Oral Answers to Questions
Kate Dearden Excerpts(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the dangers posed by unsafe e-bike batteries; 170 e-bike fires were recorded in 2024, mostly in London. Product safety laws require that businesses supply only safe consumer products, including e-bike batteries. Last year, my Department introduced new statutory guidelines to strengthen battery safety. The regulators enforce the rules; since 2022, the Office for Product Safety and Standards has published 24 recalls and 65 safety reports for unsafe e-bike batteries and related products. The new Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 enables Government to update the law to respond to new technologies and high-risk products.
Dame Meg Hillier
I welcome that response and the fact that the Government are leaning into this issue, because it is causing a great deal of risk. One of the challenges is that in order to upgrade bikes and extend their range, people often buy these batteries from non-regulated suppliers, and those are the dangerous ones. Will the Minister look further into how the Department could work with the rest of Government to try to regulate illegal sales?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend knows how vital consumer safety is for e-bike users and advocates passionately for their regulation, and I would be happy to work with her further on this. The Office for Product Safety and Standards has powers to remove unsafe products from the UK market and has taken action to prevent those dangerous models of UPP brand e-bike batteries from being sold. As I mentioned, the Department last year introduced new statutory guidelines. I would be happy to work with my hon. Friend and across Government on this important issue for her constituents.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Will the Minister consider introducing minimum design and safety standards for e-bike batteries to reduce the risk of overcharging, overheating and short-circuiting?
Kate Dearden
Our product safety laws do require products supplied in the UK to be safe, whether they are sold online or on the high street. As I have mentioned, our Product Regulation and Metrology Act, which received Royal Assent earlier this year, gives us powers to update product safety laws where necessary to adapt to those new technologies and emerging product risks.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I thank my hon. Friend for her continued hard work in this area. From April 2026, subject to parliamentary approval, statutory paternity pay will increase from £187.18 to £194.32 per week. The Employment Rights Bill will make paternity leave a day one right, extending eligibility to 32,000 more fathers and partners and ensuring that parents who move jobs to increase their pay will not lose their entitlement to paternity leave. The parental leave and pay review, launched on 1 July, will examine current and future parental leave entitlements, including paternity leave and pay.
Maya Ellis
I thank the Minister for how seriously she is taking this issue when, according to the latest analysis by the Dad Shift, 90% of paternity leave is claimed by fathers in the top half of earners, with almost a third of those being in London and the south-east. Anna Whitehouse and George Gabriel, who I will meet later today, are among a huge cacophony of voices in this country that are crying out for us to recognise the need for inclusive policies that put the voices of all parents at the heart of our growth, health and wellbeing strategies. Can the Minister confirm that this Labour Government will finally put them there?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend and those she mentions for their unwavering commitment to supporting parents—I was delighted to meet the Dad Shift recently. We are committed to improving the lives of working families. Alongside expanding access to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave, benefiting over 1 million more parents, we are strengthening flexible working rights and bolstering protections for new and expectant mothers. But more needs to be done. This year, we launched the parental leave and pay review to explore how the system can better support working families and reflect modern work and childcare realities. I look forward to working with her and hearing further from her constituents about the impact those changes could have for working people, especially those on lower incomes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for that helpful response. Many low-income workers often cannot afford unpaid or low-paid leave, so fathers feel obliged to return to work to receive full pay. What steps can the Government take to increase statutory paternity pay to match the reasonable proportion of wages across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Kate Dearden
The hon. Member will have heard my reference to a review. It will consider all forms of parental leave and pay, alongside current and future parental leave entitlements. I urge him to get involved in that process, and look forward to hearing from him as part of it.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
For too long, fans have been at the mercy of greedy touts charging rip-off prices on the ticket resale market. That is why the Government have announced plans to make it illegal to resell a live events ticket for a profit. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned for that over the years, for which I thank him. There will be tough penalties for non-compliance: resale platforms will face fines of up to 10% of their global turnover. That will protect genuine fans while preserving fair resale, saving fans an estimated £112 million each year.
Nick Smith
The Government’s action on ticket reselling is the first substantive effort to tackle those who leech off the music sector. Previously, as one loophole closed, another would often open. There have been warnings, however, that ticket reselling could continue through social media and messaging apps. How will the Government monitor that to protect fans so that they can see the artists who bring joy into all our lives?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that, and appreciate his work on and commitment to this matter. Our approach will require all platforms that facilitate the resale of tickets—including social media platforms—to ensure that the price cap is adhered to on their sites. If platforms fail to uphold the cap, our enforcers will be able to issue tough penalties of up to 10% of global turnover. We believe that that will act as a strong deterrent. We will carefully monitor the impact of the measures once they have been implemented, and we will not hesitate to take further action to protect fans if required.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Hospitality businesses, including those in Glastonbury and Somerton, are vital to our communities and city centres. We have introduced permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with a rateable value under £500,000, worth nearly £900 million annually and benefiting over 750,000 properties. The new relief rates are permanent, giving businesses that certainty and stability, and there will be no caps—all qualifying properties will benefit. We have also introduced a £1.5 million hospitality support scheme to co-fund projects aligned with Department for Business and Trade and Hospitality Sector Council priorities.
Sarah Dyke
Earlier this week I met children from Ilchester community primary school. Maeve, who is in year 6, told me her No. 1 concern is the pressure on local businesses. Glastonbury and Somerton has many wonderful hotels and restaurants, like the Hollies in Bower Hinton, but many will face an average rates increase of 76% from April without transitional support. What action is the Minister taking to prevent a crisis in the hospitality sector and ensure that businesses like the Hollies can thrive?
Kate Dearden
We absolutely recognise the significant contribution made by hospitality businesses to economic growth and social life in the UK, including the hon. Member’s constituency. With the temporary pandemic business rates relief coming to an end and the first independent revaluation since the pandemic taking effect next April, we are putting in place a £4 billion support package, so that most properties seeing increases will see them capped at 15% or less next year, or £800 for the smallest. We inherited support schemes that the previous Government had put in place with no funding for them to continue. I thank her for raising this matter today and am happy to discuss it further.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
We recognise that pubs are the beating heart of our communities, especially in seaside towns like Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. They bring people together and support local jobs. That is why we have delivered on our promise to permanently cut business rates for hospitality, retail and leisure businesses, which includes pubs. Additionally, the Chancellor announced a new national licensing policy framework, setting out a vision for a proportionate licensing system, and we are investing £440,000 to help pubs diversify and support rural communities.
Alison Griffiths
Mr Speaker,
“The Chancellor’s disastrous budget was the most bitter attack on the pub industry for years.”
Those are not my words, but those of Iain Brown, who runs the William Hardwicke pub in Bognor Regis. Charlie Cockaday, landlord of the Fox Inn in Felpham, told me that due to increases in business rates, the minimum wage and alcohol duty, he will have to put 22p on the cost of a pint just to break even. Can the Minister tell Iain and Charlie, who are fighting just to keep their pubs alive, what on earth they are supposed to do?
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Member for raising her concerns on behalf of her constituents and businesses. We do recognise the ongoing pressures and are acting. Last night I met lots of colleagues from across the industry, and I want to make sure that we continue to talk with the sector and with pubs to understand the questions they face. The main transitional support for ratepayers losing RHL relief is through our supporting small business scheme, which also helps those losing small business rates relief or the rural rate relief at the revaluation. We are supporting pubs and continue to work with them and support the sector. I thank her for raising that.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is incredibly depressing that the Minister does not appear to recognise the seriousness of the situation for pubs in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and, indeed, across the country, with around eight closing every week. Pubs already face huge costs and hiked taxes—there really are no more pips to squeak. It can be no surprise that, since the Chancellor’s Budget, some landlords, already emotionally drained from a difficult year, do not have the stomach to check their new business rates liability until after Christmas. If the Minister truly values our pubs, will she take meaningful action, rather than just tell us that business rates are going down when they are actually going up?
Kate Dearden
As I said, we do recognise the ongoing pressures and are acting through targeted support for the sector. Without our support, pubs would face a 45% increase in the total bills they pay next year. We have got that down to just 4%. The majority will have their bills capped at £800, 5% or 15% next year. In addition, we have established the licensing taskforce to cut red tape and remove growth barriers. I am committed to working with the sector.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising those issues. I am more than happy to meet representatives from the hospitality sector and industries across the country to understand their questions and the challenges they face. We are committed to supporting them as a vital sector for our economy, our local communities, and this country, and we want them to thrive.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement with me and the Department. I pay tribute to Ceri and Frances for their incredible campaigns and work raising awareness in memory of their son, Hugh. I am happy to plan for Hugh’s law to have a separate chapter in the consultation and to work with my hon. Friend its development. The consultation should provide the opportunity to highlight the specific circumstances in which parents find themselves.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting Halifax and the brilliant pubs in my constituency that I have been delighted to work with since I was elected last year. I will continue to work with and listen to them. He highlights the difference in the agenda and priorities of our parties: we can provide businesses in our brilliant hospitality sector, especially our pubs, with support. He has heard from the Dispatch Box about my determination and commitment to work closely with the hospitality sector on the transitional rate relief and to provide the support that they need.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Earlier this year, 150,000 workers across the north-east benefited from the increase in the national minimum wage, with another increase due in April as a result of the Budget. However, it is important that these increases are actually applied, so the Minister set out what steps she is taking to ensure that employers comply?
Kate Dearden
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that her constituents see that increase in the hourly rate of the minimum wage and national living wage. That is in stark contrast to the Leader of the Opposition, who has said that the minimum wage should not go any higher. Our commitment further demonstrates that this Government are on the side of the working people. We will run a campaign to help employers understand their responsibilities and to ensure that workers across the country know what they are entitled to. There is a real opportunity with our fair work agency, and I would be delighted to work with her closely on that.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Seasonal Work
Kate Dearden Excerpts(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
It is a pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the Government.
Let me start by saying that I will take absolutely no lessons on running the economy after what the Conservatives did during 14 years in government. Given that there have been so many references to songs and music today, I want to suggest a song that Conservative Members might want to reflect on. It is an Elton John classic: “Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word”.
I noticed yesterday that the Conservatives produced a Christmas video in which they claimed that Santa’s elves were seasonal workers—you couldn’t make it up! May I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), on his somewhat alarming AI skills? I would gently point out that if the Opposition’s reference point for the modern economy is Father Christmas’s workshop, that does explain a lot; although, frankly, I am not surprised. On Monday, the shadow Secretary of State repeatedly quoted figures on the supposed cost of the Employment Rights Bill from the Growth Commission. However, that commission boasts a Ms Elizabeth Truss as an adviser, so he will forgive me if I take any of his economic advice with a large pinch of salt.
Let me be clear. We on the Government Benches do not believe in pitting employers and employees against each other. No one wants a business to succeed more than the workers who rely on it for their livelihood. This Government will not indulge in the scaremongering so beloved by the Conservatives, and I will take this opportunity to clarify some of their misleading claims. But first, I want to acknowledge how difficult the past few years have been for small businesses, particularly in the hospitality, retail and leisure sectors. These sectors were disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, by a botched Brexit, and by a cost of living crisis that has robbed the British people of their disposable income.
Kate Dearden
I will carry on and make some progress.
Let me respond to the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). As many hon. Members reflected on this point, I will clarify that we are not seeking to return to or rejoin the customs union; we are focusing on trade deals with countries such as the US and India. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) demonstrated that so clearly in relation to our trade agreement with the US, which guaranteed thousands of jobs under Jaguar Land Rover. I will come to the point made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park about the youth guarantee later in my speech and respond to her reflections.
