Draft Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices During the Recognition and Derecognition Process
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 day, 17 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice: Access and Unfair Practices during the Recognition and Derecognition Process.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. The code of practice was laid before the House in draft on 6 July. I will explain to the Committee why we are bringing the code for consideration.
In our plan to make work pay, we made a commitment to simplify the trade union recognition process. The Employment Rights Act 2025 updates the legal framework on statutory trade union recognition, so that workers have a meaningful right to organise through trade unions. That includes having removed, last April, the requirement for a union to demonstrate at the application stage that a majority for union recognition is likely, and having removed the requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the appropriate bargaining unit in support of union recognition.
The 2025 Act also makes changes to provide better access arrangements for unions and it aims to deal more effectively with unfair practices during the recognition and derecognition processes. The Government are therefore updating the 2005 version of this code to ensure that all parties, including employers, workers and unions, understand how the legislative changes on access and unfair practices affect them.
We consulted on the revised code between 4 February and 1 April. The consultation sought views on the clarity of changes made to reflect the updated legal framework, structural amendments to reflect the legislative changes made under the 2025 Act, and other changes made to the code, including updating the guidance within it so that it accurately reflects modern working practices and language.
A number of revisions were made to the existing 2005 code following the consultation. Previously, the code applied only to the recognition or derecognition ballot phase. Now, the draft code reflects the changes made by the 2025 Act to access and unfair practices and it applies from the point where the Central Arbitration Committee accepts an application for recognition or derecognition. The code also reflects a clear timetable for negotiations on access: 20 working days from the point that the CAC accepts a trade union recognition application. If no agreement is reached, the CAC will have 10 working days to determine a reasonable access agreement.
The code has been revised to reflect the fact that the 2025 Act allows five working days after the close of the recognition ballot for complaints to be submitted to the CAC where an unfair practice is alleged. Where such a practice is alleged, the Act makes it easier to determine the complaints by only requiring the CAC to consider whether an unfair practice has occurred, without considering the effect that it may have had. The updated code also increases the suggested access meeting frequency and minimum length of meetings to once every five working days and 45 minutes, respectively, during the access period.
The changes will provide more opportunities for meaningful engagement between the union seeking recognition and the workers within the bargaining unit. That will allow union representatives to answer any questions that the workers may have, before the balloted workforce decides whether to agree to statutory union recognition.
Employers will of course have similar opportunities for engagement with their workers throughout the duration of period. In addition, we have sought to reassure employers, small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, for example by clarifying that the statutory recognition process does not apply to employers that have fewer than 21 workers and that nothing in the revised code will require employers to breach general data protection requirements.
The draft code also provides guidance on what constitutes a good access agreement. It establishes a structured framework covering key areas, such as who may be granted access, how and where access should take place—including digital options—and arrangements relating to timing, frequency, privacy and communication. Finally, the Government have taken the opportunity to bring the code up to date with changes in digital communications. The code now provides significantly more detailed guidance in this area, including guidance on digital access.
The draft code in Committee reflects the updated legal framework for statutory trade union recognition. Together with the 2025 Act, the changes strengthen the collective voice in the workplace, enhance worker representation and help to foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions and employers. I therefore commend the code of practice to the Committee.
Kate Dearden
I welcome the shadow Minister and thank him for his speech and questions. The Government are committed to simplifying and improving the recognition process so that workers have a meaningful right to organise through their trade unions. I am not going to spend this time going back and forth over ideology and principles, why the Employment Rights Act is the right thing to do to drive up the quality of work across every area of this country so that people have the rights that they should expect in the workplace, and that we are updating employment rights legislation so that it is fit for the 21st century. We have spent a lot of time doing that, so I will bring my remarks back to the code that we are discussing today.
The revised code supports part of our wider ambition. It supports the Employment Rights Act to deliver better access arrangements for unions and deals effectively with unfair practices during the recognition and derecognition process. As I said in my opening remarks, we listened carefully to views that were expressed during the consultation earlier this year, and I am happy to respond to the particular questions that the shadow Minister raised today. The Government carefully considered the consultation responses and recognised the concerns that were raised about operational impact. However, we believe that workers should have a meaningful opportunity to hear from union representatives and ask questions before making a decision about recognition. That is why we have retained the proposed frequency and duration of meetings alongside guidance intended to minimise disruption and support those practical arrangements, and amended the code to try to aid clarity and support practical use as far as possible.
We think it is right that we provide a level playing field. Employers have access to the workforce throughout the recognition process. Granting the union access to the workplace from the point where the CAC accepts the recognition claim enables the union to also have access to the workplace from the start of the recognition process, at least once the terms of the access are agreed or determined. We think that that is a fair approach. The costs and benefits in the recognition process and the changes that the shadow Minister referenced in his speech were laid out in the impact assessment; the Government expect the cost to be very low, estimating the annual net cost to business at £0.3 million. The code is statutory guidance; it does not impose further costs on employers beyond what we discussed at length during the passage of the Employment Rights Act.
Turning to the shadow Minister’s questions around unfair practices, the legal definition as to what constitutes an unfair practice has not changed, as he referenced, in the Employment Rights Act:
“Unfair practices are actions by an employer, union, or worker intended to influence the outcome of a recognition ballot. These include bribery, coercion, threats, or actively interfering in union management to sway worker decisions.”
We have clarified in the code some issues to consider around some actions during the recognition process. As he referenced, amending the definition of an unfair practice would require separate legislation, and our priority has been to implement the reforms to the recognition process as soon as possible and on the October timeline, as we promised throughout our road map since the introduction of this legislation.
We want to give time for the reforms to bed in and, should it be necessary in the future, we will bring forward further proposals to amend the definition of an unfair practice in addition to our planned additional unfair practice in relation to e-balloting in recognition and derecognition ballots. This code is a key part of our approach of providing increased worker voices in the workplace, improving pay, conditions and productivity, which enables us to protect workers from the unfair practices that we are discussing today, and improving employer-employee relations in the kind of country and workplaces that we are fighting for and want to build. It makes sure that recognition is fair in terms of the access period. It needed to be updated since that 2005 legislation in line with the ambitions that we have for legislation and the Employment Rights Act.
This is a key part of that agenda, and I believe that the code before colleagues on the Committee today will assist unions and employers in complying with the new statutory requirements on access and unfair practices during the recognition and derecognition process. That is why this code is necessary, and I hope that colleagues can support it today to enable that vision and for this to work practically in workplaces.
Question put.
“Make Work Pay” Plan
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
The world of work has fundamentally changed in recent years. It is no longer the norm for employees to stay in one company, or even a single sector, for their whole career. New technology continues to rapidly transform how we work, where we work, and when we work, and the rise of the gig economy has changed the certainty and stability that employment used to provide.
The Government’s plan to make work pay is bringing employment rights legislation into the 21st century, extending to all the protections that many British companies already offer their workers. Yesterday, the Government updated Parliament on the further progress that we have made on implementing the Employment Rights Act 2025, and published responses to consultations on bereavement leave, flexible working, and the employer duty to inform workers of their right to join a trade union. The Government also published consultations on whistleblowing and tipping.
Today, the UK Government are publishing our consultation on employment status and protections for the self-employed. As part of the plan to make work pay, the Government are committed to ensuring that working people can access the rights and protections to which they are entitled, while supporting a fair, flexible and dynamic labour market.
However, the current employment status framework can be difficult to navigate, requiring individuals and businesses to understand complex legislation and case law. This uncertainty can give rise to bogus self-employment. Evidence suggests that up to 900,000 people may be denied access to core workplace protections, despite working in highly controlled working arrangements. The uncertainty allows some businesses to gain an unfair competitive advantage by failing to meet their legal obligations.
The Government believe that the current framework is not fit for purpose, and there is a strong case for reform. As working practices and business models evolve, the framework must adapt to support our ambition to improve job security, raise living standards and tackle exploitative working practices.
The Government have been clear about their ambition to reform the employment status framework to provide greater certainty and fairness for workers and businesses. Today, we are publishing a consultation on targeted reforms to tackle the most pressing issues in the employment status framework that enable worker exploitation and leave vulnerable workers without core employment protections that they are entitled to.
The Government also committed, in the plan to make work pay, to strengthening rights and protections for the self-employed, recognising the crucial role that they play in our economy. In this consultation, we are seeking views on how the Government can support the self-employed to thrive in good-quality self-employment.
This consultation seeks views on proposals to:
Rebalance the employment status test so that personal service, including the right to substitution, is less decisive and factors such as control are given greater weight when determining worker status. This would help to ensure that individuals under significant control are not denied core employment rights.
Introduce a presumption of worker status and consider the future role of the Fair Work Agency in enforcement to improve compliance with the framework. Presumption of worker status would shift the burden of proof to the engager of an individual to demonstrate that they are genuinely self-employed. This would empower workers, their representatives and agencies seeking to protect them, most notably the Fair Work Agency.
