Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 day, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The purpose of the regulations is to increase the national living wage and national minimum wage rates on 1 April. The Government laid the regulations before the House on 2 February.
We are committed to making work pay. The passage into law of the Employment Rights Act 2025 in December was a proud day for this Government and, indeed, this Parliament. We are raising the minimum floor of employment rights, raising living standards throughout the country, and levelling the playing field for those businesses that are already engaged in good practice. Our landmark employment rights are set to benefit over 18 million workers in every corner of the UK, and we are pleased and proud to work alongside businesses, trade unions and groups across civil society. We are currently carrying out, and will continue to do so over the coming months, comprehensive consultation with those groups as we deliver the changes together.
The creation of the minimum wage remains one of our proudest achievements. We introduced it and are continuing to back it with real-terms above-inflation increases. Before I provide the precise details of this year’s increases, I would like to pay tribute to the work of the Low Pay Commission. Its diligence, expertise and social partnership model ensure that the Government can continue to deliver on their ambitious agenda for working people without causing adverse impacts for businesses, the labour market or the wider economy.
This year’s national minimum wage regulations will take effect on 1 April, as I said—subject, of course, to the approval of the Committee. Let me provide the detail of the changes we are enacting. The national living wage will rise from £12.21 to £12.71, an increase of 50p an hour, adding over £900 to the gross annual earnings of a full-time worker. This 4.1% rise is above measures and projections of inflation, ensuring another real-terms pay increase for working people as we continue to build towards a genuine living wage.
The regulations will also implement increases to the other national minimum wage rates. The rate for those aged between 18 and 20 will increase from £10 an hour to £10.85, which is an 8.5% increase worth over £1,500 per year. Meanwhile, the rates for those above school-leaving age but under 18 will rise by 45p, or 6%, to £8 an hour.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I represent a seaside town, Bridlington, to which five million visitors come every year. It has a fantastic, successful seasonal economy that creates a large number of jobs for young people in the town every summer. Is there not a danger that the significant increases in the minimum wage for 16 to 18-year-olds and 18 to 20-year-olds will disincentivise local employers from giving young people opportunities to get on that first rung on the jobs ladder?
Kate Dearden
I pay tribute to the businesses in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency that provide those opportunities for young people. Of course, the Government sets the remit and the Low Pay Commission, as an independent body, provides guidance on the rates to ensure that we can provide a real-terms increase for people no matter what their age. We recognise that people of different ages should not be paid a different rate for the same time, while ensuring that the rates take into account the implications for young people getting the opportunity to get on the job ladder. We made that clear in the remit.
I mentioned that the rate for those above school-leaving age will increase to £8 an hour, and the same applies to the apprentice national minimum wage, which applies to apprentices who are under the age of 19 or in the first year of their apprenticeship. Finally, the accommodation offset rate, which is the maximum daily amount that an employer can charge a worker for accommodation without it affecting their pay for minimum wage purposes, will increase from £10.66 to £11.10.
The Department for Business and Trade published an impact assessment alongside the regulations. It includes a full equality assessment and received a green “fit for purpose” rating from the independent Regulatory Policy Committee. The Government estimate that this year’s national living wage and national minimum wage increases will provide a direct pay increase for approximately 2.7 million workers, with a further 5.1 million workers potentially benefiting from positive spillover effects as employers maintain pay differentials. We are really proud to protect working people in every corner of the United Kingdom. We estimate that 180,000 workers in Scotland, 140,000 workers in Wales and 140,000 workers in Northern Ireland will directly benefit from the changes.
It was a Labour Government that fought against opposition to bringing in the minimum wage when it was introduced in 1999. The headline rate—at the time, for workers aged 22 and over—was £3.60 an hour. As well as more than trebling in cash terms, based on current forecasts this year’s national living wage is expected to be 80% higher in real terms than the top rate in 1999. In hourly terms, the share of low-paid jobs has dropped from 21.9% in 1999 to just 2.5% last year. It is a testament to the success and effectiveness of the policy, over more than a quarter of a century, that all this has been achieved without the damage to the economy and the labour market that some people predicted at the time. The work continues, of course, and we will keep making progress on our manifesto commitments in this space to deliver a genuine living wage that works for employers and workers alike.
The Government will publish a new remit for the Low Pay Commission in due course. We will ask for recommendations on the national living wage and national minimum wage rates, thereby ensuring that our decisions our backed by evidence and consistent with delivering inclusive growth for working people and competitive businesses across the UK. As usual, we will ask the LPC to make its recommendations by October. The Government will subsequently confirm the new national living wage and national minimum wage rates for April 2027, ensuring there is sufficient notice for employers and workers.
We are grateful to all the employers, worker representatives and other stakeholders who engage thoughtfully with the LPC’s consultation each year, ensuring that the Government can balance the various concerns appropriately. We are proud to be driving reforms to the employment rights landscape and delivering for workers, employers and the wider economy. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, for his contribution and for his kind words at the start of his speech. However, I am not sure that I am defending the indefensible. I am defending the decision to uplift our national living and minimum wages. On 1 April, when the regulations come into effect, we will be delivering a direct uplift of around £900 for a full-time worker on the national living wage and £1,500 for someone on the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds. That is not insignificant.
On the national minimum wage rate for 18 to 20-year-olds, we are absolutely committed and determined to raise living standards for working people and ensure a genuine living wage, and our manifesto made our direction clear. When recommending the 2026 youth rates, we asked the LPC to consider the risk of employment impacts, while balancing those risks with the ambition to remove the discriminatory age bands for adults. The LPC carries out extensive consultations, commissions new research and considers a range of economic, labour market and business data to assess the impact of the national minimum wage on young workers, and it concluded that there is no clear evidence that the recent increases to the national minimum wage
“have affected young people’s employment overall.”
It assesses that a range of factors are driving recent trends among young people, including the sectors they are more likely to work in.
On what the Government are doing about the situation and the figures that the shadow Minister alluded to, we announced at the Budget more than £1.5 billion of investment over the spending review period for employment and skills support, to deliver the youth guarantee and to reform the growth and skills levy for young people. I agree about the significance of jobs at a young age, and I thank the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold for sharing his experience; it is one that I can sympathise with from my own journey and career. The skills learned in those first jobs are invaluable.
That is why the youth guarantee is so important. It will provide 16 to 24-year-olds across Great Britain with enhanced support to move into work or training, including by improving employment support through expanded youth hubs and increased support in jobcentres. I have seen the impact of that in my constituency, where the youth hub has transformed the lives of over 70 young people in the year that it has been running. The hubs are clearly of significant benefit across the country, creating nearly 300,000 additional work experience and training opportunities.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
Does the Minister agree that unpaid internships should be banned?
Kate Dearden
I know that the right hon. Gentleman has campaigned on that for a number of years. I am going to come to unpaid internships shortly, so I will respond to him then with an update on our work in the Department.
To finish on 18 to 20-year-olds, we have committed over £500 million to youth programmes and support from 2026-27 to 2029. I want to touch on the wider package, and how we are looking at opportunities for young people and their employment prospects, because it is really important. It includes over £60 million for a new richer young lives fund to improve activities and youth work; £15 million for youth workers; £70 million to rebuild and improve local youth services; £350 million to refurbish or build up to 250 youth facilities; and £22.5 million over three years to create a tailored enrichment offer in up to 400 schools, as well as the work that we are doing on apprenticeships training, which will be completely free for small and medium-sized enterprises that hire eligible young people aged 16 to 24. I wanted to spend some time responding to that point, because this is a clear Government priority and we are working at pace on it.
I thank the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold for raising unpaid internships. I know that he has been campaigning on that for a number of years, and I pay tribute to all his work on it. He will know that we ran a call for evidence from 17 July to 9 October 2025. We had hundreds of responses, which was brilliant to see, and we published our response on Friday. We committed to three key actions to tackle non-compliance: reviewing and expanding national minimum wage guidance; strengthening enforcement through the new fair work agency; and bolstering communications so that young people are aware of and understand their rights. That is a significant bit of work, and something that we are committed to reviewing and keeping an eye on. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will hold to account on that, and I thank him for that.
The regulations represent clear, discernible progress towards our manifesto commitments of delivering a genuine living wage and expanding eligibility for the national living wage to all adult workers. It is not entirely clear whether the Opposition will vote against them today and try to prevent these 2.7 million workers from getting a pay rise—we will see.
I extend my thanks to ACAS, which offers impartial and expert assistance on employment issues, and to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which enforces the minimum wage on behalf of the Department for Business and Trade. We are confident that the creation of the fair work agency, which will be set up from April this year, will ensure a more effective, less fragmented enforcement system.
In closing, I again thank the Low Pay Commission; we are grateful for its expertise and its collaborative social partnership model, which brings together the perspectives of workers and businesses. The minimum wage is one of the most successful Government policies in recent decades and remains one of the cornerstones of our plan to make work pay. I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Unpaid Internships
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The Government’s plan to make work pay is a core part of our mission to grow the economy, raise living standards across the country, and create opportunities for all. This will help tackle low pay, poor working conditions, and poor job security, all of which have been holding our economy back.