First and foremost, I pay tribute to all those running and working in small businesses, especially in such important sectors as hospitality and retail. I know from my own experience and my family’s experience just how hard that is. My first job was in a café in the hospitality sector; it was where I developed through my first opportunities. I became a manager there, and I absolutely loved my job. It was a really important aspect of our community, including for local people’s livelihoods.
My dad worked in the printworks growing up, and he was made redundant by his bosses under the watch of the Tory Government. I worked with my mum and dad, and took the opportunity that the hospitality sector provided to them. It gave my dad the opportunity to set up a small business and run a café successfully for 14 years, and our family are so proud of that. He gave an opportunity to more young people in the community I grew up in, and the business was a really important aspect of our lives. I now have so many excellent businesses in my Halifax constituency, which I am proud to champion at the Dispatch Box and in government. That is why this Government were elected: to provide economic growth that will raise living standards and support vital sectors across our economy.
As the Minister for Employment Rights, I should say that this Government were also elected on a promise to make work pay. The UK’s employment laws are mostly a product of the 20th century. They have not kept pace with how businesses now employ people, nor with how people experience working life today. The world of work has fundamentally changed in recent years; it is no longer the norm for employees to stay in one company or even a single sector for their whole career. New technology continues to rapidly transform how we work, where we work and when we work, and the rise of the gig economy has changed the certainty and stability that employment used to provide. The Employment Rights Bill takes steps to fulfil our commitment to bring employment rights into the 21st century.
Lots of hon. Members have spoken passionately about the Bill and its importance to them, as well as the experience that they bring to this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) spoke powerfully about his personal experience of working in hospitality and about how he stands up for his constituents in the sector. He demonstrated the importance of the Bill in providing job predictability and security as a baseline.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) spoke about the fair pay agreement and her experience standing up for care workers in her constituency and across the country, as well as about the importance of statutory sick pay for thousands more people across this country and the importance of the fair work agency. It is essential that we get this Bill on to the statute book and ensure that people can see the benefits it will bring to them, particularly through setting up the enforcement powers of the fair work agency. My hon. Friend also mentioned overseas recruitment. What matters in UK employment law and enforcement is where the worker is based; if they are based in the UK, then in general they have access to UK employment law, and enforcement agencies can and do take action no matter where the employer is based. I would be happy to talk to her if she has any further questions about the set-up of the fair work agency.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) for her support. She made a passionate and to-the-point case for the importance of the Bill, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury. I agree with every word that they and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) said about the importance of this legislation to working people and to brilliant businesses across the country.
The Employment Rights Bill will strengthen workers’ rights and lead to growth. Many British businesses already offer their employees benefits and protections that far exceed what is in the legislation. The Bill will encourage those seeking employment, including young people looking for their first job, giving them security that they will be treated fairly by their employer. As we have said, we are not springing these changes on businesses; we are working very closely with them as we implement these changes gradually over a number of years. We will be consulting and working with them closely.
Lots of Opposition Members mentioned zero-hours contracts. Many people in the UK value the option to work flexibly, but some employers have taken advantage of that flexibility. We are determined to tackle the issue of one-sided flexibility, which can leave people unclear about when they will next get paid work and how much time they need to keep available for work. Of course, some businesses—including those in the hospitality, retail, agriculture and tourism sectors—experience fluctuating demand across the year. There are ways for businesses to plan their work that gives their workers a degree of security, which is why flexibility is already built into the Bill to address issues of seasonal demand. There are several ways in which an employer could approach this issue while complying with the new right to guaranteed hours, depending on their circumstances.
The right to guaranteed hours does not force companies to make seasonal workers permanent, nor does it force them to give unnecessary hours to employees; it gives workers the right to choose certainty and stability in their contracts where they want it, and helps them to budget and plan for their lives. I recently visited a brilliant business in Manchester and heard from one of its employees about the difference that guaranteed hours made to him and his work, allowing him to plan his bills and family finances and giving him stability in his livelihood. Having guaranteed hours was absolutely vital to him; it changed his life, and this legislation will change the lives of many other people across the country who are looking for that certainty and stability.
Graham Stuart
Would the Minister like to apologise to the more than 280,000 people who are not in work now, compared with the level of unemployment last year, and could she spell out how a business that, for example, provides catering at summer festivals and then ceases to have any festivals to service can guarantee hours to a workforce it does not need any more?
Kate Dearden
I have heard lots of Conservative Members reflect on unemployment. What they fail to mention is that the average unemployment rate over their 14 years in government was 5.4%, which is substantially higher than the current unemployment rate. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from Monday’s debate, we have committed to consult on seasonal work. We will work with businesses, trade unions and all other stakeholders to get the legislation right—I will continue to listen and to work with them on the details. It is so important that we pass the Employment Rights Bill, so that we can consult and stick to our road map for implementing it. Many working people and businesses across this country want that certainty; they want us to crack on.
I will try to make some progress, as we are pressed for time. Several hon. Members—including the hon. Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) and for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage)—raised the subject of business rates reform, as did the shadow Secretary of State. This Government are determined to remove barriers to investment, helping our businesses to succeed, our high streets to thrive and our economy to grow. We are introducing permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000 from April next year. This will give long-term certainty and support to the high street, in marked contrast to the previous form of relief, which created a yearly cliff edge and had to end entirely in April next year. We know that this tax cut must be sustainably funded, which is why from April next year, we are applying a higher rate to the most valuable properties—those with rateable values of £500,000 and above. Let me be clear: those properties represent less than 1% of all properties, but they include the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by online giants.
Some Members have spoken about the raising of employer national insurance contributions in last year’s Budget. I have already mentioned the state of the finances we inherited from the Conservative party. That meant that we had to take difficult decisions to get the nation back on track, and one of the toughest decisions was to raise the rate of employer national insurance contributions, but we are protecting the smallest businesses from these changes, including many of those in the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors. These difficult but necessary steps will protect our public finances and ensure that we can to continue to fund our essential services, such as the NHS and social care, and to invest in the economy.
Moving swiftly on, many Members have mentioned the visitor levy. Our mission is to kick-start economic growth and to devolve fiscal powers, and the levy is critical to that. Introducing a visitor levy provides mayors with a new lever that they can use to raise funds for reinvestment locally. We launched a consultation at the Budget so that the public, businesses and local government can shape the design of the power to introduce the levy that will be devolved to local leaders. They will decide how to introduce the levy and how it will be used to drive growth in their region. That is a historic step for English devolution.
I will reflect on some of the comments of the hon. Members for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), and for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool). I do not share their lack of enthusiasm for continued investment in this country under this Government.
Dr Luke Evans
The Minister’s amendment to the motion refers to
“a comprehensive vision for productivity and success”
for small businesses. It is incredibly similar to the amendment that the Government tabled in the high streets debate, but interestingly, what has gone is a reference to a 25% cut in administrative burden. The Minister raised the issue, but did not comment on whether the Government are committed to that 25% cut. Where does that figure come from, and why has it disappeared from this amendment, when it was in a previous one?
Kate Dearden
The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), mentioned in his opening remarks all the steps that we are taking to reduce those burdens, and all the policies that we are introducing to back our small businesses across the country. On the point that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth made on investment, just last month J.P. Morgan announced its £3 billion tower. That is one of the largest financial services investments in recent years. Scottish Power has announced a £24 billion clean energy investment, which will create 2,000 jobs up to 2028. We are proud of that investment.
I will finish on the subject of the youth guarantee. Many Members have stressed the importance of employment for young people. There are more 18 to 24-year-olds in employment than a year ago. The Tories left the NEET rate rising and saw a colossal rise of almost a quarter of a million in young people out of work. We are determined to turn that around. NEET numbers are still too high, and lots of Members have rightly reflected on that. We want to give young people a brighter future, and that will be the impact of our youth guarantee. Our measures supporting young people to earn and learn are backed up by the evidence on what works. There is a national crisis of opportunity, and we are taking action in response —through the youth guarantee, the growth and skills levy, and, more widely, by interrogating the root causes of the issues, with the support of Alan Milburn.
To summarise, this Labour Government are on the side of working people and our brilliant businesses. We have boosted pay for millions of the lowest earners, and we are putting money back into people’s pockets. We are making work pay again in a way that suits the 21st century, and that will create security and opportunity for everyone, no matter their background. Most of all, we have a commitment to a core British value: those who work should be rewarded. As we put it in Yorkshire, this is about a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. We are getting on with the job. We are focused on fixing the long-term damage to our economy, and setting Britain on the path to renewal. That is why I call on the House to support our amendment.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Employment Rights Bill
Kate Dearden ExcerptsMonday 8th December 2025
(5 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 8 December 2025 - large print - (8 Dec 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 1B but proposes amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of that amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 23 and 106 to 120, does not insist on its amendments 120C, 120D and 120E, and proposes amendments (a) to (f) to the Bill in lieu of Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 23 and 106 to 120.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 48B but proposes amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of that amendment.
That this House does not insist on its amendment 72C in lieu of Lords amendments 61 and 72, but disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 72D to 72H in lieu and proposes further amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of the Lords amendments.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 62, but does not insist on its amendment 62C in lieu and proposes further amendment (a) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment.
Kate Dearden
I am pleased to return to the Employment Rights Bill for the consideration of Lords amendments for a third time.
The Government’s plan to make work pay, on which we were elected and in which we committed to deliver the Employment Rights Bill, will bring employment rights legislation into the 21st century, extending the protections that many British companies already offer to their staff to all. By doing so, we will endeavour to end the unfair market competition in which some firms seek to beat their competitors not by better quality or increased value, but by cutting the pay and conditions of their workforce. That is why this Bill is truly pro-business and pro-worker, pro-growth and pro-competition, and contributes to the creation of a fair and flexible labour market.
This Bill is a win-win for employers, employees and a more competitive British economy. By delivering this change together, we will back businesses that do the right thing while giving hard-working people the job security and opportunities that they deserve. That is why we must press ahead with delivery. Too many workers are waiting too long to feel the benefits of these reforms, and too many businesses face the uncertainty of when this Bill will become law and want clarity on its implementation. The Government are seeking the support of this House so that we can secure Royal Assent and finally be able to move towards implementing change.
First, I will speak to the Government amendments in lieu, which relate to unfair dismissal. In late November, I convened a series of constructive conversations between trade unions and business representatives, and I am extremely grateful for the positive and productive contribution of both sides of industry to that dialogue. It is a testimony to their leadership, and I thank them for it.
I am pleased to report that we have come to a workable agreement with trade unions and business representatives on the unfair dismissal provisions. The Government’s amendments in lieu will reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from 24 months to six months, while maintaining existing day one protections against discrimination and automatically unfair grounds for dismissal. The implementation road map sets out that the changes related to unfair dismissal will come into force in 2027. That is the timeline that businesses have been working towards.
It is also important to limit the time that employees must wait for their rights to be strengthened while implementing changes in a way that is manageable for business. That is why I am pleased to tell the House that the six-month qualifying period for unfair dismissal protections will be brought in from 1 January 2027.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has done a remarkable job with this Employment Rights Bill. However, it would be remiss of me not to ask her a question. The new deal for working people stipulated quite clearly that employment rights from day one were sacrosanct, then a manifesto pledge in 2024 said categorically to the British people that we would have day one rights for working people. Why has that changed?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend will know that this Bill is extremely close to my heart, as it is close to the hearts of many Members in the Chamber today. It is something I have worked on for many years alongside trade union colleagues and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). Achieving the best possible deal for working people is the reason I am in this job, and it is why I wanted to ensure that trade unions were consulted at every step of the way, along with the excellent business leaders who are crucial to delivering the growth our country desperately needs. Our amendments in lieu will deliver on our promises for working people up and down this country, while ensuring that the Bill is not stuck in parliamentary limbo for another year.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for the work she has personally done on the Bill. I think we would all agree that it has been stuck in limbo for some time, and we very much want to get it through. I met representatives of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers last week—not people at the top of the ladder, but the shop stewards who are literally on the shop floor. They are really keen for the Bill to get through as soon as possible and they feel that these measures provide the right compromise. Does the Minister agree?
