vulnerable in the workforce. We will also give enforcement officers the ability to issue special warnings following arrests. In practice, that means telling suspects that if they refuse to answer questions about certain items or their whereabouts, that could be used against them in court.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

Only 21 employers have been prosecuted for national minimum wage violations since 2007. The measures that the Minister is bringing forward will improve enforcement. He touched on the Modern Slavery Act 2015, but he did not address the points made in the debate yesterday. Will he use this opportunity to say more about the Government’s intention to update the Modern Slavery Act?

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for the Chair of the Select Committee’s intervention. We accept that there are gaps between the modern slavery network enforcement processes and current employment rights enforcement. We are working with the Home Office and the GLAA to improve that. These are things we can continue to work on as we develop the scope and remit of the Fair Work Agency.

As well as reforming and strengthening the powers, the Government are moving amendments to expand the remit of the Fair Work Agency to ensure effective enforcement of statutory sick pay and holiday pay. Today’s amendments will bring Northern Ireland SSP legislation into the scope of the Fair Work Agency, and will introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the Northern Ireland Executive before bringing any further devolved legislation in scope. Further amendments will bring within the agency’s scope the duty in the working time regulations for employers to retain records relating to holiday pay and annual leave for six years. It is the Government’s intention for the Fair Work Agency to take on enforcement of new protections relating to zero-hours contracts. That is subject to a consultation on the detail, and to the outcome of the spending review.

New clause 60 gives the Fair Work Agency the power to recover the cost of taking enforcement action from businesses that are found to be non-compliant with the law. That is in recognition of the “polluter pays” principle. It is similar to how other regulators operate, such as the Health and Safety Executive. We will consider carefully and discuss the matter with businesses as appropriate before exercising that power, but it is an important principle that where there is wrong, the person in the wrong makes some contribution towards the cost to the taxpayers of enforcing the law.

To sum up—I know many people are eager to speak in the debate—the Bill will ensure that workplace rights are fit for a modern economy, empower working people and contribute to economic growth. I urge hon. Members to support the Bill and the amendments that we are moving today, which show that we are pro-business, pro-worker, pro-family and pro-growth.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Yemm]

As a small business founder and someone who has grown a business, I recognise the need for balance. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for raising that point. In my concluding remarks, I put on the record how proud I am of my unions, the GMB and Unite, for the work that they have done with this Government to help deliver this groundbreaking legislation. I will therefore be voting with pride to support the Bill in the Lobby later today.

[Justin Madders]

We have had another excellent debate. We might have to deal with a few misconceptions, but I am conscious that we need to move on to Third Reading, so I apologise if I do not address every single contribution we have heard today. I will start with the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), and his new clause 82. The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to produce an annual report for employment rights enforcement, as well as an enforcement strategy every three years. Both documents will be laid before Parliament, allowing for parliamentary scrutiny. We are committed to giving the Fair Work Agency the resources it needs to do its job effectively. I agree with him that the number of prosecutions for minimum wage violations has been pitifully small in recent years. We should never tolerate lawbreakers in the business world. We should ensure that responsible and well-performing businesses are never allowed to be undercut by minimum wage violations.

My right hon. Friend’s amendment 282 would include digital means of communication with workers in unions’ rights of access to workplaces. I appreciate the good intentions behind the amendment, but the Government are already committed to modernising working practices and moving away from a reliance on ad hoc access arrangements. We recognise the importance of providing for a digital right of access, in addition to the physical access for which the Bill already provides. That is why we have amended the Bill to expand access rights, allowing for access agreements to include communication with workers other than by means of physical access to a workplace, such as digital means.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) talked about procurement. His new clause would amend the Procurement Act 2023 to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that any contract entered into by either a Government Department, an executive agency of Government, a non-departmental public body or a non-ministerial department must comply with certain requirements relating to the recognition of trade unions. We recognise that the recognition of trade unions for collective bargaining was an important feature of the previous two-tier code on workforce matters. The Bill contains powers to reinstate and strengthen the code by way of regulations and a statutory code, so I assure the House that the Government are committed to strengthening trade union recognition and collective bargaining rights.