In our plan we committed to banning unpaid internships, unless they are part of a formal educational or training course. This Government believe that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay and employers should pay workers what they are entitled.
Today, we are publishing the Government’s response to the call for evidence on unpaid internships.
The call for evidence related to internships which are unpaid or paid below the national minimum wage, work trials, voluntary workers, volunteers, and work shadowing.
While voluntary workers, volunteers, and individuals who are work shadowing are not entitled to the national minimum wage, there are a small number of employers who are engaging individuals, particularly young people, under these terms incorrectly to avoid paying them.
This Government are committed to striking a balance between ensuring individuals have a choice in the type of work they do, and how they do it, while ensuring employers are not able to take advantage of individuals, especially young people, by making them work for free.
The call for evidence attracted responses from employers, individuals, and interested stakeholders on unpaid internships and internships paid below the national minimum wage, and other similar categories of people who may be conflated with interns.
It is important that employers can continue to offer genuine opportunities, such as work shadowing or work experience placements which are permitted under the national minimum wage law that can offer young people valuable insights into the world of work. We do not want to close the door on these opportunities which can be an enriching experience for young people, and we are clear we will not allow this opportunity to lead to exploitation.
The evidence highlighted that while the majority of employers are doing the right thing, there is a small minority who flout the law. This is fair on neither workers nor responsible employers. To tackle this problem, the Government will:
Update and expand the national minimum wage guidance so employers better comply with the law and workers are better aware of their rights.
Continue to crack down on employers breaking the law through existing enforcement channels and via the forthcoming Fair Work Agency.
Raise awareness of workers’ rights through communications campaigns to help young people understand their rights and what action they can take if they are not being paid what they are legally entitled to.
[HCWS1371]
Implementing the Employment Rights Act: Further Consultation
Kate Dearden Excerpts(5 days, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Our plan to make work pay will modernise our employment rights legislation, extending the employment protections already given by the best British companies to millions more workers across the country. Strengthening this underlying framework will help build an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers, and fair reward for hard work.
We are taking a phased approach to engagement and consultation on these reforms. This will ensure all stakeholders have the time and space to work through the detail of each measure and to help us implement each in the interests of all.
Following the launch of consultations on trade union recognition, fire and rehire, agency work, tipping, and flexible working earlier this month, we are today launching consultations on trade union detriments and collective redundancy. Alongside a programme of direct stakeholder engagement, these consultations will support us in determining how best to put our plans into practice.
Consultation 1: trade union detriments
The Employment Rights Act 2025 establishes stronger protections from detriments for workers taking industrial action, in order to ensure they are treated fairly and respectfully. It prohibits the use of “detriments of a prescribed description” for the sole or main purpose of penalising, deterring or preventing a worker from taking part in official industrial action.
The power in the Act enables the Government to make regulations to either prohibit all detriments, or to prescribe the detriments that are prohibited. The consultation will seek stakeholder views on the benefits and challenges of these two options. It will run for eight weeks and close on 23 April 2026. Following consultation, the Government will develop their final policy position, with the intention to make regulations and deliver the resulting policy by October 2026.
Consultation 2: collective redundancy
The Government are consulting on the threshold number that will trigger collective redundancy consultation where employers propose to make a large number of redundancies across their entire organisation. We wish to set this number at a level that offers protections for working people, while avoiding scenarios where larger employers find themselves left in a constant state of consultation.
The consultation will seek views on the methods that may be used to set the threshold, and on the level at which the organisation-wide threshold could be set. Specifically, it will seek views on the proposed options, including their impact on employers, the extent to which they protect employees, and whether there are any other options for the threshold or method.
This consultation will run for 12 weeks and will close on 21 May 2026. Following the consultation, the Government will consider the responses carefully before developing a final policy position. Any changes will be delivered through secondary legislation, with regulations expected to enter into force in 2027.
Next steps for consultation
This package of consultations sets out the next steps in delivering our plans. They are critical to shaping the practical implementation of the legislation, helping the Government to deliver reforms that are both effective and inclusive. It is in everyone’s interest to get the relationship between employer and worker right. These consultations will help us make work pay for both.
[HCWS1365]
Draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Conferral of Functions) Regulations 2026
Draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026
Kate Dearden Excerpts(6 days, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Conferral of Functions) Regulations 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026.
Kate Dearden
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. The instruments were laid before the House on 26 January and relate to the alternative dispute resolution chapter in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which received Royal Assent in May 2024. The Act repeals the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015 and replaces them with a strengthened framework in chapter 4 of part 4 of the Act.
In most instances, disputes between businesses and consumers can be resolved without the need for any formal action, but when consumers and the trader cannot come to a solution, ADR is an effective means of securing redress for the consumer without resorting to litigation. All ADR providers are independent third parties, offering dispute resolution that is usually less confrontational for the consumers and businesses involved, but not all ADR providers have the same accreditations and standards, so consumers can experience inconsistent quality.
For ADR to be effective, it must be of high quality and meet certain standards. The Act aims to strengthen the quality of ADR available to consumers by introducing a mandatory accreditation framework for ADR providers for consumer contract disputes. That will provide a robust set of accreditation criteria to assess an ADR provider’s expertise, transparency, independence and accessibility before being accredited, and ongoing monitoring and review to ensure that accredited ADR providers continue to meet those high standards.
The Act includes the power to revoke, suspend or limit accreditation, or impose further conditions if a provider is found to be non-compliant. The intention of mandating accreditation of ADR providers is to strengthen the ADR framework in the UK. The Government believe that the changes will help to deliver a trustworthy, timely and fair service that consumers and businesses can trust to resolve consumer disputes, with improved oversight to monitor standards and ensure consistency.
Section 307 of the Act allows certain ADR functions to be conferred on another person. The regulations confer on the Chartered Trading Standards Institute responsibility for managing the provision of ADR in consumer contract disputes in non-regulated sectors, including the functions of accreditation, monitoring and reporting on the operation and effectiveness of ADR provision. That includes upholding the standards of ADR providers in the UK through powers to compel or sanction ADR providers to improve performance in the event that they do not meet their obligations.
The regulations also require the CTSI to prepare quarterly and annual reports for the Secretary of State for Business and Trade. The reports will contain information and metrics on the performance of the CTSI, ADR providers and the ADR landscape in the UK to ensure accountability and transparency, and to enable the Secretary of State to maintain oversight of the operation of the system of accreditation and the provision and quality of ADR carried out in the UK. The decision to confer these functions on the CTSI has been taken in recognition of its authority, track record and expertise in that area, including its long-standing and constructive relationships with ADR providers.
Separately, the regulations make amendments to primary and secondary legislation in consequence of chapter four of part 4 of the Act coming into force and the 2015 regulations. Those consequential changes deal with redundant references to the 2015 ADR regulations and, in some cases, replace them with a reference to chapter 4 of part 4 of the Act. They do not materially change the policy or the effect of the underlying law, but simply keep the statute book up to date in the usual way.
The intention of both sets of regulations, as I hope I have made clear, is to support and strengthen the ADR framework in the UK, putting it on a stronger footing that provides a consistent, trustworthy, timely and fair service that consumers and businesses can trust to resolve disputes amicably, with improved oversight to monitor service standards. I invite hon. Members to support the instruments, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister for his comments and his support for the Act and the regulations we are considering. The regulations place the CTSI on a statutory footing. I alluded in my introductory remarks to the role of the Secretary of State and the accreditation determinations, monitoring, enforcement and information sharing under the Act, as well as the mandatory and accreditation requirements.
In terms of exempt ADR providers, to avoid duplicated regulatory provision, the Act exempts ADR provision under several ombudsmen and equivalent schemes, which are already regulated under other legislation. Those are either statutory bodies performing statutory functions or redress schemes regulated by other bodies under other legislation. If a sector already has its own dispute resolution system, these new ADR rules will not apply and that avoids doubling up regulations and ensures that businesses follow only one set of rules, with no confusion about who is responsible.
There are also some statutory bodies that, to an extent, carry out ADR and it is not considered appropriate to regulate them as their remit does not cover consumer contracts as defined in chapter 4 of part 4 of the 2024 Act.
I am happy to follow up the hon. Member’s point about the specifics on the statistics afterwards if he requires any further information. On the effect of schedule 25 listing exempt ADR providers, that is quite clear, but again, if he would like further information on how we are avoiding duplication, I am happy to provide it as there is a power to add further exemptions in future, which might be used where it is more appropriate to regulate ADR elsewhere.
The important point about the legislation is that it will ensure that ADR is much easier for consumers and businesses. That is really important to reflect on. What ADR can provide in terms of support and streamlining for businesses and consumers is significant, and will offer a cheaper and faster alternative for consumers and businesses seeking to resolve disputes, compared with making a claim to the courts. This framework gives the flexibility to update those standards over time. That is important and provides a foundation for considering further reforms if required.
