Oral Answers to Questions
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
My hon. Friend’s question addresses a key aspect of our recent consultations, which proposed a duty for online marketplaces to take due care to identify, prevent and remove unsafe goods from their sites. The consultation package also proposed a modernised enforcement toolkit, and my intention is that future regulations will set out strong new duties on online marketplaces, backed by appropriate sanctions.
Dr Prinsley
Residents of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, like millions of us across the country, increasingly rely on online marketplaces for everyday purchases. However, the consumer magazine Which? continues to uncover dangerous products being sold on those platforms. Will the Minister ensure that forthcoming regulations place a clear legal duty on online marketplaces to identify and remove unsafe products, backed by meaningful penalties for those that fail to protect consumers?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important issue to the House today, reflecting the changes in preferences of both his constituents and those across the country in how they buy products online and interact with online marketplaces. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Which? for the brilliant work it does in this space. Our recent consultations on modernising the product safety framework included proposals for clear duties on online marketplaces, including a clear duty to take due care to identify, prevent and remove unsafe goods from their sites. We also proposed a modernised enforcement toolkit, including civil monetary penalties to complement the existing criminal sanctions; fines would be set proportionally to risk and respond to an offence appropriately. We are also considering bespoke enforcement measures to ensure that online and international supply chain actors can be effectively addressed. We will respond to these consultations in due course, and I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement in this space.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Countless constituents have written to me about their concerns over the proliferation of high-powered e-bikes and e-scooters and conversion kits, many of which are bought online. I have been liaising with Currys, which is being as proactive as it can in making it clear to people through its point-of-sale material what the law is when people buy them in a shop; online, however, it is a wild west. Given the failures in the police cracking down on these vehicles where they are not permitted, will the Government consider limiting their online sales using the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025?
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I know that she and colleagues across the House have campaigned on this, and I share their concerns. In our recent consultation on reforming the product safety framework, we sought views on additional measures and responsibilities that are needed to improve the safety of products sold online, which included lithium-ion batteries and their use in consumer goods such as e-bikes. I would be happy to keep the hon. Lady updated on the progress on this work when we respond in due course.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I know all too well the devastating impact that rogue traders can have on constituents, having had similar discussions in my own constituency and with many colleagues across the House too. That is why my Department supported the independent furniture and home improvement ombudsman’s new approved code and payment protection scheme, backed by independent dispute resolution, to help hard-working families identify trusted traders and ensure that people can spend their money with greater confidence and security.
We remain committed to supporting the Competition and Markets Authority and local trading standards in their ability to impose penalties via the courts. This Labour Government are delivering everyday fixes to protect families and give them room to breathe.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We need to move a bit faster, so questions and answers must be shorter.
Bill Esterson
My constituent Joanne paid £11,000 for a new kitchen. Her house was left in a terrible state and she was unable to get the builder to return to rectify the substandard work. It also turned out that he was associated with 21 other companies mostly in the building trade, many of which have been dissolved. The Minister mentioned quite rightly the new code for the home improvement sector, which will give confidence to consumers and support to reputable traders. Is more not needed to go after the cowboy builders to ensure that constituents such as Joanne can get the remedy that they so need?
Kate Dearden
I am sorry about that incident with my hon. Friend’s constituent. The damaging impact that that can have, making people who have saved their entire lives for home improvements feel robbed and unsafe in their homes, is dreadful. That is why we are taking action, starting with the backing of the furniture and home improvement ombudsman scheme. I am not complacent in this space: we are determined to ensure that customers know what protections are available and that they can use them with confidence. I look forward to working further in this area.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Rogue traders operate with impunity in the park homes sector, yet the Government have refused to supply sufficient money to National Trading Standards to enable it to carry out a national investigation and bring those rogues to book. What is the Minister going to do about it?
Kate Dearden
Regrettably, trading standards has faced a real-terms funding cut of more than 50% since 2010, under the previous Government. The system is therefore under severe strain. I back the incredible work that it does across the country and know how much support it needs. That is why we are committed to backing it and those longer-terms plans to overhaul the wider consumer protection landscape and particularly trading standards to help it continue cracking on with its brilliant job.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
The Government are clear that Royal Mail’s quality of service has been unacceptable for too long. Royal Mail published a plan to improve reliability, and I have been frank in my conversations with the CEO that it now needs to increase the pace of improvement and deliver on that plan. I understand that there have been operational challenges in the Lark Lane and Liverpool North delivery offices, and I urge Royal Mail to improve its services for local people. It must do better.
Paula Barker
Royal Mail has failed to meet Ofcom delivery targets for first-class mail since 2017, yet over that time, Ofcom has allowed the price of a first-class stamp to increase by 166% and has relaxed targets. Royal Mail’s continual failure affects the most vulnerable groups in our society—those who receive letters about hospital appointments, court dates or social security decisions. These are arriving late. Much of the bulk mail lies outside the universal service obligation. Will the Government review both that and Ofcom’s remit, to ensure that Royal Mail provides a timely, affordable service for all post—one that does not prioritise parcels—and that failure is not rewarded?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue in the House on behalf of her constituents and constituents across the country. Royal Mail’s service must improve quickly. Customers, particularly the most vulnerable, are being let down, and delayed letters, such as legal correspondence and hospital appointment letters, can have serious consequences. When people are paying more for postal services, they rightly expect reliable and timely delivery. The Government have been clear that Ofcom should carefully consider the role of bulk mail and whether additional regulatory measures are needed to secure high standards of reliability for all postal customers. Much of the correspondence that people rely on falls outside the current quality-of-service targets. We will continue to press for a reliable postal service that meets the needs of all users.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
My question relates to the Tonbridge and Cranbrook delivery offices, which I know also deliver to your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ran a survey recently: 85% of people have experienced delays, 25% have missed a deadline or an appointment and, extraordinarily, 20% have experienced a three-week gap between postal deliveries. That is obviously totally unacceptable. Have the Government had conversations with Royal Mail specifically about the TN postcodes?
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue on behalf of his constituents, and I share his concerns; I know from my own inbox, as a constituency MP, the challenges that arise when people do not receive their post on time and there are significant delays. I have been frank in my conversations with the CEO of Royal Mail that its service has been unacceptable for too long and that the pace of improvement must improve. The public and his constituents deserve a reliable postal service, and they are right to expect better. If he wants to share those data with me and with Royal Mail, and add to that pressure, I would welcome that.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
The Government recognise the vital role that post offices play in communities across the UK. We have committed to maintaining the 11,500 national minimum branch requirement, and the Government’s set access criteria, including the requirement that for 90% of the population, their nearest post office should be within one mile of where they live. We are backing this with up to £180 million in network subsidy funding over the next three years to support the cost of meeting those policy requirements, protecting access to crucial services.
Rachael Maskell
When York’s Crown post office closed after 138 years, we were given assurances that through WHSmith, we would have a sustained solution. However, Modella Capital, which has taken over WHSmith, closed the post office yesterday. We only have a teeny weeny post office in the city centre. Businesses, residents and tourists are dependent on it—we need a solution. I have met the Post Office; it says that it will take six months to get a solution. I need a solution now. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that we have a temporary solution before we get our sustained outcome?
Kate Dearden
I recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns about the availability of post office services in York city centre in the coming months. The Post Office has confirmed that it remains committed to providing a replacement branch, and it has received interest from several potential applicants. While these are operational matters for the Post Office, I will ask it to consider capacity concerns. I will keep my hon. Friend updated, and will ask officials to work with her and the Post Office on finding the temporary solution that she rightly mentions.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
Hospitality businesses are at the heart of our high streets, communities and local economies, supporting jobs and growth across the UK, and we recognise the pressures that many continue to face. That is why we are providing targeted support for pubs, clubs and live music venues, including 15% business rates relief in 2026-27, and an additional 20% discount from April next year, while reviewing pub and hotel valuations to help ensure a fairer and more predictable business rates system. We are also investing £10 million through a new hospitality grant scheme to support growth, create jobs and strengthen local economies.
Sir Julian Smith
As the Minister knows, in areas like mine, the hospitality sector provides the bulk of employment for young people. Can I urge her to look at the Opposition Front Benchers’ proposals, and proposals from UKHospitality, for a lower NICs rate to be provided at the upcoming Budget, to allow those businesses to employ more young people?
Kate Dearden
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this. Hospitality, as he mentioned, is an absolute key employer of young people in the economy, providing rewarding routes into work. It is a critical sector to help us resolve the NEETs—not in education, employment or training—crisis. That is a key priority for this Government, and we want to work closely with the sector on providing those solutions. I am sure that he will welcome the announcement today of our significant intervention and partnership with the hospitality sector; we are working closely with UKHospitality. We are working on providing job opportunities and new work experience programmes to turn this around, and hospitality is key to that.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I thank Ministers for their engagement following Carlsberg’s devastating news about the closure of Marston’s brewery next year, which risks 310 jobs and the future of heritage ales from Burton, such as Pedigree and Bass. Hospitality relies on brewing, but brewing was left out of the industrial strategy and industrial energy schemes. Will that now be changed?
