Fireworks Consultation
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)
I am today informing Parliament of a consultation on fireworks which has just been launched.
Millions of people enjoy fireworks responsibly as part of cultural, religious and community celebrations. There is an existing legal framework in place to address situations where fireworks and other pyrotechnics are misused. However, I am also aware of the concerns raised by charities, parliamentarians and members of the public about the impact of fireworks.
Many people have been in touch with me to share their own experience of how fireworks have affected them, their family, their animals, or their wider community. I am grateful to them for taking the time to set out their concerns. These accounts add valuable context alongside the data provided by local authorities, emergency services, animal welfare organisations and the fireworks industry.
In response, I am launching this consultation which proposes reforms to fireworks legislation. These proposals focus on addressing the key harms raised, particularly noise from non-professional fireworks displays and the contribution of fireworks to antisocial behaviour, while continuing to allow people to enjoy fireworks safely and responsibly, including as part of important community and cultural celebrations. Specifically, the consultation seeks to gather evidence and capture a wide range of views on proposals to:
Restrict the availability of the noisiest fireworks to the general public, with louder products only available to professional users.
Add products deemed to be carrying unacceptable risks to the existing list of banned pyrotechnic products.
Review the regulations for the broad range of fireworks and pyrotechnic products currently classified as lower risk, to better reflect the different levels of risk they pose.
The responses and evidence gathered will be used to refine these proposals, making sure that we keep public safety, and the impact on people, animals and property, central to this work. Please be assured that all perspectives and evidence will be considered carefully.
This consultation will run for 12 weeks, and a copy can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fireworks-and-pyrotechnics-in-the-uk
[HCWS275]
Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026
Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots For Statutory Trade Union Ballots
Kate Dearden Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days 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 Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots.
Kate Dearden
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. The draft order and the draft code of practice were laid before the House on 22 June 2026. The statutory instrument and the guidance that we are debating relate to statutory trade union ballots under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The instrument also corrects a minor error in unfair dismissal legislation in section 105 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to reflect changes made under the Employment Rights Act 2025.
At present, the law requires almost all statutory trade union ballots to be conducted solely by post. That approach has not kept pace with the way in which people live, work and participate in democratic processes. It makes holding a ballot unduly expensive and time-consuming, and it can act as an unnecessary barrier to democratic participation in a union. The statutory instrument addresses that directly. It will bring trade union balloting into line with modern secure voting practices that are already widely used in other contexts, including by political parties and listed companies. In so doing, it will deliver on a Government manifesto commitment to supporting greater participation in the democratic processes that shape working life.
The practical changes we are making are long overdue. They are about enabling trade union members to take part in union decisions in more accessible and convenient ways, while maintaining the high standards of fairness, secrecy and security that are set out in existing legislation. The statutory instrument will introduce three additional methods of voting, alongside post.
First, electronic voting will allow members to cast their votes online, using secure access credentials. That will be permitted only where a union member has provided a personal email or telephone number to their union.
Secondly, hybrid voting—in which members receive voting materials by post, but may choose to return their vote either by post or electronically—will enable workers to choose how they cast their vote, without requiring any voter to use online options if they would prefer not to.
Thirdly, in workplace voting, which is for industrial action ballots only, voting can take place in person, under the supervision of an independent scrutineer, at an appropriately secured location in the workplace. Importantly, the statutory instrument will expand the range of voting methods that can be used, but postal voting will remain an option for unions to use.
The Government are committed to bringing forward electronic and workplace balloting quickly, securely and in a way that works properly in practice. That is why we are taking a phased approach to delivery. In phase 1, the new methods will be made available across all statutory trade union ballots, with the exception of statutory recognition and derecognition ballots. In phase 2, we will extend the electronic and hybrid voting options in 2027 to recognition and derecognition ballots.
Alongside that, we will continue to work closely with key stakeholders to support implementation and oversee how those voting methods are operating in practice. As part of that, in the coming months we intend to launch a senior oversight board comprised of unions, businesses, scrutineers and cyber-security experts, who will share feedback on the operation of electronic balloting. By allowing those additional methods, unions will be able to reach their members in ways that are more convenient and inclusive for those members to participate, including members who may benefit from greater flexibility and accessibility in how they engage with ballots and their union democracy.