Gareth Davies
I totally understand that the Minister might not have the information to hand right now, so will she commit to writing to me?
Kate Dearden
Yes, I am happy to provide that follow-up information.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT DIGITAL MARKETS, COMPETITION AND CONSUMERS ACT 2024 (ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) REGULATIONS 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026—(Kate Dearden.)
Draft Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026 Draft Employment
Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Draft Employment Rights
Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Kate Dearden Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 and the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Kate Dearden
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond.
The regulations were laid before the House on 13 January. First, I express my appreciation for my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore) and to Darren Henry, the previous Member for Broxtowe, who were both instrumental in bringing forward this new entitlement. I also pay special tribute to Dr Aaron Horsey, who joins us in the Public Gallery today. He campaigned tirelessly on behalf of bereaved fathers after the tragic loss of his wife Bernadette shortly after the birth of their son Tim.
The Paternity Leave (Bereavement) Act 2024 established a new statutory entitlement to bereaved partner’s paternity leave of up to 52 weeks for employed fathers and partners if the mother or primary adopter dies in the first year of a child’s life or adoption. The draft Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026 outline the details of the entitlement. The two further sets of regulations ensure that those who have a baby through international adoption or surrogacy arrangements are in scope for leave.
Currently, fathers and partners in this tragic circumstance who do not qualify for paternity leave or shared parental leave must rely on the compassion of their employers to take adequate time off work to care for their child. Thankfully, the number of people who find themselves in this situation is low, but of course every death and story is devastating. We anticipate that the entitlement will help around 90 bereaved partners per year.
Bereaved partner’s paternity leave is a day one right, meaning there is no continuity-of-service requirement. Bereaved fathers and partners will be able to start taking leave from the day after the mother’s or primary adopter’s death. The leave must end on their child’s first birthday or the first anniversary of the adoption, unless it is necessary to go beyond this date to ensure that an employee is entitled to at least two weeks of leave.
To be eligible, the bereaved partner must be an employee; they must be the child’s father, or the mother or adopter’s spouse, civil partner or partner at the time of the mother or adopter’s death; and they must have the main responsibility for the child’s upbringing and be taking leave for the purpose of caring for the child. Together, the regulations ensure that employees who lose their partner in the time surrounding childbirth or adoption will have access to a guaranteed period of leave to care for a new child.
To start the leave in the first eight weeks after the partner’s death, a bereaved partner can give notice informally at any time before they are due to start work on their first day of absence. This could be by text message or phone call to their employer. To take more than eight weeks after their partner dies, an employee must give one week’s notice in writing.
The Government have assessed the impact of bereaved partner’s paternity leave on businesses and found it to be minimal. We estimate an annual cost of approximately £0.9 million to businesses, mainly from re-organising work during employee absence.
I am very proud to commend the regulations to the Committee. I thank everyone who has been involved in campaigning on this issue for a number of years and worked closely with us and the Department to shape this legislation.
Implementing the Employment Rights Act: February Consultation Package
Kate Dearden Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
This Government’s top priority is to grow the economy and improve living standards. We are clear that you cannot build a strong economy while having people in insecure work. For too long, employment law has failed to keep pace with fundamental changes in how, when and where we work. This has allowed some businesses to take advantage of loopholes in the current law via exploitative practices, fuelling a race to the bottom, undercutting responsible employers and eroding the living standards of working people. We are clear that unfair competition is bad for business, bad for workers and bad for growth.
Our plan to make work pay will modernise our employment rights legislation, extending the employment protections already given by the best British companies to millions more workers across the country. Strengthening this underlying framework will help build an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers, and fair reward for hard work.
We are taking a phased approach to engagement and consultation on these reforms. This will ensure that all stakeholders have the time and space to work through the detail of each measure and to help us implement each in the interests of all. Today we are launching consultations on fire and rehire and on trade union recognition, with further consultations seeking views on tipping, flexible working and agency work to follow in the coming days. Alongside a programme of direct stakeholder engagement, these consultations will support us in determining how best to put our plans into practice.
Consultation 1: Fire and rehire
The Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces important new protections to end unscrupulous fire and rehire practices. If an employer uses fire and rehire to change an employee’s contract in relation to core terms such as pay, hours, leave or specified changes to shift patterns, it will be an automatic unfair dismissal, unless they are in, and can evidence, severe financial difficulties that threaten the viability of the business. These are referred to as restricted variations.
Dismissals related to changes in non-core terms, such as location or job role, will not be automatically unfair but will be subject to enhanced protections. This means that for non-core terms certain factors must be taken into account, including whether any consultation has taken place with the employee or a recognised trade union, and whether the employer offered anything in return for the variation.
The Act provides delegated powers for the Secretary of State to set out in regulations which changes to shift patterns will be restricted variations, as well as to limit the scope of the restricted term on pay to exclude specified expenses and benefits in kind. The forthcoming consultation will seek views on these details and inform the regulations so that they strike an appropriate balance between protecting employees from being unilaterally forced into accepting disadvantageous terms and preserving employer flexibility to make reasonable and operational changes.
This consultation will run for eight weeks and will close on 1 April 2026.
Consultation 2: Code of practice on trade union recognition and unfair practices in electronic balloting
The Employment Rights Act makes several changes to the statutory trade union recognition process to ensure that workers have a meaningful right to organise through trade unions. This includes removing the requirement for a union to demonstrate at the application stage that it is likely that there will be a majority for union recognition, and the requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the appropriate bargaining unit supporting union recognition.
We have revised the code to ensure that all parties, including employers, workers and unions, understand how these changes affect them.
The code is not mandatory but seeks to advise employers and unions on how they can comply with legal requirements in relation to access and unfair practices during a recognition or derecognition process. The code is admissible in employment tribunal proceedings and therefore can have some legal effect.
The consultation document explains that the draft code follows the settled policy in the ERA and asks questions in relation to the detail as to how changes in the ERA regarding access and unfair practices should be implemented in practice.
In our plan to make work pay, the Government committed to allow unions to use modern and secure electronic and workplace balloting for statutory ballots, bringing union participation into line with modern voting practices that political parties and listed companies already use. There is already a live consultation on the code of practice for electronic and workplace ballots that addresses hybrid and pure electronic ballot methods.
However, before pure electronic balloting is permitted for recognition and derecognition ballots, the Government want to ensure that the necessary safeguards are in place to prevent any interference in these ballots. Therefore, the consultation on the code of practice on access and unfair practices during the recognition and derecognition process seeks views on Government proposals to legislate for new unfair practices to prevent interference in electronic recognition and derecognition ballots.
This consultation will run for eight weeks and will close on the 1 April 2026.
Consultation 3: Tipping
The Government are consulting on our commitment to strengthen the law on tipping. The new requirements will build on the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023, which introduced the legal requirement for all tips, gratuities and service charges to be passed on to the workers who have earned them.
The Employment Rights Act 2025 goes further by protecting and enhancing the voices of those workers. The Act sets out that, prior to developing a written policy, employers will be required to consult with the representatives of recognised trade unions or worker representatives, or, where there are no such representatives in place, workers likely to be affected by the policy. The Act also sets out a requirement for the written policy to be reviewed at least once every three years.
When reviews take place, employers must follow the same process of consultation with workers. Employers will also be required to make available a written, anonymised summary of the views expressed in the consultation to all workers at the place of business.
This consultation will allow the Government to consider the views of all interested parties and groups about how we can most effectively implement the new requirements. It will also provide an opportunity to review how the existing legislation and statutory code of practice operate in practice, to identify where improvements could be made.
This consultation will launch shortly and will run for eight weeks.
Consultation 4: Improving access to flexible working
We are changing legislation through the Employment Rights Act to make it more likely that flexible working requests are accepted, prompting employers and employees to think creatively about the types of flexible working that might be feasible and suitable in their circumstances.
These changes will require employers to accept flexible working requests where they are reasonably feasible. It will remain the case that employers can reject requests that cannot be accommodated given their specific ways of working.
If employers are considering rejecting a request, they will be required to follow a new process to first consult the employee, creating an opportunity to consider ways to overcome obstacles with the initial request, or explore potential alternatives.
This consultation will:
Gather feedback on a proposed new process for employers consulting with employees if they are minded to reject a flexible working request. By providing enough detail for employers to aid in compliance, without being overly rigid, we aim to help businesses more effectively to navigate the handling of flexible working requests.
Understand what training, resources and support can help businesses navigate flexible working requests, to help us shape future guidance and resources. It will also gather high-level insights on where respondents might like to see further policy development on flexible working.
This consultation will launch shortly and will run for 12 weeks.
Consultation 5: Modernising the agency work regulatory framework
The regulatory framework for the temporary recruitment sector in Great Britain consists principally of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003—the conduct regulations—and the Agency Workers Regulations 2010. The sector has evolved significantly in recent years, due to digitisation, new business models, and changes in the ways in which people work and hire. The emergence and rapid growth of umbrella companies—a type of payment intermediary—has created new opportunities but also challenges due to increasing non-compliance with employment law.
