Pubs Code and Pubs Code Adjudicator: Statutory Review

Kate Dearden Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Written Statements

[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

Wednesday 9th September 2026 General Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Wednesday 9th September 2026 General Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Tuesday 8th September 2026 General Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Monday 7th September 2026 Written Statements

[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

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 General Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Fireworks Consultation

Kate Dearden Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

I am today informing Parliament of a consultation on fireworks which has just been launched.

Millions of people enjoy fireworks responsibly as part of cultural, religious and community celebrations. There is an existing legal framework in place to address situations where fireworks and other pyrotechnics are misused. However, I am also aware of the concerns raised by charities, parliamentarians and members of the public about the impact of fireworks.

Many people have been in touch with me to share their own experience of how fireworks have affected them, their family, their animals, or their wider community. I am grateful to them for taking the time to set out their concerns. These accounts add valuable context alongside the data provided by local authorities, emergency services, animal welfare organisations and the fireworks industry.

In response, I am launching this consultation which proposes reforms to fireworks legislation. These proposals focus on addressing the key harms raised, particularly noise from non-professional fireworks displays and the contribution of fireworks to antisocial behaviour, while continuing to allow people to enjoy fireworks safely and responsibly, including as part of important community and cultural celebrations. Specifically, the consultation seeks to gather evidence and capture a wide range of views on proposals to:

Restrict the availability of the noisiest fireworks to the general public, with louder products only available to professional users.

Add products deemed to be carrying unacceptable risks to the existing list of banned pyrotechnic products.

Review the regulations for the broad range of fireworks and pyrotechnic products currently classified as lower risk, to better reflect the different levels of risk they pose.

The responses and evidence gathered will be used to refine these proposals, making sure that we keep public safety, and the impact on people, animals and property, central to this work. Please be assured that all perspectives and evidence will be considered carefully.

This consultation will run for 12 weeks, and a copy can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fireworks-and-pyrotechnics-in-the-uk

[HCWS275]

Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots For Statutory Trade Union Ballots

Kate Dearden Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 General Committees

[The Chair]

Before we start, ladies and gentlemen may remove their jackets in this heat.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots.

[Kate Dearden]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. The draft order and the draft code of practice were laid before the House on 22 June 2026. The statutory instrument and the guidance that we are debating relate to statutory trade union ballots under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The instrument also corrects a minor error in unfair dismissal legislation in section 105 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to reflect changes made under the Employment Rights Act 2025.

At present, the law requires almost all statutory trade union ballots to be conducted solely by post. That approach has not kept pace with the way in which people live, work and participate in democratic processes. It makes holding a ballot unduly expensive and time-consuming, and it can act as an unnecessary barrier to democratic participation in a union. The statutory instrument addresses that directly. It will bring trade union balloting into line with modern secure voting practices that are already widely used in other contexts, including by political parties and listed companies. In so doing, it will deliver on a Government manifesto commitment to supporting greater participation in the democratic processes that shape working life.

The practical changes we are making are long overdue. They are about enabling trade union members to take part in union decisions in more accessible and convenient ways, while maintaining the high standards of fairness, secrecy and security that are set out in existing legislation. The statutory instrument will introduce three additional methods of voting, alongside post.

First, electronic voting will allow members to cast their votes online, using secure access credentials. That will be permitted only where a union member has provided a personal email or telephone number to their union.

Secondly, hybrid voting—in which members receive voting materials by post, but may choose to return their vote either by post or electronically—will enable workers to choose how they cast their vote, without requiring any voter to use online options if they would prefer not to.

Thirdly, in workplace voting, which is for industrial action ballots only, voting can take place in person, under the supervision of an independent scrutineer, at an appropriately secured location in the workplace. Importantly, the statutory instrument will expand the range of voting methods that can be used, but postal voting will remain an option for unions to use.

The Government are committed to bringing forward electronic and workplace balloting quickly, securely and in a way that works properly in practice. That is why we are taking a phased approach to delivery. In phase 1, the new methods will be made available across all statutory trade union ballots, with the exception of statutory recognition and derecognition ballots. In phase 2, we will extend the electronic and hybrid voting options in 2027 to recognition and derecognition ballots.

Alongside that, we will continue to work closely with key stakeholders to support implementation and oversee how those voting methods are operating in practice. As part of that, in the coming months we intend to launch a senior oversight board comprised of unions, businesses, scrutineers and cyber-security experts, who will share feedback on the operation of electronic balloting. By allowing those additional methods, unions will be able to reach their members in ways that are more convenient and inclusive for those members to participate, including members who may benefit from greater flexibility and accessibility in how they engage with ballots and their union democracy.