Kate Dearden
My heart sank when I heard the news, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, not only for raising this today, but for all his work in the sector on behalf of his constituents since first coming to this House. I spoke with the chief executive of Carlsberg Britvic yesterday, and I know that the proposal to close the brewery has not been made lightly. He reassured me that the team at Burton have shown exceptional commitment, skill and professionalism, and have made an enormous contribution to Burton upon Trent’s proud brewing tradition. This proposal is not a reflection on them or the quality of their work. Consumer tastes are constantly evolving, and this proposal reflects the particular long-term challenges relating to cask ale, which I have spoken to my hon. Friend about, and on which I will continue to work with him closely. I know that this will be a concerning time for workers at Marston’s. We recognise the impact that these proposals may have on those workers, their families and the local community as the company begins consulting, and I look forward to discussing this further with him.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The hospitality sector provides around 300,000 jobs for young people every year and contributes £96 billion annually to the economy. Despite that, the Government continue to hammer it with a series of blows, to the extent that the sector has the highest effective tax rate of any sector in the economy, paying the equivalent of 82p in taxes for every £1 of pre-tax profit made. That eclipses the 50p average rate across our economy’s 11 main sectors. What steps are the Government taking to tangibly lower business costs, so that hospitality businesses can employ more young people?
Kate Dearden
My first job was in hospitality; I remember it fondly. It has given me skills that I have used throughout my career and life, and it supported my family when we really needed it. I absolutely know the significance and importance of this sector to our economy, and the difference that it can make to people’s lives. It is a key employer of young people across the country—in the hon. Member’s constituency, in mine and in the constituencies of colleagues across the House. It provides a rewarding route into work and is a critical sector to resolving the NEETs crisis and many challenges that we face across the country.
As we grow our economy, we want to grow the hospitality sector. I work really closely with the sector and the Hospitality Sector Council to ensure that we look at all the challenges, and at how we can work together to provide more opportunities and jobs and grow the sector in every constituency across this country. I am determined to deliver that.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Questions should be really on point.
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I thank my hon. Friend and Labour colleagues for their work on this. I agree that the Royal Mail service has been unacceptable for too long, and that the pace of improvement must increase, and my constituents share exactly the same frustrations. The Government expect Ofcom to use its full range of existing tools to secure better outcomes for postal users, and I will continue to work closely with it and with colleagues in the House to deliver that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Over the past year, I have also had countless constituents contact me about the adequacy of postal delivery services across Bexleyheath and Crayford. Along with colleagues, I met the chief executive of Ofcom yesterday to look at what more it can do, but will the Minister outline what assessment has been made of the adequacy of services across Bexleyheath and Crayford and set out what more the Government can do to help my constituents?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter on behalf of his constituents. I know that he shares their frustrations. I have been clear with Royal Mail that the quality of its service has been unacceptable for too long. I understand that the concerns in his constituency relate to the Bexleyheath delivery office and I know that he met Royal Mail representatives this summer. I encourage all Members to raise their concerns directly with Royal Mail management and similarly hold the company to account, as I will continue to do. His constituents deserve a reliable postal service, and they are right that they deserve better.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
Sean Egan from Morrisons in Walsall, Gary MacArthur from Sainsbury’s in Wickham and Jorge Costa from Sainsbury’s in Hertford are all workers who were sacked by their employers for confronting shoplifters. In Gary’s case, that happened just hours after he had applied CPR to the store’s only security guard, who would otherwise have died. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that those workers deserve their jobs back, and that we need greater protection for workers who just do the right thing and confront shoplifters?
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Truro lost its post office last week as well, without a temporary alternative. Will the Minister consider consulting with the Post Office on alternatives when this happens in main cities and looking again at the franchise model, which seems to leave post office branches very vulnerable?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to my attention, and I would be more than happy to meet her to discuss it further.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Plans to revive Cornish tin and tungsten mining are well advanced with the support of the National Wealth Fund. However, if tin or tungsten were to be brought to the surface today, it would have to be shipped to the other side of the world for refining and processing, with only a fraction coming back to the UK at seriously increased cost. When Cornish MPs meet the Minister next week, can we discuss plans from Government to invest in domestic refinement of tin and tungsten?
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Royal Mail sorting offices in my patch are in absolute chaos—they are in meltdown—and I am really concerned that someone will end up in a tragic situation because of the lack of service. I have met Royal Mail on numerous occasions and there has been no change whatsoever—in fact, the service is getting worse. What can the Minister do to remedy the situation before somebody needs to be held accountable for a very serious situation?
Kate Dearden
I share my hon. Friend’s frustrations and concerns. Whether it is the biggest issue in my inbox and my constituency or from what I have heard from colleagues across the House, it is clear that Royal Mail has to do better, and I have been frank in my discussions with Royal Mail’s chief executive officer that it must deliver improvements at a much quicker pace. I will continue working with my hon. Friend to ensure that we can deliver for his constituents and those across the country who need a reliable postal service.
Draft Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices During the Recognition and Derecognition Process
Kate Dearden Excerpts(2 days, 13 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice: Access and Unfair Practices during the Recognition and Derecognition Process.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. The code of practice was laid before the House in draft on 6 July. I will explain to the Committee why we are bringing the code for consideration.
In our plan to make work pay, we made a commitment to simplify the trade union recognition process. The Employment Rights Act 2025 updates the legal framework on statutory trade union recognition, so that workers have a meaningful right to organise through trade unions. That includes having removed, last April, the requirement for a union to demonstrate at the application stage that a majority for union recognition is likely, and having removed the requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the appropriate bargaining unit in support of union recognition.
The 2025 Act also makes changes to provide better access arrangements for unions and it aims to deal more effectively with unfair practices during the recognition and derecognition processes. The Government are therefore updating the 2005 version of this code to ensure that all parties, including employers, workers and unions, understand how the legislative changes on access and unfair practices affect them.
We consulted on the revised code between 4 February and 1 April. The consultation sought views on the clarity of changes made to reflect the updated legal framework, structural amendments to reflect the legislative changes made under the 2025 Act, and other changes made to the code, including updating the guidance within it so that it accurately reflects modern working practices and language.
A number of revisions were made to the existing 2005 code following the consultation. Previously, the code applied only to the recognition or derecognition ballot phase. Now, the draft code reflects the changes made by the 2025 Act to access and unfair practices and it applies from the point where the Central Arbitration Committee accepts an application for recognition or derecognition. The code also reflects a clear timetable for negotiations on access: 20 working days from the point that the CAC accepts a trade union recognition application. If no agreement is reached, the CAC will have 10 working days to determine a reasonable access agreement.
The code has been revised to reflect the fact that the 2025 Act allows five working days after the close of the recognition ballot for complaints to be submitted to the CAC where an unfair practice is alleged. Where such a practice is alleged, the Act makes it easier to determine the complaints by only requiring the CAC to consider whether an unfair practice has occurred, without considering the effect that it may have had. The updated code also increases the suggested access meeting frequency and minimum length of meetings to once every five working days and 45 minutes, respectively, during the access period.
The changes will provide more opportunities for meaningful engagement between the union seeking recognition and the workers within the bargaining unit. That will allow union representatives to answer any questions that the workers may have, before the balloted workforce decides whether to agree to statutory union recognition.
Employers will of course have similar opportunities for engagement with their workers throughout the duration of period. In addition, we have sought to reassure employers, small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, for example by clarifying that the statutory recognition process does not apply to employers that have fewer than 21 workers and that nothing in the revised code will require employers to breach general data protection requirements.
The draft code also provides guidance on what constitutes a good access agreement. It establishes a structured framework covering key areas, such as who may be granted access, how and where access should take place—including digital options—and arrangements relating to timing, frequency, privacy and communication. Finally, the Government have taken the opportunity to bring the code up to date with changes in digital communications. The code now provides significantly more detailed guidance in this area, including guidance on digital access.
The draft code in Committee reflects the updated legal framework for statutory trade union recognition. Together with the 2025 Act, the changes strengthen the collective voice in the workplace, enhance worker representation and help to foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions and employers. I therefore commend the code of practice to the Committee.
Kate Dearden
I welcome the shadow Minister and thank him for his speech and questions. The Government are committed to simplifying and improving the recognition process so that workers have a meaningful right to organise through their trade unions. I am not going to spend this time going back and forth over ideology and principles, why the Employment Rights Act is the right thing to do to drive up the quality of work across every area of this country so that people have the rights that they should expect in the workplace, and that we are updating employment rights legislation so that it is fit for the 21st century. We have spent a lot of time doing that, so I will bring my remarks back to the code that we are discussing today.
The revised code supports part of our wider ambition. It supports the Employment Rights Act to deliver better access arrangements for unions and deals effectively with unfair practices during the recognition and derecognition process. As I said in my opening remarks, we listened carefully to views that were expressed during the consultation earlier this year, and I am happy to respond to the particular questions that the shadow Minister raised today. The Government carefully considered the consultation responses and recognised the concerns that were raised about operational impact. However, we believe that workers should have a meaningful opportunity to hear from union representatives and ask questions before making a decision about recognition. That is why we have retained the proposed frequency and duration of meetings alongside guidance intended to minimise disruption and support those practical arrangements, and amended the code to try to aid clarity and support practical use as far as possible.
We think it is right that we provide a level playing field. Employers have access to the workforce throughout the recognition process. Granting the union access to the workplace from the point where the CAC accepts the recognition claim enables the union to also have access to the workplace from the start of the recognition process, at least once the terms of the access are agreed or determined. We think that that is a fair approach. The costs and benefits in the recognition process and the changes that the shadow Minister referenced in his speech were laid out in the impact assessment; the Government expect the cost to be very low, estimating the annual net cost to business at £0.3 million. The code is statutory guidance; it does not impose further costs on employers beyond what we discussed at length during the passage of the Employment Rights Act.