The Employment Rights Act 2025 amends the definition of an “employment business” in the Employment Agencies Act 1973 to bring umbrella companies into scope for regulation through the conduct regulations. This consultation contributes to the key objectives in our plan to make work pay on ensuring fair treatment for workers, as well as the wider Government commitment to reduce administrative burdens for businesses by 25%. The consultation therefore seeks views on updating the regulatory framework for the temporary recruitment sector to allow for the effective regulation of all involved in the modern-day recruitment sector, including umbrella companies. It focuses on ensuring security, transparency and choice for workers, while reducing administrative burdens for businesses. Depending on the responses to this consultation, we may consult further on specific proposals to reduce administrative burdens.
Alongside this consultation, we are publishing a post-implementation review of the requirement for employment businesses to provide work-seekers with a key information document before agreement to terms of employment. This review outlines the need to reform the requirements around information provision for workers to improve transparency, and the consultation is designed to aid the development of policy options to facilitate this.
This consultation will launch shortly and run for 12 weeks.
Next steps for consultation
This package of consultations sets out the next steps in delivering our plans. They are critical to shaping the practical implementation of this legislation, helping the Government to deliver reforms that are both effective and inclusive. It is in everyone’s interest to get the relationship between employer and worker right. These consultations will help us make work pay for both.
[HCWS1304]
Oral Answers to Questions
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I know my hon. Friend has been actively engaging with his local businesses, such as Camerons Brewery, to highlight their importance to the local economy, and I thank him for that. We have introduced permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, while providing £4.3 billion to shield ratepayers from bill increases. On top of that, the Chancellor announced a 15% reduction in new business rates bills for pubs and live music venues, with bills then frozen for a further two years. We are also advancing licensing and planning reforms for the hospitality sector, and through the work of the hospitality support fund, we are providing £10 million to help hospitality venues grow and support jobseekers into the sector. Later this year, we will bring forward a new high streets strategy and work with the industry on its development.
Mr Brash
I thank the Minister for her answer. The Marine hotel in Seaton Carew in my constituency of Hartlepool has been run for the last 30 years by Lee and Claire Dexter. It is a family business run by hard-working people who are committed to their community, yet they have seen their business rates rise significantly, driven not by the multiplier but by the sharp increase in the rateable value. They need help, so I welcome the steps set out this week to support pubs. Will the Minister meet me to look at ways that we can fix the business rates system, which is failing hotels and wider hospitality in Hartlepool?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for championing businesses like the Marine hotel in Hartlepool. Hotels will continue to benefit from the support for business rates announced at the Budget, including the transitional relief scheme, which will cap increases for those seeing large overnight increases. We have announced that we will review the way that hotels are valued. We recognise that hotels have expressed concerns about how they are valued for business rates, and those valuations are undertaken in a different way from some other sectors. The methodology used is well established, but as with pubs, specific concerns have been raised, and it is right to review this to ensure that it accurately reflects the rental values for these sectors. I am happy to discuss this further.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Hospitality businesses are vital to our community and city centres. We have introduced permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties and have provided £4.3 billion to shield ratepayers from bill increases. On top of this, the Chancellor announced a 15% reduction in new business rates bills for pubs and live music venues, and bills will be frozen for a further two years. We are also advancing licensing and planning reforms for the hospitality sector, and through the work of the hospitality support fund we are providing £10 million to help hospitality venues to grow and to support jobseekers into the sector. Later this year, we will bring forward a new high streets strategy, and we will work with the industry on its development.
Joe Robertson
What the Minister does not say is that the Government have also taxed those businesses and made it harder to employ people, which is why there are 100,000 fewer people working in hospitality since her Government came to power. Hospitality businesses in my constituency are hanging on to one thread of hope: the vague assertion that the Government will look again at valuations. Will the Minister look again right now, scrap business rates for hospitality and back our high streets?
Kate Dearden
Every high street in every corner of our country is supported by our hospitality industry. They are absolutely vital to our economy, supporting over 2 million jobs. The sector is really personal to me; my first job was in the hospitality industry, and I know that many Members across this House also have that personal connection. We are reversing the damage that Conservative Members did to our economy, and businesses still do not thank them for it. Nor do people whose wages under the previous Government simply did not give them the disposable income to spend in their local pubs, spend in their high streets and support restaurants. That is why we are reversing that, ensuring that people see a rise in their living standards, cutting costs for households and raising wages to boost and support our high streets. That is what we are absolutely focused on doing: rebalancing our economy so that it works for working people and businesses alike. That is a responsible Government taking action.
Christine Jardine
The Minister referred to there being hospitality businesses in every corner of this country. Unfortunately, the change in business rates does not help hospitality businesses in every corner of this country because business rates are devolved in Scotland and Wales, and the businesses in my constituency of Edinburgh West are struggling. Hospitality is absolutely vital to the Scottish economy, and so far the SNP Government have proved completely ineffectual at dealing with the issue. The Minister speaks about the strategy coming later in the year. In it, might it be useful for VAT to be reduced for businesses in this sector across the UK, so that every corner of the United Kingdom can benefit?
Kate Dearden
All the devolved Governments have full control over the structure and level of business rates within their jurisdiction. As the hon. Lady mentioned, the new relief applies to England only; however, the devolved Governments have additional funding to allocate according to their priorities. We call on the SNP to decide whether to match the support for pubs and music venues that we have decided this week to provide. It is up to them to decide how to spend their money; we have made it clear this week what our priorities are and how we would do it.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
A lot of the hospitality small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency start out as market traders. As we know, our markets are a vital part of our identity and central to our local ecosystem, giving businesses the space to start, test and grow. Does the Minister agree that markets and hospitality are key to reviving our high streets, and will she meet me to discuss a national traders strategy to secure a strong pipeline for future success?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for championing the brilliant hospitality sector, businesses and markets in her constituency—I have the wonderful Halifax borough market in my constituency, so I know the importance of thriving traders to our high streets and local economies. I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and hear her thoughts on how we can work together to restore pride in our high streets; our traders are vital to that, which is why our high streets strategy this year will be so important. It will look at all those areas, directly investing in our communities to ensure local businesses can thrive, high streets bustle and pride is restored to our high streets and communities.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Hospitality in Blackpool is struggling. The cuts under the previous Government made Blackpool the most deprived coastal community and town in the country, but it has a solution: a new Blackpool tourism enterprise zone that expands our current enterprise zone along the promenade into the hospitality and tourism businesses. Will the Minister meet me and the managing director of Blackpool Tourism Ltd, Kate Shane, to discuss her idea to create jobs and unlock growth and investment in Blackpool?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for all his work on behalf of his constituency and businesses in Blackpool. He makes an excellent point, and I would be keen to hear more about his work and discuss it further. Through the hospitality zones that we are looking to create, there is a real opportunity to drive investment and ensure that businesses and people alike benefit across our country.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Hospitality is on its knees, and it is already too late for many of the pubs and restaurants in Harpenden and Berkhamsted that are closing down. The small café Nook in Markyate is a real lifeline for that village, but Helen, the owner, talks about business rates, national insurance costs and the minimum wage. The Liberal Democrats have long been crying out, alongside the hospitality sector, for Government help for the sector. Although we welcome the U-turn, I call on the Minister and the Government to hear that cry before the next one, when it will be too late for the next swathe of hospitality businesses that will have closed down.
Kate Dearden
Over the longer term, we have committed to reviewing the methodology used for business rates purposes. If necessary, we will make changes to ensure that the next revaluation accurately reflects the rental market for these properties. We will be conducting that expert review, working closely with the hotel and pub sectors. We want to see our high streets thrive, and hospitality is key to that, in the hon. Lady’s constituency and across our whole economy. That is what I want to see, and it is what we are committed to work towards.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Liverpool’s hospitality sector and its small businesses continue to tell me that soaring business rates are pushing them to the brink. Many independent shops, cafés and community venues—pillars of our local high streets—are now facing increases far above what they can absorb, especially in energy and supply costs. These are businesses that create local jobs, drive footfall and keep our high streets alive, so can the Minister explain what immediate steps the Government will take to reform the business rates system so that it no longer disproportionately penalises areas such as Liverpool, and will she commit to meet affected business owners in my constituency to hear directly about the pressures they are facing and the urgent support they need to survive?
Kate Dearden
We are introducing new, permanently lower tax rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties worth nearly £1 billion per year, which will benefit over 750,000 properties. Next year, the rate for small RHL properties will be the lowest since business rates were introduced more than 30 years ago. This is paid for through higher rates on the 1% most expensive properties, which includes many large distribution warehouses such as those used by online giants—that high value multiplier is 33% more than the multiplier for small RHL properties. That is what we committed to in our manifesto. Creating a new, sustainable system with permanently lower multipliers for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties will make a massive difference for people. We will be publishing a call for evidence in September, exploring potential longer-term reforms, and I urge my hon. Friend to get involved in that call for evidence and to share it, too.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The Minister has just heard from across the House continuing pleas to support the hospitality industry. It is always a good day when the Government U-turn and provide more support for pubs, so we welcome that. However, unless the Minister can explain to us when a pub becomes a gastropub, when a gastropub becomes a restaurant, and when a restaurant with rooms becomes a hotel and descends down that wormhole, will she make representations to the Chancellor to extend the same measures for pubs that she U-turned on this week across the whole retail, hospitality and leisure sector? The truth of the matter is that 90% of that sector will not benefit from this week’s U-turn.