Kate Dearden
We reached this agreement with the unions in the room, and no one knows better than them what their members need. This is a significant step forward to put the Bill into practice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Under Lords amendment 1, the duty would be shifted to the employee to request guaranteed hours, as opposed to it being down to the employer to offer hours. That means that the employee can request hours, and then the employer can cancel them at the last minute. Can the Minister reassure me that provision will be made to protect workers, ensuring that if they are given hours, they are compensated in the right way?
Kate Dearden
I will speak to zero-hours contracts later in my contribution. This is about rebalancing power —giving workers access to guaranteed hours if they need and want them.
Let me return to the unfair dismissal protections that we will bring in from 1 January 2027. Our intention is to adopt a commencement approach that would extend protections immediately from that date to employees who already have six months’ service or more. For example, under this proposal, someone employed from today will gain protection against unfair dismissal on 1 January 2027. That is almost a full year earlier than under the current law. Other employees will gain protection once they reach six months’ service; for example, someone who starts work on 1 November 2026 will qualify for protection from unfair dismissal on 1 May 2027—International Workers’ Day—which is 20 months earlier than under the current law. This approach was taken in 1999, when the qualifying period was reduced from two years to one. This approach will prevent a two-tier system, in which some people would remain on a two-year qualifying period while newly hired employees were subject to a six-month qualifying period.
The commencement of the unfair dismissal provisions will be set out in commencement regulations, as is standard practice. I am happy to commit to making those regulations early next year, implementing our commitment to commencement on 1 January 2027. This change will benefit millions of working people, who will gain greater security at work, and it will offer businesses and employers the flexibility to ensure new hires can do the job, get the skills to match, contribute to business success, and build a stable and secure working life.
To further strengthen these protections, the Government amendments will also ensure that the unfair dismissal qualifying period can only be varied by a future Government through primary legislation, and will remove the compensation cap. I know that some businesses have expressed concern about the agreement to lift the compensation cap; I can tell the House that we want to remove the scope for employment tribunal cases to be more complex and convoluted than they need to be. We need a tribunal system that works for employees and employers alike—one that is not gummed up by process and unnecessary delay nor bedevilled by bogus claims. Our aim is to make the tribunal system work more effectively and efficiently for all, so that those judged to have been unfairly dismissed get the compensation they deserve, the system works to resolve cases more speedily and unfounded claims are dismissed more urgently.
As we review the tribunal system, in the spirit of partnership, we will work with businesses and trade unions to create a tribunal process that is fairer and faster. No committed employee should lack the protection they deserve, nor should any reasonable employer fear the consequences of an unsubstantiated claim. For several other employment rights, the amount of compensation that can be awarded by a tribunal is limited by cross-referring to the unfair dismissal cap, so our amendments will ensure that these consequential issues can be considered and dealt with effectively through secondary legislation.
We know that security of work is critical for working families, and we are also acutely aware of the challenges businesses face. That is why we are committed to open and constructive dialogue with all stakeholders. If these changes are to create the conditions for lasting, fair and flexible labour laws, dialogue and co-operation must be our watchwords. I hope the other place can attach similar importance to that co-operation, and that it will let this Bill—the product of a general election mandate and the good will of both business and trade unions—proceed to Royal Assent. These discussions and the workable compromise highlight the importance of participation, and I urge those listening to today’s debate to engage with the consultations set out in the implementation road map.
I will now speak to the Government amendments in lieu that relate to zero-hours contracts and the right to guaranteed hours. We have tabled amendments that will create a statutory duty to consult on the length of the initial reference period and the length and timings of subsequent reference periods before exercising the relevant powers. These amendments will ensure that vital stakeholders can have the opportunity to contribute before the lengths of the reference periods are determined by regulations that work for worker and employer alike. By delivering this change with the input of stakeholders, we will provide a fair and balanced approach.
Let me turn to the Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 48B, which relate to seasonal work. In order to help address fluctuating demand, the Bill allows guaranteed hours offers to take the form of limited-term contracts where reasonable. The Government have tabled amendments that place a statutory duty on the Government to consult before making any regulations to specify what counts as a temporary need. This means that before any such regulations are introduced, employers, trade unions, and other parts of civil society with an interest in seasonal work, will be fully consulted.
I will now address the issue of political funds and the related Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 72D to 72H. The Government remain committed to the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016. That includes reinstating the long-standing practice that existed for 70 years before that Act, whereby new union members are automatically included as contributors to a political fund unless they choose to opt out. This will return us to arrangements that worked well for decades, removing bureaucratic red tape on trade unions that works against their core role of negotiation and dispute resolution in the interests of working people. We have heard the concerns about how opt-out notices would take effect, and we believe our amendments will refine that process.
Under the pre-2016 legislation, an opt-out notice could only take effect on 1 January of the year after it was given. Under the Government’s amendment, opt-out notices will now take effect on either 1 January of the following year or on a day specified or determined by the rules of the union, whichever comes first. We are aware that in practice, prior to 2016, unions generally gave effect to opt-out notices before the subsequent 1 January date anyway; amendment (a) in lieu affirms that flexibility in the legislation. We have also tabled amendment (b) in lieu, which places a statutory duty on the Government to issue guidance within three months of the clause coming into effect. That guidance will set out the kind of provision that unions should include in their rules about the timing of giving effect to opt-out notices.
Finally, I will address the issue of industrial action ballot thresholds and related Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 62. As I have said, this Government want to end disputes and conflict in the labour market; we also want more trade union members to have a say in decisions about escalating disputes where they arise. We will repeal the 50% threshold and—as we have previously stated—align this with the establishment of non-postal balloting, including e-balloting, so that decisions about industrial action keep pace with the communication channels of modern life.
Our amendment (a) in lieu cements that intention by requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to any effects of the introduction of non-postal balloting, including e-balloting, on the proportion of those entitled to vote in industrial action ballots who actually do so. In having regard to the effects of e-balloting, the Government will monitor and assess the practical impact of non-postal balloting on rates of participation in industrial action ballots, so that we will be confident that modernising the means of balloting increases member participation. In addition, we have tabled amendment (b) in lieu, which will place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to lay a statement before Parliament that demonstrates how the Government have had regard to non-postal balloting before making regulations to repeal the 50% threshold.
I urge hon. Members to support the Government motions before the House today, including our amendments in lieu. Together, they form a package that strengthens workplace rights, reflects the value we place on fair and flexible labour markets, and demonstrates the Government’s willingness to listen to concerns and act on them. We place a premium on dialogue and compromise as key components in modern labour relations; we want to consign the narrow, partisan, party political prejudice of previous decades to the dustbin of history, and build instead a modern industrial relations framework that values partnership, dialogue, flexibility and fairness for all sides. Our amendments in lieu fully reflect that approach, and in that light, I commend them to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sarah Olney
I would agree, but my point is that this last-minute change has been sprung on us and the business groups that engaged in good faith with the Government on these measures. This is a last-minute change that we and the business groups were not expecting, and that is why we will not be supporting it.
Kate Dearden
With respect, I was in the room as part of the negotiations with business representatives and trade unions, and I thank them again for the constructive dialogue and leadership that they showed throughout the numerous days of conversation. I can confirm that the compensation cap was discussed and agreed in the room, so I ask the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to reflect on her comments. I was in the room; with due respect, she was not. That is a true reflection of what was discussed and agreed.
Sarah Olney
I take the Minister’s comments. What I would say is that we were not expecting to see this measure in the motion, and that is why we will not support it.
Turning to zero-hours contracts, Liberal Democrats strongly believe in giving all workers security over their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many struggle with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. However, we have repeatedly reminded the Government that adaptability in shift patterns is often hugely valuable, for example to those balancing caring responsibilities or their studies alongside work. It is therefore important to strike a balance that ensures workers can have both security and flexibility.
Since the Bill’s introduction, many small businesses have highlighted that having to offer employees fixed-hours contracts on a rolling basis could impose significant costs and administrative burdens on their limited resources, compounding other challenges, such as the increase in employer national insurance contributions, charging national insurance on salary sacrifice schemes and the fallout from the previous Government’s damaging Brexit deal. While we advocated for what we think would have been a fairer and less onerous system based on giving workers a right to request fixed hours, the Liberal Democrats are pleased that the Government have at least moved in the right direction through amendment (b). Requiring the Secretary of State to consult businesses and relevant stakeholders on the length of the initial guaranteed hours reference period will at least give affected businesses and workers a stronger voice in designing the new system.
Andy McDonald
No, I will carry on.
This debate has been muddied by talk of probation. We never proposed abolishing probation periods—they are proper and necessary—but no system should allow dismissal without cause for blatantly unfair reasons. At present, workers can still be dismissed without cause nearly two years into a job. Under this compromise, they can be dismissed almost half a year in, when they might have a mortgage to pay and a family to support. This climbdown casts doubt on the Government’s resolve and determination to deliver all the elements of the new deal for working people in full.
Worse still, emboldened opponents of the workers’ rights reforms will return for more. They will undoubtedly attempt to weaken the Bill through secondary legislation. Major businesses are already signalling that they will use consultations to soften, delay or carve out core protections. Their language of “burdens”, “balance” and “flexibility” is not commentary, but a co-ordinated push to reshape the settlement.
I say to my colleagues on the Government Front Bench that they should be bold and take heart. The thing that was missing from this Bill was the status of workers’ rights reforms. If we were to take courage in our hands and deal with that issue, we would resolve matters by collecting uncollected tax and national insurance to the tune of £10 billion per annum, as well as giving people security in employment. Think about the lack of a pull factor for people to go into the black economy.
If this legislation is to deliver a new deal for working people, this House must ensure that the back door is not opened to dismantling it. I urge Ministers, even now, to reconsider, because they are making a profound mistake.
Kate Dearden
I only have a few minutes, so I will try to respond as quickly as I can to comments from colleagues across the House. I thank everybody for their reflections today.
To respond to the shadow Minister, I do not recognise the figures he mentions, and I urge hon. Members to reflect carefully on the figures that he mentioned in the debate. I would have thought that he had learned the terrible lessons from his former boss, Liz Truss, and I know my constituents are still paying the price for the impacts of her mini-Budget. He is now quoting the Growth Commission, which has Liz Truss as an adviser. I will leave it at that.
The Tories had 14 years to adapt to the way the world of work has changed, but they did nothing to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts and barely acknowledged the existence of the gig economy. They saw the impacts of covid on our key workers and the limits of statutory sick pay, and decided to do nothing. The world of work has changed an enormous amount in the last 20 years, and the Conservative party seems to be telling us that the system is working as intended, but I say that it is not. I say it needs change, and it needs this Bill.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her leadership, and for all her work on the Bill and on our wider package for working people. I know she is keen to see the time that employees must wait for fair rights to be shortened, and we share her desire for employees to benefit as soon as possible from this Bill, which is why it is so important that we get it on to the statute book and implemented as soon as possible. I thank her for her remarks and reflections today.