Consider how measures such as a new right to a written statement and the extension of blacklisting and health and safety protections could improve transparency, protections and fairness for the self-employed.
This consultation, and the measures within it, are concerned with the employment status framework for employment rights only, not the framework for tax. The consultation closes on 8 January 2027.
Next steps for consultation
The UK Government have committed to delivering their employment rights reforms in partnership with businesses, trade unions, public sector employers, and civil society. That is why we are undertaking full and comprehensive consultation with these groups on key changes. By delivering these reforms together, we are backing businesses who do the right thing and giving hard-working people the job security and opportunities they deserve. The Government will continue to keep Parliament updated on the implementation of the Employment Rights Act and the plan to make work pay.
[HCWS380]
Plan to Make Work Pay: Implementation
Kate Dearden Excerpts(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
Employment laws have not kept pace with modern working patterns. Too many workers lack the protections they need at work, while responsible businesses face unfair competition from those willing to exploit gaps in outdated employment laws. Our plan to make work pay is modernising employment rights to respond to a changing labour market and create a fairer, more secure economy for workers and businesses. The Employment Rights Act 2025 is extending employment protections already offered by many of Britain’s best employers to millions more workers, helping to raise living standards and support fair competition between businesses.
Many of these reforms are already making a real difference for workers, including the 1.3 million more workers now eligible for statutory sick pay, who previously earned too little to qualify, and the 32,000 fathers and partners who are now entitled to paternity leave from day one in a new job.
In August, electronic and workplace balloting for statutory trade union ballots came into effect. This allows statutory trade union ballots to be conducted electronically and in the workplace, rather than relying solely on postal voting.
Today, the UK Government are outlining further progress in the implementation of the Employment Rights Act 2025, as part of the plan to make work pay, updating Parliament on the publication of Government responses to consultations on bereavement leave, flexible working, and the employer duty to inform workers of their right to join a trade union. This written ministerial statement also provides an overview of the recently launched whistleblowing consultations, and the tipping consultation that was launched during the parliamentary recess. Further detail on each is provided in this statement.
Consultation 1: Whistleblowing
The whistleblowing framework in the Employment Rights Act 1996, which applies in England, Wales and Scotland, protects workers who make disclosures about wrongdoing in the public interest from dismissal or other detriment by their employer.
Many stakeholders have argued that the framework, which has remained largely unchanged since it came into force in 1999, may require reform. They have suggested that protections for workers are insufficient, that employers are not required to have whistleblowing procedures in place, and that the framework can be difficult to navigate for both workers and employers.
The UK Government have therefore launched a consultation to seek evidence and views on a range of potential reforms. The consultation also seeks views on the design of a proposed Serious Fraud Office scheme to provide financial rewards to individuals who report economic crime to the agency, and on associated criminal offences. This is in response to recommendations by Jonathan Fisher KC in part 2 of the independent review of disclosure and fraud offences, published by the Home Office in July 2026.
The consultation launched on 12 October and will run until 8 January 2027.
Consultation 2: Tipping
Too often, workers do not get a say in how tips and service charges are distributed in the workplace. This can make a big difference to what employees take home each month and wider workplace cohesion. This is particularly an issue in the hospitality sector, which makes up one of Britain’s largest workforces. We are changing that by introducing a new requirement for employers to consult with workers at their place of business when developing or revising their written tipping policies.
On 19 August, the UK Government launched a public consultation on tipping, which ran until 29 September. This consultation sought views on the revised statutory code of practice on fair and transparent distribution of tips. The new draft code takes into account: these new requirements on worker consultation and tipping policies; the views expressed during our previous public consultation, which was held between February and April 2026; and other developments in tipping industries since the current regime came into effect in October 2024.
We will carefully consider all representations before bringing into effect a final version before Parliament later this year, thereby enabling workers and employers to effectively exercise these new rights.
Government Response 1: Bereavement Leave
There is currently no statutory right for employees to take bereavement leave following a death or pregnancy loss, except for parents who lose a child aged under 18, or stillborn from 24 weeks. The Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces a power to create a new day one right to bereavement leave for the loss of other loved ones, including pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, guaranteeing employees the right to take time off to grieve and the security of knowing they have the legal right to do so.
The consultation for this entitlement ran for 12 weeks, concluding on 15 January 2026. The consultation sought views on details of the entitlement, such as eligibility criteria, the total duration of leave, the maximum window of time in which the leave must be taken, and the types of pregnancy loss in scope.
The Government response was published on 22 September 2026. It sets out the final details of the bereavement leave entitlement, and the next steps for its implementation. These details will be laid out in secondary legislation and are planned to come into force in April 2027. Measures set out in the response include:
The eligibility criteria, both for pregnancy loss and the loss of other loved ones.
When and how the leave can be taken, including leave length, notice periods and evidence requirements.
Government Response 2: Flexible Working
Despite recent reforms and wider cultural changes, flexible working requests are still handled inconsistently. While in some workplaces, managers and employees are working together to think about where flexibility might be possible, in others, these opportunities are missed.
Through the Employment Rights Act 2025, the UK Government are making changes to strengthen the flexible working framework. The Act introduces a new requirement that employers must only reject requests where it is reasonable to do so and provides powers to set out a statutory process employers must follow before rejecting a request. These changes are intended to improve transparency and accountability by ensuring that employees receive a clear explanation of decisions while supporting more meaningful discussion about whether flexibility can be accommodated.
Earlier this year the UK Government consulted on proposals to improve access to flexible working to shape how these reforms will be implemented in practice. The consultation ran from 5 February until 30 April 2026 and sought views on a new process that employers would be required to follow when considering the rejection of a statutory flexible working request, alongside wider questions about the operation of the flexible working framework and the guidance and support needed to make it work effectively in practice.
The Government response was published on 15 September and sets out feedback on the proposed process we took on board, and confirms plans to bring reforms into effect through secondary legislation. The reforms do not remove employers’ ability to refuse requests where it is reasonable to do so and where the relevant business reasons apply. Instead, they are intended to support better decision making and to encourage meaningful consideration of requests.
Having considered the consultation responses and wider evidence, the Government will now proceed with reforms enabled through the Employment Rights Act 2025.
To achieve this, the Government will:
Introduce secondary legislation setting out a process that employers must follow when considering the rejection of a statutory flexible working request.
Bring the reasonableness test introduced through the Employment Rights Act 2025 into force.
It is our intention that these changes will take effect in autumn 2027. The Government will also consider what other information and guidance may be needed to support implementation of these reforms.
Government Response 3: Employer Duty to Inform Workers of their Right to Join a Trade Union
Workers cannot exercise rights they do not know they have. Too many workers are unaware that they have a legal right to join a trade union. Without clear information, workers may not be in a position to make informed choices about whether trade union membership is right for them.
The Employment Rights Act 2025 addresses this long-standing gap in the legislation by introducing a new duty on employers to provide workers with a written statement about their right to join a trade union. This new duty will help to ensure that workers receive clear and consistent information about their right to join a trade union and are able to make an informed choice about union membership.
A consultation on this duty ran from 23 October to 18 December 2025 and sought views on the practical detail of how the duty should operate to ensure it is clear, proportionate and workable for both employers and workers.
The Government response, which was published on 25 September, confirms the final policy approach, which provides for a standardised statement drafted by Government that employers will be required to give to workers. The statement will include a brief overview of the functions of a trade union, information about recognised trade unions and trade unions with statutory access agreements where applicable, information on the certification officer’s list of trade unions, and a summary of statutory rights in relation to union membership. When implemented, employers must provide the statement to new workers directly, while employers have flexibility in how they provide the statement to existing workers either through direct or indirect delivery.
The duty is planned to come into force on 1 January 2027, with employers required to give the statement to new workers from its introduction and to existing workers by 6 April 2027.
Next Steps for Consultation
The UK Government have committed to delivering their employment rights reforms in partnership with businesses, trade unions, public sector employers, and civil society. That is why we are undertaking full and comprehensive consultation with these groups on key changes. By delivering these reforms together, we are backing businesses that do the right thing and giving hard-working people the job security and opportunities they deserve. The Government will continue to keep Parliament updated on the implementation of the Employment Rights Act and the plan to make work pay.
[HCWS372]
Pubs Code and Pubs Code Adjudicator: Statutory Review
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
In line with the Government’s regulatory action plan, which seeks to ensure the UK’s regulatory system is targeted, proportionate and supports growth, I am today publishing and laying before Parliament the report on the third statutory review of the pubs code and Pubs Code Adjudicator.
The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 provided for the establishment of the pubs code to regulate the relationship between large pub-owning businesses and their tied tenants in England and Wales. The pubs code is found in the Pubs Code etc. Regulations 2016. It governs the relationship between large pub-owning businesses, who have estates of 500 or more tied pubs in England and Wales, and their tied pub tenants.