Kate Dearden
Good morning to the shadow Secretary of State. I am sure he had a stiff drink after his performance at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday.
All pubs and live music venues that meet the definition set out in the guidance qualify for the support, and he will be able to see that clearly online. We will be working with local authorities to ensure that the definition includes establishments open to wide sections of local communities. I have already discussed valuations for pubs, how we take turnover into account and how we will work closely with the wider sector on valuations going forward. This is a Government who are working closely with the sector and are committed to listening. That is being a responsible Government, and we are doing the right thing.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The heavy burden of Labour’s national insurance contributions rise, compounded by high energy costs and the business rates increase, has raised alarm about the affordability of hospitality businesses’ monthly employment costs. Some 84,000 jobs in the hospitality sector alone have been lost since the NICs rise was introduced, and that is particularly damaging to young people, many of whom have traditionally found their first jobs in the hospitality sector, including the Minister, as she just said at the Dispatch Box. With the sector struggling to employ new workers, damage is being done to the career prospects of our young people, and it will be detrimental to the broader economy in the long term. Business confidence is down, job vacancies are down and unemployment is up, so what steps will the Department take to tackle high unemployment costs, support businesses and bring down those increasingly high levels of unemployment?
Kate Dearden
A decade of stagnant growth and living standards will not be turned around in 18 months, but there are signs of progress. The Conservatives left one in eight young people out of education, employment and training, and we are working relentlessly to turn around that disgraceful figure. We recognise the challenges that businesses have to work through as a result of the actions undertaken by the previous Government. On youth unemployment, we have announced an £828 million funding package to give a generation of young people a brighter future. Over the next three years, 1 million young people on universal credit across the country will benefit from support designed to get them into employment and learning, and that includes what we are doing with small businesses on apprenticeships, which we are partly funding. That will be significant, especially for the hospitality sector, in encouraging more jobs. Those jobs are a key lifeline for people to get into the employment market. That is something I recognise, as the hon. Lady noted. We know the importance of this issue, and we want to work closely with the sector and with councils in the significant wider work we are doing on the strategy.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Our plan to make work pay will bring employment rights legislation into the 21st century by extending the protections given by the best British companies to millions more workers, including those in Bracknell Forest. We are delivering this change in partnership with businesses, trade unions, public sector employers and civil society. When implemented, the Employment Rights Act 2025 will increase protection from sexual harassment, extend and strengthen statutory sick pay, end exploitative zero hours contracts, and tackle fire and rehire, with over 18 million workers gaining greater fairness and security.
Peter Swallow
Across the country, millions of fathers can be denied time off work to spend with a newborn child. Thousands of carers are out of work because employers will not give them the flexibility they need. This Government are delivering day one paternity leave, and we are listening on carer’s leave. I know what a difference that will make to my constituents. Can the Minister think why the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and his Reform MPs voted against this change?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for his really important question; he is absolutely right to raise this issue. Reform voted against the Employment Rights Act at every single opportunity. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) would row back on the protections that we have given to 18 million workers across the country, including the vital day one paternity leave and parental leave, statutory sick pay for the lowest paid, protections for pregnant workers, increased protection from unfair dismissal, an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts, a new right to bereavement leave and so much more. Reform is simply not the party for working people; Labour is. Reform Members voted against the Act, and their plans would threaten employment up and down the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Of course, it is not just Bracknell, and one day those on the Labour Benches will understand that there are no workers’ rights if people have no work. Youth unemployment is up significantly. That is a tragedy that everybody should be ashamed of, and it is going up on Labour’s watch. Small businesses, which provide so many jobs, are very worried about the administrative burden of trade union access. We are talking about the very smallest businesses—pubs, restaurants, garden centres and small catering businesses. They are the backbone of our communities. As the Minister tries to implement the Employment Rights Act, will she consider lifting the threshold for the trade union access agreements to a headcount of 250—that is recognised elsewhere in law as a threshold—which would protect our very smallest businesses from that administrative burden?
Kate Dearden
To hear the Conservative party try to lecture us across the Dispatch Box on trade union engagement, industrial relations and how we operate our economy is very interesting. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am working really closely with businesses of all sizes—small and large—and with our trade unions and partners, because that is the right thing to do. The Employment Rights Act is a significant piece of legislation. We want to get it right, but we also want to fundamentally change how we do things in this country. That is the right thing to do, and we are taking the responsible action to do so. We recognise that there are lots of changes, which is why are working in a staged way over the next two years to implement them, and we are doing so in partnership with businesses and trade unions. We want to work together to deliver this. It represents significant change for 18 million people across the country, and businesses are vital in delivering it. That is why we are working together to do so.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I am having quite the outing today, Madam Deputy Speaker!
I welcome the question from my hon. Friend, whose business experience as the chief executive of an international trade association gives him acute insight into this topic. This Government are committed to tackling the pressing issues with the current employment status framework, and we will publish our consultation as soon as possible. The consultation will seek to address issues with the framework that can enable worker exploitation and leave vulnerable workers without core employment protections.
Chris Bloore
I thank the Minister for her answer. She will know that too many parcel couriers in my constituency and across the country are on bogus self-employment contracts and worse terms and conditions, with no holiday pay or sick leave. That is driving down standards across the sector and, of course, robbing the public purse of national insurance contributions. I welcome her commitment to announcing the consultation on single worker status. Can she guarantee that both employer and employee representations will be included in the consultation?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and I thank him for doing so. I agree that it is completely unacceptable for businesses to seek to undercut others in a race to the bottom through bogus self-employment. Employers should never seek to deny people their employment rights and to avoid their own legal obligations by claiming that someone is self-employed when in reality they might not be. We will therefore consult on the changes to the status framework and our action to improve compliance, and we will of course engage with all stakeholders as part of that.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that all jobs provide a baseline of security and predictability, and she perfectly outlines exactly why that is important. The next step is to consult before setting regulations to get that detail. I would love to hear from her further about those experiences—she has done hard work in this area over a long period of time. Providing workers with guaranteed hours is crucial for security.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Almost one in three pubs in this country is a tied pub. In Calder Valley, one such pub saw its payments to Stonegate jump from £800 to £1,700 a week, just days after the six-month probationary period ended. I welcome the Government’s support for pubs, but that pub will still be paying 17 times more to Stonegate each year than it will in business rates. Will the Minister look at those unfair charges, and what can be done in regulation?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important case. He is my neighbouring colleague in wonderful Calder Valley, and our constituencies have some of the best pubs in the country. As he knows, the pubs code in England and Wales regulates the relationship between pub-owning businesses with 500 or more tied pubs, including Stonegate and its tied-pub tenants, and it aims to ensure that tenants are treated fairly. The Government are currently undertaking the third statutory review of the effectiveness of the code, and it may help to inform the review if my hon. Friend could write to me setting out the details of the example he mentioned.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
When will the Government announce the results of their British industrial competitiveness scheme consultation, and provide the fabulous manufacturing industry in my constituency with some much-needed help towards its energy costs?
Sale of Fireworks
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for leading today’s important debate, which is based on two petitions, one calling for a reduction in the noise limit for consumer fireworks from 120 dB to 90 dB and another for limiting the sales of fireworks to local authority-approved displays. I have only just over 10 minutes to respond, so I might not be able to take as many interventions as the hon. Gentleman did. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), for putting on record her thanks to everyone who has spoken today—she shaved a good minute off my speech. I thank her for that contribution.
I thank all hon. Members for their brilliant contributions. It has been an interesting debate. It is one of the longest and most well attended debates that I have been to, not only since I was appointed to this role but since I was elected. That shows the strength of feeling on both sides of the House. I thank hon. Members for representing their constituents.
Like other hon. Members, I am regularly contacted by residents who have been impacted by the antisocial use of fireworks, and I thank constituents for continuing to raise the matter with me. I assure them, hon. Members, campaigners and those in the Gallery, who have been with us through this afternoon’s debate, that I recognise the challenges that our communities face, and recognise the direct personal experiences that colleagues and constituents have shared.
I acknowledge the important work of Helen Whitelegg, from Redwings Horse Sanctuary, for beginning this petition as part of her organisation’s work to safeguard horses and advocate for their welfare, and I thank Robert Branch for starting his petition. Animal welfare charities such as Redwings and my local RSPCA branch in Halifax have been calling for a reduction in firework decibel levels for some time. The strength of feeling among the public is clear from the number of signatures that the petitions have received, as many hon. Members have mentioned.