The Government amendments in lieu are a result of dialogue and compromise. Business and unions have preferred to go the extra mile to find solutions, rather than insisting on their own positions and disregarding all other perspectives. I thank my colleagues for their reflections, and I am pleased that we have been able to provide a workable agreement with trade unions and business representatives on the unfair dismissal provisions.
Kate Dearden
I have two minutes left, so I need to proceed.
I have talked in detail about our intentions behind this legislation. I know that my hon. Friends’ suggestions are well intentioned, but I stress that, as a package, our amendments reflect the agreement reached between business representatives and trade unions in a collaborative and constructive process. We want to bring this Bill to a conclusion so that it benefits millions of British workers, who will benefit from the new rights that it will deliver from April next year. We are extending statutory sick pay and parental leave and setting up the fair work agency, so that it has the enforcement rights that it needs and businesses can start preparing for implementation with certainty.
I thank again all Members for their contributions today. Sadly, despite the persuasive arguments from my colleagues, I know that some Members from across the House will continue to oppose better rights for working people. However, after 14 years of the Conservatives letting workers’ rights rot, the economy stagnate and living standards fall, I am proud to be showing what Labour in power looks like: the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation; a relentless focus on growing our economy and making working people better off; and rising living standards in every corner of the country. Whereas Reform—its Members are not here— and the Conservatives show themselves to be two sides of the same anti-worker, anti-growth coin, Labour is fixing the foundations of our economy.
The Government are making work pay again in a way that suits the 21st century. This Bill restores the rights that have been lost in a manner that is fit for the future. It will create security and opportunity for everyone, no matter their background. It is of paramount importance that we get this Bill on to the statute book, so that it can start delivering for businesses and workers as soon as possible. I urge all Members on both sides of the House to carefully consider the amendments we have proposed, and I hope they feel able to support our position.
Employment Rights Bill
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 week, 5 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)
The Government convened a series of constructive conversations between trade unions and business representatives. On the basis of the outcome of these discussions, the Government will now move forward on the issue of unfair dismissal protections in the Employment Rights Bill to ensure it can reach Royal Assent and keep to the Government’s published delivery timeline.
This will mean delivering day one rights to sick pay and paternity leave in April 2026 as well as launching the fair work agency. Reforms to benefit millions of working people, including some of the lowest paid workers, would otherwise be significantly delayed if the Bill does not reach Royal Assent in line with our delivery timetable. Businesses too need time to prepare for what are a series of significant changes.
The discussions concluded that reducing the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from 24 months to 6 months—whilst maintaining existing day one protection against discrimination and automatically unfair grounds for dismissal—is a workable package. It will benefit millions of working people who will gain new rights and offer business and employers much needed clarity. To further strengthen these protections, the Government have committed to ensure that the unfair dismissal qualifying period can only be varied by primary legislation and that the compensation cap will be lifted.
As a result of these constructive conversations, we have agreed a way forward with trade unions and business representatives who agree that the Bill should progress to Royal Assent as soon as possible. We will table the necessary amendments to deliver the Bill. Furthermore, the Government have reiterated their commitment to full, fair and transparent consultation on the detail and application of the secondary legislation as they move to implement the Bill. This will enable the Government to deliver the necessary consultations and implementation in line with their timetable and manifesto commitments to make work pay.
We will not build a robust and growing economy through employment insecurity. Instead, we are building an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers, and fair reward for hard work. Once implemented, these important and popular reforms will give long overdue new rights to working people, including:
Ending exploitative zero-hours contracts that leave some workers unable to plan their working lives or manage their family finances, saving them up to £600 in lost income from the hidden costs of insecure work;
Establishing bereavement leave as a day one entitlement and extending it to those who lose a pregnancy before 24 weeks, giving the hundreds of thousands of families affected each year the recognition and protections they deserve;
Supporting working parents to juggle the competing demands of work and raising children, including the 32,000 fathers and partners per year who are not entitled to paternity leave and the 1.5 million parents who are not allowed to take unpaid parental leave;
Helping more working mothers stay in their jobs, including the 4,000 women who are unfairly sacked each year when returning from maternity leave;
Guaranteeing workers get paid when they have to take time off because of illness and expanding statutory sick pay to up to 1.3 million of the most vulnerable workers in society who currently earn below the lower earnings limit;
Reinstating the school support staff negotiating body to improve pay and conditions for up to 800,000 school support staff in England;
Providing for the establishment of a fair pay agreements process in the adult social care sector in England and social care sectors in Scotland and Wales; and
Creating a single point of contact for advice and help for businesses and employees—the fair work agency—to ensure better understanding of people’s rights at work, ensure best practice for implementing employment law, and tackle the unfair competition that some bad employers use to beat their competitors.
The Government were pleased to facilitate these discussions and to set an example of the benefits of working together, and remain committed to continue engaging with trade unions, business and employers to make working lives better, support businesses and, vitally, deliver economic growth and good job creation. The Government are particularly aware of the need to support small businesses in the effective adoption of these changes. Constructive dialogue and full consultation with business, employers and unions will continue beyond the passage of the Bill.
[HCWS1115]
Rogue Builders
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month 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)
I will do my best, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing this debate on an issue that I know he has campaigned on for a long time, beginning when his party were in government.
I really welcome the debate. I am grateful to the many Members who contributed to it for raising their constituents’ concerns and the horrifying cases that they have been dealing with in their constituencies. They set out the serious impacts that incompetent and rogue tradesmen have had on the homes and the physical and mental health of their constituents, who are sometimes elderly or vulnerable in other ways. I know from my own constituents the misery that can be caused and the toll it can take on people, as well as the time and money it takes to remedy problems. I thank Members again for their hard work, through casework and surgeries, to defend their constituents’ consumer rights.
Consumers have a have a right to expect that work undertaken in their homes will be performed competently and that there will be redress if the work does not meet acceptable standards of quality and safety, and I want to take the opportunity to assure the House that the Government are committed to strengthening the system to ensure that that happens. I will try to align my winding-up speech with the winding-up speech in the main Chamber and move quickly to responses to points that Members raised.
The Government’s aim is to improve the market and to support honest and competent tradespeople and firms, working with the industry and with local authority trading standards. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 sets out the standards that consumers can expect in relation to the supply of goods and services, including building work, and the remedies available to them. Under the Act, traders are required to carry out a service with reasonable care and skill, and within a reasonable time. If those requirements are not met, the consumer can ask for the service to be performed again or for a price reduction. If that is not agreed, consumers can seek redress through the courts. The small claims procedure provides the means to pursue a claim of up to £10,000 at an affordable cost and without a solicitor, and consumers have six years to bring a claim against a trader.
Government bodies are also working with the super-sector working groups under the industry competence steering group, collaborating to improve trade and installer competence and to reduce the incidence of poor work. That process brings together over 1,000 individuals across trade bodies, professional organisations and employers to produce and implement competence frameworks across more than 130 occupations.
The Government are committed to strengthening competent person schemes that cover higher-risk occupations such as electricians and gas engineers. Competent person schemes must ensure that consumers are provided with the appropriate protection for a minimum of six years to remediate work that is non-compliant with the building regulations.
Other protections include the TrustMark scheme, which hon. Members have mentioned. That is the only Government-endorsed quality scheme for domestic construction. It covers trades such as fenestration, roofing, and kitchen and bathroom installation, as well as general building work, and it requires participating firms and tradespeople to demonstrate competence and provide for consumer redress. Government-funded schemes for energy and heat efficiency also require installers to hold relevant certifications and to provide consumers with access to redress.
I know that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest has campaigned for a long time on licensing schemes. Licensing or registration schemes exist in the US, Australia and New Zealand and aim to improve quality, protect consumers from incompetent contractors, and provide consumers with redress for poor-quality work. The hon. Member spoke about that in quite a lot of detail. However, few evaluations have been undertaken of the effectiveness of those schemes. The available evidence suggests that they can deliver some benefits, such as increased quality, but that they can also have detrimental effects, including increasing prices for consumers. There is also no clear evidence that the existence of licensing schemes reduces the incidence of poor-quality work. The schemes are reliant on audits and inspections of work to identify incompetent builders, which is similar to the approach of the TrustMark and competent person schemes in the UK.
There are also questions of how licensing schemes would be funded and administered, the implications for existing schemes in the UK, and the resourcing of the organisations responsible for the schemes. Any proposal to introduce a licensing scheme in the UK would have to be based on an assessment of costs and benefits and would have to address those issues.
Hon. Members also mentioned the issue of phoenixing. We are aware of the problem and work is ongoing. In the 2024 autumn Budget, we announced a greater focus between His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Companies House and the Insolvency Service on tackling rogue directors and phoenixing. Key actions include closing loopholes in company registration and dissolution, targeted enforcement to boost compliance, and stronger referrals.
I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for welcoming our New Homes Quality Board and ombudsman. From a consumer protection perspective, the Government are supportive of alternative routes to recourse outside the courts, such as alternative dispute resolution and the ombudsman. Many similar schemes already exist, and the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 strengthened ADR provision. That is also relevant to his comments and reflections on compensation, for which I thank him.
I am very conscious of the time, Ms Furniss, so I will move to my concluding remarks and just thank hon. Members for raising lots of other issues that I do not have time to go through. I will be working closely with other relevant Departments on the wider infrastructure issues that Members have raised on house building.
Sir Julian Lewis
What about the fact that these people, in some cases, are criminals and their actions ought to be subject to the criminal law?
Kate Dearden
I thank the right hon. Member for raising that point. Lots of Members have mentioned the complexity of determining whether something is a criminal offence or a civil matter under the Consumer Rights Act, whether we are looking at a trading standards matter or a criminal act, and demonstrating intent. It is a very complex area and I would be happy to meet individual Members if they want to talk it through with me.
I am sure that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), does not expect me to speculate or comment on the Budget so close to its announcement. I am sure that his party, during its time in government, had lots of opportunities to address this issue. On his remarks on the licensing scheme, I think he can reflect on similar reflections that his Government worked through.
No one should doubt the human impact that rogue and incompetent tradespeople can have. This issue obviously needs to be addressed, and the best way to achieve that is by improving standards of consumer redress. Although there is no clear evidence on how a licensing scheme would do that, we will keep that under review. In the meantime, we will continue to improve standards of competence and consumer redress in the construction sector. I thank hon. Members again for raising cases on behalf of their constituents. I have run through a lot of them in my concluding remarks, but if Members want to talk to me directly about these issues or ask me to raise them with other Departments, I will be more than happy to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of protecting consumers from rogue builders.
Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month 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 Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, for my first time leading a debate on a statutory instrument. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 13 October 2025, and I will begin by setting out their background. They concern radio equipment, which today includes a wide range of products, including smartphones and many other smart and connected devices.
The radio equipment directive 2014/53/EU continues to apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework, ensuring that Northern Ireland maintains dual market access to both the UK internal market and the EU single market. In 2021, the European Commission adopted Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30, which supplements the radio equipment directive and applies additional essential requirements to certain categories of radio equipment; that came into force on 1 August this year.
The additional essential requirements apply to certain internet-connected radio equipment, such as connectable consumer electronics and smart devices. Radio equipment must be constructed in a way that protects networks, safeguards users’ personal data and privacy, and prevents fraud. In addition, whether internet connected or not, radio equipment that is covered by the EU toys directive, or that is either a childcare device or a device designed to be worn on the body, must also be constructed so that it protects users’ personal data and privacy.
The radio equipment directive was implemented in UK law by the Radio Equipment Regulations 2017. Those regulations apply to the whole of the UK, but some provisions apply differently to Northern Ireland. The draft regulations amend the 2017 regulations as they apply to Northern Ireland to ensure effective implementation of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30 in Northern Ireland, and to enable its enforcement.