The code is based on the principles that tied tenants should be treated fairly and that they should not be worse off than they would be if they were free of their tie. The code includes a range of rights and protections for tied tenants in their commercial dealings with their pub-owning business—POB—related to their fair and lawful treatment. The code also gives tenants the right, at certain times, to exercise a market rent only—MRO—option, to change from a tied tenancy to a free-of-tie tenancy, where the rent is set at the market level and the tenant is able to buy products on the open market
The Act requires the Secretary of State to appoint a Pubs Code Adjudicator. The role of the PCA is to enforce the code and to encourage and monitor compliance with its requirements. The PCA can also give advice and guidance, investigate non-compliance with the code, enforce the code where non-compliance is found and arbitrate disputes under the code. Where the PCA finds non-compliance, it can require the publication of information, impose financial penalties or make recommendations.
The Act requires the Secretary of State to review the following every three years: the operation of the pubs code, the performance of the PCA, and the regulations setting the PCA’s costs, fees and financial penalties. This statutory review covers the period from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2025 and draws on publicly available evidence and data published in the Government’s pubs code post-implementation review. It also includes stakeholder views from the Government’s 12-week call for input, which was published on 22 May 2025 and received 36 responses.
This third review found the code to be operating consistently with the two overarching principles set out in the Act: the fair and lawful dealing by pub-owning businesses in relation to their tied pub tenants; and tied tenants not being worse off than they would be if they were not subject to any product or service tie.
While there have been improvements in the professionalisation of support available to tied tenants, the review found that there is some concern with tenants’ ability to access the existing MRO gateways. The review also found that POBs believed MRO hindered their ability to invest and plan for the future of their business.
The Government will therefore develop proposals with stakeholders to introduce additional MRO gateways and further opt-out provisions, with the aim of further strengthening the effectiveness of the pubs code.
With regard to the PCA, the review found the PCA has been broadly effective in enforcing the code over the review period, with particular success in reducing arbitration cases and successfully completing the first investigation under the code. The review however notes that there are areas for improvement. While the Secretary of State does not believe he needs to issue new guidance under the Act, the Government encourage the PCA to act on six areas identified in this statutory review to further improve its effectiveness. As the PCA has now been in existence for over a decade and the current PCA is reaching the end of her second term, the Government will also consider commissioning an independent review of how it protects tied tenants’ rights and fair treatment under the code.
The review further found that no changes were necessary to the related code and PCA fees, costs and penalties as set out in the Pubs Code (Fees, Costs and Financial Penalties) Regulations 2016.
The report on the third statutory review of the pubs code and PCA has today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
[HCWS339]
Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces
Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026.
Kate Dearden
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Stringer.
These regulations were laid before the House on 6 July 2026. The Employment Rights Act 2025 established, for the first time in Great Britain, a statutory framework through which independent trade unions and employers can negotiate agreements for access to workplaces. At present, trade unions have no general independent right of access to workplaces. Where unions cannot reach a voluntary agreement with an employer, they can act only through individual members in a workplace, which can limit their ability to represent workers and facilitate collective bargaining.
The new statutory framework enables unions to access workplaces physically and to communicate with workers, both in person and digitally. It will benefit workers, employers and trade unions alike by supporting constructive engagement, providing greater certainty and creating clearer routes to resolution where access agreements cannot be reached.
The right of access is underpinned by access principles established by the 2025 Act. Those principles recognise that trade union officials should be able to communicate effectively with workers for the statutory access purposes, that employers should take reasonable steps to facilitate access, and that access should be refused entirely only where it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.
The framework encourages employers and trade unions to first reach access agreements through discussion and negotiation. However, where that is not possible via negotiation, the framework enables the union or employer to refer the case to the Central Arbitration Committee, known as the CAC, for a determination on whether access should be granted and on what terms.
The regulations before the Committee provide the practical and operational detail needed for the framework to operate effectively. They establish the procedures for access requests and negotiations, set out the matters the CAC must consider when determining applications, and establish the enforcement framework where statutory access agreements are breached. The accompanying draft code of practice supports employers and trade unions on how the framework should operate in practice, including requests for access, negotiations, digital access and enforcement.
Turning to specific matters included in the regulations, part 3 of the regulations provides that the CAC must refuse an application for statutory access where the employer has fewer than 21 workers. That threshold aligns the access framework with the existing statutory recognition regime in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Applying a consistent threshold across those closely related frameworks provides greater clarity for employers, workers, unions and the CAC, while recognising the operational and administrative challenges that the smallest employers may face. That is why employers with fewer than 21 workers fall outside the scope of CAC-imposed access agreements.
Regarding the practical operation of access agreements, the Government have been clear that access must operate in a way that is compatible with the legitimate operational needs of employers. Access is therefore not unrestricted and cannot unreasonably interfere with an employer’s operation. Access will take place under an agreement setting out where, when and how it may be exercised.
Union officials will need to take account of relevant operational, health, safety, security and safeguarding requirements. Part 3 of the regulations sets out certain circumstances where it is to be regarded as reasonable for the CAC to refuse access, and circumstances where access must be refused altogether, including where the CAC considers that necessary in the interests of national security or to avoid prejudice to the prevention, detection or prosecution of criminal offences.
We recognise that different workplaces face different operational realities. What may be appropriate in an office environment may not be appropriate in a customer-facing business, on a construction site or in a high-security workplace. The framework therefore requires access agreements to reflect the circumstances of the workplace concerned.
I turn to frequency of access. Part 3 of the regulations and the draft code identify weekly access as one of the model access terms. The Government’s view is that access agreements should provide a genuine opportunity for trade unions to communicate with workers, rather than access being so infrequent that its practical value is limited. The Government consider weekly access to provide an appropriate level of regularity to support effective engagement between trade unions and workers. It helps to maintain continuity of engagement, increases the likelihood that union representatives can reach workers across different shifts and working patterns and provides employers with a predictable and structured pattern of engagement. Weekly access is not mandatory, and trade unions and employers remain free to negotiate arrangements that reflect the circumstances of the workplace and the workforce concerned.
Part 4 of the regulations specifies the maximum financial penalties that the CAC may impose on the liable party and the factors it must consider when determining the exact penalty amount. It is important to emphasise that financial penalties are not available at the initial complaint stage, and the framework is designed first to provide the liable party with the opportunity to remedy their actions and secure compliance. The CAC may require the liable party to take specified steps to ensure that access takes place in accordance with the agreement.
Financial penalties become available only where there is subsequent non-compliance after the CAC has already intervened. The framework adopts a graduated approach. The maximum penalty is £75,000 for a first penalty order, £150,000 for a second and £500,000 for subsequent penalty orders under the same access agreement. These are maximum amounts, not automatic penalties, and the CAC must consider factors including the nature and gravity of the breach and the number of workers affected. That ensures that penalties can be tailored to the particular circumstances of the case, while providing the CAC with meaningful powers to address deliberate and repeated non-compliance where necessary.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the new access framework operates effectively in practice. That is why, alongside the statutory review requirements contained in the regulations, we have committed to reviewing the operation of the framework within six months of implementation. The review will consider how the framework is functioning in practice, in consultation with trade unions, employers and the CAC.
The regulations and the code of practice establish the operational and procedural framework for a new statutory right of access and establish clear routes for determination and enforcement where agreement cannot be reached or an agreement is subsequently breached. Crucially, the framework enables unions to engage with workers in person or digitally for the purposes of representation, support, recruitment, organisation, and collective bargaining and delivers on our commitment to strengthen fair and constructive industrial relations as part of our plan to make work pay. I therefore commend the regulations and the code of practice to the Committee.
The Chair
To clarify, the debate is on both instruments. At the end of the debate, the Committee will vote on the first instrument. I will then ask the Minister to move the second instrument formally, and we will vote on that.
Kate Dearden
I thank all colleagues for their contributions during this debate; they are very much appreciated. The scrutiny offered has been constructive too, so I thank all colleagues for their speeches and interventions.
I will start off with the reflections from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, particularly around growth. As a principle and a starting point, the argument that workers’ rights are bad for growth is just a false choice. A modern economy needs productive workplaces; it needs good communication and a workforce who feel that their voice has been heard. This framework supports those things. That is exactly what we are discussing today.
We are asking business to engage with a lawful process, with clear rules and safeguards; I hope that my introductory speech outlined many of those in detail. The draft code is designed to make access practical, exactly for that purpose: it encourages those voluntary agreements first and provides a clear route to resolve disagreements where they cannot be reached.
Good employment relations are the foundation of productivity for our country. We truly believe that the two go hand in hand in terms of growth, workers’ rights and building our economy. The shadow Minister referenced SMEs in particular, and I thank him for doing so.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like to declare an interest as the vice-chair of the Unison group of MPs. The Minister rightly says that it is a false choice between good employment relations or growing the economy. Would she also accept that it is a false choice to say that people in a company with more than 21 employees should have access rights and those with fewer than 21 should not? That is still a choice by the Government and it suggests that workers in smaller companies are somehow less likely to be exploited by their employers than those in larger companies.