Turning to the shadow Minister’s questions around unfair practices, the legal definition as to what constitutes an unfair practice has not changed, as he referenced, in the Employment Rights Act:
“Unfair practices are actions by an employer, union, or worker intended to influence the outcome of a recognition ballot. These include bribery, coercion, threats, or actively interfering in union management to sway worker decisions.”
We have clarified in the code some issues to consider around some actions during the recognition process. As he referenced, amending the definition of an unfair practice would require separate legislation, and our priority has been to implement the reforms to the recognition process as soon as possible and on the October timeline, as we promised throughout our road map since the introduction of this legislation.
We want to give time for the reforms to bed in and, should it be necessary in the future, we will bring forward further proposals to amend the definition of an unfair practice in addition to our planned additional unfair practice in relation to e-balloting in recognition and derecognition ballots. This code is a key part of our approach of providing increased worker voices in the workplace, improving pay, conditions and productivity, which enables us to protect workers from the unfair practices that we are discussing today, and improving employer-employee relations in the kind of country and workplaces that we are fighting for and want to build. It makes sure that recognition is fair in terms of the access period. It needed to be updated since that 2005 legislation in line with the ambitions that we have for legislation and the Employment Rights Act.
This is a key part of that agenda, and I believe that the code before colleagues on the Committee today will assist unions and employers in complying with the new statutory requirements on access and unfair practices during the recognition and derecognition process. That is why this code is necessary, and I hope that colleagues can support it today to enable that vision and for this to work practically in workplaces.
Question put.
“Make Work Pay” Plan
Kate Dearden Excerpts(2 days, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
The world of work has fundamentally changed in recent years. It is no longer the norm for employees to stay in one company, or even a single sector, for their whole career. New technology continues to rapidly transform how we work, where we work, and when we work, and the rise of the gig economy has changed the certainty and stability that employment used to provide.
The Government’s plan to make work pay is bringing employment rights legislation into the 21st century, extending to all the protections that many British companies already offer their workers. Yesterday, the Government updated Parliament on the further progress that we have made on implementing the Employment Rights Act 2025, and published responses to consultations on bereavement leave, flexible working, and the employer duty to inform workers of their right to join a trade union. The Government also published consultations on whistleblowing and tipping.
Today, the UK Government are publishing our consultation on employment status and protections for the self-employed. As part of the plan to make work pay, the Government are committed to ensuring that working people can access the rights and protections to which they are entitled, while supporting a fair, flexible and dynamic labour market.
However, the current employment status framework can be difficult to navigate, requiring individuals and businesses to understand complex legislation and case law. This uncertainty can give rise to bogus self-employment. Evidence suggests that up to 900,000 people may be denied access to core workplace protections, despite working in highly controlled working arrangements. The uncertainty allows some businesses to gain an unfair competitive advantage by failing to meet their legal obligations.
The Government believe that the current framework is not fit for purpose, and there is a strong case for reform. As working practices and business models evolve, the framework must adapt to support our ambition to improve job security, raise living standards and tackle exploitative working practices.
The Government have been clear about their ambition to reform the employment status framework to provide greater certainty and fairness for workers and businesses. Today, we are publishing a consultation on targeted reforms to tackle the most pressing issues in the employment status framework that enable worker exploitation and leave vulnerable workers without core employment protections that they are entitled to.
The Government also committed, in the plan to make work pay, to strengthening rights and protections for the self-employed, recognising the crucial role that they play in our economy. In this consultation, we are seeking views on how the Government can support the self-employed to thrive in good-quality self-employment.
This consultation seeks views on proposals to:
Rebalance the employment status test so that personal service, including the right to substitution, is less decisive and factors such as control are given greater weight when determining worker status. This would help to ensure that individuals under significant control are not denied core employment rights.
Introduce a presumption of worker status and consider the future role of the Fair Work Agency in enforcement to improve compliance with the framework. Presumption of worker status would shift the burden of proof to the engager of an individual to demonstrate that they are genuinely self-employed. This would empower workers, their representatives and agencies seeking to protect them, most notably the Fair Work Agency.
Consider how measures such as a new right to a written statement and the extension of blacklisting and health and safety protections could improve transparency, protections and fairness for the self-employed.
This consultation, and the measures within it, are concerned with the employment status framework for employment rights only, not the framework for tax. The consultation closes on 8 January 2027.
Next steps for consultation
The UK Government have committed to delivering their employment rights reforms in partnership with businesses, trade unions, public sector employers, and civil society. That is why we are undertaking full and comprehensive consultation with these groups on key changes. By delivering these reforms together, we are backing businesses who do the right thing and giving hard-working people the job security and opportunities they deserve. The Government will continue to keep Parliament updated on the implementation of the Employment Rights Act and the plan to make work pay.
[HCWS380]
Plan to Make Work Pay: Implementation
Kate Dearden Excerpts(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
Employment laws have not kept pace with modern working patterns. Too many workers lack the protections they need at work, while responsible businesses face unfair competition from those willing to exploit gaps in outdated employment laws. Our plan to make work pay is modernising employment rights to respond to a changing labour market and create a fairer, more secure economy for workers and businesses. The Employment Rights Act 2025 is extending employment protections already offered by many of Britain’s best employers to millions more workers, helping to raise living standards and support fair competition between businesses.
Many of these reforms are already making a real difference for workers, including the 1.3 million more workers now eligible for statutory sick pay, who previously earned too little to qualify, and the 32,000 fathers and partners who are now entitled to paternity leave from day one in a new job.
In August, electronic and workplace balloting for statutory trade union ballots came into effect. This allows statutory trade union ballots to be conducted electronically and in the workplace, rather than relying solely on postal voting.
Today, the UK Government are outlining further progress in the implementation of the Employment Rights Act 2025, as part of the plan to make work pay, updating Parliament on the publication of Government responses to consultations on bereavement leave, flexible working, and the employer duty to inform workers of their right to join a trade union. This written ministerial statement also provides an overview of the recently launched whistleblowing consultations, and the tipping consultation that was launched during the parliamentary recess. Further detail on each is provided in this statement.
Consultation 1: Whistleblowing
The whistleblowing framework in the Employment Rights Act 1996, which applies in England, Wales and Scotland, protects workers who make disclosures about wrongdoing in the public interest from dismissal or other detriment by their employer.
Many stakeholders have argued that the framework, which has remained largely unchanged since it came into force in 1999, may require reform. They have suggested that protections for workers are insufficient, that employers are not required to have whistleblowing procedures in place, and that the framework can be difficult to navigate for both workers and employers.
The UK Government have therefore launched a consultation to seek evidence and views on a range of potential reforms. The consultation also seeks views on the design of a proposed Serious Fraud Office scheme to provide financial rewards to individuals who report economic crime to the agency, and on associated criminal offences. This is in response to recommendations by Jonathan Fisher KC in part 2 of the independent review of disclosure and fraud offences, published by the Home Office in July 2026.
The consultation launched on 12 October and will run until 8 January 2027.
Consultation 2: Tipping
Too often, workers do not get a say in how tips and service charges are distributed in the workplace. This can make a big difference to what employees take home each month and wider workplace cohesion. This is particularly an issue in the hospitality sector, which makes up one of Britain’s largest workforces. We are changing that by introducing a new requirement for employers to consult with workers at their place of business when developing or revising their written tipping policies.
On 19 August, the UK Government launched a public consultation on tipping, which ran until 29 September. This consultation sought views on the revised statutory code of practice on fair and transparent distribution of tips. The new draft code takes into account: these new requirements on worker consultation and tipping policies; the views expressed during our previous public consultation, which was held between February and April 2026; and other developments in tipping industries since the current regime came into effect in October 2024.
We will carefully consider all representations before bringing into effect a final version before Parliament later this year, thereby enabling workers and employers to effectively exercise these new rights.
Government Response 1: Bereavement Leave
There is currently no statutory right for employees to take bereavement leave following a death or pregnancy loss, except for parents who lose a child aged under 18, or stillborn from 24 weeks. The Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces a power to create a new day one right to bereavement leave for the loss of other loved ones, including pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, guaranteeing employees the right to take time off to grieve and the security of knowing they have the legal right to do so.
The consultation for this entitlement ran for 12 weeks, concluding on 15 January 2026. The consultation sought views on details of the entitlement, such as eligibility criteria, the total duration of leave, the maximum window of time in which the leave must be taken, and the types of pregnancy loss in scope.
The Government response was published on 22 September 2026. It sets out the final details of the bereavement leave entitlement, and the next steps for its implementation. These details will be laid out in secondary legislation and are planned to come into force in April 2027. Measures set out in the response include:
The eligibility criteria, both for pregnancy loss and the loss of other loved ones.
When and how the leave can be taken, including leave length, notice periods and evidence requirements.
Government Response 2: Flexible Working
Despite recent reforms and wider cultural changes, flexible working requests are still handled inconsistently. While in some workplaces, managers and employees are working together to think about where flexibility might be possible, in others, these opportunities are missed.
Through the Employment Rights Act 2025, the UK Government are making changes to strengthen the flexible working framework. The Act introduces a new requirement that employers must only reject requests where it is reasonable to do so and provides powers to set out a statutory process employers must follow before rejecting a request. These changes are intended to improve transparency and accountability by ensuring that employees receive a clear explanation of decisions while supporting more meaningful discussion about whether flexibility can be accommodated.