I pay tribute to the family of Josephine Smith, who sadly passed away in October 2021 after a firework was placed through her letterbox. I express my condolences to Josephine’s family, and I am very grateful to her son Alan, whom I met earlier today, for his continued advocacy on this matter.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her dedicated campaigning and advocacy on this issue. I also thank her and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for their recent private Members’ Bills on fireworks misuse and on fireworks noise control.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) for their advocacy and engagement with me since my appointment. I know how important tackling antisocial firework use is to them and their constituents.
I also want to express my gratitude to the emergency services. Our firefighters, paramedics and police officers work tirelessly to keep our communities safe during the firework season.
As we have heard from hon. Members, this time of year, and the past couple of months, can be particularly challenging for pets, veteran communities, those with PTSD, those with mental health conditions, those with autism and those who are vulnerable. Members have raised many important ideas to consider: restricting the number of days of fireworks per year; controls on volume and evening hours; date restrictions on sale, purchase and types; further promoting advance notice of firework use; and a ban on indoor fireworks.
On that point, I want to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I was so saddened to hear about the tragic fire that claimed 40 lives at new year in Switzerland. My condolences go to the families and friends of all who lost their lives in that devastating event. I understand that the investigation into the cause of the fire is ongoing; it has been reported that the authorities have banned the use of indoor pyrotechnics, which my hon. Friend spoke about.
Those suggestions were in addition to the support demonstrated here today for the topics of the e-petitions: noise level and limiting the sale of fireworks to organised displays. That strength of feeling has absolutely been heard and recognised today, and I thank Members for all their contributions.
My aim is to minimise the negative impact of fireworks and to ensure that they are used responsibly and can continue to play a role in celebrations and festivities across our country. There is no doubt that fireworks are a popular feature of community and family events and bring people together. A lot of Members have brought examples of those events to the Floor of the House today. They range from bonfire night and new year to birthdays, Eid and Diwali, among many others. Although many—77%—of our constituents enjoy using fireworks, only 15% believe that the existing regulatory framework is sufficient. Research from the Social Market Foundation found that one solution would be to reduce the noise limit for consumer fireworks. That, of course, is one of the subjects of today’s debate.
The research also highlighted the potential for alternative kinds of light displays, using drones or lasers. The recent new year’s eve fireworks display in London showcased an alternative, pairing fireworks with Hologauze technology. The highly reflective, silver-coated gauze reflects projected images while remaining transparent, allowing viewers to see fireworks behind the visuals. This and the use of drones show how technology is changing our experience of the traditional fireworks season and offering a more sustainable, visually rich alternative for large-scale events. We of course encourage attendance at those organised public displays.
I will touch on current legislation and safe use, and then respond to colleagues’ points. Members will know that, as they are explosives, the sale and use of fireworks is extensively regulated, with controls placed on their import, storage, supply, possession and use. In Great Britain, the Fireworks Regulations 2004 introduced a package of measures to reduce the nuisance and injuries caused by the misuse of fireworks. A lot of colleagues have referred to the 11 pm to 7 am curfew on the use of fireworks. Use later in the night—to 1 am—is permitted only on the traditional firework days, which I have already mentioned. I am grateful that many councils—including Calderdale council, which covers my constituency —have hard-working community safety teams in place to collect intelligence and allocate enforcement officers to hotspots of antisocial usage.
The Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015 contain provisions about the manufacture, import and distribution of pyrotechnics across the UK. That includes labelling, conformity assessment testing and other requirements to ensure the products’ safety. The legislation also sets out the requirement for manufacturers to ensure that their products do not exceed the 120 dB noise limit.
Robbie Moore
The Minister need not panic, because we have this room until 7.30 pm and so there is plenty of time for her to carry on speaking and to take interventions. She is kindly outlining the legislation that is currently in place, but it is not working. We know that there is a threshold of 11 pm on most nights, but across Keighley, Silsden and the Worth valley, I have constituents who experience fireworks going off throughout the night and throughout the year. Could the Minister explain what action the Government will be taking in response to the petitions that have been debated today?
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Member for the reassurance about time. I absolutely recognise the need for enforcement—colleagues have mentioned the existing framework and the regulations that are in place. I will get to the consideration that we are making as a Department of further legislation and regulations, as suggested in the e-petitions, when I focus on antisocial behaviour and the comments that colleagues have made today.
Hon. Members will be aware that retailers storing fireworks must be licensed to do so and are able to sell them to consumers only for a limited period around seasonal celebrations. Retailers who wish to sell fireworks to the public outside those periods must obtain an additional selling licence from their local licensing authority. The brilliant local trading standards and fire and rescue authorities in metropolitan counties like West Yorkshire can take action against those storing or selling fireworks without an appropriate licence. They work closely with retailers to ensure that the fireworks being sold are safe, and they have powers to enforce against those who place non-compliant fireworks on the market.
I am grateful to have met with the Calderdale district fire service to understand the role they play in reducing risk and engaging with my local community. As a Minister, I will also continue to engage with colleagues, stakeholders and organisations on a national level to ensure that this Labour Government continue to work with the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities, including Border Force and trading standards, to take action against anyone who imports or sells fireworks illegally in the UK. That enforcement is important, as is providing them with the resources they need to do their jobs.
As many colleagues have said, among those most impacted by the illegal and antisocial use of fireworks are our pets and veteran community. Colleagues have given some real, personal examples; my labrador Bruno is one of the many dogs that have been deeply impacted by fireworks in recent months. Since October, I have been contacted by hundreds of colleagues from across this House, by charities and campaigners, and by more than 100 constituents who have shared their experiences, including one who had to move away from their home during peak firework periods to protect their family pet. That engagement as a constituency MP, and the stories of colleagues here today, drives my work as a Minister to minimise the negative impact of fireworks.
Following my appointment, I have continued to build on the brilliant work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), in engaging with groups, organisations, charities and businesses to gather evidence on the year-round impact of fireworks, as we have heard today. I have been continuing that engagement with a wide range of consumer groups and charities. I have also met Members of this House—I thank them for those meetings—and of the other place, and the devolved Governments: I recently met the Scottish Government to understand the recent implications of their policies to build that evidence base. We will consider the effectiveness that further legislation may have in reducing antisocial and illegal firework use, and I will continue to build on that.
Ruth Jones
The Minister has explained what has happened in the past and what is happening now, but we are interested in the future. We need legislation, and we need it before 5 November this year. May I press her for a timeline for what is going to happen next?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for her powerful speech. I hear and understand the urgency for action, and colleagues’ reflections on having been here in Westminster Hall this time last year, debating fireworks. I am not able to provide a timeline at this stage, but I would of course be happy to work with her and colleagues across the House on next steps as the Department progresses. We will be building on the work and evidence base of my predecessor, working with devolved Administrations to understand the work they are undertaking and their evidence base, and looking at examples from countries that are taking action across the globe to understand, first and foremost, how we can safeguard our communities.
Safety is paramount. One of my first acts as a Minister was to launch a public campaign during firework season, promoting considerate use and focusing on the safe use of fireworks, including their disposal. Colleagues have talked about encouraging responsible behaviour and safer celebrations at private displays.
Dr Arthur
It would be good to see an evaluation of the campaign that the Minister launched, which I thank her for running. It seems that the Government accept that there are impacts on pets and veterans, and they thank the emergency services for all they do and the risks they take on that evening, but all those people—the pet owners, veterans, emergency services and, I expect, even the Minister—must be a little frustrated that there is no timeline for even the start of some action. Does she share that frustration?
Kate Dearden
I am working at pace with my colleagues in the Department, building the evidence base, speaking to as many people as possible, and looking to understand not only those frustrations, but the real life stories that colleagues have shared, today and since I was appointed to this role, as well as those from my constituents.
Robbie Moore
What discussions has the Minister had with Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the animal welfare strategy that has been launched? I have read that strategy, and it does not really address the issue of fireworks. Given that so many animal welfare concerns have been raised, what conversations is she having with DEFRA colleagues?
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Member for raising animal welfare, which has come up time and again in this debate. I am proud of the strategy we launched as a Government, and work with my colleagues across Departments on a range of issues in my brief. It is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any domestic animal under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. I understand the hon. Member’s reflections and those of colleagues from across the House today on the strategy and where we might be able to go further; we will continue to engage with colleagues on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) mentioned the impact of the campaign, with a total reach of around 130,000; there is always more that we can do. I thank colleagues who shared those social media posts and the guidance that we provided with their constituents. I am keen that we always continue to build on that, regulation aside. As we promote safe and responsible usage, I will continue to work with national charities such as Combat Stress, the RSPCA, the Firework Impact Coalition, Help for Heroes and so many more to ensure that our messaging reaches the general public.
While the majority of people who use fireworks do so appropriately and have a sensible and responsible attitude towards them, as many colleagues have said, a minority of people use fireworks in a dangerous, inconsiderate and antisocial manner. We have heard some horrendous stories today highlighting examples of that. I understand the impact that inconsiderate and antisocial use can have: loud bangs are disturbing communities, particularly those with elderly residents, young children and pets, and in far too many places fireworks are set off late at night, disturbing hard-working parents, waking up children and causing terror to our most vulnerable constituents.