Alongside the draft order, we have laid a draft statutory code of practice on electronic and workplace ballots. The code will provide detailed, practical guidance on how electronic and workplace balloting should be conducted in practice, ensuring that those methods are used in a way that is secure, fair and accessible. The code will give clarity to unions, independent scrutineers and employers, and will support a consistent approach across ballots.
I turn now to the question of security and safeguards, which will be of interest to the Committee, to provide reassurance to Members that the security of the ballot process sits at the heart of this legislation. Modernisation must go hand in hand with maintaining confidence. That is why strong safeguards underpin our approach and are built into each of the balloting methods that we are providing for. Section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004—the enabling power under which we are making the changes—already sets clear standards. Any permitted method of voting must enable a ballot to meet those standards—namely, that those entitled to vote have the opportunity to do so, that votes are cast in secret, and that the risk of unfairness or malpractice is minimised.
The draft order and the draft code also set out detailed requirements covering the operation of electronic and workplace balloting. Those include independent oversight by scrutineers, clear requirements on ballot security, and measures to ensure the reliability and integrity of the voting systems used. For electronic and hybrid balloting, that includes requirements relating to the protection of voter information, the security of voting systems and detailed audit and monitoring arrangements, alongside mandatory independent cyber-security certification that must be held by scrutineers before they can provide those methods.
Similarly, clear requirements are built into the workplace option. Workplace voting is designed to operate in a limited and controlled way. It will be available only for industrial action ballots, reflecting the fact that those relate to workplace matters rather than to internal union processes. Workplace voting can be used only if the union and the employer agree and set out the terms of the voting in advance of any ballot. Where it is used, it must be independently supervised and conducted in line with detailed requirements, to ensure that the process remains secure and free of interference.
The statutory instrument is essential to bringing trade union ballots into the 21st century, and will ensure that workers are provided with accessible and straightforward processes to participate in the democracy of their union. It will remove the costly and bureaucratic requirement that forces all ballots to be held by post, thereby allowing the way in which unions ballot finally to reflect the technological progress of modern life, while holding firmly to the core principles of fairness, accessibility and security that have always underpinned them. This reform is measured, proportionate and long overdue.
This legislation sets out clear safeguards and technical standards to ensure the integrity and confidence of the ballot process, while making it meaningfully easier and more convenient for working people to take part in the decisions that affect them. I therefore commend the statutory instrument and the accompanying draft code of practice to the Committee. I trust that Members will support them.
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks and questions.
The draft order addresses a simple issue: the current requirement to conduct statutory trade union ballots solely by post has not kept pace with how people engage today, and balloting has become an overly burdensome and expensive process. That is why the range of options I outlined—online, hybrid and workplace balloting—which the shadow Minister alluded to, are necessary. The requirement to conduct ballots by post was born out of the legitimate need to guarantee secrecy and protection from union, third-party or employer interference, but those principles will not be reduced by this statutory instrument; they will, in fact, be improved upon in many cases.
On the shadow Minister’s point about the chosen methods, electronic balloting has been a well-established option for businesses and political parties—including his own party—for many years. The Government will deliver modern and secure electronic workplace balloting, as we made clear in our manifesto and our wider Make Work Pay agenda. We are pleased to have progressed in that work and to have laid this legislation—it is a shame that the Opposition cannot support it. We have engaged with stakeholders, worked with experts and consulted on the draft code of practice to develop our approach to delivering the balloting methods for statutory union ballots. We are confident that our approach reduces bureaucracy and enables the increased participation of union members, while ensuring high security standards.
The shadow Minister reflected more widely on the varied options in the legislation and asked in particular about the review. We will, of course, keep him updated as we proceed with the wider scrutiny board and as the legislation comes into force. That is important, because we want to ensure that every measure in our Make Work Pay initiative and in the Employment Rights Act works in practice in workplaces across the country, particularly for trade unions.
