Groceries Code Adjudicator

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

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

Certainly, Mr Twigg. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon. I thank the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for securing this important debate.

Before I talk about hon. Members’ contributions, it is worth reminding the House of the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Hon. Members obviously have a great deal of understanding of what it does, but it is important to put on the record its limits, which a number of Members referred to. In primary colours, its role is to enforce the groceries supply code of practice by providing advice and guidance to suppliers and large retailers on matters relating to the code; arbitrating in disputes between large retailers and their direct suppliers; investigating issues to ascertain whether there has been non-compliance with the code; and imposing sanctions and other remedies for breach of the code.

The code applies to the 14 largest grocery retailers in the UK, which have an annual turnover of £1 billion or more. Some Members spoke about changing that threshold—I would be interested to see what the effect would be—but it has been in place for some time. The competition measure is owned by the Competition and Markets Authority, and was put in place following a very detailed market investigation in 2008, which found that direct suppliers of groceries to large supermarkets faced unfair risks that adversely affected competition and, ultimately, consumers. As the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and others mentioned, it was in no small part due to a great deal of campaigning from a number of groups and hon. Members that the code saw the light of day.

The code regulates designated retailers’ dealings with their direct suppliers, which, as we have heard, do not include all the farmers and primary producers. Although it prevents the unilateral variation of supply agreements without notice, puts limits on seeking payments for wastage and requires retailers to pay for goods on time, it does not regulate the prices agreed between retailers and suppliers, which is a commercial negotiation between the two parties. However, it requires that such negotiations be conducted fairly and transparently, and the GCA has been keen to ensure that negotiations around cost price pressures do not lead to non-compliance with the code. In 2022, the GCA published the seven golden rules to remind retailers of best practice when agreeing prices with suppliers, and all the regulated retailers have signed up to them.

As we have heard, the GCA was established in June 2013, and since then there has been strong evidence to show that it has been effective in promoting compliance with the code and in changing retailers’ behaviour to improve fairness for direct suppliers. Improvements in retailer compliance with the code are evident from the annual survey. Average compliance with the code has increased from 75% in 2014, when the code was introduced, to 91% in 2024. It is also positive to see that among suppliers there is a high level of awareness of the GCA and the code itself, although I noted that the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe said that there is a question about awareness among some farmers, and I am happy to explore that further with him.

Moreover, all three statutory reviews of the effectiveness of the GCA concluded that it has been a highly effective regulator. The next review will commence after 31 March, and will look at the performance over the past three years, from 2022 to 2025. Given what we have heard today, I encourage hon. Members and their constituents to contribute to it. The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about the adjudicator’s remit and resources, and there will be an opportunity for him to feed those comments into the review.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned what he described as bullying by supermarkets. A number of hon. Members talked about a fear of reprisals for raising concerns, and we obviously take that very seriously. It is important to note that the GCA has a statutory requirement to maintain supplier confidentiality. It has relaunched the Code Confident campaign and a confidential reporting platform called “Tell the GCA”, and published a code compliance officer commitment to confidentiality. The 2024 annual survey reported that 82% of suppliers were aware of its commitment to confidentiality. That is a good report, but obviously 18% were unaware of it, and clearly there is a perception out there that matters can find their way back to the supermarkets, which is something we can look further into.

The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe and a number of others questioned why the GCA cannot instigate its own investigations. I am told that it can carry out investigations of its own accord if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that a large retailer has broken the code or failed to follow a recommendation following a previous investigation by the adjudicator. It is for the adjudicator to determine how he uses his powers, and he has issued statutory guidance setting out his criteria for launching an investigation. The adjudicator’s four prioritisation principles ensure that he targets resources effectively and proportionately. Impact, strategic importance, risk and benefits, and resources are all part of those principles.

[Andrew George]

The Minister is certainly right, providing the investigation was on sound grounds. The worry was always that the investigation may identify a supplier simply by doing it, and that the anonymity intended when an intelligence-driven inquiry or investigation was generated may uncover that particular supplier. Therefore, a wider range of powers—not on the basis of being able to conduct fishing expeditions—to investigate on justifiable grounds is something that I hope the Minister will look at further.

[Justin Madders]

I hear what the hon. Member has said, and no doubt that is something that can be put in as part of the review. When I spoke to the adjudicator, he said that his approach is about ensuring compliance and helping to prevent problems from escalating in the first place, avoiding the need for formal investigations and dispute resolution. He has said that he is satisfied that his current powers provide the necessary tools to enforce the code and change retailer behaviour. He has also been clear—and has said publicly—that if he needs to instigate an investigation he is more than ready to do so.

That leads on to some of the points Members made about the resources of the adjudicator. My information is that there are actually nine staff rather than seven, but the overall point is that that does not seem to be a great deal, given the number of supermarkets and the purchasing power that we are talking about. But it is entirely within the adjudicator’s gift to ask for more resources through the levy. If he feels he needs more, he can also talk to the CMA about secondments—that is something that is entirely up to him. If there is a question that things are not happening because of resources, I am confident that the adjudicator would come forward and discuss that with us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) rightly referenced her leadership of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union parliamentary group, and I am proud to associate myself with that group, having represented it on many occasions in my former legal career. I know how much it has done in this area, and how this area affects its members. My hon. Friend was right to talk about how that sector is often characterised by a race to the bottom, with insecurity and low wages. That is what we hope to tackle through the Employment Rights Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salford also made a number of interesting suggestions about how we move forward, which I will not be able to respond to in detail today, but I note that the Business and Trade Committee has recently begun an investigation into pricing practices. It focuses primarily on dynamic pricing, but the evidence session I attended covered a range of areas where prices were an issue. That report is something I will look forward to reading in due course.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) also referred to the use of private equity in the supermarket sector, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Salford. He was right to reference other sectors where that has become more of an issue. The CMA has recently looked at that issue in the veterinary sector, so it may be that it has the opportunity to conduct an inquiry, should it wish to do so. My right hon. Friend mentioned a survey in which 13% of respondents had no access to sick pay. We think that that is absolutely wrong, and that is why the Employment Rights Bill will ensure that statutory sick pay becomes a day one right for everyone, regardless of their earnings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) talked about how dairy farmers in his constituency would like the GCA to apply to their work. He may be aware that the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024 came into force in July last year, and will apply to all existing contracts from 9 July this year. I will pass his comments to the relevant Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to see whether those regulations will assist in dealing with his constituents’ issues. DEFRA is also looking at powers in the Agriculture Act 2020 to see whether expanded regulations could improve fairness in the pig sector, as well as looking at the egg and fresh produce sectors. There are therefore a number of tools at our disposal to tackle some of the issues that Members have raised.

The dairy regulations are enforced by the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, Richard Thompson, who was appointed last summer. We expect that in future he will deal with any fair dealing regulations in the other sectors that I have mentioned. It is important to note that ASCA and GCA are in regular contact to ensure that the two regimes operate effectively alongside one another. We will conduct a review to understand the effectiveness of the fair dealing regulations.

As I have already mentioned, there will also be the triennial review of the GCA. Hon. Members have spoken with great knowledge and passion about a number of issues that they would wish to put forward, particularly about the GCA’s remit and powers. I encourage them to do so, and we will see what the review takes forward. The points made about the importance of this country’s food security and fairness to consumers and producers are absolutely right. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe on securing the debate.

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Neonatal Care Leave and Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:

That the draft Statutory Neonatal Care Pay (General) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.

[Justin Madders]

I am delighted to move regulations under the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, which originated as a private Member’s Bill in the previous Parliament. I therefore pay tribute to Stuart McDonald, the former Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, and Baroness Wyld for successfully steering the legislation through both Houses, so that it could secure Royal Assent in 2023.

The Act established new statutory entitlements to neonatal care leave and neonatal care pay for employed parents if their child starts to receive neonatal care within 28 days of birth and goes on to spend seven or more continuous days in care. These regulations are another step towards implementing neonatal care leave and pay in April 2025, and they are the first to be brought before the House under the Act.

There is currently no statutory entitlement to such rights for parents of children who require neonatal care. Parents in this difficult situation have had to rely on existing rights, such as maternity leave or annual leave, to be there to care for their baby and to support their partner. This approach has understandably caused additional stress for parents. Some mothers report that they had to leave work because they were not ready to return at the end of their maternity leave. As paternity leave is limited to two weeks, some fathers and partners have had to rely on statutory unpaid parental leave or the compassion of their employers to take time off work.