Alongside the draft order, we have laid a draft statutory code of practice on electronic and workplace ballots. The code will provide detailed, practical guidance on how electronic and workplace balloting should be conducted in practice, ensuring that those methods are used in a way that is secure, fair and accessible. The code will give clarity to unions, independent scrutineers and employers, and will support a consistent approach across ballots.

I turn now to the question of security and safeguards, which will be of interest to the Committee, to provide reassurance to Members that the security of the ballot process sits at the heart of this legislation. Modernisation must go hand in hand with maintaining confidence. That is why strong safeguards underpin our approach and are built into each of the balloting methods that we are providing for. Section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004—the enabling power under which we are making the changes—already sets clear standards. Any permitted method of voting must enable a ballot to meet those standards—namely, that those entitled to vote have the opportunity to do so, that votes are cast in secret, and that the risk of unfairness or malpractice is minimised.

The draft order and the draft code also set out detailed requirements covering the operation of electronic and workplace balloting. Those include independent oversight by scrutineers, clear requirements on ballot security, and measures to ensure the reliability and integrity of the voting systems used. For electronic and hybrid balloting, that includes requirements relating to the protection of voter information, the security of voting systems and detailed audit and monitoring arrangements, alongside mandatory independent cyber-security certification that must be held by scrutineers before they can provide those methods.

Similarly, clear requirements are built into the workplace option. Workplace voting is designed to operate in a limited and controlled way. It will be available only for industrial action ballots, reflecting the fact that those relate to workplace matters rather than to internal union processes. Workplace voting can be used only if the union and the employer agree and set out the terms of the voting in advance of any ballot. Where it is used, it must be independently supervised and conducted in line with detailed requirements, to ensure that the process remains secure and free of interference.

The statutory instrument is essential to bringing trade union ballots into the 21st century, and will ensure that workers are provided with accessible and straightforward processes to participate in the democracy of their union. It will remove the costly and bureaucratic requirement that forces all ballots to be held by post, thereby allowing the way in which unions ballot finally to reflect the technological progress of modern life, while holding firmly to the core principles of fairness, accessibility and security that have always underpinned them. This reform is measured, proportionate and long overdue.

This legislation sets out clear safeguards and technical standards to ensure the integrity and confidence of the ballot process, while making it meaningfully easier and more convenient for working people to take part in the decisions that affect them. I therefore commend the statutory instrument and the accompanying draft code of practice to the Committee. I trust that Members will support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks and questions.

The draft order addresses a simple issue: the current requirement to conduct statutory trade union ballots solely by post has not kept pace with how people engage today, and balloting has become an overly burdensome and expensive process. That is why the range of options I outlined—online, hybrid and workplace balloting—which the shadow Minister alluded to, are necessary. The requirement to conduct ballots by post was born out of the legitimate need to guarantee secrecy and protection from union, third-party or employer interference, but those principles will not be reduced by this statutory instrument; they will, in fact, be improved upon in many cases.

On the shadow Minister’s point about the chosen methods, electronic balloting has been a well-established option for businesses and political parties—including his own party—for many years. The Government will deliver modern and secure electronic workplace balloting, as we made clear in our manifesto and our wider Make Work Pay agenda. We are pleased to have progressed in that work and to have laid this legislation—it is a shame that the Opposition cannot support it. We have engaged with stakeholders, worked with experts and consulted on the draft code of practice to develop our approach to delivering the balloting methods for statutory union ballots. We are confident that our approach reduces bureaucracy and enables the increased participation of union members, while ensuring high security standards.

The shadow Minister reflected more widely on the varied options in the legislation and asked in particular about the review. We will, of course, keep him updated as we proceed with the wider scrutiny board and as the legislation comes into force. That is important, because we want to ensure that every measure in our Make Work Pay initiative and in the Employment Rights Act works in practice in workplaces across the country, particularly for trade unions.

That leads me to the shadow Minister’s second point, on the responsible person and the independent scrutineer. As he said, the responsible person will decide which voting method, or combination of methods, will be used to conduct a statutory ballot. When determining the method or combination of methods to be used for a ballot, the responsible person must apply the criteria and consider the factors specified in the legislation and the code of practice. Of course, if the union is acting on that ballot, it is best placed to decide what the combination of methods must be. That is why the responsible person is the trade union calling the ballot.

We are making the necessary legislation under section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. Under that section, a new method may be permitted only if the Secretary of State considers that a ballot conducted by that method could meet the required standard. A method meets that standard

“if it is such that…those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so…votes cast are secret…the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.”