That leads me to the shadow Minister’s second point, on the responsible person and the independent scrutineer. As he said, the responsible person will decide which voting method, or combination of methods, will be used to conduct a statutory ballot. When determining the method or combination of methods to be used for a ballot, the responsible person must apply the criteria and consider the factors specified in the legislation and the code of practice. Of course, if the union is acting on that ballot, it is best placed to decide what the combination of methods must be. That is why the responsible person is the trade union calling the ballot.
We are making the necessary legislation under section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. Under that section, a new method may be permitted only if the Secretary of State considers that a ballot conducted by that method could meet the required standard. A method meets that standard
“if it is such that…those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so…votes cast are secret…the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.”
Gareth Davies
The Minister has sought to address my question about the responsible person, but can she see the logic that I am trying to deploy? Why can a trade union be designated a responsible person, but an independent scrutineer cannot? Does she see how that opens up questions about the independence of the process, and did she think consider an independent scrutineer to avoid that criticism?
Kate Dearden
I was just getting to the powers that we are using for the statutory instrument. Trade unions will be required to be the responsible person because they are best placed to consider the factors and criteria before choosing the ballot method.
We have gone through the range of options that will be available. As I mentioned, the choice must include postal voting, even though that is not a new method. As I have mentioned, we have included in the legislation a presumption to reduce the factors and criteria to be considered for postal voting, to reflect the fact that it is a long-established method with which members will already be familiar and that trade unions know how best to approach it.
However, the responsible person must not be aware of
“any reason why it would not be possible to satisfy the requirements of the relevant legislation which relate to the means of voting which are to be used in the ballot or election.”
That has been made clear to trade unions, which will have been designated the responsible person, alongside the range of other options that they must consider. That communicates clearly to trade unions their roles and responsibilities as the responsible person. As the shadow Minister knows, the responsibilities of independent scrutineers will continue in their role under the legislation.
Independent scrutineers, which the shadow Minister asked about, are either named in or meet the requirements of the Trade Union Ballots and Elections (Independent Scrutineer Qualifications) Order 1993, which sets out clear requirements on who can be a scrutineer. The organisations named in that order have been independently conducting statutory ballots for many years, and we are confident in their independence. In the coming months, we will progress work on updating that order to expand the list of named permitted scrutineers. If he is interested, we will be happy to keep him updated on that particular work strand.
The shadow Minister asked about the impact assessment of the introduction of electronic balloting. The primary impacts include up to £70 million of net present social value. The introduction of new balloting methods for statutory trade union ballots simply brings them in line with modern voting practices used regularly by many other organisations, including political parties and private companies, as I said. Requiring them to pilot those balloting methods would unnecessarily restrict their ability to effectively engage with their members and ensure that their views are properly reflected.
We have no reliable evidence suggesting that electronic balloting will increase the frequency of participation. That is why a review will be important to our understanding of how the range of available balloting methods work out in different workplaces and trade unions. The range in savings estimates varies as it will depends on the uptake of the different balloting methods. As electronic ballots will require the use of personal email addresses or mobile numbers, unions will need to gather that information from their members before they commence.
The draft order details operational, audit and reporting requirements on electronic voting methods well beyond those required for postal voting, to ensure the security of the ballot and retain the confidence of the public in electronic voting. We have developed those clear, secure and proportionate approaches to enable statutory ballots to be conducted via means other than post. The draft order has been carefully considered, through engagement with stakeholders, to ensure that their legitimate concerns about security and interference are managed while ensuring that accessibility, democracy and ease of use remain central to the balloting process. The draft order requires stringent processes to be followed for the conduct of electronic balloting, to ensure that the integrity of the ballot remains unquestionable.
As I have mentioned, this change is long overdue. I am pleased we are the Government to finally introduce legislation to modernise these processes. I believe I have answered all the questions, and I look forward to the Committee’s support for the draft order and the associated draft code of practice.
Question put.
Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026
Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots For Statutory Trafe Union Ballots
Kate Dearden Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days 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 Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots.
Kate Dearden
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. The draft order and the draft code of practice were laid before the House on 22 June 2026. The statutory instrument and the guidance that we are debating relate to statutory trade union ballots under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The instrument also corrects a minor error in unfair dismissal legislation in section 105 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to reflect changes made under the Employment Rights Act 2025.
At present, the law requires almost all statutory trade union ballots to be conducted solely by post. That approach has not kept pace with the way in which people live, work and participate in democratic processes. It makes holding a ballot unduly expensive and time-consuming, and it can act as an unnecessary barrier to democratic participation in a union. The statutory instrument addresses that directly. It will bring trade union balloting into line with modern secure voting practices that are already widely used in other contexts, including by political parties and listed companies. In so doing, it will deliver on a Government manifesto commitment to supporting greater participation in the democratic processes that shape working life.
The practical changes we are making are long overdue. They are about enabling trade union members to take part in union decisions in more accessible and convenient ways, while maintaining the high standards of fairness, secrecy and security that are set out in existing legislation. The statutory instrument will introduce three additional methods of voting, alongside post.
First, electronic voting will allow members to cast their votes online, using secure access credentials. That will be permitted only where a union member has provided a personal email or telephone number to their union.
Secondly, hybrid voting—in which members receive voting materials by post, but may choose to return their vote either by post or electronically—will enable workers to choose how they cast their vote, without requiring any voter to use online options if they would prefer not to.
Thirdly, in workplace voting, which is for industrial action ballots only, voting can take place in person, under the supervision of an independent scrutineer, at an appropriately secured location in the workplace. Importantly, the statutory instrument will expand the range of voting methods that can be used, but postal voting will remain an option for unions to use.
The Government are committed to bringing forward electronic and workplace balloting quickly, securely and in a way that works properly in practice. That is why we are taking a phased approach to delivery. In phase 1, the new methods will be made available across all statutory trade union ballots, with the exception of statutory recognition and derecognition ballots. In phase 2, we will extend the electronic and hybrid voting options in 2027 to recognition and derecognition ballots.
Alongside that, we will continue to work closely with key stakeholders to support implementation and oversee how those voting methods are operating in practice. As part of that, in the coming months we intend to launch a senior oversight board comprised of unions, businesses, scrutineers and cyber-security experts, who will share feedback on the operation of electronic balloting. By allowing those additional methods, unions will be able to reach their members in ways that are more convenient and inclusive for those members to participate, including members who may benefit from greater flexibility and accessibility in how they engage with ballots and their union democracy.
Alongside the draft order, we have laid a draft statutory code of practice on electronic and workplace ballots. The code will provide detailed, practical guidance on how electronic and workplace balloting should be conducted in practice, ensuring that those methods are used in a way that is secure, fair and accessible. The code will give clarity to unions, independent scrutineers and employers, and will support a consistent approach across ballots.
I turn now to the question of security and safeguards, which will be of interest to the Committee, to provide reassurance to Members that the security of the ballot process sits at the heart of this legislation. Modernisation must go hand in hand with maintaining confidence. That is why strong safeguards underpin our approach and are built into each of the balloting methods that we are providing for. Section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004—the enabling power under which we are making the changes—already sets clear standards. Any permitted method of voting must enable a ballot to meet those standards—namely, that those entitled to vote have the opportunity to do so, that votes are cast in secret, and that the risk of unfairness or malpractice is minimised.
The draft order and the draft code also set out detailed requirements covering the operation of electronic and workplace balloting. Those include independent oversight by scrutineers, clear requirements on ballot security, and measures to ensure the reliability and integrity of the voting systems used. For electronic and hybrid balloting, that includes requirements relating to the protection of voter information, the security of voting systems and detailed audit and monitoring arrangements, alongside mandatory independent cyber-security certification that must be held by scrutineers before they can provide those methods.