Around 40,000 babies a year spend more than a week in neonatal care. Once provisions on neonatal care leave and pay come into force in April, we estimate that around 60,000 parents will be eligible, and that around 34,000 parents will take up paid leave each year. Neonatal care leave will enable eligible parents to take a minimum of one week’s leave and a maximum of 12 weeks’ leave, depending on how long their baby receives neonatal care, on top of their other parental leave entitlements. It will be a day one right for employees.

Statutory neonatal care pay, like other family-related pay rights, will be available to employees who also meet continuity of service and minimum earnings tests. Eligible employees must have worked for their employer for at least 26 weeks, ending with the relevant week, and earn on average at least £125 a week before tax. If eligible, a parent will be able to claim a flat rate of £187.18 a week in 2025-26, or 90% of their average earnings, whichever amount is lower.

Employers will administer the statutory payments on behalf of the Government. Small employers will be able to recover 103% of the statutory payment from the Exchequer, while larger employers can recover 92% of payments and will therefore incur wage-like costs equivalent to 8% of the statutory payments they make. This is a similar arrangement to that in place for other parental payments.

Together, these regulations will provide protection and support for parents at an incredibly challenging time. These entitlements provide a floor, and employers can and should go further if they are able.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that these changes will not only support parents who are going through a really difficult time but will also be good for employers? By showing that they are supporting their employees to return to work with these additional rights, this will be good for employers in the long term, too.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is right. The impact assessment refers to evidence showing that family-friendly policies are good for employers as well as for individuals. That is certainly the Government’s approach towards employment rights.

We have extensively consulted stakeholders, including charities and business representative organisations, to ensure that these regulations balance the needs of parents and businesses. These groups agree that the proposed reforms will provide substantial benefits to businesses, including the retention of their employees’ skills and knowledge, as my hon. Friend has just said. I will explain in detail a few points in the regulations, which have been developed through consultation with relevant Departments, including the Department of Health and Social Care.

We have a definition of neonatal care that encapsulates the different ways in which babies receive it, including beyond the walls of a hospital and through outreach care. This could include care that takes place in the family home, provided it meets the relevant criteria. We have included outreach care in the eligibility criteria to capture the many ways in which babies receive care, and to prevent a postcode lottery in which parents of children who receive the same clinical treatment may qualify in one area because they receive their treatment in hospital, but not in another area because they receive their treatment at home through an outreach care programme.

To ensure that as many parents as possible are eligible, the definition of “parent” in the regulations encompasses adoptive parents, foster-to-adopt parents and intended parents in surrogacy arrangements. Those who meet this definition will also be required to have caring responsibility for the child.

Having a baby in neonatal care is a difficult experience for any parent, whether the baby is admitted for one day or for many months. However, this entitlement will focus on parents of babies who experience prolonged stays in neonatal care as they will be in most need of additional support. A qualifying period of neonatal care will therefore be a minimum of seven continuous days, beginning on the day after the one on which the care starts. Starting the clock at one minute past midnight of the day after the child is admitted creates a consistent approach that does not vary from baby to baby.

The total amount of statutory neonatal care leave and pay available to parents will be capped at a maximum of 12 weeks, which balances the needs of businesses with the needs of parents. It is also worth noting that the entitlement will be in addition to other entitlements to parental leave and pay that parents may also be eligible for.

The leave and pay can be taken in two tiers. Tier 1 leave can be taken when the baby is receiving neonatal care and for one week after they stop receiving care. That leave can be taken at short notice, allowing parents to act flexibly in an emergency. Tier 2 leave can be taken after the baby has left neonatal care and therefore requires more prescription to ensure the needs of employers are balanced against the needs of employees. That approach provides flexibility for parents and crucially allows them to work around existing leave entitlements, such as maternity or paternity leave.

Employees will need to give notice to take leave and pay, and provide their employer with the information set out in the regulations. The method depends on which tier of leave they take and, as Members will expect, the stipulations in tier 1 are less stringent than those in tier 2. When the employee wants to take leave in tier 1, they will need to notify their employer before they start work on the first day of absence or as soon as possible thereafter. For pay, notice must be given within 28 days, beginning with the first day of the week in which pay is being claimed. When the employee wants to take leave in tier 2, they will need to give notice 15 days in advance for one week of leave and 28 days in advance for two or more weeks of leave. That is because leave in tier 2 can be more easily planned. The same notice requirements will also apply for pay. Furthermore, parents are not required to provide proof of their child receiving neonatal care. To make a claim in respect of pay, the employee may need to provide a signed self-declaration.

Parents who are out of the workforce on family leave for extended periods may be at more risk from redundancy when they first return to work. We have therefore ensured that parents on neonatal care leave will be protected from redundancy, and those who have taken six continuous weeks of neonatal care leave will also be protected until their child turns 18 months.

We anticipate that there will be some impact on businesses regarding familiarisation with the policy and managing the impact of employee absences. Like other family-related pay entitlements, employers will be responsible for administering the statutory payment on behalf of the Government. Overall, we estimate that the net annual recurring cost to businesses will be around £22.5 million. We also anticipate there will be a one-off familiarisation cost to businesses, which we estimate to be £4.7 million.

Despite those costs, we anticipate that there will be further benefits to businesses, as there is evidence that shows, as has already been mentioned, that workplaces offering a range of extensive family-related policies are more likely to have above-average performance relative to workplaces without such practices. My officials are working with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure there is clear guidance on gov.uk to support employers in implementing this policy, and with Bliss, to which I pay tribute for its work in this area, to ensure that parents can access the information they need to understand their entitlement as easily as possible.

I thank all those who have been involved in the development of neonatal care leave, including the premature and sick babies charities, for their tireless campaigns and support. I hope they are proud that we have got this on the statute book and that the regulation will be introduced today. It will make a real difference to hard-working families, who need the support at such a critical time. I commend the regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I thank all Members for participating in today’s debate—there have been some very thoughtful and moving contributions. I will start with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), who spoke movingly about Isla and her experiences in neonatal care. It was truly wonderful to hear that, having been given a 2% chance of survival, she recently celebrated her seventh birthday. That is a testament to the great work that many neonatal units do up and down the country, nurturing that very precious life and allowing it to flourish and grow. Of course, I would be happy to meet those from Isla’s Journey, but I will talk to my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care first about whether it might be more appropriate for them to conduct that meeting.

I welcome the support from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling). He spoke about the importance of parental attachment, something that we are beginning to understand is vital to a child’s development—the more we can do in that area, the better. I also understand the point that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) made, and I recently visited the Countess of Chester, which is building a new children and mother unit. That is absolutely fantastic to see, and clearly, we want to build on investment in this area over coming years.

I felt that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) was a little churlish in his support for these regulations. I do not understand the criticism on the basis that these measures were in the Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto, since they did not actually implement them. Given that their Government undertook a consultation six years ago, criticising us for bringing these regulations forward within six months seems a little rich.

Of course, the shadow Minister is already blaming the Employment Rights Bill before it is passed for any rise in unemployment. It is completely nonsensical to argue that legislation that is unlikely to be enacted until next year could be responsible for job losses now. It is the kind of talk that we heard when the minimum wage was introduced—it was wrong then, and it is wrong now. To address the shadow Minister’s point about why this day one right is not in line with pay, that is consistent with all other parental leave entitlements. Pay comes in after 26 weeks, because a baseline of information about a person’s pay is needed in order to implement such a right.

In conclusion, it is welcome to see support for these measures across the House. The first few weeks after a baby is born are precious, and for a child in neonatal care, that time is even more important. As we have heard, the lack of options for parents who find themselves in that truly challenging situation serves only to worsen what, for many parents, is the most traumatic period of their lives. We hope that giving parents the additional rights and flexibility they need through these regulations will provide some much-needed support, reassurance and stability. Parents dealing with a very ill newborn should not have to worry about whether they can get the time off work that they need, or indeed whether they will have a job to go back to at all. As a nation, we can all understand that, and of course the best employers do these things already. However, by legislating, we send a clear message that all parents in that situation—according to some estimates, there could be up to 60,000—will be able to put all their focus on their child, which is as it should be.

On that note, I commend these regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

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

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025. 

Noswaith dda, Mrs Harris; it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I hope not to detain colleagues long. The regulations, which were laid in draft before the House on 18 December 2024, are quite straightforward and relate to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which received Royal Assent in May of that year. They amend legislation in consequence of parts 3 and 4 and chapter 2 of part 5 of the Act.