Let me explain in more detail how the draft regulations meet their purpose. The 2017 regulations set out essential requirements for radio equipment before it can be placed on the market. The draft regulations add the additional essential requirements mandated in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30 to the 2017 regulations as they apply to Northern Ireland, thereby enabling the relevant authorities to take steps to enforce the delegated regulation.
Manufacturers will need to carry out the appropriate conformity assessment process. The EU recognises three technical standards that address cyber-security requirements for radio equipment that manufacturers may use to demonstrate compliance, but using those specific standards remains voluntary. The 2017 regulations make it an offence to fail to comply with the essential requirements when supplying radio equipment or placing it on the market.
As the draft regulations add to the essential requirements of the 2017 regulations as they apply to Northern Ireland, they extend the scope of an existing offence. The Northern Ireland Department of Justice has confirmed that it considers such an amendment to the scope of existing offences proportionate, and it does not believe that it will have a detrimental effect on the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland.
I assure members of the Committee that enforcement authorities will continue to take a proportionate approach to compliance and enforcement activities, in accordance with the regulators’ code. In almost all cases, we expect that, by working with and supporting business, compliance will be achieved without legal recourse to the use of criminal penalties.
Many UK businesses supply the EU market as well as the UK market, so they have already taken steps to comply with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30. In discussions with industry stakeholders, including trade associations, my officials have not identified any significant impacts from the draft regulations, as manufacturers and importers in scope of these requirements are generally trading across the UK and the EU, so they will be coming into compliance or have already done so. We therefore expect limited impacts, if any, on the flow of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
In addition, manufacturers of CE-marked EU-compliant radio equipment can continue to place those products on the GB market. As is already the case, consumer products that connect to internet or a network placed on the GB market will continue to need to comply with the existing regime of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022, which came into effect in April 2024.
Manufacturers in Northern Ireland producing qualifying goods in scope of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30 continue to benefit from unfettered access to the rest of the UK internal market, as set out in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. While we expect the impacts to be limited, we will continue to monitor the functioning of the internal market.
Improving cyber-resilience in the UK remains a Government priority, and the Government continue to review the operation of cyber-security regulations applicable in Great Britain. We are looking at further options for securing digital devices, as evidenced by our recent call for views on enterprise-connected devices, and will take into account arrangements in Northern Ireland. The Government also intend to review the operation of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022, with an initial post-implementation review to be conducted in 2026.
We are taking steps to support industry to comply with these new requirements. My officials in the Office for Product Safety and Standards published a factsheet for businesses earlier this year, providing information on how to comply. The OPSS will also provide further guidance for industry for this instrument.
The statutory instrument enables the effective implementation in Northern Ireland of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30, which applies additional essential requirements for manufacturers of certain radio equipment. The instrument amends the UK’s 2017 regulations and will enable the EU delegated regulation to be enforced effectively. Implementation and the effective enforcement ensures our compliance with international law, which facilitates Northern Ireland’s continued unique dual access to both the UK internal market and the EU single market. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister for his warm welcome and kind words; I look forward to working with him. I also thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim for his contribution. As I explained, this instrument ensures effective implementation in Northern Ireland of the Commission delegated regulation that applies additional essential requirements for manufacturers of certain radio equipment. I hope my introductory speech laid out why we are bringing this SI today, the reasons behind it, our intentions and our work with stakeholders and businesses so far, many of whom have already prepared to comply with the new essential requirements, which came into force on 1 August this year.
The shadow Minister asked about the precise percentage. We have worked with the stakeholders and trade associations that have come into compliance. Although I am not able to give a precise percentage today, we will keep him updated, as we are keen to continue discussions with industry stakeholders, including the trade associations. As I mentioned, we have not identified any significant impacts of this instrument, as many businesses have already adapted. Crucially, we expect the impact on the flow of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to be limited. He also mentioned the impact of our work with the US and other competitive markets. Again, we will be happy to discuss that further with him.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim will be aware that we remain committed to implementing the Windsor framework in good faith, and taking forward commitments in a way that best delivers for the people in Northern Ireland. We are keen to work constructively with all stakeholders—the EU, the Northern Ireland Executive, political parties, businesses and civic society in Northern Ireland—to achieve that.
Kate Dearden
The hon. Member spoke for a considerable time, but I will be kind and give way.
Jim Allister
The Minister talks about implementing in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. How can it be in the interests of people to impose laws that they are not consulted about, that they did not make and cannot change? How can that be in anyone’s interest in a democratic society?
Kate Dearden
Regarding this instrument, it is an essential requirement that as products are developed, we ensure that they do not harm networks and that we protect personal data and guard against fraud. As devices become smarter and more connected and embedded in daily life, we have to keep pace with the regulatory framework. That is why this instrument is so important to protect consumers and networks.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim as he makes the case for his constituents. Is the Minister able to set out whether there is practical regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a result of this SI? What is the practical implication for the principal concern the hon. Gentleman raises on behalf of his constituents? Quite often the regulatory alignment remains the same, even if the base legislation for that regulation may derive from different places.
Kate Dearden
There is divergence but little impact in practice, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks. The draft regulations are crucial to ensuring our compliance with international law in relation to Northern Ireland’s continuing dual access. I thank the shadow Minister for his support and would be happy to write further to him about competitive states. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and am pleased to commend this SI to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Employment Rights Bill
Kate Dearden ExcerptsWednesday 5th November 2025
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 5 November 2025 - large print - (5 Nov 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 1B.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 23 and amendments 106 to 120, does not insist on Commons amendment 106A but proposes Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 23 and Lords amendments 106 to 120.
That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 48B.
That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 60B and 60C but proposes Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 61 and 72 but proposes Government amendment (a) in lieu.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 62 but proposes Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Kate Dearden
I am pleased to speak on the Employment Rights Bill for our second consideration of Lords amendments, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her outstanding work on employment rights and her unwavering advocacy for working people. I know how close this Bill is to her heart, and I am grateful that she is here in support today. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for his work and dedication on this significant piece of legislation.
The Government’s top priority is to grow the economy and improve living standards. Essential to that is the recognition that greater productivity, security and dignity in work help to grow the economy. The stronger economic performance that our country needs cannot be built on the backs of people in insecure work. For too long employment law has failed to keep pace with the fundamental changes to how, when and where we work. It is time to build a modern industrial relations framework, fashioned on the principle of social partnership that consent and consensus must replace disputes and conflict in modern employment relations. That is good for workers and good for business. Both suffer when one employer is undercut by another, using reduced terms and conditions of service for their employees. Sustainable economic growth cannot be built on unfair competition and insecure employment.
The Employment Rights Bill extends the employment protections currently enjoyed by some employees in the best British companies to workers across the country. By doing so, work will become more secure and predictable while strengthening the foundations that underpin a modern economy. The Bill will back businesses that already do the right thing and give hard-working people the job security and opportunities they deserve. It is in tune with the times and in keeping with how the world of work is changing.
Industrial relations law in this country must move from the 20th century to the 21st. It has to recognise that certainty and security are essential for people at work, that the best relationship between employer and employee is best exemplified by fairness and trust within a framework for recruitment and retention that values both, and that dignity at work is as vital to the effective functioning of modern society as the dignity of work.
Some will seek to use this issue to entrench the idea that employers and employees have opposing interests that must always inevitably result in dispute and strife, and I reject that view. The very best trade unionists know, as do the best employers, that such a view only represents failure. For this Labour Government, success is to be measured not in division, but in the shared economic growth that we achieve, the opportunity and security we build and the prosperity we create, and that is at the heart of the Bill.
Today I ask the House to reaffirm its support for this important legislation as we move through the latest round of parliamentary ping-pong. We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, and in response we are offering, where possible, amendments in lieu that we believe strike a fair and workable compromise with the proposed amendments. Although we appreciate the range of perspectives offered, we will be unable to support certain amendments that conflict with the fundamental principles of the Bill and may compromise its intended impact.
We acknowledge that Lords amendment 1B, which relates to zero-hours contracts, is an amendment in lieu, intended as a compromise. It proposes a shift from a full right-to-request model to one in which employers must notify workers of their right to a guaranteed hours offer, and make a guaranteed hours offer unless the worker declines or opts out. I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, but it would undermine the Bill’s core aim of ending exploitative contracts and providing security for the workers who need it most. We therefore cannot accept it.
The Government are committed to ending one-sided flexibility so that workers are not left guessing about their hours or pay. These reforms reward fair employers, modernise the system and come with clear guidance to help everyone prepare. For employers, clear expectations mean better staffing and lower recruitment costs through better retention. We also appreciate that some groups, including younger workers, value the flexibility of zero-hours contracts. That is why workers will be able to decline a guaranteed hours offer and remain on their existing arrangement if that works best for them.
The Government are also committed to supporting young people into work. The youth guarantee will include a targeted backstop under which every eligible and unemployed young person on universal credit for 18 months without earning or learning will be provided guaranteed paid work. The scheme forms part of the Government’s aim to provide targeted support for young people at risk of long-term unemployment. Further details will be confirmed at the autumn Budget, following further engagement, including with employers.
Let me turn to Lords amendment 48B on seasonal work. The Government recognise that work in certain sectors fluctuates seasonally, and that there are ways in which employers may account for that and remain compliant with the legislation. They may, for example, use annualised hours contracts, which offer variable numbers of hours at work at different times of the year. Additionally, the Bill already allows guaranteed hours offers to take the form of limited-term contracts where reasonable—for example, a fruit-picker could be engaged on a contract tied to the end of the picking season. In such cases, after the initial reference period, the employer would be required to guarantee hours only for the duration of that limited-term contract rather than on a permanent basis. The Bill also already provides powers to address seasonal work through regulations, ensuring flexibility as workforce needs evolve. Consultation with employers, trade unions and stakeholders will take place before such regulations are made. We therefore do not support the amendment.
Let me turn to unfair dismissal. Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120 propose retaining a qualifying period of six months for unfair dismissal. These amendments have returned to this House as the Lords have insisted on them. We remain committed to delivering unfair dismissal protections from day one—not two years, not six months, but day one. That was a clear pledge in our manifesto and it will ensure that about 9 million employees who have worked for their employer for less than two years are protected from being arbitrarily fired. Crucially, day one protection from unfair dismissal will not remove the right of businesses to dismiss people who cannot do their job or do not pass probation, but it will tackle cases of unfair dismissal in which hard-working employees are sacked without good reason. A six-month qualifying threshold still leaves employees exposed to dismissal without good reason in the early months of a new job, which is why the Government cannot accept the Lords amendments on maintaining a qualifying period.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Does the Minister not listen to the voices of business and business organisations? They say that what the Government propose will make young people—whom it is riskier to take on—less likely to get jobs in the first place. Why does she think she knows better than employers and the people who create jobs in this country?
Kate Dearden
Yesterday, I was with the Hospitality Sector Council. I heard about all the brilliant work it does to provide employment opportunities for young people across the country. Indeed, my first job was in a café. Such opportunities to get on the employment ladder are significant for young people. That is why the Bill will work in alignment with all the other crucial work that the Government are doing through the youth guarantee.