New clause 77, in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law), would result in a change to the Scotland Act 1998 by removing employment law from the list of reserved matters, thereby bringing it within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. While his perseverance on this issue is not unnoticed, it would come as no surprise to him, were he here, that the Government have no intention of devolving employment law to the Scottish Parliament. Previous Scotland Acts have already created one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. When there were considerably more SNP Members here during the last Parliament, there was a ten-minute rule Bill on this very subject, and the SNP could not even get a majority of its own Members to support it, so why on Earth would we support such a measure now? I do not know.

I will turn to the amendments from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on prison officers’ right to strike. I thank him for his persistence and his active engagement on behalf of prison officers. As he said, prison officers are prevented from taking industrial action under current legislation. Their pay is governed by the independent Prison Service pay review body process, which acts as a compensatory mechanism for that restriction. There is limited contingency to deal with industrial action, and during such incidents the reliance is on a narrow pool of operational managers with some potential for very limited support from the police and Army in limited circumstances. That creates operational risks and is not sustainable for any period of time.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to what he classed as disrespect to prison officers during that debate in Committee. I just put on record that there was certainly no disrespect shown by those on the Government Benches; we value and respect the work that prison officers do. I know that he will continue to pursue this matter, and I suggest that he contacts the Ministry of Justice, which has the remit. I hope it will be able to engage on the matter in future.

Let me now deal with some of the Liberal Democrat new clauses and amendments. The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) spoke about new clause 19, which would give the Secretary of State the power to set out and define in regulations the professional bodies that could represent employees at disciplinary meetings. It is unclear to us where the demand for that would come from, and I would expect it to benefit some businesses that have raised the prospect with successive Governments. What is clear, however, is that expanding the types of organisations that could be involved in representing workers at such meetings could lead to hearings requiring legal representation for both the worker and the employer. That would increase the cost of holding a hearing, would escalate matters, and would potentially decrease the chance of an amicable resolution as both parties became entrenched in dispute. We believe that trade unions are best placed to represent employees in disciplinary and grievance hearings in the workplace, and statutory provisions are already in place to enable them to do that.

The hon. Member for St Albans also tabled new clause 111, which relates to legal aid for employment disputes. I am committed to ensuring that workers are able to enforce their employment rights, and we are working closely with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that happens, looking into what further improvements we can make to the way in which ACAS and employment tribunals operate. A key benefit of moving enforcement to the Fair Work Agency is that it will make it easier and quicker for workers to secure justice, without the need for additional legal representation or legal aid. I hope that gives the hon. Lady some reassurance that we are looking seriously at the issue.

New clause 110, also tabled by the hon. Member for St Albans,

“would require the Secretary of State to publish a review on the impact of Part 4 of the Bill…on SMEs within 3 months of the passage of this Act.”

In the impact assessment, the Government have set out our initial plan for monitoring an evaluation of the impacts of the Bill, as well as some secondary legislation. I say this with the greatest respect to the hon. Lady: she has expressed concern about the burden on business, but if we had accepted all her party’s amendments yesterday, that would have added several billion pounds to the costs of businesses. The Liberal Democrats will have to decide, ideally tonight, whether they are in favour of workers’ rights or not.

Let me now deal with some of the amendments from the official Opposition. Amendment 297 seeks to

“increase, from seven to 14 days, the notice period that trade unions are required to adhere to when notifying employers that they plan to take industrial action.”

Our consultation on the creation of a modern framework for industrial relations sought views on what an appropriate notice period would be, recognising that the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016 would reduce the notice period from 14 to seven days. The Government have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by respondents to the consultation who feared that a seven-day notice period would not provide enough time for unions to prepare for industrial action in some important sectors, such as transport, healthcare and education, with possible knock-on impacts on other services. The Government believe that employers should be given enough time to mitigate the most severe effects of industrial action, and acknowledge responses to the consultation arguing that seven days’ notice was insufficient.

Of course, we did have seven days’ notice between 2010 and 2016 under the Tory Government. The Tories’ lack of understanding of the Bill is clear from the number of times we heard that it would take us back to the 1970s, whereas in fact it will take us back to 2015, when an earlier version of the Bill was introduced. The Government’s view is that 10 days provides the appropriate balance in enabling employers to mitigate the impact of industrial action and reduce disruption and the knock-on impacts of strikes, while also respecting the right to strike.