Earlier this year the UK Government consulted on proposals to improve access to flexible working to shape how these reforms will be implemented in practice. The consultation ran from 5 February until 30 April 2026 and sought views on a new process that employers would be required to follow when considering the rejection of a statutory flexible working request, alongside wider questions about the operation of the flexible working framework and the guidance and support needed to make it work effectively in practice.
The Government response was published on 15 September and sets out feedback on the proposed process we took on board, and confirms plans to bring reforms into effect through secondary legislation. The reforms do not remove employers’ ability to refuse requests where it is reasonable to do so and where the relevant business reasons apply. Instead, they are intended to support better decision making and to encourage meaningful consideration of requests.
Having considered the consultation responses and wider evidence, the Government will now proceed with reforms enabled through the Employment Rights Act 2025.
To achieve this, the Government will:
Introduce secondary legislation setting out a process that employers must follow when considering the rejection of a statutory flexible working request.
Bring the reasonableness test introduced through the Employment Rights Act 2025 into force.
It is our intention that these changes will take effect in autumn 2027. The Government will also consider what other information and guidance may be needed to support implementation of these reforms.
Government Response 3: Employer Duty to Inform Workers of their Right to Join a Trade Union
Workers cannot exercise rights they do not know they have. Too many workers are unaware that they have a legal right to join a trade union. Without clear information, workers may not be in a position to make informed choices about whether trade union membership is right for them.
The Employment Rights Act 2025 addresses this long-standing gap in the legislation by introducing a new duty on employers to provide workers with a written statement about their right to join a trade union. This new duty will help to ensure that workers receive clear and consistent information about their right to join a trade union and are able to make an informed choice about union membership.
A consultation on this duty ran from 23 October to 18 December 2025 and sought views on the practical detail of how the duty should operate to ensure it is clear, proportionate and workable for both employers and workers.
The Government response, which was published on 25 September, confirms the final policy approach, which provides for a standardised statement drafted by Government that employers will be required to give to workers. The statement will include a brief overview of the functions of a trade union, information about recognised trade unions and trade unions with statutory access agreements where applicable, information on the certification officer’s list of trade unions, and a summary of statutory rights in relation to union membership. When implemented, employers must provide the statement to new workers directly, while employers have flexibility in how they provide the statement to existing workers either through direct or indirect delivery.
The duty is planned to come into force on 1 January 2027, with employers required to give the statement to new workers from its introduction and to existing workers by 6 April 2027.
Next Steps for Consultation
The UK Government have committed to delivering their employment rights reforms in partnership with businesses, trade unions, public sector employers, and civil society. That is why we are undertaking full and comprehensive consultation with these groups on key changes. By delivering these reforms together, we are backing businesses that do the right thing and giving hard-working people the job security and opportunities they deserve. The Government will continue to keep Parliament updated on the implementation of the Employment Rights Act and the plan to make work pay.
[HCWS372]
Pubs Code and Pubs Code Adjudicator: Statutory Review
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
In line with the Government’s regulatory action plan, which seeks to ensure the UK’s regulatory system is targeted, proportionate and supports growth, I am today publishing and laying before Parliament the report on the third statutory review of the pubs code and Pubs Code Adjudicator.
The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 provided for the establishment of the pubs code to regulate the relationship between large pub-owning businesses and their tied tenants in England and Wales. The pubs code is found in the Pubs Code etc. Regulations 2016. It governs the relationship between large pub-owning businesses, who have estates of 500 or more tied pubs in England and Wales, and their tied pub tenants.
The code is based on the principles that tied tenants should be treated fairly and that they should not be worse off than they would be if they were free of their tie. The code includes a range of rights and protections for tied tenants in their commercial dealings with their pub-owning business—POB—related to their fair and lawful treatment. The code also gives tenants the right, at certain times, to exercise a market rent only—MRO—option, to change from a tied tenancy to a free-of-tie tenancy, where the rent is set at the market level and the tenant is able to buy products on the open market
The Act requires the Secretary of State to appoint a Pubs Code Adjudicator. The role of the PCA is to enforce the code and to encourage and monitor compliance with its requirements. The PCA can also give advice and guidance, investigate non-compliance with the code, enforce the code where non-compliance is found and arbitrate disputes under the code. Where the PCA finds non-compliance, it can require the publication of information, impose financial penalties or make recommendations.
The Act requires the Secretary of State to review the following every three years: the operation of the pubs code, the performance of the PCA, and the regulations setting the PCA’s costs, fees and financial penalties. This statutory review covers the period from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2025 and draws on publicly available evidence and data published in the Government’s pubs code post-implementation review. It also includes stakeholder views from the Government’s 12-week call for input, which was published on 22 May 2025 and received 36 responses.
This third review found the code to be operating consistently with the two overarching principles set out in the Act: the fair and lawful dealing by pub-owning businesses in relation to their tied pub tenants; and tied tenants not being worse off than they would be if they were not subject to any product or service tie.
While there have been improvements in the professionalisation of support available to tied tenants, the review found that there is some concern with tenants’ ability to access the existing MRO gateways. The review also found that POBs believed MRO hindered their ability to invest and plan for the future of their business.
The Government will therefore develop proposals with stakeholders to introduce additional MRO gateways and further opt-out provisions, with the aim of further strengthening the effectiveness of the pubs code.
With regard to the PCA, the review found the PCA has been broadly effective in enforcing the code over the review period, with particular success in reducing arbitration cases and successfully completing the first investigation under the code. The review however notes that there are areas for improvement. While the Secretary of State does not believe he needs to issue new guidance under the Act, the Government encourage the PCA to act on six areas identified in this statutory review to further improve its effectiveness. As the PCA has now been in existence for over a decade and the current PCA is reaching the end of her second term, the Government will also consider commissioning an independent review of how it protects tied tenants’ rights and fair treatment under the code.
The review further found that no changes were necessary to the related code and PCA fees, costs and penalties as set out in the Pubs Code (Fees, Costs and Financial Penalties) Regulations 2016.
The report on the third statutory review of the pubs code and PCA has today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
[HCWS339]
Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces
Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026.
Kate Dearden
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Stringer.
These regulations were laid before the House on 6 July 2026. The Employment Rights Act 2025 established, for the first time in Great Britain, a statutory framework through which independent trade unions and employers can negotiate agreements for access to workplaces. At present, trade unions have no general independent right of access to workplaces. Where unions cannot reach a voluntary agreement with an employer, they can act only through individual members in a workplace, which can limit their ability to represent workers and facilitate collective bargaining.
The new statutory framework enables unions to access workplaces physically and to communicate with workers, both in person and digitally. It will benefit workers, employers and trade unions alike by supporting constructive engagement, providing greater certainty and creating clearer routes to resolution where access agreements cannot be reached.
The right of access is underpinned by access principles established by the 2025 Act. Those principles recognise that trade union officials should be able to communicate effectively with workers for the statutory access purposes, that employers should take reasonable steps to facilitate access, and that access should be refused entirely only where it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.
The framework encourages employers and trade unions to first reach access agreements through discussion and negotiation. However, where that is not possible via negotiation, the framework enables the union or employer to refer the case to the Central Arbitration Committee, known as the CAC, for a determination on whether access should be granted and on what terms.
The regulations before the Committee provide the practical and operational detail needed for the framework to operate effectively. They establish the procedures for access requests and negotiations, set out the matters the CAC must consider when determining applications, and establish the enforcement framework where statutory access agreements are breached. The accompanying draft code of practice supports employers and trade unions on how the framework should operate in practice, including requests for access, negotiations, digital access and enforcement.
Turning to specific matters included in the regulations, part 3 of the regulations provides that the CAC must refuse an application for statutory access where the employer has fewer than 21 workers. That threshold aligns the access framework with the existing statutory recognition regime in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Applying a consistent threshold across those closely related frameworks provides greater clarity for employers, workers, unions and the CAC, while recognising the operational and administrative challenges that the smallest employers may face. That is why employers with fewer than 21 workers fall outside the scope of CAC-imposed access agreements.
Regarding the practical operation of access agreements, the Government have been clear that access must operate in a way that is compatible with the legitimate operational needs of employers. Access is therefore not unrestricted and cannot unreasonably interfere with an employer’s operation. Access will take place under an agreement setting out where, when and how it may be exercised.
Union officials will need to take account of relevant operational, health, safety, security and safeguarding requirements. Part 3 of the regulations sets out certain circumstances where it is to be regarded as reasonable for the CAC to refuse access, and circumstances where access must be refused altogether, including where the CAC considers that necessary in the interests of national security or to avoid prejudice to the prevention, detection or prosecution of criminal offences.
We recognise that different workplaces face different operational realities. What may be appropriate in an office environment may not be appropriate in a customer-facing business, on a construction site or in a high-security workplace. The framework therefore requires access agreements to reflect the circumstances of the workplace concerned.
I turn to frequency of access. Part 3 of the regulations and the draft code identify weekly access as one of the model access terms. The Government’s view is that access agreements should provide a genuine opportunity for trade unions to communicate with workers, rather than access being so infrequent that its practical value is limited. The Government consider weekly access to provide an appropriate level of regularity to support effective engagement between trade unions and workers. It helps to maintain continuity of engagement, increases the likelihood that union representatives can reach workers across different shifts and working patterns and provides employers with a predictable and structured pattern of engagement. Weekly access is not mandatory, and trade unions and employers remain free to negotiate arrangements that reflect the circumstances of the workplace and the workforce concerned.