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which is appreciated. I outlined the rationale for the threshold aligning with the statutory recognition framework. Below the 21-worker threshold, they are still voluntary, and many trade unions are recognising smaller and micro employers. Where we can encourage good co-operation and working with trade unions, we will always do that.
As I said, SMEs in particular are the backbone of our economy—I come from a small business family and know just how hard small businesses work, day in, day out for our communities and in all our constituencies.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful for the Minister’s engagement, but can I point out a practical problem in the context of seafarers? With the vast majority of the merchant fleet not flagged with GB owners, the problem—including on the ferries and so on that are working out of British ports for more than 120 days a year—is that there is a relatively small number of UK-based seafarers, perhaps fewer than 21, among the complement of a crew. The Government have set that arbitrary figure, and I can understand what the Minister is saying in relation to small businesses more generally on terra firma, but I think a bit of flexibility needs to be applied in the maritime setting.
While I am on my feet—forgive me, Mr Stringer; I do not want to interrupt again—we are seeking assurances in relation to that threshold and the fines that were being applied. If the Minister is unable to give that assurance within the context of these statutory instruments, could we could press for a meeting with the Minister so that we can explore the options that might be available?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend and promise him that I will get to his points—particularly on seafarers as well as the wider review—shortly. I will respond and touch on a lot of those points, and I hope that colleagues always know that I am available for conversations on all areas of my brief.
The shadow Minister raised small businesses. I have touched on how important they are and how committed we are to working with them, whether under the Employment Rights Act or across our Department and Government. On the ERA, as he mentioned, we are working closely with SMEs, particularly on the consultations. We are hearing their views and their considerations are essential to all our work. We are providing that guidance and working closely with ACAS to provide training, support and resources.
The phased implementation has been really important throughout the past two years in terms of guidance of when changes will be introduced under the Employment Rights Act. We are absolutely committed to working closely with our small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy. In addition, we are giving them support, whether it is in small business strategy, the work we are doing on payments, access to finance or open opportunities for exports and trade. We are always keen to work with our small businesses and give them the support that they need.
Before I respond to the contribution from colleagues on my side of the Committee, for which I thank them again, I want to say that the Conservatives often talk about workers’ rights. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, mentioned the pro-worker, pro-business angle, which I have addressed consistently in the approach to this legislation, but he mentioned workers’ rights as though they are a threat to business. As discussed in detail in a delegated legislation Committee yesterday, good employment relations are a sign of strength and a successful economy. That is part of our promise to strengthen workers’ rights. These regulations give trade unions the proper power and ability to organise, while keeping the clear safeguards that I mentioned in my opening remarks. That is how we have arrived at a sensible and proportionate framework.
I thank my hon. Friends, who raised a number of issues. I absolutely share their ambition for a strong and effective right of access. These regulations are an important part of making that right real. We will judge the framework on whether it helps workers to organise in practice and gives them a meaningful route to deliver the policy objectives set out in the Employment Rights Act, which many colleagues have spoken about today.
Engaging with workers for those statutory access purposes is essential. That is why, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have committed to a review within six months of implementation. It will look at many of the practical issues that colleagues have raised, including the operation of the enforcement regime, and whether the penalty regime remains proportionate and effective in encouraging compliance.
Gareth Snell
The Minister says that there will be a review within six months, but can she be clearer to give us certainty? Will it start within six months or will it have concluded within six months? If it starts within six months, how long does she anticipate it will take? I am sadly old enough to remember Government reviews that started within six months and took two and a half years. As she knows, I nag her about others on her desk that have been there for two and a half years. When will we get the outcome of the review? The review itself is important, but we will all be more interested in the consequences of any changes that come from it.
Kate Dearden
We have committed to reviewing the framework within six months of implementation, and I will work closely with my hon. Friend on the timeline and what the review will look like. I know that, like other hon. Members, he is keen to be kept updated on that. I commit to working closely with him on it, and to providing him with updates as much as I can. The review will consider the 21-worker threshold, CAC decision making, model terms, digital access and joint applications. I thank hon. Members for the points they raised on that.
I thank hon. Members for mentioning seafarers, and particularly the concerns raised by the RMT. As a starting point, I am happy to commit to engaging further with colleagues and with maritime trade unions on access provisions.
Jen Craft
Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest, an organisation in my constituency, does excellent work with seafarers. It has shared some truly horrific stories about conditions on board falling below what we would expect. It has flagged that those conditions can stray into the realm of violence against women and girls. Without adequate protections for UK seafarers—particularly women seafarers—we risk making the situation worse. I would be very grateful if the Minister met me and Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest in my patch to talk about some of those things.
Kate Dearden
I can absolutely commit to following up and meeting my hon. Friend, her constituents and those involved. I thank her for making me aware of that issue in Committee.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I declare my union activity as a former member of the National Union of Journalists. I do not miss it at all; it did nothing for me and took money out of my wages. My father was a marine engineer, and when he joined British Petroleum in the ’60s, the number of British-flagged ships that BP had alone was greater than the entire number of British-flagged ships in the modern era. If the Government are so concerned about British sailors on British ships, should they be looking at the way British ships are registered? Other countries use their systems to generate revenue, while registering a ship in this country is a very expensive burden. Should we be looking at how to get more ships under the red ensign?
Kate Dearden
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has raised his concerns directly with the Minister responsible for that sector.
In respect of the access requirement, I hope that hon. Members have heard my commitment to follow up and engage with them further. That invitation extends to our engagement with maritime trade unions on access provisions, particularly in the context of seafarers and merchant shipping with a close connection to the UK. I absolutely commit to that today, and it will form part of the review following implementation. Through our wider employment rights legislation, we are absolutely committed to protecting the working conditions of those working abroad, with international services frequently calling at UK ports. I hope that hon. Members welcome the reassurance on follow-up and review.
I have covered lots of hon. Members’ questions, but I am always happy to follow up. I hope the Committee agrees that the regulations and the accompanying code of practice strike the appropriate balance. We commit to further follow-up in reviewing how the legislation plays out in practice, so as to absolutely meet the intention outlined in the Act.
Gareth Snell
The Minister has not touched on the cap on fines for big companies. Does she think that is sufficient? Amazon’s turnover this year was £30 billion—that is 30,000 million. The maximum fine that it could get in a calendar year is half a million pounds—one sixty-thousandth of its turnover. That is the equivalent of MPs being fined £1.50 of our parliamentary salary. Does she honestly believe that level of potential fine to be a deterrent from bad behaviour?
Kate Dearden
I hope that my hon. Friend heard that, in the review, we will absolutely focus on the enforcement regime, including whether the penalty regime he mentions—and the example that he refers to—remains proportionate and effective in encouraging compliance. It is important that we build that into the review. Let us see how it works in practice. Clearly, where the CAC needs further support, we will review that. Seeing how the policy plays out in practice will form an essential part of our review.
As I have mentioned, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the new rights operate effectively in the workplace, and the review is a key part of that. This is an essential and significant moment in industrial relations across the UK. We want to foster good practice. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to the consultations, and worked with me and my brilliant officials in the Department, to ensure that the regulations could be brought to the House today and come into effect next month.
We want to ensure that the legislation is effective, proportionate and suited to the realities of modern workplaces. It is a shame that the Conservatives cannot support us today. My question for them is: do they believe that workers should be able to hear from an independent trade union in their workplace? That is exactly what the legislation is about. I commend the regulations and the code of practice to the Committee.
Bradley Thomas
On a point of order, Mr Stringer. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, who is sat next to me, does not appear on the cast list. How does that affect the vote?
Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces;
Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026.
Kate Dearden
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Stringer.
These regulations were laid before the House on 6 July 2026. The Employment Rights Act 2025 established, for the first time in Great Britain, a statutory framework through which independent trade unions and employers can negotiate agreements for access to workplaces. At present, trade unions have no general independent right of access to workplaces. Where unions cannot reach a voluntary agreement with an employer, they can act only through individual members in a workplace, which can limit their ability to represent workers and facilitate collective bargaining.
The new statutory framework enables unions to access workplaces physically and to communicate with workers, both in person and digitally. It will benefit workers, employers and trade unions alike by supporting constructive engagement, providing greater certainty and creating clearer routes to resolution where access agreements cannot be reached.
The right of access is underpinned by access principles established by the 2025 Act. Those principles recognise that trade union officials should be able to communicate effectively with workers for the statutory access purposes, that employers should take reasonable steps to facilitate access, and that access should be refused entirely only where it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.
The framework encourages employers and trade unions to first reach access agreements through discussion and negotiation. However, where that is not possible via negotiation, the framework enables the union or employer to refer the case to the Central Arbitration Committee, known as the CAC, for a determination on whether access should be granted and on what terms.