Part 3 of the Act updates and strengthens enforcement of consumer protection law. Part 4 updates the legislative framework on consumer protections against unfair trading, introduces substantive new consumer rights in relation to subscription contracts and consumer saving schemes, and introduces reforms to alternative dispute resolution. Chapter 2 of part 5 allows UK regulators to provide investigative assistance to overseas regulators with corresponding functions in relation to competition, consumer protection and digital markets. To ensure that the provisions of the Act take effect as Parliament intended, it is necessary to make consequential amendments to the enactments listed in the schedule to the regulations. These relatively minor changes do not materially alter policy, but they are needed to ensure the seamless functioning of consumer protection law and enforcement.

The amendments in the instrument fall into three broad categories. First, they extend the application of legislative provisions that permit public authorities to share certain information with consumer enforcers. At present, persons or bodies that gather information using powers under certain statutes may share that information to facilitate consumer enforcement, consumer protection or overseas investigatory assistance, in certain circumstances. The sharing is permitted by sections of the relevant statutes, which I will refer to as information gateways; these list the consumer protection legislation in relation to which information may be shared. For example, where Ofcom gathers information using powers in the Telecommunications Act 1984, the information gateway in section 101 of that Act permits it to share that information with the Competition and Markets Authority for the purpose of enforcement of, among other measures, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

As I said, the DMCC Act introduces a new consumer enforcement framework, new and updated consumer protections and new provisions on investigative assistance to overseas regulators. It is therefore necessary to add references to these provisions to the information gateways in various statutes. Were these provisions not to be updated, the current approach whereby information may be shared by public bodies to facilitate consumer protection would be unavailable in respect of the new provisions in the DMCC Act. That would compromise consumer protection, which could lead to consumer harm.

The second group of amendments are made to schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which sets out the investigatory powers of consumer law enforcers. These amendments ensure the CMA can use relevant investigatory powers to monitor compliance with certain of its new direct enforcement notices as it may do in relation to other direct or court enforcement orders. For example, at present the CMA may require a person to provide information for the purpose of ascertaining whether a person is complying with a court enforcement order against them. This enables the CMA to ensure that enforcement orders are being complied with, and that the enforcement proceedings are therefore having the desired effect. Under the DMCC Act, the CMA will also be able to use investigatory powers to monitor compliance with certain of its direct enforcement functions.

The DMCC Act introduces a new power for the CMA to give final enforcement notices for failing to respond to an information notice alongside its other direct enforcement powers. The amendments in the draft regulations are necessary to ensure that the CMA is empowered to monitor compliance with this new power in the same way as in relation to the rest of the court-based and direct enforcement regime.

Finally, the draft instrument updates references to consumer laws that have been repealed and replaced by the DMCC Act, with references to the new relevant provisions introduced. Again, the amendments do not materially change the policy or the effect of the underlying law; they simply keep the statute book up-to-date in the way we all want.

I hope it is clear the intention in the regulations is to update and maintain the frameworks that underpin consumer law and its enforcement, in order to ensure that the consumer reforms can be introduced seamlessly and with no inadvertent detriment to consumers. I invite the Committee to support the instrument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I congratulate the shadow Minister on taking a second bite of the cherry on the argument around subscription traps and trade union subscriptions. On the data protection issue, this instrument comes with basically the same safeguards that have always been in place, and that will not change. It is just the legislative envelope that is being updated, so those protections will remain.

On the shadow Minister’s political point, he is of course aware that membership of a trade union is not akin to a Netflix subscription. To be a member is to be part of an important industrial body and a society that represents people at work and provides collective bargaining in appropriate circumstances. It is not like ordering a film or something on Amazon. It is completely different and our contention is that this instrument is about people having rights as consumers, not rights as workers. That is why we make the distinction. On that note, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing today’s debate, and on the thoughtful way in which he presented the issues.

I thank Christina Harris, who started the petition and did an incredible job in getting 100,000 signatures. We have all now heard the story of why she had to stop work to care for Skye. It is great to see both of them in the Gallery, and it was good to hear the positive news about Skye’s condition. As we heard, 19 years with an employer was not rewarded with the loyalty that she had shown that company. Obviously we cannot rewrite history, but we can discuss what support is available and what we might be able to do in the future.

We all understand the unimaginable difficulty of having a seriously ill child and all the consequences that come with it. Hon. Members have spoken well about the difficulties that families face in those situations—the contributions have been heartfelt and serious. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley said that work is about more than just money—my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) also mentioned that in his intervention. That is absolutely right. There are benefits to working that go beyond simply financial reward, although of course we do not want to underplay that.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley also talked about the anxiety that having a seriously ill child can bring. Clearly, nobody wants to add to that anxiety with uncertainty about employment prospects. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) spoke eloquently, as the constituency Member for Christina, about the campaign that she has run. He also highlighted some interesting survey results, which encouragingly indicated that a majority of employers do the right thing, but also that, unfortunately, a sizeable minority do not.

I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), who spoke powerfully about his own personal experiences. He set out the emotional challenges for not just the individual in the employment relationship but the whole family when a child is seriously ill. I am grateful to him for highlighting the work of the charity sector, which supports so many families in this difficult situation. Of course, he was right that, in an ideal world, we would not want people to have to rely on charity in these difficult situations.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), spoke about the financial impact of this issue and the delays in the benefits system. I will certainly pass on his comments to the Department for Work and Pensions.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), was right to highlight some of the work the Conservative Government did in this area. There is more to do, which is why we have introduced the Employment Rights Bill. She reeled off some of the opposition to it, but the CBI used to oppose the minimum wage, and we all know how that turned out.

I want to start by recognising the dedication and compassion of parents and carers across the country. They make a vital contribution to society, supporting those who need it at the most critical time. Sadly, people in that situation may have to stop work altogether, and they may not get a choice over whether they stop work altogether. Just half of all adult carers are in work, and a quarter are economically inactive.

Evidence indicates that disabled or unwell children are more likely than disabled adults to need continuous care. We also know that more than half of those who provide over 10 hours of care a week report that it impacts their work. That suggests that, as we have heard, the parents of seriously ill children face distinct challenges in balancing work and caring responsibilities. Given that that is clearly an issue, it is important that we think about how to support carers and parents of seriously ill children to balance those responsibilities with other parts of their life, including work.

As the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley said, there do appear to be issues in terms of awareness of the support that is already available to parents. So I thought it would be helpful to follow the Opposition spokesperson’s lead and outline what is available and what will be coming on stream shortly.

As has been mentioned, all employee parents are entitled to 18 weeks of unpaid parental leave over the first 18 years of a child’s life. That can be taken in blocks of four weeks, or for longer periods if there is agreement with the employer. The Employment Rights Bill will make that a day one entitlement.

Parents of a child who is disabled or living with a long-term health condition are also entitled to carer’s leave, as we have discussed. That can be taken flexibly in half or whole days or in one go over the course of a year. In line with our plans to make work pay, we intend to review carer’s leave. As Members will be aware, it has been in force for only just under a year, so there is some way to go to understand exactly how successful it has been in supporting carers in the workplace. We will also be engaging closely with smaller employers and sector bodies through that work to ensure that we fully understand the potential impacts and benefits that further policy development could bring.

From April this year, as has been mentioned, employees who are parents of babies in neonatal care will have access to a new entitlement to up to 12 weeks of neonatal care leave and pay. That includes a day one right to up to 12 weeks of neonatal care leave and a pay entitlement for eligible employees. That will enable thousands of parents to care for and be with their children in neonatal care without worrying about whether their job is at risk.

Another area where more support will be coming down the line as a result of the Employment Rights Bill is improved access to flexible working. That will help people to balance work and other responsibilities—for example, where there is a need to care for a child. It was interesting that the employer in Christina’s story just would not have that discussion about flexibility. Hopefully, the new right to flexible working will lead to a different kind of conversation in future for people in that awful situation.

There are existing protections in the Employment Rights Act 1996 for employees suffering detriment as a result of taking leave for family and domestic reasons, or where an employee is dismissed and family-related leave is the principal reason. In addition, parents of seriously ill children may be protected from employment discrimination by association with a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010.

Of course, employment rights are only one part of the much wider package of support available to families when a child is seriously ill. The accelerating reform fund will provide £42.6 million over 2023-24 and 2024-25 to support innovation and scaling in adult social care and to improve services that support unpaid carers.

A range of financial support is also available through social security. Help is provided via disability living allowance for children aged under 16 and via personal independence payments for those aged 16 and above. Those benefits are available if a child’s or young person’s condition or illness is both of a long-term nature and gives rise to daily care or mobility needs. Those benefits are a contribution to the extra costs that may arise, as we have heard. For those in receipt of the highest level of benefit, they mean an extra £9,583 a year tax-free. The benefits are usually paid to the parent of the child to help with the overall family finances, and they are free to use the money as they see fit.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley and several other hon. Members mentioned that it can take time to access some of these benefits. However, where there is, tragically, an end-of-life diagnosis, claims are fast-tracked, and recipients are guaranteed the highest rate of the DLA care competent or the enhanced rate of the PIP daily living component from the date of the claim.