Amendment 291 seeks to remove clause 52, which deals with political funds and which, I think, prompted the most heated debate. It is notable that when it comes to reducing Tory red tape, it is only trade unions that do not receive the same benefits as everyone else. There has, I think, been a fundamental misunderstanding of what a trade union is. It is a member-based, democratic organisation designed to protect those who are part of it. Comparisons with Netflix subscriptions and insurance contracts are bogus, because they are not the same thing at all. Membership of a trade union and a political fund is not a subscription that people sign up to for a fixed period; it is membership of a democratically organised and independent trade union, which they are free to leave at any time. Members have control of the organisation because it is democratically organised, and they can decide as a union whether to have a political fund at all. People cannot email the chief executive of Netflix and demand that it makes a programme starring their favourite actor, but if people are unhappy with a trade union, they have the opportunity to get involved and change it.

It should be noted that in the 40 years that we have had political fund ballots, no union has disaffiliated from the Labour party. There has been no closure of political funds, so it is very clear that this is simply red tape. Of course, it is not all about funding the Labour party, because nearly half of all unions that have a political fund are not affiliated with the Labour party. If Conservative Members are not satisfied with that, they should read the Bill that is before them, because the clause that they want to remove—clause 52—sets out in subsection (3) how members can opt out of a political fund. It even sets out the ways they can do so: by post, email or electronic means. Some of the patronising comments we have heard about people being trapped into something that they do not wish to be in does not reflect the reality of the situation or the ability of trade union members to make up their own minds and exercise their democratic rights. Had any Conservative Members ever been members of a trade union, they would understand that.

The repeated insinuations from Conservative Members that I or any anyone else on the Labour Benches have brought forward this Bill because we have been paid by the trade unions to do so is offensive and wrong in equal measure. They might think money buys you the chance to write the law, but that says far more about their approach to legislation than it does about ours. On the Labour Benches, we do these things because we believe in them. We believe that everyone deserves fair treatment at work, and this Bill delivers that. It is delivering on our values.

In conclusion, the Bill represents a generational shift in protection, a long-overdue reinforcement of workers’ rights in this country, and tangible proof of how a Labour Government can bring meaningful benefit to people’s lives. For many of us, it is fundamental to why we are in the Labour party, so now is not the time to shy away from our efforts. Now is not the time to talk about what might have been; it is the time to be bold, to be loud and to be proud that this Labour Government are delivering by putting fairness, dignity and security back into the workplace.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Employment Rights Bill

Justin Madders Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the fact that I am a proud trade union member. I give my full support to the measures in this landmark Bill.

In Derby we make things, from nuclear reactors that power submarines to the trains, cars and aeroplane engines that get people and goods where they need to go, and food production operations that help put food on our tables. We do not just have large companies with big economies of scale; we also have thousands of small and medium-sized companies. Many businesses that I have visited—large and small—are investing in their workforce, want to pay them properly and want to provide stable, secure work that enables their employees to build lives and families, but they want a level playing field so that they are not undercut by competitors that do not play by the rules, that avoid their responsibilities and that exploit those who work for them.

When people are stuck in insecure, low-paid work, planning for their future is impossible. It is wrong that so many people have no idea whether they will have five hours of work or 50 in a week, wrong that they have no idea whether they will earn enough to pay their bills, and wrong that they can have paid for childcare, be on a bus to work and get a call saying they are no longer needed. What is shocking is that we have 2.4 million people in irregular work, such as those on zero-hours or low-hours contracts, or in agency jobs. I am proud that this Government, through this Bill, are taking action to end exploitative zero-hours contracts, and that amendments 32 and 33 will ensure that agency workers are also protected.

On Second Reading of this groundbreaking Bill, I spoke about the importance of enforcement. A right is not worth the paper it is written on unless it is enforced; and the provisions that we make, the guidance that we set and the laws that we pass are only as strong as the enforcement.