As I have outlined on unfair dismissal, it simply is not fair that hard-working employees who have worked somewhere for 18 months can be unfairly dismissed and have no stability and predictability in their jobs. Protection through day one rights gives financial security to people who do not have it. We are striking a balanced approach by introducing a statutory probation period. As we have mentioned, the Government’s preference is for that to be a period of nine months, but we are engaging in consultation on the next steps for those light-touch standards. The probation period will ensure that in the early months of employment, employers can dismiss employees who might not be performing or might not be suitable. The measures will tackle the causes of unfair dismissal.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Some 73% of employers support giving employees protection from unfair dismissal—the day one rights—according to the Institute for Public Policy Research and TUC research, and 83% of managers agree that improved workers’ rights can and do positively impact on workplace productivity. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should listen to that extremely important research?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point about research. Providing employees with security at work results in a happier workforce, which increases productivity and helps businesses across the country, as well as our economy. The Bill will provide flexibility and security for people in workplaces across the country, which is vital for our productivity. That is our vision for our country and economy.
James Wild
The Minister referred to a nine-month probationary period as opposed to the six-month unfair dismissal period. A report from the Resolution Foundation—which is usually held in high regard on the Treasury Bench—says that this is a “messy compromise” that risks confusing employers and preventing them from taking people on. That is the point that I was making. Some 20% of jobs in my constituency are in the hospitality sector. The sector is not taking people on because of the jobs tax, and it will take on even fewer people because of these increased costs. Does she not realise the confusion that will come from this messy probation period, which is not on the face of the Bill?
Kate Dearden
As we have said from the start, the implementation of day one unfair dismissal rights will be done with a light touch. I am keen to work with employers across the country, including in the hospitality sector, which plays a key role in employing and providing opportunities for young people. I will work with all stakeholders on the next steps and implementation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as is the case for lots of employment rights legislation, we are setting the foundation here in this crucial Bill, but there are lots of details to work through in consultation, which I am absolutely committed to doing.
The framework will be founded on the principle of social partnership: consent and consensus must replace dispute and conflict in modern employment relations. That will ensure maximum flexibility, so that the new framework works effectively for employers and employees in each sector of the economy. We will minimise the cost of its implementation and operation.
The Government are committed to ensuring that employers can hire with confidence. As I have said, introducing the statutory probation period enables employers to fairly assess new hires’ performance and suitability for the role that they have been hired for. Most employers already use contractual probation periods of six months or less. The Government have been clear that our preference is for the probationary period to be nine months long. That would allow for a standard six-month term, with the option to extend supporting employee development without compromising operational needs.
We have heard the calls to ensure that the framework reflects real-world realities, and we have tabled an amendment in lieu to address that. Our amendment places a statutory duty on the Government to consult on key aspects of the framework. That would guarantee meaningful input from employers and employees, giving businesses a direct role in shaping the legislation to ensure a practical and fair approach. Additionally, we are tabling a further amendment in lieu, making technical changes to the words restored to the Bill by our rejection of the Lords amendments.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill not only provides vital protections to the workforce, but gives businesses the certainty they need to grow our economy?
Kate Dearden
I completely agree. We are creating security for people across the country. Crucially, we are ensuring that employers do the right thing for their employees and go above and beyond the proposals in the Bill. That ensures a level playing field, which is good for our economy and for businesses that might otherwise be undercut by others that do not play by the rules.
We have also heard concerns about the pressures on the employment tribunal system. We will set up a taskforce to support us in fixing the employment dispute system, so that it works better for workers and businesses. The taskforce will have balanced representation from unions, businesses and other experts, including community organisations.
I turn now to the Lords amendments on heritage rail. The Government agree with the principle of the amendment and have tabled an amendment in lieu that captures the intent, while refining the drafting to provide more clarity and ensure that the legislation works as intended. The Government’s amendment, which has been tabled with the support of sponsoring peers Lord Parkinson and Lord Faulkner, places a statutory duty on the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive to produce guidance supporting 14 to 16-year-olds who volunteer on heritage railways.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I rise as co-chair, alongside Lord Faulkner, of the all-party parliamentary group on heritage rail. I express my thanks to the Government for bringing forward the amendment and recognising that volunteering with heritage railways is an immensely useful experience for young people aged 14 to 16. I am glad that we are now undertaking a 12-month assessment for guidance.
Kate Dearden
I thank the right hon. Member for working with us and for her support throughout the passage of the Bill. I understand her passion and work in this area. As she says, the guidance will offer a clear benchmark for reasonable activities and assist inspectors in important decisions. The Government are committed to the work, as she will know, with publication targeted by 31 March 2026. We believe that this collaborative effort will provide practical guidance that empowers children to engage safely and meaningfully in heritage railway volunteering.
Turning to the issue of political funds, Lords amendments 61 and 72 would remove clause 59 from the Bill. That clause reverses measures in the Trade Union Act 2016, which we have committed to repeal, that require members to opt in to political funds. This therefore reinstates longstanding arrangements where members are automatically included unless they choose to opt out. Removing clause 59 would break that commitment to restore balance and fairness in union operations. The opt-in system, introduced in 2016, added bureaucracy without improving transparency or strengthening members’ choice. To be clear, we are not removing that choice. At the point of joining, every new member will be clearly informed on the application form that they have the right to opt out of contributing to a political fund. The same form will make it plain that opt-out has no negative bearing whatsoever on any other aspect of union membership. That is why the Government cannot support Lords amendments 61 and 72.
We have heard reflections around how opt-out notices would take effect and have tabled an amendment in lieu to refine that process. Under the pre-2016 legislation, an opt-out notice was effective on 1 January following the year in which it was given. Under the Government’s amendment, opt-out notices will now have effect from either 1 January or the following year after it has been provided, or on a date specified or determined in the rules of the union, whichever of those dates comes first. This provides unions with flexibility in the legislation to act more quickly and process the member’s request to opt out, without having to wait until the subsequent 1 January to do so. In practice, unions already do this. We will also commit today to engage with unions directly, to continue to make clear our expectation that opt-out notices can be honoured as swiftly and practically as possible. Our amendment is simply about ensuring that legislation matches what has been the established practice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I hope that the Minister has not referred to this already, but small businesses in my constituency that do not have human resources departments tell me that they will find it hard to navigate these legislative waters. Although we need strong employment rights and I support the Bill’s objectives, we need to ensure that there is support for employers, so that they know how to implement the measures and how to defend themselves, which they will sometimes need to do, without paying costly solicitors’ bills that are detrimental to their business. Will the Minister reassure me on that matter?
Kate Dearden
I come from a family that has a business in the hospitality sector, which is close to my heart. In the first eight weeks that I have been in this role, I have had the pleasure to meet small and large businesses, and I have made clear our determination to work closely with them on the implementation of this legislation and to ensure that they are prepared for the changes when they come. We published our road map earlier this year and have committed to stick to that, which has been welcomed by businesses small and large.
Finally, turning to the issue of industrial action ballot thresholds, Lords Amendment 62 would remove clause 65(2) from the Bill, which would retain the existing 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. The Government do not support this amendment. Clause 65 removes an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle and aligns union democracy with other democratic processes, such as parliamentary votes and local elections, which do not typically require turnout thresholds but are still accepted as legitimate. As the period of disruption under the Conservatives’ watch between 2022 and 2024 has shown, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. This Government’s approach will foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions and employers.
James Wild
If this provision is introduced, does the Minister think that there will be more or fewer strikes?
Kate Dearden
Strikes were a failure of the Tory Government who had stopped listening and, to be frank, had stopped working, so I will not be taking any further interventions from the hon. Gentleman.
We want to create a modern and positive framework for trade union legislation that delivers productive and constructive engagement, respects the democratic mandate of unions and works to reset our industrial relations. Nonetheless, we recognise that this issue has generated debate, which is why the Government have tabled an amendment in lieu that will require the Secretary of State to have regard to any effects of the introduction of electronic balloting on the proportion of those entitled to vote in industrial action ballots who actually do so. We have previously committed to aligning the removal of the threshold with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. This amendment gives statutory effect to that commitment and makes it explicit in the underlying legislation. In having regard to the effects of e-balloting, the Government will monitor and assess the practical impacts of e-balloting on participant rates and the 50% threshold.
To conclude, I urge hon. Members to support the Government’s motions before the House today, including our amendments in lieu, which are part of a package that strengthens rights and reflects the value we place on fair work. We have listened throughout the Bill’s passage and made meaningful changes where needed, and we will continue to listen to all relevant stakeholders as we move into implementation We are committed to full and comprehensive consultation with employers, workers, trade unions and civil society. As set out in our “Implementing the Employment Rights Bill” road map, we are taking a phased approach to engagement and consultation on these reforms. This will ensure that stakeholders have the time and space to work through the detail of each measure, and will help us to implement each in the interests of all. This is a win-win for employers, employees and a more competitive British economy.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Act in haste, repent at leisure: never has that been wiser advice than in respect of this Bill. It is a rushed Bill that was half-baked when it was introduced, and has got worse since. It has failed every test of scrutiny, from the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to the Constitution Committee, to its low-balled impact assessment.
On the day that the Mayfield report outlines the scale of the challenge that we face on worklessness, it will create generation jobless. Every family in the country will know a son, daughter, niece or nephew who cannot get work as a result. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) reminds us, every Labour Government leaves unemployment higher than when they started, but only this Government have actually legislated for that.
The Minister asks us to disagree with all the main compromise amendments from the other place. If she wished to listen to stakeholders, now would be a fantastic moment to start. Her motions to disagree reject sensible compromises on qualifying periods, seasonal working, guaranteed hours, strike thresholds and opting in to political funds. Who will be the victims if the motions are carried today? Young people, the neurodiverse, those with a disability, female returners to work, the over 50s and former prisoners—some of the most vulnerable groups in society who deserve their chance in life, their shot at employment and a job.
Anneliese Midgley
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I absolutely agree with him about the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East has done on this for over a decade.
This Bill brings changes that tip the scale in favour of working people and, taken together with the rest of the new deal for working people, it amounts to the greatest uplift in workers’ rights in our generation. That is down to the friends that I have just mentioned here today. It is their legacy and it is one that will change the lives of millions of working-class people for the better. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), will do a great job of completing the process.
This is personal for me, because it was my dad’s secure, well-paid, unionised job on the production line in Ford’s Halewood plant that gave me a better life than my mum and dad had. It lifted us out of poverty and provided us with enough money and stability for a decent home, and enough to live a life of dignity on. Everyone should have that, and that is why I will fight for work where people can flourish and thrive and for jobs to take pride in that can provide a good life. No way would I be here in this place, representing the place where I was born and raised, if it was not for my dad’s job.
The Tories, backed by the Lib Dems in the other place, are trying to water down the Bill. They are aided and abetted by Reform, who are never in this place to debate this and have consistently voted against the Bill. Some of the Lords amendments would rip out the heart of the Bill. I am going to speak briefly to amendments 23 and 106 to 120, which would delay protections from unfair dismissal until a worker had been in their job for six months. This would mean that a worker could be dismissed at whim, for no reason. How is this okay? How is it defensible? A day one right not to be unfairly dismissed is good for workers and good for businesses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) spoke about the research from the IPPR and the TUC, which found that 73% of employers supported giving employees protection from unfair dismissal from day one of employment. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), dismissed the TUC’s research from the Dispatch Box, but it represents 5 million workers and everyone else at work. Are they not stakeholders who should be listened to as well? We know that good employers up and down the country already live up to the standards that we are setting out in this Bill. Today, we need to stop these attempts to water down the Employment Rights Bill, deliver the protections from unfair dismissal that our constituents voted for and make sure we deliver the new deal for working people in full.
Kate Dearden
I thank all Members for their brilliant contributions today and for their engagement with the Bill throughout the many months we have been debating it. That is incredibly appreciated and valued.
I start by reiterating a quote from Professor Simon Deakin at the Cambridge University centre for business:
“strengthening employment laws in this country in the last 50 years has had pro-employment effects. The consensus on the economic impacts of labour laws is that, far from being harmful to growth, they contribute positively to productivity.”