Dangerous misuse is a serious concern. Reports of fireworks being thrown at people—colleagues have mentioned that they have been thrown at prams—vehicles or buildings are completely unacceptable. We will continue to support the work of our council officers and police community support officers who work tirelessly to ensure that the vast majority of those who use fireworks for celebrations—
Sarah Owen
I thank the Minister for giving way on that point. As we have heard, quite often, this falls between the response of the police, post 11 o’clock—and they will not, understandably, come out unless there is a threat to life, especially with scarce resources—and the council, which will treat it as a noise pollution issue. Neither of those are suitable for dealing with nuisance fireworks. Luton council has developed, with Love Clean Streets, the ability to report firework misuse through an app. Yet councils up and down the country are unable to get that off the ground. We need councils and communities to be better resourced to report nuisance fireworks.
Kate Dearden
I agree with my hon. Friend, and that work in Luton to enable people to better report issues outside of those hours is appreciated and valued. Where we can, we should share and promote best practice. She made a valid point about the frustrations and difficulties in doing that on the enforcement side of things, and we would be keen to take that further. Tackling antisocial behaviour is a top priority for this Government. It is a key part of our safer streets mission, which is why we want to take action against those who seek chaos and terror on our streets.
Kirsteen Sullivan
In my contribution, I spoke about the contribution of people from Blackburn to changing what was going on in their community. Will the Minister reassure me that the Government will engage directly with communities, to hear from the very people whose lives are blighted by this antisocial behaviour?
Kate Dearden
I can absolutely provide that reassurance today. I want to hear from as many people and communities that have been impacted as possible, and ensure that they have the opportunity to share their stories directly with me. I thank her for raising that today, and can give her that reassurance.
John Lamont
The Minister is being exceptionally generous with her time. The reality is that we will be back here again this time next year, because there will be another petition calling for the same things. What guarantees can the Minister give about the progress that will be made between now and this time next year on the petitioners’ asks—in terms of decibel levels and the licensing regime? What progress will have been made, fast-forwarding the clock to when we are having this debate this time next year?
Kate Dearden
I am always happy to meet the leads of the petition, campaigners and colleagues in this House to update them and provide the opportunity for them to feed back directly to the Department and me, so they do not have to wait for another Westminster Hall debate—if there is one. I am happy to provide that clarification, as well as my availability today, to ensure that we hear from colleagues on this issue, and that it remains a key priority for me and the Department. We recognise the urgency and passion of colleagues in their desire to see change—we heard it today. I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, to Helen and Robert for their work in bringing this debate to the House, and to Members for their contributions.
I assure Members and advocacy groups that I have heard their concerns, and will be asking for better regulations and urgency for action. I will continue to seriously consider them as I look to further mitigate the negative impact of illegal and antisocial firework use on our communities. We will continue to gather that evidence and continue to hear from organisations, charities and campaigners to ensure that any changes to legislation are effective.
While I recognise the vital cultural importance of fireworks at a diverse range of festivals and celebrations, I will not apologise for continuing to support our emergency services working to promote their safe usage, raise awareness of the risks and take action against the minority of individuals who use fireworks illegally and antisocially at the expense of their communities. The safety of the public and fireworks’ impact on people, animals and property will be central in decisions and how we proceed with their regulation.
I thank everybody for their contributions today; I again thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley for opening this debate and the campaigners in the Gallery for their patience in listening to colleagues from across this House, and for ensuring that we continue to work closely together. I thank all Members for their contributions.
Meat Exports to the EU
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing this timely debate on meat exports to the EU and thank him for his remarks. I agree with him that our farmers and processors produce world-class beef, lamb, poultry and pork. I completely hear and recognise his remarks about the importance of lamb in Wales and his constituency—he called it foundational for our economy.
The EU is still our biggest market and, despite recent challenges, demand for British meat remains strong. In 2024, British meat exports to the EU hit a record £1.65 billion, driven by growth in key markets such as France and the Netherlands. In the first 10 months of 2025, red meat exports to the EU reached £1.3 billion—up 16% on 2024.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
In 2019, the amount of fresh beef exported to the European Union was almost 100,000 tonnes, whereas five years later it had dropped to less than 80,000 tonnes. Does the Minister suppose that a revised SPS agreement could get fresh beef exports to the EU back to where they were in 2019?
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Member for his question. I am going to get to the SPS agreement, and I will reflect on his comments when I get to that part of my speech.
Tulip Siddiq
When the Minister speaks about the SPS agreement, will she also comment on animal welfare? Of my constituents in Hampstead and Highgate, 87% voted to remain. I have had an overwhelming number of communications about animal welfare being at the heart of any SPS agreement with the EU, so will she please talk about that?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend makes an important point on animal welfare in the SPS agreement, which I will get to.
The figures I mentioned show the strength of this sector and why smooth, predictable trade with the EU really matters. The Department for Business and Trade has been working hand in hand with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and with industry—led by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board—to drive meat exports, and will be supporting meat exporters at SIAL Paris, the largest European trade show for food and drink, in October. We also have two DEFRA agri-attachés, based in France and Spain, actively working with DBT staff to unblock market access issues for food and drink producers exporting to Europe, including exporters of lamb and meat.
The Government’s goal is clear: to make trade with the EU cheaper and easier while keeping high standards. That is why we are pursuing the UK-EU SPS agreement, which will create a common SPS area to cut border friction and boost competitiveness. Negotiations on the agreement have already begun. This is a major step forward. The deal will deliver real benefits, scrapping export health certificates for most consignments—saving up to £200 for each one—and ending routine SPS border control checks so that fresh meat moves faster with less paperwork. It will also reopen the EU market for trade in products like fresh sausages and burgers. These changes will strengthen supply chains, cut costs and help meat exporters grow.
We are not lowering standards. Border regimes protect animal and public health, and every consignment must meet rules for entry. I am really proud of the Government’s animal welfare strategy, which colleagues across the House welcomed. The European Commission recently announced tougher checks on food, animal and plant products, including more audits, closer monitoring of non-compliant goods and a new taskforce for import controls. Those reinforced checks reflect long-standing EU policy. For British exporters, the message is clear: meeting standards is essential, and we will keep supporting businesses to get it right. Every consignment faces documentary, identity and sometimes physical checks before it can be allowed into the EU. Our strategy is to make those interactions faster and more predictable by cutting the need for certificates and routine checks through an SPS agreement, while giving traders clear guidance to keep standards high.
I need to be clear that the Government are not seeking a customs union with the EU. Our focus is on SPS, food safety, animal health and plant health. We will stay outside the EU customs union. What we want is a practical alignment where it makes sense, including to cut friction in meat trade while keeping control of our own rules.
We must keep the industry competitive while negotiations continue, and EU markets can still buy high volumes and premium cuts from Britain. In 2024, beef exports to the EU rose in value by almost 11%, with volumes up by nearly 5%. That shows the strength of British quality and brand recognition in the EU. In the first 10 months of 2025, British export values grew further, even with tight domestic cattle supplies. For lamb, France remains our biggest market, and overall export value is up. These figures prove that with smoother borders our exporters can do even more.
Jim Shannon
I do not want to put the Minister in an awkward position—it is not the way I do things—but I asked a fairly complex question, in support of the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) but also to highlight the peculiarities of the Northern Ireland farmer, about the fact that, through some of the veterinary medicine controls, we will find ourselves disadvantaged and perhaps unable to sell our beef and lamb to the UK and, ultimately, the EU. If it is helpful to the Minister, I would be quite happy for her to come back to me with an answer.
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. As he knows, the negotiations are ongoing and we cannot comment on them. We are working hard to cut red tape for exporters. I will be happy to follow up with him on his specific point, and I thank him for raising that important issue.
Agrifood exports to the EU remain below 2018 levels in real terms. That is why practical steps such as an SPS agreement matter. They tackle the real-world frictions that hold back meat exports.
Although the focus of the debate is exports to the EU, colleagues know that Great Britain has introduced risk-based controls on imports, set out in the border target operating model. Those apply to goods entering GB and do not change EU rules for our exports. They ensure a level playing field and protect biosecurity, which is vital. Medium-risk EU animal products entering GB face documentary checks and risk-based identity and physical checks at border control posts, and high-risk products face full identity and physical checks. That is proportionate risk management that mirrors the system that our exporters encounter at EU posts, and shows our commitment to safe, fair trade.
DEFRA has worked closely with processors, hauliers and certification bodies to prepare for SPS talks and keep trade moving. We have expanded guidance on required standards and on intensified official controls for sites facing extra checks. We regularly meet the British Meat Processors Association and other trade groups to explain processes, gather feedback and fix issues quickly. Our goal is simple: to help businesses meet EU requirements the first time, so consignments are cleared without delay.