The Government have recently announced that, from April this year, there will be an increase in the carer’s allowance weekly earnings limit, from £151 to £196 a week. That is the equivalent of 16 hours at the national living wage, and is the largest increase in the earnings limit since the carer’s allowance was first introduced in 1976. It will mean that carers can earn up to £10,000 a year while still retaining their carer’s allowance, which is worth about an additional £2,000 a year.

That is some of the work that is being undertaken, but I understand that some hon. Members wish to go further. As the debate has highlighted, a number of important issues need to be considered, including the scope of any approach and what any entitlement would look like in practice. There is certainly a need to fully understand the extent of the issue. We need to consider the length of time that would be requested, whether it would be paid or unpaid, the process that would need to be followed, who would be eligible to make an application, and whether other interventions may be more effective than an entitlement.

[Mr Francois]

I thank the Minister for his generous remarks about some of the speeches he has heard. For the record, he took the trouble before the debate began to introduce himself to my constituent, which I am sure was appreciated.

I heard what the Minister just said. I was a Minister once, and sometimes, after a debate like this, I would go away and think, “Do you know what? I think they might have a point.” In the hope that he feels the same way, and having heard what he has just said about looking at potential solutions, can I ask whether he would be prepared, ideally before Easter, to meet my constituent and perhaps myself, along with his officials, for an exploratory conversation based on this debate to see what the art of the possible might be? He has met my constituent informally. Will he now meet her formally? I would be very grateful if he said yes.

[Justin Madders]

As a former Minister, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the best way to get a Minister to agree to a meeting is to ask them directly in the Chamber. I will, of course, be happy to do that.

I will explain a little more what the Government are looking at in this area. I recently met the Minister for Care, from the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Minister for Social Security and Disability, from the Department for Work and Pensions, to discuss how we will improve the lot of carers and make progress in this area. We are determined to ensure that there are meaningful improvements, and the issues we have debated will certainly be fed into that discussion. We want to make sure that unpaid carers are able to navigate their responsibilities and stay in employment, if at all possible. There is ongoing work in Government on the wider programme, and what we have heard in this debate will certainly add to that. After I have met the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, I may have further thoughts to submit to the machine.

It is fair to say that there is a lot going on in this area, and there is a lot to consider. This is an important subject; it is one of the most difficult times in anyone’s life when their child is seriously ill, and we want to ensure that we get the balance right in supporting parents during this difficult time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

2. What steps he plans to take to help reduce employment costs.

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

The Government are pursuing the reforms needed to deliver sustained long-term growth. Developed and delivered in partnership with business, we have taken significant steps, including launching a consultation on the modern industrial strategy, establishing the national wealth fund, transforming our planning rules, committing to a 10-year infrastructure strategy and introducing the Employment Rights Bill to boost productivity. We have also added extra protections for small businesses by increasing the employment allowance and freezing the small business rate multiplier.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I think the Minister may have misunderstood my question; I asked how he would reduce employment costs. The president of the Confederation of British Industry recently said that, because of things like the Employment Rights Bill, employers will be laying people off and will be less likely to employ, and that is before the national insurance tax on employment imposed by this Government. Does the Minister accept responsibility for the increase in unemployment that we are already seeing?

[Justin Madders]

I think it is something of a stretch to say that a Bill that is not even law yet, most of the provisions of which will not come into force until next year, is driving unemployment already. I quote back to him what the head of the CBI said yesterday about our growth plan. He said:

“This positive leadership and a…vision to kickstart the economy and boost productivity is welcome.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his question. We believe that a 0.4% increase in the overall pay bill, which is what we have estimated the Employment Rights Bill will mean for businesses, is actually a fantastic return for greater security at work, greater pay, better staff retention, increased productivity, making jobs more secure and family friendly, banning exploitative zero-hour contracts, supporting women in work in every stage of life, providing a genuine living wage, turning the page on industrial relations, and bringing an end to fire and rehire. This is a pro-business, pro-growth, pro-worker agenda from the Government, and we are determined to deliver it.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

3. If he will take steps to reduce the noise level of fireworks on public sale.

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

The Government understand the effects that fireworks can have on animals and vulnerable individuals. Consumer fireworks have a 120 dB noise limit, but numerous low-noise options are available on the market at around 90 dB or below. This year’s fireworks public information campaign has highlighted low-noise fireworks and the importance of considerate use. Additionally, I am meeting businesses, consumer groups and charities at the conclusion of the fireworks season in the next coming week or two to discuss their concerns.

[Sarah Owen]

Antisocial fireworks keep our constituents awake, cause alarm for pets, and seriously affect people with post-traumatic stress disorder or special educational needs. I know the Minister heard extensively from colleagues, campaigners and charities on this during the Westminster Hall debate on my Bill. Will he meet me to discuss the implementation of the common-sense measures presented in my Fireworks Bill, including lowering the noise limit on fireworks sold to the public, closing the licensing loophole and reviewing social media and online sales?

[Justin Madders]

It is always a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend and I am happy to do so. Indeed, we will see whether we can get her to come along to some of the other meetings that we are holding with interested groups, some of which she has mentioned.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

May I wish a belated happy Chinese new year to all those who were celebrating yesterday? One beauty of our great country is its diversity, but with that comes causes for celebration throughout the year. My own community in South West Hertfordshire celebrates Diwali, Eid, Christmas, Chinese new year and other events, which often entails the use of fireworks. There is an expectation of fireworks and the noise associated with them at the main events of Christmas and new year, so pet owners inevitably take safeguarding measures then, but given the likelihood of fireworks throughout the year, may I urge the Minister to get on to this Bill quickly, ensuring that we do not stifle the celebrations, but that we do protect our animals and those vulnerable children who may be affected by noise?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. He is right to recognise that fireworks are used at a number of events throughout the year, but it would be wrong to characterise that as people having to expect that there will be noise. There is now a sufficient number of lower-decibel products on the market for everyone to act more responsibly, and we will be exploring that in our meetings over the coming weeks.

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

4. What progress his Department has made on developing an industrial strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to support businesses in the north-east.

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

The Government are investing £1.4 billion, with the North East combined authority, to deliver our shared objectives of economic growth and business support. That includes the development of the local part of the industrial strategy, guiding investment to deliver sustainable economic growth, and delivering support to grow all businesses. In 2023-24, there was £420,000-worth of direct support given to the North East Growth Hub, which provides businesses across the area with practical advice and support to grow and thrive.

[Ian Lavery]

Yesterday saw full-throated Government support for projects across the UK, but not so much for the north-east. The region was decimated by 14 years of Tory Government, and that cannot be repeated. I accept what the Minister says about what has happened, but what will the Government do to ensure that businesses in my Blyth and Ashington constituency can play their part in the cutting-edge technologies of the future and, crucially, see improved investment, which will create much- needed jobs with good wages and terms and conditions?

[Justin Madders]

I am at one with my hon. Friend in wanting all parts of the country, especially the north-west and the north-east, to have high-paid, well-skilled, good jobs, in tech sectors in particular, but also in other areas where we can see great advantage for the economy. The local skills improvement plan for the north-east will help, and the excellent facilities at Blyth’s Energy Central Learning Hub are supported by over £6 million of Government funding. That is already developing sector skills in a real-world port setting. With the reopening of the Northumberland line, we have reconnected towns in south-east Northumberland with Tyneside, improving links and opportunities across the area.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

18. What steps his Department is taking to support the automotive industry.

--- Later in debate ---

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

No.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

T4.  Basingstoke is a digital powerhouse, once dubbed the “silicon suburb”. It is home to over a thousand tech companies and thousands of high-quality tech jobs. Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to support high productivity digital hubs, like Basingstoke, to scale, secure investment and contribute towards the Government’s national growth mission?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

T9. Despite the very brief answer given by Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) to the question asked by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), is he aware that there is widespread concern among small and medium-sized tech firms and trade associations about the replacement of the chair of the Competition and Markets Authority by a former Amazon executive? Will the Government make clear their commitment to the operational independence of the CMA and the Digital Markets Unit, and to obtaining stronger competition in digital markets?