[Gareth Davies]

The Minister has sought to address my question about the responsible person, but can she see the logic that I am trying to deploy? Why can a trade union be designated a responsible person, but an independent scrutineer cannot? Does she see how that opens up questions about the independence of the process, and did she think consider an independent scrutineer to avoid that criticism?

[Kate Dearden]

I was just getting to the powers that we are using for the statutory instrument. Trade unions will be required to be the responsible person because they are best placed to consider the factors and criteria before choosing the ballot method.

We have gone through the range of options that will be available. As I mentioned, the choice must include postal voting, even though that is not a new method. As I have mentioned, we have included in the legislation a presumption to reduce the factors and criteria to be considered for postal voting, to reflect the fact that it is a long-established method with which members will already be familiar and that trade unions know how best to approach it.

However, the responsible person must not be aware of

“any reason why it would not be possible to satisfy the requirements of the relevant legislation which relate to the means of voting which are to be used in the ballot or election.”

That has been made clear to trade unions, which will have been designated the responsible person, alongside the range of other options that they must consider. That communicates clearly to trade unions their roles and responsibilities as the responsible person. As the shadow Minister knows, the responsibilities of independent scrutineers will continue in their role under the legislation.

Independent scrutineers, which the shadow Minister asked about, are either named in or meet the requirements of the Trade Union Ballots and Elections (Independent Scrutineer Qualifications) Order 1993, which sets out clear requirements on who can be a scrutineer. The organisations named in that order have been independently conducting statutory ballots for many years, and we are confident in their independence. In the coming months, we will progress work on updating that order to expand the list of named permitted scrutineers. If he is interested, we will be happy to keep him updated on that particular work strand.

The shadow Minister asked about the impact assessment of the introduction of electronic balloting. The primary impacts include up to £70 million of net present social value. The introduction of new balloting methods for statutory trade union ballots simply brings them in line with modern voting practices used regularly by many other organisations, including political parties and private companies, as I said. Requiring them to pilot those balloting methods would unnecessarily restrict their ability to effectively engage with their members and ensure that their views are properly reflected.

We have no reliable evidence suggesting that electronic balloting will increase the frequency of participation. That is why a review will be important to our understanding of how the range of available balloting methods work out in different workplaces and trade unions. The range in savings estimates varies as it will depends on the uptake of the different balloting methods. As electronic ballots will require the use of personal email addresses or mobile numbers, unions will need to gather that information from their members before they commence.

The draft order details operational, audit and reporting requirements on electronic voting methods well beyond those required for postal voting, to ensure the security of the ballot and retain the confidence of the public in electronic voting. We have developed those clear, secure and proportionate approaches to enable statutory ballots to be conducted via means other than post. The draft order has been carefully considered, through engagement with stakeholders, to ensure that their legitimate concerns about security and interference are managed while ensuring that accessibility, democracy and ease of use remain central to the balloting process. The draft order requires stringent processes to be followed for the conduct of electronic balloting, to ensure that the integrity of the ballot remains unquestionable.

As I have mentioned, this change is long overdue. I am pleased we are the Government to finally introduce legislation to modernise these processes. I believe I have answered all the questions, and I look forward to the Committee’s support for the draft order and the associated draft code of practice.

Question put.

Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots For Statutory Trafe Union Ballots

Kate Dearden Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 General Committees

[The Chair]

Before we start, ladies and gentlemen may remove their jackets in this heat.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots.

[Kate Dearden]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. The draft order and the draft code of practice were laid before the House on 22 June 2026. The statutory instrument and the guidance that we are debating relate to statutory trade union ballots under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The instrument also corrects a minor error in unfair dismissal legislation in section 105 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to reflect changes made under the Employment Rights Act 2025.

At present, the law requires almost all statutory trade union ballots to be conducted solely by post. That approach has not kept pace with the way in which people live, work and participate in democratic processes. It makes holding a ballot unduly expensive and time-consuming, and it can act as an unnecessary barrier to democratic participation in a union. The statutory instrument addresses that directly. It will bring trade union balloting into line with modern secure voting practices that are already widely used in other contexts, including by political parties and listed companies. In so doing, it will deliver on a Government manifesto commitment to supporting greater participation in the democratic processes that shape working life.

The practical changes we are making are long overdue. They are about enabling trade union members to take part in union decisions in more accessible and convenient ways, while maintaining the high standards of fairness, secrecy and security that are set out in existing legislation. The statutory instrument will introduce three additional methods of voting, alongside post.