The regulations before the Committee provide the practical and operational detail needed for the framework to operate effectively. They establish the procedures for access requests and negotiations, set out the matters the CAC must consider when determining applications, and establish the enforcement framework where statutory access agreements are breached. The accompanying draft code of practice supports employers and trade unions on how the framework should operate in practice, including requests for access, negotiations, digital access and enforcement.
Turning to specific matters included in the regulations, part 3 of the regulations provides that the CAC must refuse an application for statutory access where the employer has fewer than 21 workers. That threshold aligns the access framework with the existing statutory recognition regime in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Applying a consistent threshold across those closely related frameworks provides greater clarity for employers, workers, unions and the CAC, while recognising the operational and administrative challenges that the smallest employers may face. That is why employers with fewer than 21 workers fall outside the scope of CAC-imposed access agreements.
Regarding the practical operation of access agreements, the Government have been clear that access must operate in a way that is compatible with the legitimate operational needs of employers. Access is therefore not unrestricted and cannot unreasonably interfere with an employer’s operation. Access will take place under an agreement setting out where, when and how it may be exercised.
Union officials will need to take account of relevant operational, health, safety, security and safeguarding requirements. Part 3 of the regulations sets out certain circumstances where it is to be regarded as reasonable for the CAC to refuse access, and circumstances where access must be refused altogether, including where the CAC considers that necessary in the interests of national security or to avoid prejudice to the prevention, detection or prosecution of criminal offences.
We recognise that different workplaces face different operational realities. What may be appropriate in an office environment may not be appropriate in a customer-facing business, on a construction site or in a high-security workplace. The framework therefore requires access agreements to reflect the circumstances of the workplace concerned.
I turn to frequency of access. Part 3 of the regulations and the draft code identify weekly access as one of the model access terms. The Government’s view is that access agreements should provide a genuine opportunity for trade unions to communicate with workers, rather than access being so infrequent that its practical value is limited. The Government consider weekly access to provide an appropriate level of regularity to support effective engagement between trade unions and workers. It helps to maintain continuity of engagement, increases the likelihood that union representatives can reach workers across different shifts and working patterns and provides employers with a predictable and structured pattern of engagement. Weekly access is not mandatory, and trade unions and employers remain free to negotiate arrangements that reflect the circumstances of the workplace and the workforce concerned.
Part 4 of the regulations specifies the maximum financial penalties that the CAC may impose on the liable party and the factors it must consider when determining the exact penalty amount. It is important to emphasise that financial penalties are not available at the initial complaint stage, and the framework is designed first to provide the liable party with the opportunity to remedy their actions and secure compliance. The CAC may require the liable party to take specified steps to ensure that access takes place in accordance with the agreement.
Financial penalties become available only where there is subsequent non-compliance after the CAC has already intervened. The framework adopts a graduated approach. The maximum penalty is £75,000 for a first penalty order, £150,000 for a second and £500,000 for subsequent penalty orders under the same access agreement. These are maximum amounts, not automatic penalties, and the CAC must consider factors including the nature and gravity of the breach and the number of workers affected. That ensures that penalties can be tailored to the particular circumstances of the case, while providing the CAC with meaningful powers to address deliberate and repeated non-compliance where necessary.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the new access framework operates effectively in practice. That is why, alongside the statutory review requirements contained in the regulations, we have committed to reviewing the operation of the framework within six months of implementation. The review will consider how the framework is functioning in practice, in consultation with trade unions, employers and the CAC.
The regulations and the code of practice establish the operational and procedural framework for a new statutory right of access and establish clear routes for determination and enforcement where agreement cannot be reached or an agreement is subsequently breached. Crucially, the framework enables unions to engage with workers in person or digitally for the purposes of representation, support, recruitment, organisation, and collective bargaining and delivers on our commitment to strengthen fair and constructive industrial relations as part of our plan to make work pay. I therefore commend the regulations and the code of practice to the Committee.
The Chair
To clarify, the debate is on both instruments. At the end of the debate, the Committee will vote on the first instrument. I will then ask the Minister to move the second instrument formally, and we will vote on that.
Kate Dearden
I thank all colleagues for their contributions during this debate; they are very much appreciated. The scrutiny offered has been constructive too, so I thank all colleagues for their speeches and interventions.
I will start off with the reflections from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, particularly around growth. As a principle and a starting point, the argument that workers’ rights are bad for growth is just a false choice. A modern economy needs productive workplaces; it needs good communication and a workforce who feel that their voice has been heard. This framework supports those things. That is exactly what we are discussing today.
We are asking business to engage with a lawful process, with clear rules and safeguards; I hope that my introductory speech outlined many of those in detail. The draft code is designed to make access practical, exactly for that purpose: it encourages those voluntary agreements first and provides a clear route to resolve disagreements where they cannot be reached.
Good employment relations are the foundation of productivity for our country. We truly believe that the two go hand in hand in terms of growth, workers’ rights and building our economy. The shadow Minister referenced SMEs in particular, and I thank him for doing so.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like to declare an interest as the vice-chair of the Unison group of MPs. The Minister rightly says that it is a false choice between good employment relations or growing the economy. Would she also accept that it is a false choice to say that people in a company with more than 21 employees should have access rights and those with fewer than 21 should not? That is still a choice by the Government and it suggests that workers in smaller companies are somehow less likely to be exploited by their employers than those in larger companies.
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which is appreciated. I outlined the rationale for the threshold aligning with the statutory recognition framework. Below the 21-worker threshold, they are still voluntary, and many trade unions are recognising smaller and micro employers. Where we can encourage good co-operation and working with trade unions, we will always do that.
As I said, SMEs in particular are the backbone of our economy—I come from a small business family and know just how hard small businesses work, day in, day out for our communities and in all our constituencies.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful for the Minister’s engagement, but can I point out a practical problem in the context of seafarers? With the vast majority of the merchant fleet not flagged with GB owners, the problem—including on the ferries and so on that are working out of British ports for more than 120 days a year—is that there is a relatively small number of UK-based seafarers, perhaps fewer than 21, among the complement of a crew. The Government have set that arbitrary figure, and I can understand what the Minister is saying in relation to small businesses more generally on terra firma, but I think a bit of flexibility needs to be applied in the maritime setting.
While I am on my feet—forgive me, Mr Stringer; I do not want to interrupt again—we are seeking assurances in relation to that threshold and the fines that were being applied. If the Minister is unable to give that assurance within the context of these statutory instruments, could we could press for a meeting with the Minister so that we can explore the options that might be available?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend and promise him that I will get to his points—particularly on seafarers as well as the wider review—shortly. I will respond and touch on a lot of those points, and I hope that colleagues always know that I am available for conversations on all areas of my brief.
The shadow Minister raised small businesses. I have touched on how important they are and how committed we are to working with them, whether under the Employment Rights Act or across our Department and Government. On the ERA, as he mentioned, we are working closely with SMEs, particularly on the consultations. We are hearing their views and their considerations are essential to all our work. We are providing that guidance and working closely with ACAS to provide training, support and resources.
The phased implementation has been really important throughout the past two years in terms of guidance of when changes will be introduced under the Employment Rights Act. We are absolutely committed to working closely with our small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy. In addition, we are giving them support, whether it is in small business strategy, the work we are doing on payments, access to finance or open opportunities for exports and trade. We are always keen to work with our small businesses and give them the support that they need.
Before I respond to the contribution from colleagues on my side of the Committee, for which I thank them again, I want to say that the Conservatives often talk about workers’ rights. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, mentioned the pro-worker, pro-business angle, which I have addressed consistently in the approach to this legislation, but he mentioned workers’ rights as though they are a threat to business. As discussed in detail in a delegated legislation Committee yesterday, good employment relations are a sign of strength and a successful economy. That is part of our promise to strengthen workers’ rights. These regulations give trade unions the proper power and ability to organise, while keeping the clear safeguards that I mentioned in my opening remarks. That is how we have arrived at a sensible and proportionate framework.
I thank my hon. Friends, who raised a number of issues. I absolutely share their ambition for a strong and effective right of access. These regulations are an important part of making that right real. We will judge the framework on whether it helps workers to organise in practice and gives them a meaningful route to deliver the policy objectives set out in the Employment Rights Act, which many colleagues have spoken about today.
Engaging with workers for those statutory access purposes is essential. That is why, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have committed to a review within six months of implementation. It will look at many of the practical issues that colleagues have raised, including the operation of the enforcement regime, and whether the penalty regime remains proportionate and effective in encouraging compliance.
Gareth Snell
The Minister says that there will be a review within six months, but can she be clearer to give us certainty? Will it start within six months or will it have concluded within six months? If it starts within six months, how long does she anticipate it will take? I am sadly old enough to remember Government reviews that started within six months and took two and a half years. As she knows, I nag her about others on her desk that have been there for two and a half years. When will we get the outcome of the review? The review itself is important, but we will all be more interested in the consequences of any changes that come from it.