For part of my career as a barrister, I had the honour of representing working people, but I always knew that for the many who did seek justice through tribunals, there were many who did not feel able to take action. The Low Pay Commission has found that low-paid and exploited workers can be reluctant to speak out about abuses of their rights. Last year we celebrated the 25th anniversary of a Labour Government bringing in the national minimum wage, but the Low Pay Commission estimates that one in five workers receiving it were not provided with the correct pay in 2022.

On Second Reading, I called for the strengthening of the Fair Work Agency, which will enforce the national minimum wage, statutory sick pay and a wide range of rights, such as holiday pay, so that everyone plays by the same rules. I am hugely pleased to see that new clauses have been tabled that would strengthen the powers of the Fair Work Agency. As we will talk about tomorrow, new clause 57 would give the agency powers to bring proceedings to an employment tribunal on behalf of workers. That could make a huge difference for workers, and it helps protect businesses from being undercut by acting as a real deterrent. The sooner that these measures are in place, the sooner enforcement can begin and justice can be delivered, and this will bring us better protections, better productivity and better growth.

[Justin Madders]

First, I think I need to mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) is celebrating his 40th birthday today, and what a great way to spend his birthday. He is one of the people who have worked tirelessly over many years in different guises to help us get where we are today.

Given the number of speeches and contributions, it is just not going to be possible to pay tribute to everyone in the time I have, or indeed to reference every speech and every amendment, but I will do my best to cover as much as possible.

I will start with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), whose new clause 73 relates to significant structural changes to the statutory sick pay system. I thought she made a very personal and persuasive speech, and I agree with her that phased returns to work are an effective tool in supporting people to stay in or return to work, helping to reduce the flow into economic inactivity and the cost to businesses of sickness absence. By removing the waiting period, employees will be entitled to statutory sick pay for every day of work missed. This better enables phased returns to work—for example, by supporting someone who normally works five days a week to work a three-day week, being paid SSP for the other two days. That simply would not have been possible under the existing system. We are committed to continuing to work closely with employees and employers to develop and implement a system that is fair, supportive and effective in kick-starting economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity, and we will continue to have conversations about that.

Turning to new clause 102 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), I pay tribute to him for his work as a shadow Minister in this area. The changes we are bringing in through this Bill mean that up to 1.3 million low-paid employees will now be entitled to statutory sick pay, and all eligible employees will be paid from the first day of sickness absence, benefiting millions of employees. The new percentage rate is consistent with the structure used for other statutory payments. It is simple to understand and implement, and with the removal of waiting periods, the internal modelling from the Department for Work and Pensions shows that most employees, even those who may nominally earn less per week, will not be worse off over the course of their sickness absence.

I believe the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) was her first from the Back Benches, and I do not think she will be on them for very long if she continues to make such contributions. I thought it was an excellent speech, and the way she spoke about her constituent Mr B really hammered home the importance of tackling non-disclosure agreements. I would like to pay tribute to her ongoing efforts to ensure that victims of misconduct and bullying can speak up about their experiences, and get the help and support they need.

I want to thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for originally tabling the amendment, and for meeting me last week to share, sadly, another horrific story about the abuse of NDAs. I also thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for her contribution in this area.

There are legitimate uses of NDAs, but I want to be clear—we have heard too many examples of this today—that they should not be used to silence victims of harassment or other misconduct. I understand that hon. Members want to ensure equal protection in relation to NDAs concerning harassment across the economy, and I absolutely hear what they have said. However, we have to acknowledge that this would be a far-reaching change, and it would be to take a significant step without properly engaging with workers, employers and stakeholders, and assessing the impact on sectors across the economy. I want to reiterate that I recognise that non-disclosure agreements are an important question that warrants further consideration, and we will continue to look at the issues raised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley said that she wants me to go further, and I look forward to engaging with her and with organisations such as Can’t Buy My Silence.