First, electronic voting will allow members to cast their votes online, using secure access credentials. That will be permitted only where a union member has provided a personal email or telephone number to their union.

Secondly, hybrid voting—in which members receive voting materials by post, but may choose to return their vote either by post or electronically—will enable workers to choose how they cast their vote, without requiring any voter to use online options if they would prefer not to.

Thirdly, in workplace voting, which is for industrial action ballots only, voting can take place in person, under the supervision of an independent scrutineer, at an appropriately secured location in the workplace. Importantly, the statutory instrument will expand the range of voting methods that can be used, but postal voting will remain an option for unions to use.

The Government are committed to bringing forward electronic and workplace balloting quickly, securely and in a way that works properly in practice. That is why we are taking a phased approach to delivery. In phase 1, the new methods will be made available across all statutory trade union ballots, with the exception of statutory recognition and derecognition ballots. In phase 2, we will extend the electronic and hybrid voting options in 2027 to recognition and derecognition ballots.

Alongside that, we will continue to work closely with key stakeholders to support implementation and oversee how those voting methods are operating in practice. As part of that, in the coming months we intend to launch a senior oversight board comprised of unions, businesses, scrutineers and cyber-security experts, who will share feedback on the operation of electronic balloting. By allowing those additional methods, unions will be able to reach their members in ways that are more convenient and inclusive for those members to participate, including members who may benefit from greater flexibility and accessibility in how they engage with ballots and their union democracy.

Alongside the draft order, we have laid a draft statutory code of practice on electronic and workplace ballots. The code will provide detailed, practical guidance on how electronic and workplace balloting should be conducted in practice, ensuring that those methods are used in a way that is secure, fair and accessible. The code will give clarity to unions, independent scrutineers and employers, and will support a consistent approach across ballots.

I turn now to the question of security and safeguards, which will be of interest to the Committee, to provide reassurance to Members that the security of the ballot process sits at the heart of this legislation. Modernisation must go hand in hand with maintaining confidence. That is why strong safeguards underpin our approach and are built into each of the balloting methods that we are providing for. Section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004—the enabling power under which we are making the changes—already sets clear standards. Any permitted method of voting must enable a ballot to meet those standards—namely, that those entitled to vote have the opportunity to do so, that votes are cast in secret, and that the risk of unfairness or malpractice is minimised.

The draft order and the draft code also set out detailed requirements covering the operation of electronic and workplace balloting. Those include independent oversight by scrutineers, clear requirements on ballot security, and measures to ensure the reliability and integrity of the voting systems used. For electronic and hybrid balloting, that includes requirements relating to the protection of voter information, the security of voting systems and detailed audit and monitoring arrangements, alongside mandatory independent cyber-security certification that must be held by scrutineers before they can provide those methods.

Similarly, clear requirements are built into the workplace option. Workplace voting is designed to operate in a limited and controlled way. It will be available only for industrial action ballots, reflecting the fact that those relate to workplace matters rather than to internal union processes. Workplace voting can be used only if the union and the employer agree and set out the terms of the voting in advance of any ballot. Where it is used, it must be independently supervised and conducted in line with detailed requirements, to ensure that the process remains secure and free of interference.

The statutory instrument is essential to bringing trade union ballots into the 21st century, and will ensure that workers are provided with accessible and straightforward processes to participate in the democracy of their union. It will remove the costly and bureaucratic requirement that forces all ballots to be held by post, thereby allowing the way in which unions ballot finally to reflect the technological progress of modern life, while holding firmly to the core principles of fairness, accessibility and security that have always underpinned them. This reform is measured, proportionate and long overdue.

This legislation sets out clear safeguards and technical standards to ensure the integrity and confidence of the ballot process, while making it meaningfully easier and more convenient for working people to take part in the decisions that affect them. I therefore commend the statutory instrument and the accompanying draft code of practice to the Committee. I trust that Members will support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks and questions.

The draft order addresses a simple issue: the current requirement to conduct statutory trade union ballots solely by post has not kept pace with how people engage today, and balloting has become an overly burdensome and expensive process. That is why the range of options I outlined—online, hybrid and workplace balloting—which the shadow Minister alluded to, are necessary. The requirement to conduct ballots by post was born out of the legitimate need to guarantee secrecy and protection from union, third-party or employer interference, but those principles will not be reduced by this statutory instrument; they will, in fact, be improved upon in many cases.