Kate Dearden
We have committed to reviewing the framework within six months of implementation, and I will work closely with my hon. Friend on the timeline and what the review will look like. I know that, like other hon. Members, he is keen to be kept updated on that. I commit to working closely with him on it, and to providing him with updates as much as I can. The review will consider the 21-worker threshold, CAC decision making, model terms, digital access and joint applications. I thank hon. Members for the points they raised on that.
I thank hon. Members for mentioning seafarers, and particularly the concerns raised by the RMT. As a starting point, I am happy to commit to engaging further with colleagues and with maritime trade unions on access provisions.
Jen Craft
Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest, an organisation in my constituency, does excellent work with seafarers. It has shared some truly horrific stories about conditions on board falling below what we would expect. It has flagged that those conditions can stray into the realm of violence against women and girls. Without adequate protections for UK seafarers—particularly women seafarers—we risk making the situation worse. I would be very grateful if the Minister met me and Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest in my patch to talk about some of those things.
Kate Dearden
I can absolutely commit to following up and meeting my hon. Friend, her constituents and those involved. I thank her for making me aware of that issue in Committee.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I declare my union activity as a former member of the National Union of Journalists. I do not miss it at all; it did nothing for me and took money out of my wages. My father was a marine engineer, and when he joined British Petroleum in the ’60s, the number of British-flagged ships that BP had alone was greater than the entire number of British-flagged ships in the modern era. If the Government are so concerned about British sailors on British ships, should they be looking at the way British ships are registered? Other countries use their systems to generate revenue, while registering a ship in this country is a very expensive burden. Should we be looking at how to get more ships under the red ensign?
Kate Dearden
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has raised his concerns directly with the Minister responsible for that sector.
In respect of the access requirement, I hope that hon. Members have heard my commitment to follow up and engage with them further. That invitation extends to our engagement with maritime trade unions on access provisions, particularly in the context of seafarers and merchant shipping with a close connection to the UK. I absolutely commit to that today, and it will form part of the review following implementation. Through our wider employment rights legislation, we are absolutely committed to protecting the working conditions of those working abroad, with international services frequently calling at UK ports. I hope that hon. Members welcome the reassurance on follow-up and review.
I have covered lots of hon. Members’ questions, but I am always happy to follow up. I hope the Committee agrees that the regulations and the accompanying code of practice strike the appropriate balance. We commit to further follow-up in reviewing how the legislation plays out in practice, so as to absolutely meet the intention outlined in the Act.
Gareth Snell
The Minister has not touched on the cap on fines for big companies. Does she think that is sufficient? Amazon’s turnover this year was £30 billion—that is 30,000 million. The maximum fine that it could get in a calendar year is half a million pounds—one sixty-thousandth of its turnover. That is the equivalent of MPs being fined £1.50 of our parliamentary salary. Does she honestly believe that level of potential fine to be a deterrent from bad behaviour?
Kate Dearden
I hope that my hon. Friend heard that, in the review, we will absolutely focus on the enforcement regime, including whether the penalty regime he mentions—and the example that he refers to—remains proportionate and effective in encouraging compliance. It is important that we build that into the review. Let us see how it works in practice. Clearly, where the CAC needs further support, we will review that. Seeing how the policy plays out in practice will form an essential part of our review.
As I have mentioned, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the new rights operate effectively in the workplace, and the review is a key part of that. This is an essential and significant moment in industrial relations across the UK. We want to foster good practice. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to the consultations, and worked with me and my brilliant officials in the Department, to ensure that the regulations could be brought to the House today and come into effect next month.
We want to ensure that the legislation is effective, proportionate and suited to the realities of modern workplaces. It is a shame that the Conservatives cannot support us today. My question for them is: do they believe that workers should be able to hear from an independent trade union in their workplace? That is exactly what the legislation is about. I commend the regulations and the code of practice to the Committee.
Bradley Thomas
On a point of order, Mr Stringer. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, who is sat next to me, does not appear on the cast list. How does that affect the vote?
Draft ACAS Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Acas Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Jeremy. The measure was laid in draft before this House on 6 July 2026. This Government are resetting and modernising our industrial relations framework. We believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. The Government want to ensure that trade union workplace representatives can take sufficient reasonable paid time off and have sufficient access to facilities to enable them to fulfil their union representative duties.
The Acas code of practice, issued under section 199 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, provides practical guidance on reasonable paid time off and access to accommodation and other facilities that employees who are trade union representatives are entitled to take to fulfil their trade union duties. The code has been updated following the changes introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025, which strengthened and introduced rights for employees who are trade union representatives.
There are three key changes made by the Employment Rights Act to the existing statutory framework. First, it strengthens the existing right to reasonable paid facility time for trade union representatives to carry out their duties. The legislation now makes it clear that, where a request is made, it should generally be treated as reasonable, and it is for the employer to demonstrate otherwise if challenged in a tribunal. Secondly, there is a statutory provision that representatives should be provided with reasonable access to facilities, such as meeting spaces, communication tools and appropriate workplace resources, to enable them to carry out their duties or undergo relevant training. Thirdly, the Act introduces a new right for trade union equality representatives to reasonable paid time off for specified equality-related purposes.
Those changes are due to take effect on 30 October. The code has been updated to reflect the changes and support effective and smooth implementation when these new rights come into force in October. It provides clear, accessible guidance to employers, trade unions and representatives on how the statutory framework should operate in practice.
The code sets out in practical terms how these rights should be applied, covering matters such as the kinds of activities that fall under the statutory duties and purposes, factors that might make a request reasonable or not, how unions and employers should communicate about arrangements for time off, and the agreement of arrangements between employers and unions. Importantly, the code supports constructive engagement between employers and unions. The intention is not to prescribe rigid rules but to encourage that co-operation and clarity, so that arrangements work for employers, businesses and trade unions.
The code provides clear guidance that will give employers confidence in how to approach requests, and will help representatives to understand how to exercise their rights appropriately. In that sense, the laying of this code is a necessary step to ensure that the changes made by the 2025 Act operate as intended from day one. I therefore support this code of practice and commend it to the House.
Kate Dearden
I welcome the shadow Minister to his role and to the Committee. I look forward to working with him and debating many issues—this one in particular. He spoke a lot about industrial action. I always find it quite rich when the Opposition talk about strike days, because on their watch they did absolutely nothing to further good industrial relations in this country. That is a real shame, because it is a detriment not only to those employers but to trade unions, our society and our economy as a whole. That is why this Government are absolutely acting responsibly.
I will come to the issue that we are debating today, but let me first say that we recognise the need to make sure that our wider industrial relations framework is functioning so that we can resolve disputes in the workplace early. That is good for businesses, employers and trade unions, so enforcement and ensuring we have negotiation skills across the workplace are really important.
What the Government are doing to reset industrial relations is responsible. We are modernising our wider framework, alongside passing lots of legislation, including the instrument that we are discussing today, and helping to usher in a more co-operative and constructive approach among employers, workers and their unions. I think that is a really good thing.
Bradley Thomas
Does the Minister accept that in settling trade disputes, the Government should emphasise increases in productivity, not just blanket above-inflation pay rises?
Kate Dearden
I will not be drawn on the ins and outs of every single dispute that is happening in the industrial relations landscape. I will bring us back to what a responsible Government are doing: fostering good industrial relations, which is absolutely the right thing to do. Unfortunately, perhaps the shadow Minister and I just disagree on that point.
Let me bring us back to the draft Acas code of practice. The statutory instrument will ensure that employers have the guidance they need based on what was passed in the Employment Rights Act. It is a necessary step so that employers have the guidance to facilitate the legislation and understand their duties. It is really important to provide that guidance and clarity.
We have already touched on the ability to resolve grievances early, and it is really good and positive for reps to have more ability to spend time on doing that in the workplace. In addition, they can improve communication, support workplace training and prevent disputes. That is great workplace value, and that is what we want to foster going forward.
The measure we are debating is necessary and the right step to take. As I said in my introductory speech, we want to make sure that the code plays a key role in ensuring that the new rights introduced in the Act passed last year can operate effectively in practice from the point at which they come into force next month. I hope the code of practice will be approved. It is a real shame that the Opposition cannot support us today.
Corporate Reporting Modernisation: Consultation
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I am pleased to announce that today the Government have launched a public consultation on modernising corporate reporting. As announced in the House in October 2025 by Minister McDougall, this is a significant step in our programme to simplify, streamline and modernise the UK’s corporate reporting framework.
The consultation sets out the Government’s proposals on how to reset the purpose of company annual reports and accounts, ensuring they provide decision-useful, financially material information for investors, creditors and others It also invites views on creating a more proportionate, flexible and modern reporting framework, including:
simplifying strategic, governance and remuneration reporting;
moving towards a more proportionate financial reporting regime;
focusing non-financial disclosures on what is genuinely material; and
embedding digital-first corporate communications where appropriate.