Part 4 of the regulations specifies the maximum financial penalties that the CAC may impose on the liable party and the factors it must consider when determining the exact penalty amount. It is important to emphasise that financial penalties are not available at the initial complaint stage, and the framework is designed first to provide the liable party with the opportunity to remedy their actions and secure compliance. The CAC may require the liable party to take specified steps to ensure that access takes place in accordance with the agreement.
Financial penalties become available only where there is subsequent non-compliance after the CAC has already intervened. The framework adopts a graduated approach. The maximum penalty is £75,000 for a first penalty order, £150,000 for a second and £500,000 for subsequent penalty orders under the same access agreement. These are maximum amounts, not automatic penalties, and the CAC must consider factors including the nature and gravity of the breach and the number of workers affected. That ensures that penalties can be tailored to the particular circumstances of the case, while providing the CAC with meaningful powers to address deliberate and repeated non-compliance where necessary.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the new access framework operates effectively in practice. That is why, alongside the statutory review requirements contained in the regulations, we have committed to reviewing the operation of the framework within six months of implementation. The review will consider how the framework is functioning in practice, in consultation with trade unions, employers and the CAC.
The regulations and the code of practice establish the operational and procedural framework for a new statutory right of access and establish clear routes for determination and enforcement where agreement cannot be reached or an agreement is subsequently breached. Crucially, the framework enables unions to engage with workers in person or digitally for the purposes of representation, support, recruitment, organisation, and collective bargaining and delivers on our commitment to strengthen fair and constructive industrial relations as part of our plan to make work pay. I therefore commend the regulations and the code of practice to the Committee.
The Chair
To clarify, the debate is on both instruments. At the end of the debate, the Committee will vote on the first instrument. I will then ask the Minister to move the second instrument formally, and we will vote on that.
Kate Dearden
I thank all colleagues for their contributions during this debate; they are very much appreciated. The scrutiny offered has been constructive too, so I thank all colleagues for their speeches and interventions.
I will start off with the reflections from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, particularly around growth. As a principle and a starting point, the argument that workers’ rights are bad for growth is just a false choice. A modern economy needs productive workplaces; it needs good communication and a workforce who feel that their voice has been heard. This framework supports those things. That is exactly what we are discussing today.
We are asking business to engage with a lawful process, with clear rules and safeguards; I hope that my introductory speech outlined many of those in detail. The draft code is designed to make access practical, exactly for that purpose: it encourages those voluntary agreements first and provides a clear route to resolve disagreements where they cannot be reached.
Good employment relations are the foundation of productivity for our country. We truly believe that the two go hand in hand in terms of growth, workers’ rights and building our economy. The shadow Minister referenced SMEs in particular, and I thank him for doing so.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like to declare an interest as the vice-chair of the Unison group of MPs. The Minister rightly says that it is a false choice between good employment relations or growing the economy. Would she also accept that it is a false choice to say that people in a company with more than 21 employees should have access rights and those with fewer than 21 should not? That is still a choice by the Government and it suggests that workers in smaller companies are somehow less likely to be exploited by their employers than those in larger companies.
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which is appreciated. I outlined the rationale for the threshold aligning with the statutory recognition framework. Below the 21-worker threshold, they are still voluntary, and many trade unions are recognising smaller and micro employers. Where we can encourage good co-operation and working with trade unions, we will always do that.
As I said, SMEs in particular are the backbone of our economy—I come from a small business family and know just how hard small businesses work, day in, day out for our communities and in all our constituencies.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful for the Minister’s engagement, but can I point out a practical problem in the context of seafarers? With the vast majority of the merchant fleet not flagged with GB owners, the problem—including on the ferries and so on that are working out of British ports for more than 120 days a year—is that there is a relatively small number of UK-based seafarers, perhaps fewer than 21, among the complement of a crew. The Government have set that arbitrary figure, and I can understand what the Minister is saying in relation to small businesses more generally on terra firma, but I think a bit of flexibility needs to be applied in the maritime setting.
While I am on my feet—forgive me, Mr Stringer; I do not want to interrupt again—we are seeking assurances in relation to that threshold and the fines that were being applied. If the Minister is unable to give that assurance within the context of these statutory instruments, could we could press for a meeting with the Minister so that we can explore the options that might be available?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend and promise him that I will get to his points—particularly on seafarers as well as the wider review—shortly. I will respond and touch on a lot of those points, and I hope that colleagues always know that I am available for conversations on all areas of my brief.
The shadow Minister raised small businesses. I have touched on how important they are and how committed we are to working with them, whether under the Employment Rights Act or across our Department and Government. On the ERA, as he mentioned, we are working closely with SMEs, particularly on the consultations. We are hearing their views and their considerations are essential to all our work. We are providing that guidance and working closely with ACAS to provide training, support and resources.
The phased implementation has been really important throughout the past two years in terms of guidance of when changes will be introduced under the Employment Rights Act. We are absolutely committed to working closely with our small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy. In addition, we are giving them support, whether it is in small business strategy, the work we are doing on payments, access to finance or open opportunities for exports and trade. We are always keen to work with our small businesses and give them the support that they need.
Before I respond to the contribution from colleagues on my side of the Committee, for which I thank them again, I want to say that the Conservatives often talk about workers’ rights. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, mentioned the pro-worker, pro-business angle, which I have addressed consistently in the approach to this legislation, but he mentioned workers’ rights as though they are a threat to business. As discussed in detail in a delegated legislation Committee yesterday, good employment relations are a sign of strength and a successful economy. That is part of our promise to strengthen workers’ rights. These regulations give trade unions the proper power and ability to organise, while keeping the clear safeguards that I mentioned in my opening remarks. That is how we have arrived at a sensible and proportionate framework.
I thank my hon. Friends, who raised a number of issues. I absolutely share their ambition for a strong and effective right of access. These regulations are an important part of making that right real. We will judge the framework on whether it helps workers to organise in practice and gives them a meaningful route to deliver the policy objectives set out in the Employment Rights Act, which many colleagues have spoken about today.
Engaging with workers for those statutory access purposes is essential. That is why, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have committed to a review within six months of implementation. It will look at many of the practical issues that colleagues have raised, including the operation of the enforcement regime, and whether the penalty regime remains proportionate and effective in encouraging compliance.
Gareth Snell
The Minister says that there will be a review within six months, but can she be clearer to give us certainty? Will it start within six months or will it have concluded within six months? If it starts within six months, how long does she anticipate it will take? I am sadly old enough to remember Government reviews that started within six months and took two and a half years. As she knows, I nag her about others on her desk that have been there for two and a half years. When will we get the outcome of the review? The review itself is important, but we will all be more interested in the consequences of any changes that come from it.
Kate Dearden
We have committed to reviewing the framework within six months of implementation, and I will work closely with my hon. Friend on the timeline and what the review will look like. I know that, like other hon. Members, he is keen to be kept updated on that. I commit to working closely with him on it, and to providing him with updates as much as I can. The review will consider the 21-worker threshold, CAC decision making, model terms, digital access and joint applications. I thank hon. Members for the points they raised on that.
I thank hon. Members for mentioning seafarers, and particularly the concerns raised by the RMT. As a starting point, I am happy to commit to engaging further with colleagues and with maritime trade unions on access provisions.
Jen Craft
Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest, an organisation in my constituency, does excellent work with seafarers. It has shared some truly horrific stories about conditions on board falling below what we would expect. It has flagged that those conditions can stray into the realm of violence against women and girls. Without adequate protections for UK seafarers—particularly women seafarers—we risk making the situation worse. I would be very grateful if the Minister met me and Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest in my patch to talk about some of those things.
Kate Dearden
I can absolutely commit to following up and meeting my hon. Friend, her constituents and those involved. I thank her for making me aware of that issue in Committee.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I declare my union activity as a former member of the National Union of Journalists. I do not miss it at all; it did nothing for me and took money out of my wages. My father was a marine engineer, and when he joined British Petroleum in the ’60s, the number of British-flagged ships that BP had alone was greater than the entire number of British-flagged ships in the modern era. If the Government are so concerned about British sailors on British ships, should they be looking at the way British ships are registered? Other countries use their systems to generate revenue, while registering a ship in this country is a very expensive burden. Should we be looking at how to get more ships under the red ensign?
Kate Dearden
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has raised his concerns directly with the Minister responsible for that sector.
In respect of the access requirement, I hope that hon. Members have heard my commitment to follow up and engage with them further. That invitation extends to our engagement with maritime trade unions on access provisions, particularly in the context of seafarers and merchant shipping with a close connection to the UK. I absolutely commit to that today, and it will form part of the review following implementation. Through our wider employment rights legislation, we are absolutely committed to protecting the working conditions of those working abroad, with international services frequently calling at UK ports. I hope that hon. Members welcome the reassurance on follow-up and review.
I have covered lots of hon. Members’ questions, but I am always happy to follow up. I hope the Committee agrees that the regulations and the accompanying code of practice strike the appropriate balance. We commit to further follow-up in reviewing how the legislation plays out in practice, so as to absolutely meet the intention outlined in the Act.
Gareth Snell
The Minister has not touched on the cap on fines for big companies. Does she think that is sufficient? Amazon’s turnover this year was £30 billion—that is 30,000 million. The maximum fine that it could get in a calendar year is half a million pounds—one sixty-thousandth of its turnover. That is the equivalent of MPs being fined £1.50 of our parliamentary salary. Does she honestly believe that level of potential fine to be a deterrent from bad behaviour?