[Justin Madders]

I can give the right hon. Member that reassurance. The independence of the CMA is very important. That will remain in place and a new strategic steer will be issued shortly that will reaffirm that independence.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

T6. The pandemic exposed the woeful inadequacy of the previous Government’s statutory sick pay provisions, and I am pleased that this Government have committed to reforming those through the Employment Rights Bill. Will the Minister look at the specific wording of the Bill to ensure there are no unintended consequences of the provisions on the removal of the lower earnings limit for statutory sick pay? Will he meet me to ensure that all workers receive proper statutory sick pay and no one is left worse off?

[Justin Madders]

The experience of the pandemic really brought home that millions of people in this country do not qualify for statutory sick pay. We are determined to deal with that and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue in more detail.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Yesterday, out of the blue, Bank of Scotland announced that it will close five branches in my constituency, leaving hundreds of square miles of the rural south of Scotland without a single bank branch. While we must work with Link and others to ensure access to cash in those communities, does the Minister share my concern not only that this will leave empty premises prominent on the high street, but that it sends a message that the banks are giving up on rural areas and on those who do not bank online?

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

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Desmond. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 6 December 2024.

The Government are committed to increasing transparency of beneficial ownership and combating economic crime. Hon. Members will be aware that since 2022 the UK has had a public register of beneficial ownership of overseas entities that own property in the UK, known as the register of overseas entities. The draft regulations will strengthen the transparency of trust information on the ROE to further improve transparency around the ownership and control of land.

The ROE, which was created by the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, requires overseas entities that own or buy property in the UK to give information to Companies House about their beneficial owners and/or managing officers. The ROE is a key tool in cracking down on dirty money in the UK and is crucial in the fight against bad actors who use UK property as a money-laundering vehicle. The information available on the ROE has been used by many journalists examining corruption, money laundering and assets held by individuals who are subject to sanctions.

Currently, the ROE collects trust information, but there is no public access to that data, other than the name of the trustee. This approach protects the right to privacy for those who operate such structures for a variety of legitimate reasons. However, the Government understand that there are concerns around the use of trusts to facilitate economic crime, particularly because their anonymity makes assets easier to hide.

The draft regulations have been designed to provide further transparency and prevent potential abuse of trusts, while supporting legitimate trust arrangements. They have been laid before the House under powers contained in the 2022 Act, as amended by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.

The draft regulations consist of two measures. First, they will enable anyone to apply to Companies House to access trust information held on the ROE. This marks a significant step forward in transparency, empowering the public and civil society to scrutinise trust beneficiaries on the ROE more effectively. Anyone can apply to the registrar of companies for information about a specific trust. Applicants must provide their personal information, the name of the trust related to the relevant protected trust information, and the overseas entity’s name and ID.

Applicants seeking trust information related to minors, or to more than one overseas entity in a single application, must meet a legitimate interest for the requested disclosures. This will ensure that the vulnerable are protected but that critical information is available to those with a valid need, such as investigative journalists. By requiring this safeguard, the Government are striking a fair balance between protecting personal information and delivering on our commitment to greater transparency.

Applicants will need to show a legitimate interest; they cannot just go on a fishing expedition. They must show that they are investigating money laundering, tax evasion, terrorist financing or breach of sanctions and must provide a statement that they are requesting the disclosure in order to further that investigation and a statement on how they plan to use the information disclosed to them. If no such interest can be demonstrated, the registrar may withhold some or all of the information.

The registrar will notify the applicant of the decision and will provide reasons. If a legitimate interest can be demonstrated, the registrar will release any unprotected information. The registrar will have the discretion to impose conditions under which the trust information is disclosed, such as restricting its use or further disclosure; failure to comply with those conditions will be an offence. The registrar may also refuse an application where disclosure may prejudice an ongoing criminal investigation or adversely affect national security, or where the trust is a pension scheme.

The second measure in the draft regulations involves provisions for the protection of sensitive information, which will come into force before the disclosure provisions go live. Through the draft regulations, we are expanding the category of individuals who can apply to the registrar of companies at Companies House to have their information protected. This will ensure that those connected to a trust, such as settlors, trustees and beneficiaries, whose information could be published or disclosed by the registrar under the ROE, can apply to have their details protected from disclosure, for instance where there is a risk of violence or harm. The draft regulations will also expand the grounds on which an application for protection may be made, to include the ground that the individual is under 18 or lacks capacity.

The protection provisions will come into force on 28 February; the provisions on disclosure of trust information will come into force on 31 August. This will allow sufficient time for those who are eligible to do so to apply to Companies House for protection.

The draft regulations will not change the fact that an application for protection does not exempt an overseas entity from the requirements of the 2022 Act in general. The required information about the trust must still be supplied to Companies House, and the registrar will still be able to use their general information-sharing power, which was introduced by the 2022 Act, to share protected information with law enforcement agencies and public authorities for purposes connected to the exercise of their functions.

The draft regulations will further the Government’s mission to improve transparency of the beneficial ownership of overseas entities investing in the UK, driving confidence in our economy and exposing bad actors who seek to take advantage illegitimately. I hope that hon. Members will support the draft regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for the Opposition’s support. The shadow Minister raises some important questions. I think that these will be operational matters for the registrar.

I have no doubt that there will be criteria; there will certainly be criteria available for legitimate interest tests. We envisage some kind of informal process for decisions to be challenged—but those, I think, will be operational matters for Companies House to decide in due course. I will write to the shadow Minister with further detail.

The shadow Minister asked about the period for which the information would remain protected. My understanding is that the protection would remain in situ unless something came to light that suggested that that information needed to be questioned—but, again, that is more of an operational matter. I will write to him with further detail.

If there are no further questions, let me commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Unionised Workers in the Housing Sector: Pay Discrimination

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for securing this debate and for her excellent speech. She has a long and proud record in the trade union movement, which she has brought to the fore today.

I want to start by setting out the Government’s approach to the important subject of industrial relations. We want employers and trade unions to come together to grow our economy. We know that the world of work is fairer and more productive when people can come together to negotiate fair pay and decent conditions. That is why we are resetting industrial relations through the Employment Rights Bill. We are repealing nearly every part of the Trade Union Act 2016, which tried to smother trade unions in form-filling and red tape and prevent them from doing their core job of negotiation and dispute resolution.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for bringing forward this debate. I spoke to her beforehand, and I understand what she is trying to do. She has clearly outlined the case for the unions in her contribution tonight. When I started work for Henry Denny’s in Belfast in my early 20s, they asked me if I wanted to join the union. To be honest, I was not sure, but the guy told me it was compulsory, so I said, “That’s okay.” But here’s the story. I had the union on my side when I first started work at Henry Denny’s; I had it to back me up whenever I needed something. I had had a different opinion about what unions were and what they could do for me. The hon. Lady has outlined what the unions can do, I understand personally what they can do, and I look forward to hearing the Minister tell us what he is going to do.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his support for unions. I was a little worried when the debate started because he was not in his normal place. I thought there was going to be some sort of national emergency because the hon. Member for Strangford had not attended the Adjournment debate, but I am glad he is here and that he has spoken very positively about the benefits of joining a trade union.

I shall go back to some of the work we are doing to improve the industrial relations landscape. We are of course repealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which, to our mind, only increased tensions and failed to prevent a single day of industrial action. We are going further in strengthening the voice of working people by making it easier for trade unions to get recognised, giving them the right of access to workplaces and making sure that they have enough time to represent their members. When the rights of working people are flouted, our new fair work agency will be empowered to investigate. We have recently run a consultation on modernising trade union laws so that they are fit for the modern workplace and the modern economy. That consultation closed on 2 December and we are currently analysing responses. We will publish a Government response to the consultation before Report stage of the Employment Rights Bill.

This is a transformative package that marks a new era for working people and I hope that hon. Members are in no doubt about the Government’s commitment to marking this new way forward. It is a way that brings a new deal for working people, making jobs more secure and family friendly, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, supporting women in work at every stage in their life, and providing a genuine living wage and sick pay for the lowest earners. There will be further and faster action to close the gender pay gap, to ensure that rights are enforced and that trade unions are strengthened, to repeal anti-worker, anti-union laws, to turn the page on industrial relations and to end fire and rehire, while also giving working people the basic rights that they deserve at work from day one. This is a pro-business, pro-worker, pro-growth Bill from a pro-business, pro-worker, pro-growth Government.

As we know, a range of protections exist for workers against inducements and detriment related to trade union membership or activities. Of those, I will mention three that may be relevant to this particular situation. Section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 protects workers against detriment being imposed by an employer for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from being a trade union member or taking part in union activities, or penalising them for doing so.