Similarly, clear requirements are built into the workplace option. Workplace voting is designed to operate in a limited and controlled way. It will be available only for industrial action ballots, reflecting the fact that those relate to workplace matters rather than to internal union processes. Workplace voting can be used only if the union and the employer agree and set out the terms of the voting in advance of any ballot. Where it is used, it must be independently supervised and conducted in line with detailed requirements, to ensure that the process remains secure and free of interference.
The statutory instrument is essential to bringing trade union ballots into the 21st century, and will ensure that workers are provided with accessible and straightforward processes to participate in the democracy of their union. It will remove the costly and bureaucratic requirement that forces all ballots to be held by post, thereby allowing the way in which unions ballot finally to reflect the technological progress of modern life, while holding firmly to the core principles of fairness, accessibility and security that have always underpinned them. This reform is measured, proportionate and long overdue.
This legislation sets out clear safeguards and technical standards to ensure the integrity and confidence of the ballot process, while making it meaningfully easier and more convenient for working people to take part in the decisions that affect them. I therefore commend the statutory instrument and the accompanying draft code of practice to the Committee. I trust that Members will support them.
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks and questions.
The draft order addresses a simple issue: the current requirement to conduct statutory trade union ballots solely by post has not kept pace with how people engage today, and balloting has become an overly burdensome and expensive process. That is why the range of options I outlined—online, hybrid and workplace balloting—which the shadow Minister alluded to, are necessary. The requirement to conduct ballots by post was born out of the legitimate need to guarantee secrecy and protection from union, third-party or employer interference, but those principles will not be reduced by this statutory instrument; they will, in fact, be improved upon in many cases.
On the shadow Minister’s point about the chosen methods, electronic balloting has been a well-established option for businesses and political parties—including his own party—for many years. The Government will deliver modern and secure electronic workplace balloting, as we made clear in our manifesto and our wider Make Work Pay agenda. We are pleased to have progressed in that work and to have laid this legislation—it is a shame that the Opposition cannot support it. We have engaged with stakeholders, worked with experts and consulted on the draft code of practice to develop our approach to delivering the balloting methods for statutory union ballots. We are confident that our approach reduces bureaucracy and enables the increased participation of union members, while ensuring high security standards.
The shadow Minister reflected more widely on the varied options in the legislation and asked in particular about the review. We will, of course, keep him updated as we proceed with the wider scrutiny board and as the legislation comes into force. That is important, because we want to ensure that every measure in our Make Work Pay initiative and in the Employment Rights Act works in practice in workplaces across the country, particularly for trade unions.
That leads me to the shadow Minister’s second point, on the responsible person and the independent scrutineer. As he said, the responsible person will decide which voting method, or combination of methods, will be used to conduct a statutory ballot. When determining the method or combination of methods to be used for a ballot, the responsible person must apply the criteria and consider the factors specified in the legislation and the code of practice. Of course, if the union is acting on that ballot, it is best placed to decide what the combination of methods must be. That is why the responsible person is the trade union calling the ballot.
We are making the necessary legislation under section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. Under that section, a new method may be permitted only if the Secretary of State considers that a ballot conducted by that method could meet the required standard. A method meets that standard
“if it is such that…those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so…votes cast are secret…the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.”
Gareth Davies
The Minister has sought to address my question about the responsible person, but can she see the logic that I am trying to deploy? Why can a trade union be designated a responsible person, but an independent scrutineer cannot? Does she see how that opens up questions about the independence of the process, and did she think consider an independent scrutineer to avoid that criticism?
Kate Dearden
I was just getting to the powers that we are using for the statutory instrument. Trade unions will be required to be the responsible person because they are best placed to consider the factors and criteria before choosing the ballot method.
We have gone through the range of options that will be available. As I mentioned, the choice must include postal voting, even though that is not a new method. As I have mentioned, we have included in the legislation a presumption to reduce the factors and criteria to be considered for postal voting, to reflect the fact that it is a long-established method with which members will already be familiar and that trade unions know how best to approach it.
However, the responsible person must not be aware of
“any reason why it would not be possible to satisfy the requirements of the relevant legislation which relate to the means of voting which are to be used in the ballot or election.”