I remind the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who made a number of contributions, of my opening remarks. UK employment laws are mostly a product of the 20th century. They have not kept pace with how businesses employ people or with how people experience their working lives today: when, how and where they work. The world of work has fundamentally changed in recent years. It is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman’s party spent 14 years impotently watching the rise of the gig economy and the many changes in our employment landscape but now pretends that the status quo still works for everyone. It simply does not. That is why the Bill is so important: it raises those standards and levels the playing field for businesses, so that they are not undercut by people who do not play by the rules, which negatively impacts their businesses and productivity. The Bill is important for working people so that they get that security and those rights at work, as well as for businesses, including those good businesses that already go above and beyond and do brilliant work supporting our workforce and different economies across the country.
The shadow Minister mentioned seasonal work. The initial reference period will be set out in regulations, as I have already spoken to. I reiterate that we believe that 12 weeks is the right length, balancing the need for qualifying workers to be offered those guaranteed hours reasonably soon after they start a role and the need for a reference period long enough to establish the hours that they regularly work.
I was surprised to hear the remarks from the shadow Minister on employment tribunals. On their watch, average wait times for an employment claimant increased by 60% between 2010 and 2022 due to funding cuts. The previous Government’s introduction of fees had a disproportionate impact on woman and the low-paid. Yet again, we are fixing messes that they left behind. The taskforce I mentioned in my introductory speech for how we can fix our employment tribunal system, and our work under the Fair Work Agency, which will be up and running next year, are incredibly important as part of that wider package.
Amanda Martin
It is good to hear about the taskforce. Could the Minister give us more information about what other things it will look at and investigate that will support employees?
Kate Dearden
The taskforce will bring together different stakeholders so that we can assess the problems within the system and work out the best way to fix them, because at the moment it is not working for employers or workers, who want access to justice and want it quickly.
Andy McDonald
Would the Minister agree that the introduction of these rights and protections is absolutely critical, but equally important is the ability to enforce those rights? The Fair Work Agency has the potential to bring that to fruition and ensure that when people are in those circumstances and are the beneficiaries of an award, they will ultimately receive it, because far too many people take on these cases and do not get any redress.
Kate Dearden
We met Matthew Taylor, the new chair of the Fair Work Agency, this week to discuss the agency’s progress to ensure that it is up and running at speed. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, enforcement is vital, and it is crucial that workers are aware of their rights. That is why the agency is so transformational in our approach and important for our wider agenda.
To respond to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), I urge her to support the Government as we seek to update and upgrade our employment rights to be fit for the 21st century. She mentioned lots around detail. As I mentioned earlier, as is standard for lots of employment rights legislation, we want to consult extensively with businesses, unions and employers to ensure that we get this right, and I am sure that she agrees with that approach.
The hon. Member mentioned turnout thresholds. As I have mentioned, we want to create an industrial relations framework fit for a modern economy and workforce and that works for everybody. We have been clear that we intend to ensure that trade union legislation is proportionate and effective and does not create unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. We remain committed to removing the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots through the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016. We support a strong mandate for strike action, but a threshold set in legislation is not the best way to achieve that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) talked about our proud Labour legacy of the courage and conviction to change lives, and she is a powerful and inspiring demonstration and testament to that. That is why this legislation is so important, reshaping the world of work and delivering security and dignity that people can feel, as she rightly mentioned. We cannot build a strong economy through employment insecurity. The legal loopholes that exist have contributed to the erosion of living standards and allowed a race to the bottom. I am always grateful for her support and thank her for her offer of support as we proceed to Royal Assent and the implementation stages to ensure that everybody across the country can benefit, workers and business alike, and that is why the Bill is pro-worker, pro-business and pro-growth.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) made a powerful speech and responded eloquently to lots of points raised by Opposition Members, and I thank him for that. I reassure him that we remain committed to the repeal of the 50% turnout threshold, and we have been clear that it is our intention to align the removal of thresholds with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for unions. The amendment does not change that commitment. We are working at pace to permit electronic balloting by April 2026. He will be pleased to know that we will shortly launch a consultation on an electronic and workplace balloting code of practice, and I encourage all stakeholders to respond to that consultation.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for her excellent points on the importance and use of political funds. I reiterate my remarks on the 50% threshold and hope that she is reassured by them. She will have heard the Government’s commitment to delivering the Bill in full from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State at Labour conference. I hope to have reiterated that commitment at the Dispatch Box today.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for all his work on this legislation. It has been a pleasure to work with him over a number of years. He mentioned fair pay agreements, which we are introducing for social care, as he rightly said. We will learn from that process before considering their introduction in other sectors, but I appreciate his passion for this area. I am sure that we will be in touch with him to speak about that progress.
Laurence Turner
May I invite the Minister to respond to two things? First, I was asked earlier how many times the word “maternity” appears in the Bill. The word “pregnancy” appears 16 times, “parental” 27 times, and “bereavement” 34 times, but we cannot restrict the debate to individual phrases. Secondly, this is not some abacus exercise; the real impact of the Bill is the change and improvement it will make for millions of working families thanks to day one rights.
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent and well-made point. I am glad that he has managed to find the ctrl+F function with such speed. I always rely on him to provide such efficiency and clarity. The Bill will benefit more than 15 million workers. That is an incredibly powerful statistic to give at the Dispatch Box. More than 2 million people on zero-hours contracts could benefit, as well as the many workers he mentions who will benefit from further protections and rights at work.
Michael Wheeler
I thank my good and hon. Friend for giving way. Millions of workers, including those on zero-hours contracts, stand to benefit from the measures in the Bill. Does she agree that the amendments tabled by Liberal Democrat peers on the right to guaranteed hours are an unworkable bureaucratic mess that opens up scope for abusive practices in the workplace and removes the Bill’s meaningful protections from far too many workers?
Kate Dearden
I thank my good and hon. Friend for his important contribution. Like him, I meet many people in my constituency who do not know day to day whether they will have enough money for food and rent because they do not know how many hours they will work that week. That is why it is so important that we give people basic security by banning exploitative zero-hours contracts. We know that people value the flexibility that those contracts offer, which is why we are tackling the exploitative ones, as he rightly outlines. Those amendments might look for a different route to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts, but we want to protect working people, because it is so important that they have certainty, week by week, on what they will be paid—that is what they deserve. I thank him for all his work in this area over a number of years. He brings a wealth of experience to this part of the Bill.
The Government are clear that we cannot build a strong economy while people are in insecure work. Employment law has not kept pace with modern working patterns, and that has allowed some employers to exploit gaps in the law, undercut responsible businesses and fuel a race to the bottom. Backed by our new industrial and trade strategies, the Bill will drive productivity, foster innovation and lay the foundations for long-term secure growth. It will level the playing field for good employers and put the UK economy in step with competitors in other advanced economies.
As we have heard today, I stand on the shoulders and build on the incredible hard work of many right hon. and hon. Friends. I pay tribute to them, and put on record my thanks and gratitude for all their work in getting us to where we are today. I hope that all hon. Members support the Government in our determination to get the Bill over the line and update our employment rights legislation in this country, for businesses and for employers, for the future and for growth. I thank hon. Members for their contributions.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
As this is my first time at the Dispatch Box, if I may I would like to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders). It is an honour to build on his work, particularly on employment rights and championing fairness and dignity at work.
Hospitality businesses, including those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), are vital to the UK economy, driving growth, creating jobs, and strengthening our communities. The Government are delivering targeted support under the small and medium-sized enterprises strategy to boost productivity, cut red tape and revitalise our high streets. Our £1.5 million hospitality scheme aims to help businesses boost productivity and adapt to local needs, while the licensing taskforce seeks to address unnecessary barriers that hospitality businesses face. Furthermore, we plan to permanently reduce business rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties.
Several hon. Members rose—
Calum Miller
I wish all the questions were just about Bicester and Woodstock.
I welcome the Minister to her place. Becky, who runs the Red Lion in Eynsham, and Donna, who runs the Oxfordshire Yeoman in Freeland, tell me that they are working upwards of 80 hours a week just to keep their pubs open. Despite loyal customers and rising turnover, they are struggling to meet soaring bills from employment costs, food, energy, business rates and a tied tenancy, which means that prices are over £100 more per barrel. In small villages across my constituency, pubs are the lifeblood and fabric of the community. Will the Minister meet Becky, Donna and me to discuss what more the Government can do to support the vital village pub?
Kate Dearden
I agree with the hon. Member that pubs are the lifeblood of our local communities. We recognise the challenges facing the hospitality sector, particularly our pubs. They play such an important role in our local communities as places where people can come together to celebrate, connect and build communities, and that is especially true of the pubs that he mentioned in his constituency. I would of course be happy to meet him and his pub managers to celebrate their contribution to his constituency. We continue to work closely with the Hospitality Sector Council and industry leaders across the country to understand the pressures facing pubs, and to co-create solutions for the long-term stability and local economic growth that are vital for our communities and our country.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I thank my hon. Friend for his long-standing advocacy in this area. We want to work constructively with unions, employers and stakeholders to build on the Employment Rights Bill. Our first priority for a fair pay agreement is adult social care, a large and complex sector with over 19,000 providers and 1.5 million dedicated workers. As such, our priority is ensuring that this process works effectively, which is why I am delighted that the Government have announced a £500 million investment in the first ever fair pay agreement in the social care sector. We will use what we learn to consider where fair pay agreements can offer similar benefits across other sectors.
Andy McDonald
I thank the Minister for her response, but with the cost of living pressures continuing, it is clear that delivering increased real incomes and better living standards is our No. 1 priority. Can the Minister say a little more about which further sectors are most ready for fair pay agreements, and what steps the Department is taking to meet the UK’s obligations, as a member of the International Labour Organisation, to extend sectoral collective bargaining as a means to raise pay and improve living standards?
Kate Dearden
I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for sectoral collective bargaining and collective agreements as a key steer for improving living standards across workplaces in the country. As he knows, we are demonstrating our commitment to sectoral collective bargaining with the social care and school support staff sectors. The UK is committed to working internationally to strengthen workers’ rights and enhance Labour standards globally. We fully support the work of the International Labour Organisation and will continue to meet our obligations under the ILO.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I launched my “Pub of the Year” award at the Goods Yard in Broadstone last week. Fifty-four pubs and two breweries in Mid Dorset and North Poole support 1,600 jobs and underpin the vibrancy of our towns and villages, but two thirds of them have had to cut jobs or hours since the damaging jobs tax. Hospitality venues typically operate seven days a week, and sometimes more than 12 hours a day, so they need many part-time workers. Will the Government consult on a new lower rate of employer national insurance for workers earning £5,000 to £9,100, to support the employment of part-time workers and drive growth?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I come from a small business family in the hospitality sector, so I completely understand how important the sector is for local economies and jobs—especially pubs, which are the backbone of our high streets and important for pride in our local economies and communities. We are helping pubs through our £1.5 million hospitality support scheme, and through brilliant initiatives such as Pub is The Hub, for which £440,000 was recently announced. More will be announced soon.
Employment Rights Bill: October Consultation
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks 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 top priority is to grow the economy and improve living standards. We are clear that we cannot build a strong economy while people are in insecure work. For too long, employment law has failed to keep pace with fundamental changes to how, when and where we work. This has allowed bad actors to take advantage of loopholes in the current law via exploitative practices, fuelling a race to the bottom, undercutting responsible businesses, and eroding the living standards of working people. We are clear that unfair competition, where a bad employer undercuts a good employer by reducing the terms and conditions of service for their employees, 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 make work more secure and predictable, putting more money into working people’s pockets and strengthening the foundations that underpin a modern economy. It will also offer dignity to those going through the toughest personal circumstances, support working families to juggle the demands of work and raising children and help more working parents to stay in the workplace. This is a win-win. Policies that improve workforce wellbeing and job satisfaction also improve retention, boost productivity, promote fair competition and economic growth.