Kate Dearden
I hope that my hon. Friend heard that, in the review, we will absolutely focus on the enforcement regime, including whether the penalty regime he mentions—and the example that he refers to—remains proportionate and effective in encouraging compliance. It is important that we build that into the review. Let us see how it works in practice. Clearly, where the CAC needs further support, we will review that. Seeing how the policy plays out in practice will form an essential part of our review.
As I have mentioned, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the new rights operate effectively in the workplace, and the review is a key part of that. This is an essential and significant moment in industrial relations across the UK. We want to foster good practice. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to the consultations, and worked with me and my brilliant officials in the Department, to ensure that the regulations could be brought to the House today and come into effect next month.
We want to ensure that the legislation is effective, proportionate and suited to the realities of modern workplaces. It is a shame that the Conservatives cannot support us today. My question for them is: do they believe that workers should be able to hear from an independent trade union in their workplace? That is exactly what the legislation is about. I commend the regulations and the code of practice to the Committee.
Bradley Thomas
On a point of order, Mr Stringer. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, who is sat next to me, does not appear on the cast list. How does that affect the vote?
Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces;
Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026.
Kate Dearden
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Stringer.
These regulations were laid before the House on 6 July 2026. The Employment Rights Act 2025 established, for the first time in Great Britain, a statutory framework through which independent trade unions and employers can negotiate agreements for access to workplaces. At present, trade unions have no general independent right of access to workplaces. Where unions cannot reach a voluntary agreement with an employer, they can act only through individual members in a workplace, which can limit their ability to represent workers and facilitate collective bargaining.
The new statutory framework enables unions to access workplaces physically and to communicate with workers, both in person and digitally. It will benefit workers, employers and trade unions alike by supporting constructive engagement, providing greater certainty and creating clearer routes to resolution where access agreements cannot be reached.
The right of access is underpinned by access principles established by the 2025 Act. Those principles recognise that trade union officials should be able to communicate effectively with workers for the statutory access purposes, that employers should take reasonable steps to facilitate access, and that access should be refused entirely only where it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.
The framework encourages employers and trade unions to first reach access agreements through discussion and negotiation. However, where that is not possible via negotiation, the framework enables the union or employer to refer the case to the Central Arbitration Committee, known as the CAC, for a determination on whether access should be granted and on what terms.
The regulations before the Committee provide the practical and operational detail needed for the framework to operate effectively. They establish the procedures for access requests and negotiations, set out the matters the CAC must consider when determining applications, and establish the enforcement framework where statutory access agreements are breached. The accompanying draft code of practice supports employers and trade unions on how the framework should operate in practice, including requests for access, negotiations, digital access and enforcement.
Turning to specific matters included in the regulations, part 3 of the regulations provides that the CAC must refuse an application for statutory access where the employer has fewer than 21 workers. That threshold aligns the access framework with the existing statutory recognition regime in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Applying a consistent threshold across those closely related frameworks provides greater clarity for employers, workers, unions and the CAC, while recognising the operational and administrative challenges that the smallest employers may face. That is why employers with fewer than 21 workers fall outside the scope of CAC-imposed access agreements.
Regarding the practical operation of access agreements, the Government have been clear that access must operate in a way that is compatible with the legitimate operational needs of employers. Access is therefore not unrestricted and cannot unreasonably interfere with an employer’s operation. Access will take place under an agreement setting out where, when and how it may be exercised.
Union officials will need to take account of relevant operational, health, safety, security and safeguarding requirements. Part 3 of the regulations sets out certain circumstances where it is to be regarded as reasonable for the CAC to refuse access, and circumstances where access must be refused altogether, including where the CAC considers that necessary in the interests of national security or to avoid prejudice to the prevention, detection or prosecution of criminal offences.
We recognise that different workplaces face different operational realities. What may be appropriate in an office environment may not be appropriate in a customer-facing business, on a construction site or in a high-security workplace. The framework therefore requires access agreements to reflect the circumstances of the workplace concerned.
I turn to frequency of access. Part 3 of the regulations and the draft code identify weekly access as one of the model access terms. The Government’s view is that access agreements should provide a genuine opportunity for trade unions to communicate with workers, rather than access being so infrequent that its practical value is limited. The Government consider weekly access to provide an appropriate level of regularity to support effective engagement between trade unions and workers. It helps to maintain continuity of engagement, increases the likelihood that union representatives can reach workers across different shifts and working patterns and provides employers with a predictable and structured pattern of engagement. Weekly access is not mandatory, and trade unions and employers remain free to negotiate arrangements that reflect the circumstances of the workplace and the workforce concerned.
Part 4 of the regulations specifies the maximum financial penalties that the CAC may impose on the liable party and the factors it must consider when determining the exact penalty amount. It is important to emphasise that financial penalties are not available at the initial complaint stage, and the framework is designed first to provide the liable party with the opportunity to remedy their actions and secure compliance. The CAC may require the liable party to take specified steps to ensure that access takes place in accordance with the agreement.
Financial penalties become available only where there is subsequent non-compliance after the CAC has already intervened. The framework adopts a graduated approach. The maximum penalty is £75,000 for a first penalty order, £150,000 for a second and £500,000 for subsequent penalty orders under the same access agreement. These are maximum amounts, not automatic penalties, and the CAC must consider factors including the nature and gravity of the breach and the number of workers affected. That ensures that penalties can be tailored to the particular circumstances of the case, while providing the CAC with meaningful powers to address deliberate and repeated non-compliance where necessary.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the new access framework operates effectively in practice. That is why, alongside the statutory review requirements contained in the regulations, we have committed to reviewing the operation of the framework within six months of implementation. The review will consider how the framework is functioning in practice, in consultation with trade unions, employers and the CAC.
The regulations and the code of practice establish the operational and procedural framework for a new statutory right of access and establish clear routes for determination and enforcement where agreement cannot be reached or an agreement is subsequently breached. Crucially, the framework enables unions to engage with workers in person or digitally for the purposes of representation, support, recruitment, organisation, and collective bargaining and delivers on our commitment to strengthen fair and constructive industrial relations as part of our plan to make work pay. I therefore commend the regulations and the code of practice to the Committee.
The Chair
To clarify, the debate is on both instruments. At the end of the debate, the Committee will vote on the first instrument. I will then ask the Minister to move the second instrument formally, and we will vote on that.
Kate Dearden
I thank all colleagues for their contributions during this debate; they are very much appreciated. The scrutiny offered has been constructive too, so I thank all colleagues for their speeches and interventions.
I will start off with the reflections from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, particularly around growth. As a principle and a starting point, the argument that workers’ rights are bad for growth is just a false choice. A modern economy needs productive workplaces; it needs good communication and a workforce who feel that their voice has been heard. This framework supports those things. That is exactly what we are discussing today.
We are asking business to engage with a lawful process, with clear rules and safeguards; I hope that my introductory speech outlined many of those in detail. The draft code is designed to make access practical, exactly for that purpose: it encourages those voluntary agreements first and provides a clear route to resolve disagreements where they cannot be reached.
Good employment relations are the foundation of productivity for our country. We truly believe that the two go hand in hand in terms of growth, workers’ rights and building our economy. The shadow Minister referenced SMEs in particular, and I thank him for doing so.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like to declare an interest as the vice-chair of the Unison group of MPs. The Minister rightly says that it is a false choice between good employment relations or growing the economy. Would she also accept that it is a false choice to say that people in a company with more than 21 employees should have access rights and those with fewer than 21 should not? That is still a choice by the Government and it suggests that workers in smaller companies are somehow less likely to be exploited by their employers than those in larger companies.
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which is appreciated. I outlined the rationale for the threshold aligning with the statutory recognition framework. Below the 21-worker threshold, they are still voluntary, and many trade unions are recognising smaller and micro employers. Where we can encourage good co-operation and working with trade unions, we will always do that.
As I said, SMEs in particular are the backbone of our economy—I come from a small business family and know just how hard small businesses work, day in, day out for our communities and in all our constituencies.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful for the Minister’s engagement, but can I point out a practical problem in the context of seafarers? With the vast majority of the merchant fleet not flagged with GB owners, the problem—including on the ferries and so on that are working out of British ports for more than 120 days a year—is that there is a relatively small number of UK-based seafarers, perhaps fewer than 21, among the complement of a crew. The Government have set that arbitrary figure, and I can understand what the Minister is saying in relation to small businesses more generally on terra firma, but I think a bit of flexibility needs to be applied in the maritime setting.
While I am on my feet—forgive me, Mr Stringer; I do not want to interrupt again—we are seeking assurances in relation to that threshold and the fines that were being applied. If the Minister is unable to give that assurance within the context of these statutory instruments, could we could press for a meeting with the Minister so that we can explore the options that might be available?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend and promise him that I will get to his points—particularly on seafarers as well as the wider review—shortly. I will respond and touch on a lot of those points, and I hope that colleagues always know that I am available for conversations on all areas of my brief.
The shadow Minister raised small businesses. I have touched on how important they are and how committed we are to working with them, whether under the Employment Rights Act or across our Department and Government. On the ERA, as he mentioned, we are working closely with SMEs, particularly on the consultations. We are hearing their views and their considerations are essential to all our work. We are providing that guidance and working closely with ACAS to provide training, support and resources.