Our meat exporters have shown real resilience. The Government’s job is to cut unnecessary barriers, keep confidence in our systems and open up opportunities in our closest markets. An SPS agreement with the EU is a practical way to do that, and I am glad that we are leading the way. It will cut costs and paperwork, reducing delays and helping British businesses to sell more, while protecting standards and respecting our independent trade policy. This is about a sensible alignment that benefits farmers and processors across the UK, and I look forward to working with Members across the House, our European partners, industry and stakeholders to deliver an agreement that makes a real difference to meat exporters, strengthens our crucial supply chains and supports jobs and prosperity in every part of the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Employment Rights Bill
Kate Dearden ExcerptsMonday 15th December 2025
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 View all Employment Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 15 December 2025 - large print - (15 Dec 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 120N to Commons amendment 120G and their amendments 120P to 120S to Commons amendment 120H.
I am returning for the fourth time to the consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Rights Bill. The Bill will bring employment rights legislation into the 21st century, extending the protections that many British companies already offer their staff to all. I cannot hide my frustration that, once again, we have been blocked from getting this Bill on to the statute book by the other place.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Which British company offers unlimited compensation for unfair dismissal? What message does this measure send to companies that can locate well-paid staff anywhere in the world?
Kate Dearden
I will allow the right hon. Gentleman to listen to the reflections further on in my speech. I am not sure he entirely grasps the compensation cap proposal and our intentions.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
What message does it send to the British public when 33 hereditary peers defeat the Government by 24 votes on a manifesto promise? Some of the wealthiest are blocking measures on sick pay for some of the lowest earners, which will miss the April deadline. Should we not get on—go through the night if we have to—and get this Bill passed?
Kate Dearden
We are absolutely determined to get this legislation through, and I urge colleagues in the other place to pass this Bill for the reasons my right hon. Friend outlines: 1.3 million people will be entitled to statutory sick pay from as soon as April. That is significant, and it is why it is so important to get the legislation on to the statute books.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My colleagues in the other place all expressed concern about open-ended, unlimited compensation. That is a concern not only for them and for colleagues here, but for businesses back home. I know the Minister means well, but for goodness’ sake, this will not work for business.
Kate Dearden
If hon. Members allow me to make some progress, I will get to the background and reasoning for the compensation cap.
Continued delay to the Bill will put implementation at risk, which creates insecurity and uncertainty for workers and employers alike. I hope the other place acknowledges the importance of this and will let the Government deliver the Bill, which is backed by an electoral mandate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said. We have been engaged in ping-pong for far too long, and further delay is in no one’s best interests. I hope the arguments I make today will address the reservations of those Members of the other place who have been engaging in good faith when they have had genuine concerns about the Bill.
As I told the House last week, I convened a series of constructive conversations on the unfair dismissal provisions, which resulted in a workable agreement with trade unions and business representatives and was the subject of Government amendments made last week. I can assure hon. Members, as someone who was in the room during the negotiations, that the agreement between unions and business representatives was made with good will and in good faith by all sides.
As those representatives of the British Chambers of Commerce, the Chartered Institute of Personal and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, Small Business Britain, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Confederation of British Industry said in today’s letter to the Secretary of State, the “outcome” of the
“dialogue…represented a significant step forward which will have a positive impact on growth and opportunities.”
The amendments tabled in the other place undermine that agreement, as the compensatory award cap would not be removed and instead the Government would conduct and publish a review of the impact of the cap. The removal of the cap would then require further primary legislation.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has set out how sensible the conversations have been thus far, but does she agree with me that they have been totally frustrated by colleagues down the corridor, who have no regard for the mandate that was returned to the Government at the last general election, and that we should stand firm and make sure that these rights are not further impeded by the unelected House?
Kate Dearden
That is why our motion today disagrees with the Lords amendments and insists on our amendments from the previous round of ping-pong, which deliver on the agreement made by trade unions and business representative organisations.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I wonder whether the Minister is comfortable with the fact that introducing an uncapped unfair dismissal compensation award will make the UK an international outlier, when many of our international competitors have clear limits. If she is comfortable with that, what assessment has she made of the impact on UK jobs and inward investment to the UK, particularly in business sectors that are internationally mobile?
Kate Dearden
Our proposal would remove the cap of 52 weeks’ gross pay or £118,223. It is important to reflect that, in practice, few awards get anywhere close to the cap. The median average award for unfair dismissal in 2023-24 was £6,746. Employment tribunals will continue to calculate compensatory awards to reflect the losses that employees suffer as a result of being unfairly dismissed.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Has the Minister conducted an impact assessment? If so, how much does she think this change will cost? How many uncapped awards will be made? These are the kinds of big, important decisions that the other place has concerns about, as do Conservative Members. If she has that evidence, she could put this to bed tonight by simply providing it to us so that we can make an informed decision.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my frustration at the sheer misinformation that has been spread about the removal of the cap on compensation. As she rightly says, the median award at the moment is less than £7,000. More importantly than that, only 2% of all employment tribunals ever result in a compensation award for unfair dismissal. Does she agree that the Government have indeed taken into account the concerns of Cross-Bench peers by committing to an assessment, and more importantly does she agree that those employers and the unions together can see what the Opposition do not, which is that this is will be fair to workers and fair to businesses that are fair to their workers?
Kate Dearden
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. We believe that the current compensatory award cap also creates a systemic incentive for unfair dismissal claimants to construct more complex cases, which could take longer for a tribunal to handle. By removing the compensatory award cap for unfair dismissal claims, the incentive may be lessened, potentially making it easier for tribunals to reach a judgment more quickly and decreasing the burdens on the system.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I am not at all surprised that the Minister is having a little bit of a problem with the other place—after all, she is not the first Minister to have been confused as to what was in a manifesto and what was not; the Prime Minister seems to have been confused about the assisted suicide Bill.
May I raise a question about the cap? The problem that many businesses will have is with insurance. Most businesses take some form of insurance for unfair dismissal. Insurance companies work on the basis that they have an understandable level of risk that they are underwriting. If they do not know what that risk is, they will not underwrite it. The challenge here is that by removing the cap, the Minister is changing the level of maximum risk and therefore making it much harder for insurance companies to underwrite it. Has she spoken to insurance companies about the challenges that this poses?
Kate Dearden
I listen to the Conservatives again and again as they come to the Chamber—they have done it again today—and talk down what was a clear manifesto commitment of this Bill.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I am sure the Minister is coming on to this in her speech, but it might be worth reiterating, for the benefit of those on the Opposition Benches, that the best way to avoid having to pay compensation for unfair dismissal is to avoid unfairly dismissing someone in the first place.
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as she always does, and I thank her for it.
To conclude, we are seeking the support of the House so that we can finally secure Royal Assent and move towards implementing our long-overdue reforms to make work pay. Today’s correspondence from business representatives to the Secretary of State states that British business believes that
“now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill.”
I urge Members across the House to reflect on that comment, on our election mandate from last year and on all the work and consideration that has been put into this Bill so far in both Houses. I thank all colleagues for their work, and I commend this motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Kate Dearden
I am grateful to hon. Members across the House for their contributions today and throughout the passage of the Bill. When there is a finding of unfair dismissal at tribunal, it is important that the claimant is fairly compensated for the loss they have suffered. We also believe that the cap on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal incentivises claimants to construct complex cases that allege both unfair dismissal and discrimination so as to access uncapped compensation, as I stated in my introductory remarks—perhaps Conservative Members did not hear that. By removing the compensatory award cap for unfair dismissal claims, that incentive will be lessened.
By removing the cap, the Government will also deter employs from treating the cost of dismissing employees unfairly as part of business as usual, instead ensuring that employees who face significant losses as a result of being unfairly dismissed are fairly compensated. Compensation for unfair dismissal is awarded only where a tribunal finds in favour of the claimant. Claims that do not have merit will not secure any compensatory award with or without a cap.
Lifting the cap will not mean that compensatory awards start from a blank sheet of paper and become impossible to anticipate. Tribunals have well established ways to calculate the compensation that might be awarded for particular types of losses resulting from unfair dismissal. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), for her support. As she referenced, and as Members will have heard in my introductory remarks, we will publish an economic assessment in due course, and I am always available for further discussion.
Conservative Members have opposed this Bill at every stage, and no matter what the issue was today, they would oppose it again. Businesses and unions have shown leadership, and Conservative Members and Parliament should respect their voice. The tripartite agreement was forged through dialogue with those who live the realities of our workplaces every day. That agreement included a package conducted in good faith and with good will, and I thank them for it.
This Government’s aim is clear: to conclude the passage of the Bill so that millions of British workers gain new rights while businesses can prepare for change with certainty. Labour Members send a clear message to the other place to now let the Bill—a Bill that delivers on multiple manifesto commitments and has a clear electoral mandate—pass. Any further delay risks leaving workers without protections and businesses without clarity. We now strive to conclude this process and deliver the change that Britian needs to make work pay. We cannot build a strong economy with people in insecure work. We are strengthening the foundations of our economy and improving living standards. The Bill, and all our work across Government, is the foundation for building an economy that works for everyone.
Question put.