New clause 30, in the name of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), would give employees who are special constables the right to time off work to carry out their voluntary police duties. I join him in paying tribute to special constables, who make an invaluable contribution to policing across the country. It would not be appropriate, however, to support additional legislation on this matter without a comprehensive analysis on the impact such a change could bring to policing. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we debated it in Committee and my officials have been in discussion with colleagues at the Home Office to learn more about the topic. Further engagement is continuing with the staff association for special constables and the Association of Special Constabulary Officers. I recognise that the legislation is now half a century old and needs a considerable look. We cannot support the amendment tonight, but I am glad that there is at least one Member on the Conservative Benches who supports increasing employment rights.

Turning to new clause 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), I want to start by recognising the key role that paternal leave plays in supporting working families. The arrival of a child is transformative for all parents. The Government understand and value the vital role that fathers and partners play in raising children, and we want to support them to do that. I commend my hon. Friend for her work in this area.

We already have a statutory framework in place that guarantees eligible employed fathers and partners a protected period of paternity leave, ensuring that they cannot be required to work while claiming that leave, or be discriminated against by their employer for taking it. However, I recognise what my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) said about the limitations on those protections. I also pay tribute to her for her work on this issue.

Paternity leave is available to the father of the child or the mother’s partner irrespective of their gender, and the leave can be taken by the father or partner at any point in the first year following the child’s birth or adoption. I acknowledge the wider point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, which is that we need to do more to ensure that the parental leave system as a whole supports working families. As a Government, we have committed to doing that. I recently met The Dad Shift, Pregnant then Screwed and Working Families to discuss that very issue.

Through the Bill, we are making paternity leave and unpaid parental leave day one rights, meaning that employees will be eligible to give notice of their intent to take leave from their first day of employment, removing any continuity of service requirement. That brings them both into line with maternity leave and adoption leave, simplifying the system. We are also committed to reviewing the parental leave system. The review will be conducted separately from this Bill. Work is already under way across Government on planning for its delivery and will commence before Royal Assent. We are scoping the work already under way across the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We of course want and expect to engage widely with stakeholders as part of that review process, and I would expect my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow to engage with us in that respect.

New clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), would partially reinstate, to the Equality Act 2010, a similar measure that was sponsored by the previous Labour Government. This Government continue to have sympathy with its aims. We all know that the statutory questionnaire was sometimes found to be a helpful, informative tool. While the Government will not support new clause 6, we will be giving close consideration to the impact of the repeal of the statutory questionnaire and any steps that may be needed during this Parliament.

[Ms Creasy]

I am very pleased to hear confirmation that the review into parental rights, which I understand will begin in June, will go ahead. The Minister talks about stakeholders. Will he confirm whether they will include our trade union colleagues, because many of us are very happy to withdraw our amendments tonight on the basis that working people can be part of the conversation?

[Justin Madders]

I would fully expect us to consult with all relevant parties, so I do not think my hon. Friend need have any worries in that respect.

I pay tribute to two people who have been instrumental in shaping our thoughts on this issue: my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). They tabled amendments on employment status. It is important to say that we are taking action in respect of those who work for umbrella companies. We have been clear that some reforms in the plan to make work pay will take longer to undertake and implement. We see consulting on a simpler two-part framework as a longer-term goal, but I assure them both that I remain committed to that. I also hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East says in relation to his concerns about fire and rehire. We will be looking very closely at how our reforms work in practice.

New clause 17 seeks to create a legal definition of kinship care to be used to establish eligibility for kinship care leave. New clause 18 aims to establish a new kinship care leave entitlement for employed kinship carers, with a minimum of 52 weeks of leave available for eligible employees. I am pleased to say that the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will, for the first time, create a legal definition of kinship care for the purposes of specific measures in the Bill. By defining kinship care in law, the legislation will ensure that all local authorities have a clear and consistent understanding of what constitutes kinship care. I am also pleased to say that the Government have recently announced a £40 million package to trial a new kinship allowance. This is the single biggest investment made by this Government in kinship care to date and will enable children to be raised within their communities by their extended families.

New clause 10—another Liberal Democrat new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling)—which we debated in Committee, would commit the Government to introducing an entitlement for employees with caring responsibilities to be paid their usual wage while taking carer’s leave. While we have stressed the Government’s commitment to supporting employed unpaid carers and I have been engaging with Ministers and relevant bodies on the matter, the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 only recently gave employed carers a new right to time off work to care for a dependant with a long-term care need, so we are reviewing this measure and considering whether further support is required.