The phased implementation has been really important throughout the past two years in terms of guidance of when changes will be introduced under the Employment Rights Act. We are absolutely committed to working closely with our small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy. In addition, we are giving them support, whether it is in small business strategy, the work we are doing on payments, access to finance or open opportunities for exports and trade. We are always keen to work with our small businesses and give them the support that they need.
Before I respond to the contribution from colleagues on my side of the Committee, for which I thank them again, I want to say that the Conservatives often talk about workers’ rights. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, mentioned the pro-worker, pro-business angle, which I have addressed consistently in the approach to this legislation, but he mentioned workers’ rights as though they are a threat to business. As discussed in detail in a delegated legislation Committee yesterday, good employment relations are a sign of strength and a successful economy. That is part of our promise to strengthen workers’ rights. These regulations give trade unions the proper power and ability to organise, while keeping the clear safeguards that I mentioned in my opening remarks. That is how we have arrived at a sensible and proportionate framework.
I thank my hon. Friends, who raised a number of issues. I absolutely share their ambition for a strong and effective right of access. These regulations are an important part of making that right real. We will judge the framework on whether it helps workers to organise in practice and gives them a meaningful route to deliver the policy objectives set out in the Employment Rights Act, which many colleagues have spoken about today.
Engaging with workers for those statutory access purposes is essential. That is why, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have committed to a review within six months of implementation. It will look at many of the practical issues that colleagues have raised, including the operation of the enforcement regime, and whether the penalty regime remains proportionate and effective in encouraging compliance.
Gareth Snell
The Minister says that there will be a review within six months, but can she be clearer to give us certainty? Will it start within six months or will it have concluded within six months? If it starts within six months, how long does she anticipate it will take? I am sadly old enough to remember Government reviews that started within six months and took two and a half years. As she knows, I nag her about others on her desk that have been there for two and a half years. When will we get the outcome of the review? The review itself is important, but we will all be more interested in the consequences of any changes that come from it.
Kate Dearden
We have committed to reviewing the framework within six months of implementation, and I will work closely with my hon. Friend on the timeline and what the review will look like. I know that, like other hon. Members, he is keen to be kept updated on that. I commit to working closely with him on it, and to providing him with updates as much as I can. The review will consider the 21-worker threshold, CAC decision making, model terms, digital access and joint applications. I thank hon. Members for the points they raised on that.
I thank hon. Members for mentioning seafarers, and particularly the concerns raised by the RMT. As a starting point, I am happy to commit to engaging further with colleagues and with maritime trade unions on access provisions.
Jen Craft
Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest, an organisation in my constituency, does excellent work with seafarers. It has shared some truly horrific stories about conditions on board falling below what we would expect. It has flagged that those conditions can stray into the realm of violence against women and girls. Without adequate protections for UK seafarers—particularly women seafarers—we risk making the situation worse. I would be very grateful if the Minister met me and Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest in my patch to talk about some of those things.
Kate Dearden
I can absolutely commit to following up and meeting my hon. Friend, her constituents and those involved. I thank her for making me aware of that issue in Committee.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I declare my union activity as a former member of the National Union of Journalists. I do not miss it at all; it did nothing for me and took money out of my wages. My father was a marine engineer, and when he joined British Petroleum in the ’60s, the number of British-flagged ships that BP had alone was greater than the entire number of British-flagged ships in the modern era. If the Government are so concerned about British sailors on British ships, should they be looking at the way British ships are registered? Other countries use their systems to generate revenue, while registering a ship in this country is a very expensive burden. Should we be looking at how to get more ships under the red ensign?
Kate Dearden
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has raised his concerns directly with the Minister responsible for that sector.
In respect of the access requirement, I hope that hon. Members have heard my commitment to follow up and engage with them further. That invitation extends to our engagement with maritime trade unions on access provisions, particularly in the context of seafarers and merchant shipping with a close connection to the UK. I absolutely commit to that today, and it will form part of the review following implementation. Through our wider employment rights legislation, we are absolutely committed to protecting the working conditions of those working abroad, with international services frequently calling at UK ports. I hope that hon. Members welcome the reassurance on follow-up and review.
I have covered lots of hon. Members’ questions, but I am always happy to follow up. I hope the Committee agrees that the regulations and the accompanying code of practice strike the appropriate balance. We commit to further follow-up in reviewing how the legislation plays out in practice, so as to absolutely meet the intention outlined in the Act.
Gareth Snell
The Minister has not touched on the cap on fines for big companies. Does she think that is sufficient? Amazon’s turnover this year was £30 billion—that is 30,000 million. The maximum fine that it could get in a calendar year is half a million pounds—one sixty-thousandth of its turnover. That is the equivalent of MPs being fined £1.50 of our parliamentary salary. Does she honestly believe that level of potential fine to be a deterrent from bad behaviour?
Kate Dearden
I hope that my hon. Friend heard that, in the review, we will absolutely focus on the enforcement regime, including whether the penalty regime he mentions—and the example that he refers to—remains proportionate and effective in encouraging compliance. It is important that we build that into the review. Let us see how it works in practice. Clearly, where the CAC needs further support, we will review that. Seeing how the policy plays out in practice will form an essential part of our review.
As I have mentioned, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the new rights operate effectively in the workplace, and the review is a key part of that. This is an essential and significant moment in industrial relations across the UK. We want to foster good practice. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to the consultations, and worked with me and my brilliant officials in the Department, to ensure that the regulations could be brought to the House today and come into effect next month.
We want to ensure that the legislation is effective, proportionate and suited to the realities of modern workplaces. It is a shame that the Conservatives cannot support us today. My question for them is: do they believe that workers should be able to hear from an independent trade union in their workplace? That is exactly what the legislation is about. I commend the regulations and the code of practice to the Committee.
Bradley Thomas
On a point of order, Mr Stringer. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, who is sat next to me, does not appear on the cast list. How does that affect the vote?
Draft ACAS Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Acas Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Jeremy. The measure was laid in draft before this House on 6 July 2026. This Government are resetting and modernising our industrial relations framework. We believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. The Government want to ensure that trade union workplace representatives can take sufficient reasonable paid time off and have sufficient access to facilities to enable them to fulfil their union representative duties.
The Acas code of practice, issued under section 199 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, provides practical guidance on reasonable paid time off and access to accommodation and other facilities that employees who are trade union representatives are entitled to take to fulfil their trade union duties. The code has been updated following the changes introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025, which strengthened and introduced rights for employees who are trade union representatives.
There are three key changes made by the Employment Rights Act to the existing statutory framework. First, it strengthens the existing right to reasonable paid facility time for trade union representatives to carry out their duties. The legislation now makes it clear that, where a request is made, it should generally be treated as reasonable, and it is for the employer to demonstrate otherwise if challenged in a tribunal. Secondly, there is a statutory provision that representatives should be provided with reasonable access to facilities, such as meeting spaces, communication tools and appropriate workplace resources, to enable them to carry out their duties or undergo relevant training. Thirdly, the Act introduces a new right for trade union equality representatives to reasonable paid time off for specified equality-related purposes.
Those changes are due to take effect on 30 October. The code has been updated to reflect the changes and support effective and smooth implementation when these new rights come into force in October. It provides clear, accessible guidance to employers, trade unions and representatives on how the statutory framework should operate in practice.
The code sets out in practical terms how these rights should be applied, covering matters such as the kinds of activities that fall under the statutory duties and purposes, factors that might make a request reasonable or not, how unions and employers should communicate about arrangements for time off, and the agreement of arrangements between employers and unions. Importantly, the code supports constructive engagement between employers and unions. The intention is not to prescribe rigid rules but to encourage that co-operation and clarity, so that arrangements work for employers, businesses and trade unions.
The code provides clear guidance that will give employers confidence in how to approach requests, and will help representatives to understand how to exercise their rights appropriately. In that sense, the laying of this code is a necessary step to ensure that the changes made by the 2025 Act operate as intended from day one. I therefore support this code of practice and commend it to the House.
Kate Dearden
I welcome the shadow Minister to his role and to the Committee. I look forward to working with him and debating many issues—this one in particular. He spoke a lot about industrial action. I always find it quite rich when the Opposition talk about strike days, because on their watch they did absolutely nothing to further good industrial relations in this country. That is a real shame, because it is a detriment not only to those employers but to trade unions, our society and our economy as a whole. That is why this Government are absolutely acting responsibly.
I will come to the issue that we are debating today, but let me first say that we recognise the need to make sure that our wider industrial relations framework is functioning so that we can resolve disputes in the workplace early. That is good for businesses, employers and trade unions, so enforcement and ensuring we have negotiation skills across the workplace are really important.
What the Government are doing to reset industrial relations is responsible. We are modernising our wider framework, alongside passing lots of legislation, including the instrument that we are discussing today, and helping to usher in a more co-operative and constructive approach among employers, workers and their unions. I think that is a really good thing.
Bradley Thomas
Does the Minister accept that in settling trade disputes, the Government should emphasise increases in productivity, not just blanket above-inflation pay rises?
Kate Dearden
I will not be drawn on the ins and outs of every single dispute that is happening in the industrial relations landscape. I will bring us back to what a responsible Government are doing: fostering good industrial relations, which is absolutely the right thing to do. Unfortunately, perhaps the shadow Minister and I just disagree on that point.