Through clause 63 of the Employment Rights Bill, we are enhancing protections against detriment by conferring a right on workers not to be subjected to detriment

“for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from taking protected industrial action, or penalising the worker for doing so.”

Section 145A of the 1992 Act protects workers against offers made by the employer for the sole or main purpose of inducing the worker not to be a trade union member or not to take part in union activities. Finally, section 145B of the 1992 Act protects members of trade unions that are recognised, or are seeking to be recognised, by their employer against offers made by the employer for the sole or main purpose of resulting in workers’ terms and conditions not being determined by a collective agreement negotiated by the union.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley indicated, we cannot comment on the extent to which existing legislation applies to a particular case, as that is ultimately a matter for tribunals and courts to determine. However, I hope it has been helpful to state clearly some of the existing protections that may be relevant.

It is also worth putting it on record that this Government expect employers to work in partnership with unions to resolve disputes through negotiation. We certainly do not believe that pay offers should be framed in a way that requires an individual to confirm that they are not a member of a trade union. At the very least, as my hon. Friend said, that goes against the spirit of good industrial relations.

I recognise that disputes are sometimes difficult to resolve, and I take this opportunity to highlight the important role that ACAS plays in this space. Its remit is to promote good employment relations, to advise employers and employees on workplace matters, and to resolve individual and collective workplace disputes. Employees and employers in a workplace dispute may wish to contact ACAS to get advice on employment law and workplace relations, and to help resolve their dispute.

Of course, resolving disputes through ACAS requires both parties to participate, and it is disappointing to hear from my hon. Friend that not only will Livv not engage with her on this matter, but it does not appear that it will engage with the trade union either. I hope Livv reconsiders because, through our “make work pay” agenda, we have been clear that it is our intention to ensure that workplace rights are fit for a modern economy, empower working people and deliver economic growth.

That is why we have introduced the Employment Rights Bill, which represents the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. We will always listen carefully to any arguments on how the law on inducements or detriment could be improved, and we always welcome views on how we can reset industrial relations to create a modern framework that is fit for a modern economy and modern working practices.

I would welcome the opportunity to hear more information from my hon. Friend about the specifics of this issue, and I urge Livv to engage with her and the trade unions. I am open to looking at the case in more detail to understand what action, if any, is necessary, and I am always happy to work with my hon. Friend to ensure that trade union rights are properly observed in this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Fire Safety of Domestic Upholstered Furniture

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Written Statements

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

I am notifying Parliament today of the publication of a policy paper providing an update on progress in reviewing the fire safety of domestic upholstered furniture.

The policy paper sets out important changes we are making now to amend the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 (the FFRs), and our plans moving forward.

The regulations were introduced as a safety measure to respond to the increasing number of furniture fire-related deaths from the 1960s to the 1980s. The FFRs have significantly contributed to the reduction in the number of fire deaths since their introduction, but it is important to update the regulations to keep pace with product innovation. Evidence has also emerged over a number of years about the risks associated with the chemical flame retardants used to pass flammability tests.

The paper sets out the Government’s intentions for the implementation of a new regulatory approach, highlights areas of broad stakeholder consensus and provides an update on the outstanding challenges. We will work with businesses, trade associations and other key stakeholders this year to finalise key elements of the policy.

Ahead of that work, the Government will act now to remove a number of baby products from scope of the FFRs. The products being removed are not exposed to the same risks of accidental ignition, by cigarettes or similar ignition sources, as the items of furniture that will remain in scope. This change enables us to reduce the risk of exposure to chemical flame retardants to babies and young children at a significant stage in their development, where the fire risk is lower than the chemical exposure risk. The fire safety of these products will still be regulated, by the general product safety regulations.

We will also remove the requirement to attach a display label, reducing labelling costs to businesses without impacting on consumer safety and increase the time limit for enforcement authorities to institute legal proceedings from six to twelve months.

Alongside the policy paper, we will also publish a summary of responses to the consultation “Smarter Regulation: The new approach to the fire safety of domestic upholstered furniture”, held last year by the previous Government.

I will place copies of the policy paper in the Libraries of both Houses, and it will be published on gov.uk.

[HCWS379]

Competition and Markets Authority Chairman

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on the position of the chairman of the Competition and Markets Authority.

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

Following the resignation of the chair of the Competition and Markets Authority, Marcus Bokkerink, the Secretary of State has appointed Doug Gurr as the interim chair for a period of up to 18 months while our new permanent chair is appointed. The Secretary of State has expressed his gratitude for Marcus’s leadership of the board of the CMA since his appointment in September 2022, and for the work of the CMA in that time, particularly in response to cost of living pressures.

As the Prime Minister set out in his speech at the international investment summit, this Government will ensure that every regulator in the UK focuses on growth. Given Doug Gurr’s background and experience as an entrepreneur and business leader, and his clear under-standing of the importance of new and developing technologies such as artificial intelligence, he will bring the necessary strategic leadership to the CMA to enable it to promote growth for the benefit of businesses and consumers. As set out in the industrial strategy Green Paper, the Government will shortly be consulting on a new growth-focused strategic steer for the CMA. While respecting the independence of the CMA and the decision making of its panel members, the steer will be clear about the Government’s expectations of the CMA in supporting growth across the economy.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Griffith]

Thank you for granting this important urgent question, Mr Speaker.

What a desperate state we are in when the Business Secretary has to phone up the regulators to beg them for ideas to fix the lack of growth that his own Government’s policies have created. I hope that when the regulators attended the roundtable last week, including the chairman of the CMA, they had the courage to put at the top of their list scrapping the Business Secretary’s 150-page, job-destroying and trade union-inspired Employment Rights Bill; or to point out the jobs tax in the Chancellor’s Budget, Labour’s socialist attacks on inheritance and non-doms, and the family business death tax that is causing one wealth creator to leave this country every 45 minutes; or even to point out that one of the best opportunities that this country has for growth would be to get on a plane to our closest trading partner, the United States, and secure a trade deal, rather than lob juvenile insults at President Trump or fail to invite Elon Musk to the Government’s UK investment summit.

It is certainly the case that, while regulators have a role, they generally depress growth and drive risk aversion, bureaucracy and slow decision making. Asking regulators to boost growth is a bit like asking the village speed watch to organise the next British grand prix. I am a fan of speed watch.

The Conservative party is under new management, and we are unafraid to back wealth creators and risk takers. We are unashamed to say that we need fewer civil servants and arm’s length regulators so that our businesses carry less dead weight in the global race to be competitive, but dismissing the non-executive, part-time chair of the CMA seems a curious place to start. He is not responsible for day-to-day decision making at the CMA; that is the job of the chief executive. Did they aim and miss? Can the Minister confirm whether there are plans to change the Government’s view on the CMA’s remit, to play the ball and not the man? What evaluation has there been of all regulators as part of this process, and when will the Government publish it?

[Justin Madders]

I think there were a couple of questions in there about the role of the CMA chair. Of course, he did not get sacked; he resigned. A new strategic steer for the CMA will be coming out in due course. The hon. Gentleman’s tirade of criticisms of this Government was a bit rich coming from a man who was in the Treasury when the last Government crashed the economy. I would point out that PwC announced only this week that we were the second most attractive country in the world to invest in, and that the International Monetary Fund last week upgraded our growth predictions for this year. We are going to be the highest-growing major economy in Europe this year, and that shows our determination to get the growth going, which was something that his Government failed completely on.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

Getting the right regulatory environment is vital to drive innovation in our economy and also to protect our consumers and markets. Does the Minister agree that this renewed focus on the regulatory environment and getting it right to drive our economy will make sure that this Government deliver our No. 1 mission of growth?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Growth is the No. 1 mission for this Government, and getting the balance right between protecting consumers and driving up growth in the economy means that we all benefit. That is something we are very clear about on this side of the House, and something that the last Government failed to deliver on.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

We are absolutely clear that we need to protect consumers, but we also need to drive growth. The new interim chair’s experience will be really important in helping us to understand how the tech companies will move forward, and his chairmanship of the Alan Turing Institute gives him valuable experience to bring to the table in delivering on that.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I should declare an interest, having worked for a competition regulator for a number of years before entering Parliament. I suggest that the Minister does not take any competition policy lessons from the Conservatives, who oversaw the re-monopolisation of the broadband network, the consolidation of power within tech networks on an unprecedented scale, and the rise of crony capitalism on a scale not seen before. Some rumours around this appointment have suggested that it is a signal of a flight away from competition regulation. Can I urge him to quash those rumours and confirm that this Government believe that competition drives investment, innovation and growth, and that this country is open for investment and new market entry by as many companies as possible?