These reforms, among others, are intended to remove duplication and unnecessary requirements, improve clarity for preparers and users and future-proof the UK’s reporting system, consistent with international developments. By simplifying and refocusing corporate reporting on decision-useful information, the proposed reforms in the consultation aim to improve and attract capital allocation, reduce unnecessary burdens on business and help unlock investment that drives growth across the UK economy.
The programme builds on the Government’s previous work on non-financial reporting and expands it into a wider review of the entire corporate reporting landscape. Many of the reforms test the value of non-financial and governance disclosures, particularly for private companies, and explore more coherent thresholds governing when reporting applies.
Next steps
The consultation opens today and will remain open for 12 weeks. Following the consultation period, the Government will move quickly to analyse responses, refine policy proposals, and set out additional next steps including any proposed legislative or regulatory changes.
I will place copies of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses and it will be published on www.gov.uk
[HCWS313]
Draft Protection Against Detriment (Industrial Action) Regulations 2026
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Protection Against Detriment (Industrial Action) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. This draft instrument was laid before the House on 24 June 2026 and relates to protection against detriment for workers taking protected industrial action under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It is being introduced to provide essential protection to workers, ensuring that they can take industrial action without being treated unfairly by their employer as a result.
The 2024 Supreme Court judgment in Secretary of State for Business and Trade v. Mercer ruled that the current protections from detriment for trade union activity under section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act do not extend to protected industrial action. As a result, the Supreme Court made a declaration of incompatibility between UK legislation and article 11 of the European convention on human rights, the right to free association. This means that there is a gap in the law that could enable bad faith employers to unfairly penalise workers taking industrial action.
While it should always be treated as a last resort, this Government believe that industrial action is an integral and vital part of a worker’s right to express their collective voice if they choose to. If a worker does choose to take industrial action, it is essential that employers treat them fairly and with respect, as the vast majority of employers have always done. This draft instrument remedies the existing gap in the law, enabling workers to take industrial action without being at risk of suffering detriment as a result. It also ensures that UK law regarding detriments will be compatible with the European convention on human rights.
The draft protection against detriment regulations are made under section 236A of the 1992 Act, which was introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025. The draft regulations, taken together with section 236A of the 1992 Act, prohibit all detriments to which an employer can subject a worker for the sole or main purpose of penalising, preventing or deterring protected industrial action.
This Government are committed to protecting workers who take industrial action while ensuring that employers are not unduly affected. The vast majority of employers already act responsibly and do not impose detriments on workers for taking industrial action. The draft legislation therefore targets the rare cases where such treatment may occur, without disrupting the day-to-day running of responsible businesses. That is why this legislation prohibits only detriments for the sole or main purpose of penalising, preventing or deterring industrial action.
That means that during a period of industrial action, ordinary business practices will not be banned as long as they are not used for the sole or main purpose of preventing, penalising or deterring a worker from taking industrial action. For example, disciplinary action may still be taken against a worker who has committed misconduct unrelated to strike action during an ongoing period of strike action. Employers will still be able to manage industrial action in ways that do not involve imposing a legal detriment. Examples of that include proactive negotiation prior to industrial action commencing and contingency planning to mitigate the impact.
Turning to the issue of deduction of pay following industrial action, in common law the principle of “No work, no pay” applies. This means that if a worker does not attend work for a day due to taking industrial action, the employer is under no obligation to pay them for that day. The draft regulations state that they do not affect that common law position. The rules enabling the deduction of pay on account of a worker having taken part in protected industrial action will remain as they are.
The draft statutory instrument also adds section 236A of the 1992 Act to the list of claims in schedule A2 to that Act. Detriments claims will therefore be added to the list of claims in schedule A2. For claims in this list, an employment tribunal is able to increase or decrease compensation awards by 25%, depending on whether the employer or worker has failed to follow the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. This will encourage fairness and co-operation by both employers and workers and will help timely resolution of disputes to allow employers to return to usual business as quickly as possible.
This statutory instrument is essential to provide workers with sufficient protection when exercising their fundamental right to take industrial action, and to make UK legislation compatible with the European convention on human rights. It prevents the door being left open for the very small number of bad faith employers who might exploit the gap in legislation that was highlighted by that Supreme Court judgment, while still allowing good faith employers to deal with industrial action in a non-punitive manner and enabling them to continue to use normal business practices during industrial action. I therefore commend this instrument to the House, and I trust that Members will support it.
The Chair
Before I call the Opposition spokesperson, let me place on record my thanks to him for the assiduous way he has dealt with delegated legislation when I have been in the Chair, and I wish him good luck in his new role. I call the shadow Minister.
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks; it has been a pleasure to debate him in numerous secondary legislation Committees. He is always diligent with his questions and his scrutiny, and I appreciate that and wish him well in his new role.
Taking the shadow Minister’s questions in turn, he mentioned the impact on businesses of understanding the guidance that will be in place and ensuring that they feel prepared to address and adapt if necessary. We of course consulted business representatives, as we did at length throughout every stage of the Employment Rights Act, to gain their views on this guidance in particular. We will move at pace to ensure that employers get that support with the guidance so that they can comply as necessary.
I would add, however, that at the moment employers very rarely have to impose detriments, so we do not believe that there will be a significant amount of work for employers to do. I referred in my opening remarks to the frequency of employers imposing detriments on workers taking industrial action and how rare it is. Given the scale of employers having to understand the guidance, we do not really see the risk as significant, but of course we will work to publish as soon as possible and work closely with businesses, as we always do.
The shadow Minister mentioned the frequency of strike action, and I gently remind him of the unfortunate highs under the previous Government: 2.5 million days were lost to strike action under the previous Government. That figure has increasingly come down. We want to ensure that, alongside all these measures, we have good industrial relations and that employers, businesses, trade unions and Government can get around the table to discuss the challenges we face across this country as well as those we face in workplaces.
We recognise that trade unions, their representatives, business and employers will not agree on everything all the time, but fostering good industrial relations across workplaces across the country is my ambition and this Government’s ambition. We know that strike action is often the last resort, and it is an important right for workers to use if necessary, but we want to foster good industrial relations. That is a key part, not just of this draft instrument, but of our wider approach.
I have been working on consistently with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice on the issue of employment tribunals, recognising that backlog—it was not helped by the previous Government’s cuts, unfortunately, where we saw significant decreases to the employment tribunal system. It suits no one when they do not have access to justice—neither workers nor employers. People want a system that works for them and can work through cases, and to have that support and that ultimate access to justice. It is really important that we get those backlogs down. We have set up a taskforce with union representatives, businesses, employers, myself and my colleague in the Ministry of Justice, and we have been working at pace since October last year on how to fundamentally fix the system, recognising the pressures and the backlog we already face.
As I have said, on the particular instrument we are debating here, there have been two cases in recent years relating to detriments for participation in industrial action. We do not have the frequency of employers imposing detriments on workers taking industrial available to us, because it is so rare—but of course we are conscious of the point about employment tribunals.
On industrial action, the shadow Minister mentioned all the regulations that are already in place. Trade union activities and strike action are already highly regulated already. We have talked a lot about that throughout the passage of the Employment Rights Act, as he referred to. We want to ensure that workers abide by the regulations and the law in place, just as we want employers to do; that is why this debate is so important. That conduct is important for the good industrial relations that I mentioned earlier.
Finally, the shadow Minister mentioned pay and the impact on common law. Of course we want to ensure that we can enable that process of lessons being learned, so that we can understand and hear what is developing in common law and feed it into our work on this issue. I mentioned in my opening remarks what this instrument will and will not do, so hopefully our intentions in making this change have been understood. We will of course review common law as we always would.
On the response the shadow Minister is waiting for, I can only apologise; I will chase that and ensure he gets it in due course. I hope I have answered many of the questions from this debate and that all hon. Members can support this important principle of protecting workers from unfair treatment for taking industrial action. If any of our constituents were put in that position, we would want them to have the law behind them and to have that support, so I hope that colleagues across the House will support this statutory instrument.
Question put and agreed to.