On the shadow Minister’s point about the chosen methods, electronic balloting has been a well-established option for businesses and political parties—including his own party—for many years. The Government will deliver modern and secure electronic workplace balloting, as we made clear in our manifesto and our wider Make Work Pay agenda. We are pleased to have progressed in that work and to have laid this legislation—it is a shame that the Opposition cannot support it. We have engaged with stakeholders, worked with experts and consulted on the draft code of practice to develop our approach to delivering the balloting methods for statutory union ballots. We are confident that our approach reduces bureaucracy and enables the increased participation of union members, while ensuring high security standards.

The shadow Minister reflected more widely on the varied options in the legislation and asked in particular about the review. We will, of course, keep him updated as we proceed with the wider scrutiny board and as the legislation comes into force. That is important, because we want to ensure that every measure in our Make Work Pay initiative and in the Employment Rights Act works in practice in workplaces across the country, particularly for trade unions.

That leads me to the shadow Minister’s second point, on the responsible person and the independent scrutineer. As he said, the responsible person will decide which voting method, or combination of methods, will be used to conduct a statutory ballot. When determining the method or combination of methods to be used for a ballot, the responsible person must apply the criteria and consider the factors specified in the legislation and the code of practice. Of course, if the union is acting on that ballot, it is best placed to decide what the combination of methods must be. That is why the responsible person is the trade union calling the ballot.

We are making the necessary legislation under section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. Under that section, a new method may be permitted only if the Secretary of State considers that a ballot conducted by that method could meet the required standard. A method meets that standard

“if it is such that…those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so…votes cast are secret…the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.”

[Gareth Davies]

The Minister has sought to address my question about the responsible person, but can she see the logic that I am trying to deploy? Why can a trade union be designated a responsible person, but an independent scrutineer cannot? Does she see how that opens up questions about the independence of the process, and did she think consider an independent scrutineer to avoid that criticism?

[Kate Dearden]

I was just getting to the powers that we are using for the statutory instrument. Trade unions will be required to be the responsible person because they are best placed to consider the factors and criteria before choosing the ballot method.

We have gone through the range of options that will be available. As I mentioned, the choice must include postal voting, even though that is not a new method. As I have mentioned, we have included in the legislation a presumption to reduce the factors and criteria to be considered for postal voting, to reflect the fact that it is a long-established method with which members will already be familiar and that trade unions know how best to approach it.

However, the responsible person must not be aware of

“any reason why it would not be possible to satisfy the requirements of the relevant legislation which relate to the means of voting which are to be used in the ballot or election.”

That has been made clear to trade unions, which will have been designated the responsible person, alongside the range of other options that they must consider. That communicates clearly to trade unions their roles and responsibilities as the responsible person. As the shadow Minister knows, the responsibilities of independent scrutineers will continue in their role under the legislation.

Independent scrutineers, which the shadow Minister asked about, are either named in or meet the requirements of the Trade Union Ballots and Elections (Independent Scrutineer Qualifications) Order 1993, which sets out clear requirements on who can be a scrutineer. The organisations named in that order have been independently conducting statutory ballots for many years, and we are confident in their independence. In the coming months, we will progress work on updating that order to expand the list of named permitted scrutineers. If he is interested, we will be happy to keep him updated on that particular work strand.

The shadow Minister asked about the impact assessment of the introduction of electronic balloting. The primary impacts include up to £70 million of net present social value. The introduction of new balloting methods for statutory trade union ballots simply brings them in line with modern voting practices used regularly by many other organisations, including political parties and private companies, as I said. Requiring them to pilot those balloting methods would unnecessarily restrict their ability to effectively engage with their members and ensure that their views are properly reflected.

We have no reliable evidence suggesting that electronic balloting will increase the frequency of participation. That is why a review will be important to our understanding of how the range of available balloting methods work out in different workplaces and trade unions. The range in savings estimates varies as it will depends on the uptake of the different balloting methods. As electronic ballots will require the use of personal email addresses or mobile numbers, unions will need to gather that information from their members before they commence.

The draft order details operational, audit and reporting requirements on electronic voting methods well beyond those required for postal voting, to ensure the security of the ballot and retain the confidence of the public in electronic voting. We have developed those clear, secure and proportionate approaches to enable statutory ballots to be conducted via means other than post. The draft order has been carefully considered, through engagement with stakeholders, to ensure that their legitimate concerns about security and interference are managed while ensuring that accessibility, democracy and ease of use remain central to the balloting process. The draft order requires stringent processes to be followed for the conduct of electronic balloting, to ensure that the integrity of the ballot remains unquestionable.

As I have mentioned, this change is long overdue. I am pleased we are the Government to finally introduce legislation to modernise these processes. I believe I have answered all the questions, and I look forward to the Committee’s support for the draft order and the associated draft code of practice.

Question put.