[Justin Madders]

We absolutely agree that competition is vital for driving investment and growth. The CMA will remain operationally independent, as it always has been.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

The Government seem fascinated by the price of Oasis tickets. Meanwhile, debt and the cost of debt are soaring. Should the Government—definitely, not maybe—come up with some ideas of their own for growth, rather than trying to copy the homework of regulators?

[Justin Madders]

We have our own ideas for growth. We have important planning reforms coming forward, and the industrial strategy, which drives forward the strengths of the UK economy. As for the hon. Gentleman’s Oasis pun, I think he needs to work a bit harder on that one.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

Having spent 15 years dealing with the CMA in my campaign to end the abuse of the secondary ticketing market, I have long felt that the CMA is in desperate need of much stronger and clearer ministerial oversight. Can the Minister confirm today which Minister will have oversight of the CMA, and that it will be an active role, not a role in name only?

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work on secondary ticketing, a subject on which there is currently a consultation. I am the Minister responsible for the CMA. A new strategic steer for the CMA will be issued later this year, and of course it will remain independent from Government.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The clear issue here is why the previous chair resigned, and what remit the Minister has given the interim chair to change the policy and direction of the CMA. Can the Minister outline that remit for the House? He says he will do it later this year, but he has manoeuvred a position in which the previous chair has resigned. We need to know what the CMA will be doing now to regulate the market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

The CMA’s operational independence will remain intact. We have clearly set out that there will be a new strategic steer, which will be about boosting growth. After conversations, we have decided that new leadership is needed to deliver on that.

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I should declare that before entering the House, I advised, as a competition lawyer, on various CMA matters, including investigations and panels. Some of the criticisms from Conservative Members seem half a world away, to channel Oasis, from both the topic in question and economic reality. Will the Minister confirm that yesterday’s announcement does not change the independence of the individual CMA panels that deal with matters before the CMA?

[Justin Madders]

I can confirm that the CMA’s operational independence remains intact.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The power vested in large corporations is greater than ever. Tech giants are exerting monopolistic power over the market, so I am becoming exasperated with the Government’s Thatcherite-like attitude towards deregulation. Do the Government understand the risks involved in going for short-term boosts to growth over long-term stability of the economic market?

[Justin Madders]

I would not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation at all, and I am sure that Conservative Members would not, either. We announced only this morning that we will take action against Amazon on knife sales, so I do not think the characterisation that we are in the pocket of big tech is at all accurate.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

The CMA took far too long to reach a decision on the Vodafone and Three merger. This slowed down the roll-out of 5G across all our constituencies and was a drag on growth. How can regulators be pushed to ensure that their decisions lead to growth?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is right that we need to give the business community confidence that decisions will be made quickly to provide certainty, so that it can move forward with investments for the benefit of the whole economy.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

What will be the impact on growth of a record number of millionaires having left the UK since the Budget?

[Justin Madders]

That is a very interesting question. I am not sure that the CMA’s role is to monitor the number of millionaires leaving the country.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

In 2023, after the CMA blocked a particular merger, the last Conservative Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), said that it must “understand their wider responsibilities”. He also said:

“I do think it’s important all our regulators understand their wider responsibilities for economic growth.”

He was right, was he not?

[Justin Madders]

Yes, he was right. That is the message that the Prime Minister sent out to the regulators at the investment summit, and it is why they have been invited in to give their ideas on growth. We do not think that asking regulators how they are going to stimulate growth is a problem—that is the No. 1 mission of this Government, and everyone should be signed up to delivering on it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Llinos Medi.

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

Diolch, Llefarydd. The Government say that the CMA’s chair had failed to convince them that he was sufficiently focused on growth, but at the same time, reports suggest that the Government plan to freeze all rail spending except for on three projects in England. A lack of transport funding is stifling growth in the Welsh economy. To prove his commitment to growth, will the Minister outline the transport funding that his Government have committed to Wales?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Unfortunately, transport funding—particularly in Wales—is well outside the CMA’s remit.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK’s economic regulators have a responsibility to ensure supersonic growth in our economy with a pro-business approach, and that this is part of what I would term a responsibility agenda? We all have a responsibility to ensure the best for our economy, and those regulators do as well.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We all need to be signed up to this agenda, which is absolutely critical for delivering on our aims of getting a better-growing economy, getting more money into people’s pockets, delivering on the promises we have made, and changing the tune after the last 14 years of decline.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Changing personnel is one thing, but when we speak to business, we hear that resolving disputes and the way in which the CMA does so is key. Could I urge the Minister to look at how disputes are resolved, and whether litigation and an antagonistic approach to business is the best way for the CMA to proceed?

[Justin Madders]

That is a very fair comment. We need to give businesses certainty and clarity that things will be resolved quickly, so that they have the confidence to make investment decisions.

[Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)]

How does the Department plan to appoint the permanent chair?

[Justin Madders]

The appointment of the permanent chair will take place in the normal manner, as all other appointments do.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

An active regulator is essential to securing fair prices for consumers. Residents of areas such as mine are often at the forefront of rises in petrol prices, and residents of Pontardawe are regularly left wondering why they have to pay 8p more per litre than people in nearby towns. Will the Government commit to launching the Pumpwatch petrol price comparison platform, as recommended by the Competition and Markets Authority?

[Justin Madders]

That is a very important point. Consumers see the petrol prices every time they leave their home in their motor vehicle. There is a disparity there that sometimes needs explanation, and certainly needs transparency, so I will take that issue up on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf, and will come back to him on it.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

My constituents, particularly those living in Crookfur, have terrible mobile phone signal. How can the CMA progress the merger between Three and Vodafone, so that we get the investment in transmitters that we need to improve the mobile phone signal in Crookfur and around the country?

[Justin Madders]

That is certainly something that the CMA has been dealing with, and I am sure that we will be able to provide my hon. Friend with an update shortly.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will the Minister ask the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate why we have the highest energy prices in the world, particularly for electricity?

[Justin Madders]

I will certainly pass that request on. That might be something that Ofgem would also have an interest in.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I thank the Minister for his responses so far. Does he agree that the first duty of the Competition and Markets Authority is to ensure that regulations are followed, and to break up monopolies at a time when our small businesses are suffering? The national insurance increase has not helped. If the CMA takes decisions that just so happen to have the by-product of stimulating economic growth, that is well, but the narrative that taking away regulation will promote growth is wrong.

[Mr Speaker]

It might be worth the hon. Member putting in for an Adjournment debate.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member for her question. It is important that consumers and small businesses operate on a level playing field; it is also correct that we are very keen to see more growth delivered. We think that will benefit everyone in the economy, but I take the point that a balance has to be struck.

[John Grady]

rose—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. The role of the CMA chair is essential in the current economic climate, as we watch how our allies in the USA approach their trading and their deals. We need a message of strength; we need to relay the fact that we are ready and open for international business. Does the Minister believe that this interim measure sends that message, and how quickly can we get the right person in place to promote our business standing?

[Justin Madders]

We are really serious about growth. This is about sending the message that we want to make sure that Britain is open for investment, and that we will work with partners across the world to encourage investment and get the growth that we want, for the benefit of the entire economy. This is just one part of the plan.

Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Justin Madders Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Greg Smith]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Although I am disappointed that the Minister has not accepted the new clause, I will withdraw it at this stage. I can count 10 Government Members and only five on the Opposition Benches, so my chances of success in a Division would be limited. I hope the new clause can find its way back into the Bill, perhaps in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 35

Carer’s leave: remuneration

“(1) In section 80K of the Employment Rights Act 1996, omit subsection (3) and insert—

‘(3) In subsection (1)(a), “terms and conditions of employment”—

(a) includes matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under the contract of employment, and

(b) includes terms and conditions about remuneration.’”—(Steve Darling.)

This new clause would make Carer’s Leave a paid entitlement.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

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

[Steve Darling]

Although I am disappointed that the new clause has fallen on stony ground, it was only a probing amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 38

Time off for volunteering: consultation

“(1) The Secretary of State must consult on the introduction of a requirement for employers with more than 250 employees to grant employees time off for volunteering.

(2) The consultation must consider, amongst other things, the following matters—

(a) the amount of time off an employer must grant;

(b) when the time off may be taken;

(c) any conditions to which the granting of time off may be subject; and

(d) the definition of ‘volunteering’.

(3) The consultation must be conducted within one year of this Act being passed.

(4) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the consultation closing, publish and lay before Parliament the Secretary of State’s response to the consultation.”—(Steve Darling.)