That has been made clear to trade unions, which will have been designated the responsible person, alongside the range of other options that they must consider. That communicates clearly to trade unions their roles and responsibilities as the responsible person. As the shadow Minister knows, the responsibilities of independent scrutineers will continue in their role under the legislation.
Independent scrutineers, which the shadow Minister asked about, are either named in or meet the requirements of the Trade Union Ballots and Elections (Independent Scrutineer Qualifications) Order 1993, which sets out clear requirements on who can be a scrutineer. The organisations named in that order have been independently conducting statutory ballots for many years, and we are confident in their independence. In the coming months, we will progress work on updating that order to expand the list of named permitted scrutineers. If he is interested, we will be happy to keep him updated on that particular work strand.
The shadow Minister asked about the impact assessment of the introduction of electronic balloting. The primary impacts include up to £70 million of net present social value. The introduction of new balloting methods for statutory trade union ballots simply brings them in line with modern voting practices used regularly by many other organisations, including political parties and private companies, as I said. Requiring them to pilot those balloting methods would unnecessarily restrict their ability to effectively engage with their members and ensure that their views are properly reflected.
We have no reliable evidence suggesting that electronic balloting will increase the frequency of participation. That is why a review will be important to our understanding of how the range of available balloting methods work out in different workplaces and trade unions. The range in savings estimates varies as it will depends on the uptake of the different balloting methods. As electronic ballots will require the use of personal email addresses or mobile numbers, unions will need to gather that information from their members before they commence.
The draft order details operational, audit and reporting requirements on electronic voting methods well beyond those required for postal voting, to ensure the security of the ballot and retain the confidence of the public in electronic voting. We have developed those clear, secure and proportionate approaches to enable statutory ballots to be conducted via means other than post. The draft order has been carefully considered, through engagement with stakeholders, to ensure that their legitimate concerns about security and interference are managed while ensuring that accessibility, democracy and ease of use remain central to the balloting process. The draft order requires stringent processes to be followed for the conduct of electronic balloting, to ensure that the integrity of the ballot remains unquestionable.
As I have mentioned, this change is long overdue. I am pleased we are the Government to finally introduce legislation to modernise these processes. I believe I have answered all the questions, and I look forward to the Committee’s support for the draft order and the associated draft code of practice.
Question put.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kate Dearden Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The Employment Rights Act 2025 is bringing employment rights into the 21st century, with phased implementation to give businesses and workers, including those in Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, time to get ready and understand their new rights at work. We have already repealed burdensome trade union legislation, strengthened statutory sick pay, introduced day one paternity leave rights and launched the Fair Work Agency. We continue to consult on measures such as zero-hours contracts and non-disclosure agreements to get the details right. Further changes will happen in October, including trade union reform and better protection from sexual harassment.
Katrina Murray
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as co-chair of the Unison group of Labour MPs. For too long, many workers have been expected to keep themselves available for work without any certainty over the hours or income that they would receive. The right to guaranteed hours was designed to change that. As those provisions are implemented, what practical difference does the Minister expect they will make to working people across the country?
Kate Dearden
Through the right to guaranteed hours, we are tackling one-sided flexibility. Qualifying workers are offered contracts that better reflect their hours, and they can then plan their lives and finances. Over 1.2 million people work on a zero-hours contract, and research published by the Living Wage Foundation in 2022 found that 87% of zero-hours workers said that they want more hours in their contract. My hon. Friend will understand the terrible consequences and the impact that not knowing their regular hours or how much they will earn that month can have on people’s lives, including the severe impacts of not being able to feed their kids or know whether they can pay their bills. We are working to get the details right and to get businesses, workers and trade unions to engage in our recent consultation so that we can achieve both flexibility and security.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Government’s impact assessment puts the costs of the Employment Rights Act at up to £5 billion, which will hit small and medium-sized businesses since they lack the human resources teams and the expertise to absorb the additional burdens. What advice does the Minister give to small and medium-sized businesses in my Mid Leicestershire constituency on how they should deal with that?