I recognise that many of their amendments and new clauses come from a good place, but the Liberal Democrats have to decide whether they are going to be Manchester United or Manchester City; their speeches were littered with concerns about the increase in costs from the Bill, yet every new clause and amendment seems only to add to those costs. I understand that they are coming from a good place, but they have to decide whether or not they support the Bill. I hope they can make that decision before tomorrow night. At least the Liberal Democrats are here, unlike the new kids on the block, who are absent from the Benches behind them—I pay tribute to them for actually turning up today.

I will now address the points raised by the Opposition on harassment, as set out in amendments 288 and 289, in the name of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). Those amendments seek either to exclude the hospitality sector and sports venues from the Bill’s obligations for employers not to permit the harassment of their employees by third parties or to remove clause 18 altogether, thus depriving employees of protection from all types of harassment by third parties under the Equality Act. Let us be clear: this Government are committed to making workplaces and working conditions free from harassment, and we must therefore protect employees from third-party harassment.

I want to underline two important points in relation to clause 18. First, on the expectations it places on employers, I would like to assure the House that employers cannot and are not expected to police or control every action of third parties; instead, employers simply need to do what is reasonable. What is reasonable will, of course, depend on the specific circumstances of the employer. Further, the steps that an employer can reasonably take in respect of the actions of third parties in its workplace are clearly more limited than the steps it can take in respect of its employees, and employment tribunals will, of course, take that into account when considering the facts of the case.

The second point relates to the threshold for what constitutes harassment. Far too often, I have heard objections to clause 18 implying that employers will be liable if their staff are offended by comments made by third parties, which is not the case at all—a fact reflected, I think, by the Conservatives supporting a similar measure in the previous Parliament. In his opening remarks, the shadow Minister asked what evidence there was that this clause was needed. The NHS staff survey for 2023 revealed that a quarter of all staff had suffered harassment, bullying or abuse from patients or service users, while a Unite survey said that 56% of its members had suffered third-party harassment. Presumably that is why UKHospitality, in its written evidence to the Bill Committee, said that it supported the measures in principle. I will work with them to ensure that we protect everyone in the sector, because I believe that everyone who works in this country deserves protection from harassment. I think it is incredible that the Opposition cannot see a problem with arguing against that.

I will turn to new clause 105 on substitution clauses, which was tabled by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy). I think it is fair to say that we are aware of the risks. I have been working closely with the Minister for Border Security on illegal working by irregular migrants in the gig economy and the role that substitution clauses play in facilitating that. We will continue to work closely with the Home Office on this issue.

The Opposition also tabled new clause 87, which seeks to require the Secretary of State to have regard to the UK’s international competitiveness and economic growth when making any regulations under parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. The Government are already laser-focused on this key objective. Our plan to make work pay is a pro-growth package and sets out an ambitious agenda to deliver our plan for change by ensuring that employment rights are fit for a modern economy, empower working people and contribute to economic growth.

The plan will bring the UK back into line with our international competitors and directly address our low-growth, low-productivity and low-pay economy. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may be laughing, but they are the people who delivered that economy for so many years. International competitors and growth are at the heart of what we do. We will pay close attention to the potential impacts as we develop regulations to implement the measures in the Bill.

On small business support, I remind Members that I had a meeting with representatives from Inkwell, who said that introducing these changes will help create a happy and productive workplace and create a level playing field for employers. That is exactly what we want to achieve with the Bill. We understand that the best businesses want to look after their staff and that treating them well is good for business, good for workers and good for the wider economy. The Opposition’s narrow view seems to be that anything that is good for workers is automatically bad for businesses. We absolutely reject that analysis.

In conclusion, giving people a baseline of security and respect at work is fundamental. It is clear that we need a change from the system where people do not know what hours they will get from one week to the next, where people with caring responsibilities never get the same benefits of flexibility as their employers, where a minority of rogue employers can fire and rehire at will, and where care workers and teaching assistants have all been undervalued for far too long. It is time to end these injustices. It is time to make work pay.