This new clause calls for a consultation on allowing employees at companies of over 250 people the opportunity to take time off in order to undertake voluntary work.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

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

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

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

[Steve Darling]

I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that we are looking at employers that employ over 250 individuals, so the new clause would far from impact smaller businesses. I have grave concerns that the Government believe they have all the time in the world and expect that there will be a second glorious term for the Labour party, come hell or high water. The jury is out on whether a second term for Keir will appear. One is better driving the agenda forward while one has the helm than to hope for the helm when it turns the next headland. I encourage the Government to reflect on their proposals and grasp the opportunity to consult on this volunteering opportunity.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

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

[Justin Madders]

It seems the coalition era love-in has started again in earnest. As the shadow Minister outlined, new clause 42 would require the Certification Officer to lay before both Houses, within 12 months of Royal Assent, a report setting out the impact on various sectors of the UK economy of introducing a four-day week. It would require the Certification Officer to consult businesses, workers, consumers and others and to publish consultation responses when laying the report. Just when we thought we had got away from consultation, we have another one.

In considering the new clause, it might be helpful to set out the role of the Certification Officer. It has been the regulator of trade unions and employer associations since 1975. It not only carries out regulatory functions, but has administrative, supervisory and significant quasi-judicial functions. It adjudicates on complaints raised by trade union members and other parties. As part of our repeal of the provisions of the Trade Union Act 2016, we will remove the Certification Officer’s enhanced investigatory and enforcement powers, as well as the levy imposed on trade unions and employer associations. As such, we will return the role of the Certification Officer to what it was before that Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

[Chris Law]

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

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Schedule 1

Warrants under Part 5: further provision

“Part 1

Application of this Schedule

1 This Schedule applies in relation to—

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

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

Part 2

Warrants: applications and safeguards

Applications for warrants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safeguards in connection with power of entry conferred by warrant

3 A warrant authorises an entry on one occasion only.

4 (1) A warrant must specify—

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

(b) the date on which it is issued,

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

(d) the premises to be entered.

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

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

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

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

Part 3

Execution of warrants

Warrant to be executed within three months

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

Time of entry

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

Evidence of authority etc

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Where—

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

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

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

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

Securing premises after entry

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

Return and retention of warrants

10 (1) A warrant which—

(a) has been executed, or

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

must be returned to the appropriate person.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Schedule 2

Increase in time limits for making claims

“Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977

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

(2) In regulation 12 of those Regulations—

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

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

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

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pension Schemes Act 1993

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

Employment Rights Act 1996

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) in subsection (2)—

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

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

(b) in subsection (5)—

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

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

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

(a) in subsection (2)—

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

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

(b) in subsection (5)—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996

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

(2) In paragraph 3A of that Schedule—

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

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

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

Working Time Regulations 1998

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

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

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

National Minimum Wage Act 1998

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

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

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

Employment Relations Act 1999

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

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

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

Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999

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

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

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

(c) in paragraph (2)—

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

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

(d) omit paragraph (2B).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003

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

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

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

Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agency Workers Regulations 2010

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

Equality Act 2010

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

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

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

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

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

New Schedule 3

Seafarers’ wages and working conditions

“Amendment of Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023

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

Part 1 of the Act: relevant services

2 For the italic heading before section 1 substitute—

‘Part 1

Relevant services’.

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

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

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

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

(d) for subsection (4) substitute—

‘(4) In this Act, “ship”—

(a) includes—

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

(ii) hovercraft;

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

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

4 After section 1 insert—

‘Part 2

Remuneration of seafarers

Chapter 1

Non-qualifying seafarers’.

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

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

6 For the italic heading before section 3 substitute—

‘Chapter 2

National minimum wage equivalence declarations’.

7 In section 3 (request for declaration)—

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

(b) in subsection (1)—

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

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

(c) after subsection (4) insert—

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

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

8 In section 4 (nature of declaration)—

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

(b) after subsection (5) insert—

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

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

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

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

9 After section 4 insert—

‘Chapter 3

Remuneration regulations and declarations

Remuneration regulations

4A Remuneration regulations

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

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

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

(4) Remuneration regulations may apply to—

(a) all relevant services, or

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

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

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

Remuneration declarations

4B Request for remuneration declaration

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

(a) 120 occasions, or

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

during a relevant year (see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”).

(2) The harbour authority must, within such period as is determined by regulations under this subsection, request that the operator of the service provide the authority with a remuneration declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year.

(3) The duty under subsection (2) is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 16(1)(a).

(4) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—

(a) in England and Wales, to a fine, or

(b) in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

4C Nature of remuneration declaration

(1) A remuneration declaration in respect of a service for a relevant year is a declaration within any of subsections (2) to (5).

(2) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided before the beginning of the relevant year and it is to the effect that—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) in what remains of the relevant year—

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

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

(5) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided after the end of the relevant year and it is to the effect that—

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

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

Chapter 4

Chapters 2 and 3: supplementary regulations

4D Regulations about national minimum wage equivalent etc

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) provision relating to currency conversion.

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

(a) section 4, and

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

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

Part 3 of the Act: seafarers’ working conditions

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

‘Part 3

Seafarers’ working conditions

Safe working regulations

4E Safe working regulations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(8) Safe working regulations may apply to—

(a) all relevant services, or

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

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

Safe working declarations

4F Request for safe working declaration

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

(a) 120 occasions, or

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

during a relevant year (see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”).

(2) The harbour authority must, within such period as is determined by regulations under this subsection, request that the operator of the service provide the authority with a safe working declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year.

(3) The duty under subsection (2) is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 16(1)(a).

(4) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—

(a) in England and Wales, to a fine, or

(b) in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

4G Nature of safe working declaration

(1) A safe working declaration in respect of a service for a relevant year is a declaration within any of subsections (2) to (5).

(2) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided before the beginning of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in the relevant year.

(3) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year.

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

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

(b) the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year.

(5) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided after the end of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions were met in relation to the service in the relevant year.

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

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

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

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

(7) References in subsection (6) to the operation of a service include references to its operation outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.’

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

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

‘Part 4

Enforcement of Parts 2 and 3

Offence of operating service inconsistently with declaration’.

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

(a) in subsection (1)—

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

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

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

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

(2) In subsection (1)(a)—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(whichever applies).’

(8) In subsection (6)—

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

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

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

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

(a) in paragraph (a)—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(whichever applies).’

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

(2) In subsection (1)(a)—

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

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

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

(4) In subsection (4)(a)—

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

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

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

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

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

(2) In subsection (1)—

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

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

(3) In subsection (2)—

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

(b) after paragraph (b) insert—

‘(c) for the purposes of Part 3—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 5 of the Act: general and final provisions

20 After section 15 insert—

‘Part 5

General and final provisions’.

21 After section 16 insert—

‘16A Regulations about declarations

(1) Regulations may make provision—

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

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

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

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

22 In section 17 (regulations)—

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

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

‘(i) relevant service,’.

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

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

‘“declaration” (without more) means—

(a) an equivalence declaration,

(b) a remuneration declaration, or

(c) a safe working declaration;’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment of title of the Act

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

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

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

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

Clause 113

Power to make consequential amendments

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

[Greg Smith]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 113 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 115

Regulations

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Greg Smith]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

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

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

[Greg Smith]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 115 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 116

Financial provision

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

[The Chair]

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

[Justin Madders]

Clause 116 simply sets out that expenditure incurred under the terms of the Bill is to be met by supplies from Parliament. Clause 117 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill as introduced. With the exception of clause 25, parts 1, 2 and 4 extend to England, Wales and Scotland; part 3 extends to England and Wales only; and clause 25 and parts 5 and 6 extend to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is also worth noting that amendments or repeals made by the Bill have the same extent as the provision amended or repealed.

Clause 118 sets out the manner in which provisions of the Bill will be commenced. Subsections (1) and (2) set out which provisions come into force on Royal Assent and two months after Royal Assent respectively. In respect of all other provisions, subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the days that such provisions come into force. Finally, clause 119 provides that the short title of the legislation will be the Employment Rights Act.

[Greg Smith]

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 116 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 117

Extent

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

“Part 3 of this Act extends”

substitute

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

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 207.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This amendment is consequential on NS2 and amendment 109.

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

“amended, repealed or revoked.

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

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

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

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

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

Clause 118

Commencement

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

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

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

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

Clause 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Title

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

“Adult Social Care Negotiating Body;”

insert

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

This amendment is consequential on NS3.

Amendment 209, in title, line 6, after

“Adult Social Care Negotiating Body;”

insert

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

This amendment is consequential on NC52.

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

[Justin Madders]

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

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

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

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

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