Let me bring us back to the draft Acas code of practice. The statutory instrument will ensure that employers have the guidance they need based on what was passed in the Employment Rights Act. It is a necessary step so that employers have the guidance to facilitate the legislation and understand their duties. It is really important to provide that guidance and clarity.
We have already touched on the ability to resolve grievances early, and it is really good and positive for reps to have more ability to spend time on doing that in the workplace. In addition, they can improve communication, support workplace training and prevent disputes. That is great workplace value, and that is what we want to foster going forward.
The measure we are debating is necessary and the right step to take. As I said in my introductory speech, we want to make sure that the code plays a key role in ensuring that the new rights introduced in the Act passed last year can operate effectively in practice from the point at which they come into force next month. I hope the code of practice will be approved. It is a real shame that the Opposition cannot support us today.
Corporate Reporting Modernisation: Consultation
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I am pleased to announce that today the Government have launched a public consultation on modernising corporate reporting. As announced in the House in October 2025 by Minister McDougall, this is a significant step in our programme to simplify, streamline and modernise the UK’s corporate reporting framework.
The consultation sets out the Government’s proposals on how to reset the purpose of company annual reports and accounts, ensuring they provide decision-useful, financially material information for investors, creditors and others It also invites views on creating a more proportionate, flexible and modern reporting framework, including:
simplifying strategic, governance and remuneration reporting;
moving towards a more proportionate financial reporting regime;
focusing non-financial disclosures on what is genuinely material; and
embedding digital-first corporate communications where appropriate.
These reforms, among others, are intended to remove duplication and unnecessary requirements, improve clarity for preparers and users and future-proof the UK’s reporting system, consistent with international developments. By simplifying and refocusing corporate reporting on decision-useful information, the proposed reforms in the consultation aim to improve and attract capital allocation, reduce unnecessary burdens on business and help unlock investment that drives growth across the UK economy.
The programme builds on the Government’s previous work on non-financial reporting and expands it into a wider review of the entire corporate reporting landscape. Many of the reforms test the value of non-financial and governance disclosures, particularly for private companies, and explore more coherent thresholds governing when reporting applies.
Next steps
The consultation opens today and will remain open for 12 weeks. Following the consultation period, the Government will move quickly to analyse responses, refine policy proposals, and set out additional next steps including any proposed legislative or regulatory changes.
I will place copies of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses and it will be published on www.gov.uk
[HCWS313]
Draft Protection Against Detriment (Industrial Action) Regulations 2026
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Protection Against Detriment (Industrial Action) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. This draft instrument was laid before the House on 24 June 2026 and relates to protection against detriment for workers taking protected industrial action under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It is being introduced to provide essential protection to workers, ensuring that they can take industrial action without being treated unfairly by their employer as a result.
The 2024 Supreme Court judgment in Secretary of State for Business and Trade v. Mercer ruled that the current protections from detriment for trade union activity under section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act do not extend to protected industrial action. As a result, the Supreme Court made a declaration of incompatibility between UK legislation and article 11 of the European convention on human rights, the right to free association. This means that there is a gap in the law that could enable bad faith employers to unfairly penalise workers taking industrial action.
While it should always be treated as a last resort, this Government believe that industrial action is an integral and vital part of a worker’s right to express their collective voice if they choose to. If a worker does choose to take industrial action, it is essential that employers treat them fairly and with respect, as the vast majority of employers have always done. This draft instrument remedies the existing gap in the law, enabling workers to take industrial action without being at risk of suffering detriment as a result. It also ensures that UK law regarding detriments will be compatible with the European convention on human rights.
The draft protection against detriment regulations are made under section 236A of the 1992 Act, which was introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025. The draft regulations, taken together with section 236A of the 1992 Act, prohibit all detriments to which an employer can subject a worker for the sole or main purpose of penalising, preventing or deterring protected industrial action.
This Government are committed to protecting workers who take industrial action while ensuring that employers are not unduly affected. The vast majority of employers already act responsibly and do not impose detriments on workers for taking industrial action. The draft legislation therefore targets the rare cases where such treatment may occur, without disrupting the day-to-day running of responsible businesses. That is why this legislation prohibits only detriments for the sole or main purpose of penalising, preventing or deterring industrial action.
That means that during a period of industrial action, ordinary business practices will not be banned as long as they are not used for the sole or main purpose of preventing, penalising or deterring a worker from taking industrial action. For example, disciplinary action may still be taken against a worker who has committed misconduct unrelated to strike action during an ongoing period of strike action. Employers will still be able to manage industrial action in ways that do not involve imposing a legal detriment. Examples of that include proactive negotiation prior to industrial action commencing and contingency planning to mitigate the impact.
Turning to the issue of deduction of pay following industrial action, in common law the principle of “No work, no pay” applies. This means that if a worker does not attend work for a day due to taking industrial action, the employer is under no obligation to pay them for that day. The draft regulations state that they do not affect that common law position. The rules enabling the deduction of pay on account of a worker having taken part in protected industrial action will remain as they are.
The draft statutory instrument also adds section 236A of the 1992 Act to the list of claims in schedule A2 to that Act. Detriments claims will therefore be added to the list of claims in schedule A2. For claims in this list, an employment tribunal is able to increase or decrease compensation awards by 25%, depending on whether the employer or worker has failed to follow the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. This will encourage fairness and co-operation by both employers and workers and will help timely resolution of disputes to allow employers to return to usual business as quickly as possible.
This statutory instrument is essential to provide workers with sufficient protection when exercising their fundamental right to take industrial action, and to make UK legislation compatible with the European convention on human rights. It prevents the door being left open for the very small number of bad faith employers who might exploit the gap in legislation that was highlighted by that Supreme Court judgment, while still allowing good faith employers to deal with industrial action in a non-punitive manner and enabling them to continue to use normal business practices during industrial action. I therefore commend this instrument to the House, and I trust that Members will support it.
The Chair
Before I call the Opposition spokesperson, let me place on record my thanks to him for the assiduous way he has dealt with delegated legislation when I have been in the Chair, and I wish him good luck in his new role. I call the shadow Minister.
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks; it has been a pleasure to debate him in numerous secondary legislation Committees. He is always diligent with his questions and his scrutiny, and I appreciate that and wish him well in his new role.
Taking the shadow Minister’s questions in turn, he mentioned the impact on businesses of understanding the guidance that will be in place and ensuring that they feel prepared to address and adapt if necessary. We of course consulted business representatives, as we did at length throughout every stage of the Employment Rights Act, to gain their views on this guidance in particular. We will move at pace to ensure that employers get that support with the guidance so that they can comply as necessary.
I would add, however, that at the moment employers very rarely have to impose detriments, so we do not believe that there will be a significant amount of work for employers to do. I referred in my opening remarks to the frequency of employers imposing detriments on workers taking industrial action and how rare it is. Given the scale of employers having to understand the guidance, we do not really see the risk as significant, but of course we will work to publish as soon as possible and work closely with businesses, as we always do.
The shadow Minister mentioned the frequency of strike action, and I gently remind him of the unfortunate highs under the previous Government: 2.5 million days were lost to strike action under the previous Government. That figure has increasingly come down. We want to ensure that, alongside all these measures, we have good industrial relations and that employers, businesses, trade unions and Government can get around the table to discuss the challenges we face across this country as well as those we face in workplaces.
We recognise that trade unions, their representatives, business and employers will not agree on everything all the time, but fostering good industrial relations across workplaces across the country is my ambition and this Government’s ambition. We know that strike action is often the last resort, and it is an important right for workers to use if necessary, but we want to foster good industrial relations. That is a key part, not just of this draft instrument, but of our wider approach.
I have been working on consistently with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice on the issue of employment tribunals, recognising that backlog—it was not helped by the previous Government’s cuts, unfortunately, where we saw significant decreases to the employment tribunal system. It suits no one when they do not have access to justice—neither workers nor employers. People want a system that works for them and can work through cases, and to have that support and that ultimate access to justice. It is really important that we get those backlogs down. We have set up a taskforce with union representatives, businesses, employers, myself and my colleague in the Ministry of Justice, and we have been working at pace since October last year on how to fundamentally fix the system, recognising the pressures and the backlog we already face.
As I have said, on the particular instrument we are debating here, there have been two cases in recent years relating to detriments for participation in industrial action. We do not have the frequency of employers imposing detriments on workers taking industrial available to us, because it is so rare—but of course we are conscious of the point about employment tribunals.
On industrial action, the shadow Minister mentioned all the regulations that are already in place. Trade union activities and strike action are already highly regulated already. We have talked a lot about that throughout the passage of the Employment Rights Act, as he referred to. We want to ensure that workers abide by the regulations and the law in place, just as we want employers to do; that is why this debate is so important. That conduct is important for the good industrial relations that I mentioned earlier.
Finally, the shadow Minister mentioned pay and the impact on common law. Of course we want to ensure that we can enable that process of lessons being learned, so that we can understand and hear what is developing in common law and feed it into our work on this issue. I mentioned in my opening remarks what this instrument will and will not do, so hopefully our intentions in making this change have been understood. We will of course review common law as we always would.
On the response the shadow Minister is waiting for, I can only apologise; I will chase that and ensure he gets it in due course. I hope I have answered many of the questions from this debate and that all hon. Members can support this important principle of protecting workers from unfair treatment for taking industrial action. If any of our constituents were put in that position, we would want them to have the law behind them and to have that support, so I hope that colleagues across the House will support this statutory instrument.
Question put and agreed to.