We are committed to full and comprehensive consultation with employers, workers, trade unions and civil society. By delivering this change together, we will back employers who do the right thing and give hard-working people the security, fairness and job satisfaction they deserve. As set out in our “Implementing the Employment Rights Bill” publication (published 1 July 2025), we are taking a phased approach to engagement and consultation on these reforms. This will ensure 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 I am launching an initial package of consultations covering the following four measures. Alongside a programme of direct stakeholder engagement, these will support us in determining how best to put our plans into practice.
Consultation 1: enhanced dismissal protections for pregnant women and new mothers
Discriminating against women because they are pregnant or on maternity leave is already unlawful. However, pregnant women and new mothers continue to face a significant and unique risk to their job security. Every parent should feel secure at work, and that includes ensuring motherhood is not a barrier.
Starting with the Employment Rights Bill, the Government are introducing legislation which will make it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women, mothers on maternity leave, and mothers who return to work for at least a six-month period—except in specific circumstances. The Bill establishes the requisite powers to then set out the detail of the policy in regulations. Other powers taken ensure that those taking other types of family-related leave can be brought into the policy’s scope, subject to the outcome of the consultation.
The consultation seeks views on how the enhanced dismissal protections should work in practice, including the “specific circumstances” in which the dismissal of pregnant women and new mothers should still be allowed; when the protections should start and end; whether other new parents should be covered by the protections; policy measures to support implementation and impact; and how to mitigate against any unintended consequences.
This consultation will close after 12 weeks on 15 January 2026.
Consultation 2: bereavement leave
Bereavement and the loss of a loved one is a deeply personal experience that impacts everyone differently. In some cases, employees will need to take time and space away from work to grieve; in other cases, employees might wish to continue working as normal. For too long, employees facing bereavement have had to navigate their grief without the security of knowing they have a legal right to the time they need away from work. While many employers do give their employees the time they need, some do not. Fair competition demands some statutory protections for bereaved workers.
The Employment Rights Bill introduces a new statutory right to bereavement leave which will ensure all employees have a right to time away from work to grieve. Government amendments tabled on Report in the Lords extend bereavement leave to include pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, to enable the Government to consult on the full range of bereavement leave and ensure long overdue recognition for the women and families affected by pregnancy loss.
The Bill provides framework powers to establish the new right to bereavement leave, and we are consulting on the details to be set out in secondary legislation, ensuring that the entitlement is fully informed by the needs of both employers and employees from the outset.
The Bill sets out that the leave must be a minimum of one week and employees must be allowed at least 56 days from the date of the loss in which to take the leave. The consultation will ask questions about who should be eligible for bereavement leave, including specific questions on different types of pregnancy loss. The consultation will also ask for views on the maximum length of leave and the timeframe in which it should be taken, and what else the Government can do to support employers to implement the new entitlement to bereavement leave, such as guidance. Lastly, the consultation will ask for views on what notice and evidence requirements an employee may be required to give to an employer to allow us to balance the needs of bereaved individuals with the needs of their employers to manage staff absence with minimum disruption.
This consultation will close after 12 weeks on 15 January 2026.
Consultation 3: trade union employer duty to inform
A lack of awareness about the right to join a trade union may be contributing to reduced engagement from workers in collective bargaining and access to representation when they need it. At present, employers are not required to inform workers of this right, either at the start of employment or subsequently. While employees and workers are legally protected if they choose to join a union, there is no obligation on employers to make them aware of this. This legal omission needs correction in law.
The Employment Rights Bill will introduce a new duty on employers to provide their workers with a written statement of their right to join a trade union at the start of their employment and at other times. This new duty addresses an existing information gap by ensuring workers are better informed of their rights.
This consultation seeks views on how this duty should work in practice—what the statement should say, in what manner it should be given, and how often the statement should be delivered outside the start of employment.
The consultation will close after eight weeks on 18 December 2025.
Consultation 4: trade union right of access
Effective trade unions are important to tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, poor working conditions and low pay. The best employers value their role in the workplace and experience the benefits of working in partnership.
Within the current legislative framework, trade unions do not have an independent right of access to workplaces protected in law. They may only act through individual members or by voluntary access arrangements with employers. Where membership is limited, and there are no voluntary arrangements in place, there is limited scope for trade unions to represent and support their members in employment-related matters.
The Employment Rights Bill will establish a new legal framework for unions and employers to negotiate access into the workplace, formalising a trade union’s right to access workplaces physically, and to communicate with workers both in person and digitally. A statutory access framework gives clarity to employers on how to agree access and will enable unions to contribute positively to workplace culture, fostering open communication and trust between workers and employers and leading to more stable and constructive industrial relations.
We are seeking views on how this framework should operate in practice, consulting on the practical details of the policy before we set them out in secondary legislation. The consultation will cover how unions will request access and how employers will respond; factors the Central Arbitration Committee will take into account when determining whether access should be granted and on what terms; and how breaches of access agreements should be assessed by the CAC.
The consultation will close after eight weeks on 18 December 2025.
Next steps for consultation
This package sets out the next steps in delivering our plans. As trailed in “Implementing the Employment Rights Bill”, further packages of consultations are planned for later in the autumn and into the winter. These will be central to shaping the practical implementation of this legislation, helping Government deliver reforms that are both effective and inclusive. It is in everyone’s interest to get the relationship between employer and employee right. These consultations will help us make work pay for both.
[HCWS986]
Trade Union Workplace Access
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, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for securing today’s important debate—I know we say it a lot that debates are important, but this one truly is. It is close to my heart, as I know it is to my hon. Friend’s.
I thank my hon. Friend for his contributions to debates during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, including on this specific issue. It was always a pleasure to work with him on this topic in my previous life working for a trade union for many years—in fact, I declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud trade union member. The amendments that my hon. Friend tabled on Report, which he alluded to in his speech, demonstrate his interest in this area, and I welcome his continued commitment to a productive discussion on the topic today. I thank all other members here for their contributions and interest in this topic—not just hon. Members, but proud trade unionists and friends.
As my hon. Friend will know, the Government’s plan to make work pay and our Employment Rights Bill represent the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. Taken together, they support our plan for change by ensuring that employment rights are fit for a modern economy, empowering working people and contributing to economic growth.
The Employment Rights Bill creates a modern, fairer labour market where workers are better protected, more empowered and supported through every stage of working life. It is pro-worker and pro-business, and it supports the Government’s objective of boosting growth and improving living standards across the country. As part of that, the Government are strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition—I want to take a moment to say how proud I am to be saying that from the Front Bench. After many years of the previous Government, who sought to weaken workers’ voices and trade union rights, we are rebuilding a culture of respect and co-operation with trade unions.
I know that my hon. Friend will agree that trade unions are essential to tackling issues of insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay across the economy. The Employment Rights Bill will modernise trade union legislation, giving trade unions greater freedom to organise, represent and negotiate on behalf of their members. Strong trade unions are key partners in building a stronger, fairer economy.
A key part of our reforms in this area is the introduction of a new trade union right of access. Under existing legislation, trade unions do not have a general right of access to workplaces and can exercise their functions only through individual trade union members in the workplace or through access that has been agreed on a voluntary basis with the employer. In situations in which membership is limited and no voluntary agreement is in place, there is limited scope for trade unions to exercise their core functions within the workplace. Although the Government want employers and unions to continue to agree and use those voluntary access arrangements where possible, the Bill introduces a new right for trade unions to access the workplace in a responsible and regulated manner. That will provide certainty and clarity to all parties involved.
It is worth explaining briefly how the new right of access will work in practice, which will hopefully answer lots of my hon. Friend’s questions. Under the new right of access, an independent union can provide an employer with a request for access. That could be a request for physical access to a building or virtual access to a group of workers—such as via a Teams call—or both. My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about the importance of digital access as part of our consideration of the legislation.
If both parties agree on the terms of access between themselves, they will notify the Central Arbitration Committee to record the terms of the access agreement and proceed with the access as agreed. If no agreement can be reached within a set timeframe, the union or employer can refer the case to the CAC for a determination on whether access should be granted under the terms requested.
The CAC will make its determination on whether access should be granted in line with factors set out in secondary legislation. If the access application meets certain conditions, it will qualify for a potentially expedited route through the CAC process. The CAC will also enforce access agreements once they are in place, hearing complaints about breaches of those agreements by any party, with the power to issue fines for non-compliance.
This debate is timely, because the Government will shortly be launching a public consultation on the details of the new trade union right of access policy, including the matters that the CAC must have regard to when deciding whether access should take place and the level of fines for non-compliance with access agreements. We want to see a fair and workable access framework, so the Government strongly encourage unions and employers of all types and sizes to share their views. As I say, the Government are committed to strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition, and we see the new right of access as a key part of that.
In that light, when the CAC takes decisions on access, it will be guided by the access principles provided for in the Employment Rights Bill. Those principles set out that trade unions should be provided access to workplaces
“in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the employer’s business”
and that the employer
“should take reasonable steps to facilitate”
that access. They also set out that
“access should be refused entirely only where it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.”
The principles provide a default in favour of access, but the Government are aware that some employers may find it more difficult than others to facilitate access arrangements, and that there may be circumstances where it would not be appropriate for access to take place. That is why we will consult on the factors that the CAC should take into account when deciding on access, and consult on what the value of fines should be for non-compliance.
Ian Lavery
Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely essential that lawbreakers and bad employers are not allowed to price in any breaking of the law to the detriment of people in the workplace?
Kate Dearden
I agree with my hon. Friend, and enforcement will be really key to that. I encourage him to get involved in the consultation and to share his views on exactly that point.
The Government will review responses to those two consultation questions with interest, as we will the responses to the consultation as a whole. The consultation matters, because it is important that the implementation of the right of access works in practice, not just on paper. That is why the Government have committed to support businesses throughout the implementation of the Bill, and why we will produce a new code of practice for the policy. That will contain practical guidance on how access should take place in practice to help support employers and businesses to manage the process smoothly and effectively. The Government will consult on that code next year before the new right comes into force in October 2026.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East also mentioned enforcement, and I welcome his support for the Fair Work Agency and its newly appointed chair, Matthew Taylor. Strengthening our labour market, compliance and enforcement is absolutely key to this issue, and to our wider Employment Rights Bill.
Andy McDonald
Does the Minister agree that there are many good employers across our economy who actively engage and encourage trade union access and recognition? They could be of great service in the process that she describes for supporting other businesses as the regulations are implemented.
Kate Dearden
I could not agree more. There is brilliant practice across the country and across workplaces, with good employers and unions working together in the better interests of the workforce. That is why the Employment Rights Bill, which the Government are proud to be implementing, is such a positive step forward for workers, employers and our wider economy.
The new right of access will deliver for everybody, recognising the needs of unions and employers. Building on the good work that already exists across this country, it will deliver on our make work pay commitment to ensure access is responsible and regulated. It will also provide the opportunity for many workers to understand their rights and access trade unions, which are such a vital part of our economy.
I look forward to working closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East and with all other hon. Members present, on both sides of the House, to deliver this positive change for the British economy. I thank my hon. Friend again for securing the debate, and I thank all other hon. Members who have contributed to it. I look forward to working with them as part of this agenda.
Question put and agreed to.