Science Facilities and Laboratories
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) on securing this really important debate on the future of the UK’s science facilities and laboratories. She has been a strong advocate for the Boulby laboratory, which is just outside her constituency, and I thank her for her brilliant speech, which reflected her creative and unique insight into this vital sector. It is always great to hear about her work before she entered this place, and her adventures—it is pretty cool. I welcome and thank the incredible scientists from Boulby underground laboratory and the many other attendees who have joined us in the Gallery for this debate—it is a pleasure to see you all.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the UK remains a leading nation in science and technology, which are fundamental to our economy, our public services and our national security. On average, every £1 of public research and development investment leverages £2 of private investment and generates £8 in net economic benefits for the UK in the long term. That investment is about backing the people, facilities and technologies that turn excellent research into practical benefits.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) talked powerfully about it being a travesty if e-MERLIN and Jodrell Bank were to cease scientific endeavour. Will the Minister take back from this place to her colleagues in the Department the strong message that we want a viable future for the continuation of amazing science at Jodrell Bank, and in particular the Bernard Lovell telescope and the e-MERLIN network?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention, and also thank him, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and the many other colleagues who have raised that issue, not just today but with the Government and Ministers consistently, for their continued campaigning and advocacy. I will take this opportunity to address the concerns about the future of the world-famous Jodrell Bank site, which have been heard loud and clear—I will feed them back to the relevant Minister. UKRI has confirmed that its funding for the e-MERLIN network, which makes use of telescopes at Jodrell Bank, will wind down in 2028. However, I want to provide reassurance that Jodrell Bank will continue to be a significant centre for radio astronomy, science and research, with a strong future ahead.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that staff at the Daresbury laboratory, not too far away from Jodrell Bank, have been asked to mothball CLARA—the compact linear accelerator for research applications—which is a 250-mega-electronvolt electron accelerator, alongside the biology lab that sits above it? Incidentally, that lab has never been used, as it has only just been put in. Is the Minister prepared to meet me and other Cheshire colleagues, because I am really concerned about what is happening to science in the north Cheshire corridor? It looks to me like the STFC is circling the wagons around facilities in the south of England at the expense of those in the north, so I would be interested in meeting my hon. Friend or the relevant Minister to look at how we can reverse some of the damaging cuts.
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue on behalf of his constituency and the sector more widely. I have heard him loud and clear and will feed that back to the Minister for Science, Innovation and Investment, who I am sure will be happy to discuss it further with my hon. Friend and any other colleagues who are keen to be kept in the loop.
I have mentioned how investment that backs people, facilities and technologies can not only turn research into practical benefits but strengthen our economy and support the high-skilled jobs that colleagues have mentioned throughout the debate. Such investment is vital to keeping the UK at the forefront of global science. The sites across the country are essential to that work, which is why I am proud that the Government have put forward the largest ever investment in research and development, with a record £86 billion to be invested between 2026-27 and 2029-30.
Some £38.6 billion of that investment will go to UK Research and Innovation, the UK’s largest research funder, with a mission to advance knowledge, improve lives and drive growth. UKRI supports the full spectrum of research and development, from curiosity-driven discovery research through to business innovation and commercialisation.
Barry Gardiner
The Minister will know that the grant structure on which UKRI is based gives out grants for a maximum of three to five years. Very few are for five years—most are for three years or under—yet the sort of long-term scientific development that my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) elaborated on depends on certainty into the future. Will the Minister and her colleagues give real consideration to changing UKRI’s structure so that there is long-term funding certainty for fundamental science in this country?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for his work in this area. I have heard his reflections and his desire to see longer-term certainty, which I will feed back to the relevant Minister and the Department.
The benefits of our investment, building on the previous funding that I mentioned, will be felt right across the UK. Particularly in respect of this debate and the Yorkshire and the Humber region—I am a Yorkshire MP myself—UKRI’s £580 million investment in 2023-24 was significant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby mentioned a long list of vital science facilities, including Boulby, Diamond, ISIS and Jodrell Bank, which we have touched on, and I completely agree that they are not merely items on a balance sheet; they are national assets. Boulby is unique in that respect, as it is the UK’s deepest underground science facility. Located more than a kilometre beneath Yorkshire in a working mine, its depth and the surrounding salt rock mean that it is shielded from radiation, enabling world-leading research in areas such as dark matter and quantum technologies. I hope to answer many of my hon. Friend’s questions throughout my speech.
Our science and research ecosystem has lots of important research infrastructure. The UK’s science and technology successes are built not only on researchers making groundbreaking discoveries, or engineers developing new technologies, but on our world-class R&D facilities and capabilities—the essential tools that our research communities use every day. Those include the facilities that allow us to explore the building blocks of matter and the computing systems that allow scientists to turn raw data into models of the universe or treatments for disease, as well as the international collaborations that enable us to tackle grand scientific challenges that no country can solve alone.
Our research infrastructure makes the UK’s R&D achievements possible. The facilities are not only tools for research and industry but national assets, as I have mentioned. The landscape is changing rapidly. Facilities are becoming more connected and data-intensive than ever before, researchers are increasingly collaborating across borders, and the most powerful scientific instruments are often of a scale, cost and geographical reach beyond the capacity of any one nation to deliver alone. To ensure that our research facilities are ready for tomorrow, we must lay the groundwork today by supporting the facilities that allow researchers and innovators to produce the most insightful and impactful research.
I will briefly highlight some examples of the impact of our facilities on our understanding of science and the lives of people across the UK. As we heard from colleagues, the Diamond Light Source at Harwell in Oxfordshire is the UK’s national synchrotron. Currently undergoing a £500 million upgrade, Diamond generates intense beams of X-rays, allowing research to examine materials in extraordinary detail. This enables discovery and innovation in fields ranging from medicines and battery technology to advanced manufacturing and aerospace, including for companies such as Rolls-Royce. We are also a leading partner in major international facilities, sharing the costs and benefits of scientific endeavours that, as I have said, no country could undertake alone.
Also included in respect of our investment, and the Government’s absolute commitment to the sector, is the Square Kilometre Array observatory, headquartered in the UK at Jodrell Bank. I will come to that in just a second, but we are investing more than £300 million over 10 years to build the world’s largest radio telescope, enabling scientists to study the cosmos with unparalleled sensitivity, from the first stars and galaxies to signs of life beyond Earth.
Peter Fortune
The issue underlying a lot of this is the £160 million saving. My understanding is that that saving has come about because a previous agreement to match expanding costs for research has been reversed. Perhaps the Minister could tell me, or could ask the relevant Minister to let me know, who took the decision not to match those costs, which has resulted in the need for £160 million of savings.
Kate Dearden
I am coming to the difficult choices about how to prioritise funding. We can of course follow up with any further information that the hon. Gentleman requires from the relevant Minister.
Ensuring that the UK remains at the forefront of global research requires not just record levels of investment, but difficult choices about how to prioritise funding. When a country has world-class research projects across so many disciplines and sectors, prioritisation is unavoidable. The fact that we cannot fund every excellent idea is a reflection of the depth, ambition and international competitiveness of UK research and innovation. But, of course, our responsibility is to ensure that the infrastructure we do support continues to deliver the greatest scientific, economic, industrial and societal benefit for the country, including in the places we have heard about today. That means taking long-term decisions.
Alison Hume
I thank the Minister for being generous in giving way—I am aware of the time. Given the Government’s stated commitment to place-based growth, regional rebalancing and the growth mission, how can a reduction in support for Boulby laboratory be reconciled with their objectives?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for the passion we have heard in the debate, as well as her desire to fight for Boulby, her constituents and the sector as a whole. The Minister for Science has written to her today and will be happy to discuss with her the budget pressures and the difficult decisions that UKRI has taken to ensure that STFC remains financially sustainable and is able to support world-leading science in the future.
Luke Myer
The Minister knows that I am a supporter of her work to champion the north in the Department. Given that the team from Boulby have travelled all this way, will she take a couple of seconds out of her day to meet them after the debate and discuss the challenges they are experiencing? I know she is not the Minister directly responsible, but I am sure they would appreciate it.
Kate Dearden
Of course—that would be a pleasure and I would be honoured to do so. I reiterate that Boulby will remain an internationally significant research facility. It will continue to support a range of world-leading underground science and provide highly skilled employment in the region, with the potential to play an even larger role in the UK’s scientific future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby highlighted in her speech the challenges with the operational budget at Boulby. UKRI has also announced funding that will sustain the UK’s continued engagement with the international XLZD dark matter experiment, which my hon. Friend mentioned, beyond the current £7.8 million infrastructure fund grant, which ends in 2027. Boulby will remain well placed to pursue future funding opportunities alongside its outstandingly significant work.
I thank colleagues again for being in Westminster Hall to support this debate. I want to offer reassurances that UKRI and STFC are engaging directly with facilities, laboratories, partners, staff and trade unions throughout the implementation of the saving plan, including in respect of any potential workforce implications. However, to be clear, no staff exits are expected this financial year, and formal processes will follow where needed.
The UK has an extraordinary scientific heritage, but our task today is not merely to celebrate past achievements but to ensure that the next generation of discoveries and the innovations they will enable happen here. The Government will achieve that goal, not just through record investment in public R&D but through responsible stewardship of our national assets, international co-operation, and taking the difficult decisions necessary to ensure we have a portfolio of research facilities that are fit for the future, because the future of British science will depend not only on the brilliance of our researchers but on the strength of the infrastructure that supports them. I once again thank all colleagues for being here to support the debate.
Question put and agreed to.