Kate Dearden
The hon. Member might not have read the updated impact assessment, which significantly lowered that amount, following the passing of the Employment Rights Act towards the end of last year, to £1 billion. On supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, we want to work closely with them because many across the country are already doing lots of the things that are in the Employment Rights Act. They also understand that treating their workers fairly benefits their business and makes the economy grow. I am grateful to the small and medium-sized businesses that I have worked with and which fed directly into the details of the Act. I want to work closely with them to understand the impacts and where we can get this right, and to work on the details. I thank them for their engagement, and I look forward to continuing to work with them.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Today, we Conservatives have launched a campaign to save the summer job. Employment rights do not help young people if they cannot get a first experience of work, and they are trapped in a Catch-22 situation of needing experience to get work but not being able to get any during their education years. Young people say it, businesses say it and Alan Milburn, the former Labour Minister, says it. Will the Government now back our plans to save the summer job, cut employment red tape, support seasonal working and lower taxes?
Kate Dearden
The Opposition’s suggestion of getting 13-year-olds to work later hours on a Sunday is simply not serious. What is serious is the review that we have conducted with Alan Milburn on how we can get more young people into employment. We recognise the challenge, and that is why it is an important priority for us. We inherited a situation in which nearly a million young people were not in employment, education or training. That increased by 250,000 before the general election, and the Conservatives did absolutely nothing about it. Young people written off by a legacy of rising youth inactivity and declining apprenticeship jobs. That is why we are serious about this. I appreciate and welcome Alan Milburn’s review, which is detailing how we can improve the situation. He has looked at the challenges that we are facing and laid bare the scale of them. We have already taken action to help young people by bringing forward the biggest youth employment reforms to create 500,000 opportunities for young people through our £2.5 billion youth guarantee, and we will continue to do more.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Research by the British Retail Consortium found that over two thirds of part-time workers in the retail sector took the role because they needed flexibility around educational and caring commitments. The number of young people not in employment, education or training is over 1 million. Liberal Democrats repeatedly warned that Labour’s jobs tax would hammer job opportunities for young people and that its business rates hikes would kill off opportunities on the high street, which gives so many young people their first job. As they implement the Employment Rights Act, which will introduce some welcome measures for employees, how will the Government ensure that this is not yet another burden that prevents businesses from being able to provide entry-level and flexible jobs?
Kate Dearden
I am glad that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson welcomes parts of the legislation, but I wish she would not repeat lines from the Conservatives, who broke our economy and destroyed our labour market. That is why the Act is so important: it will fix problems, particularly the problem of people being in insecure work, which does not grow our economy and will not provide the stability that we need.
I thank the hon. Lady for mentioning flexibility. The problem occurs when flexibility is one-sided and workers bear all the financial risks. That is why, as part of our consultations, particularly on zero-hours contracts, we want to get flexibility and security right, so that we can rebalance them. We are working closely with employers, including in the retail sector, to understand how best to get that balance right, so that it benefits workers and businesses, too.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The Department has not provided guidance on that matter. Fees relating to the accreditation and monitoring of alternative dispute resolution providers have not risen since 2015, and have been significantly eroded by the impact of rising costs. The intention behind the new fee structure is to ensure that, over time, fees are commensurate with the costs of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute performing the relevant functions to the required standards, that they are predictable for ADR providers, and that they provide costs recovery for the CTSI.
Alison Bennett
I thank the Minister for that response. Caroline from Lindfield owns a small business that provides arbitration services. Since the introduction of the one-size-fits-all fees set down earlier this year, her business model and that of so many other small ADR providers has become nigh on impossible to sustain. Has the Minister considered the impact on the sector from the fee changes? Can she explain why no impact assessment has been done? In particular, has she received feedback from trading standards since the legislation came into force?
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. A well functioning ADR system makes markets work more effectively and drives economic growth. We are committed to ensuring that consumers and businesses are able to resolve disputes early, which helps to raise consumer confidence and compliance rates. We acknowledge that there will be a period of adjustment as the new fee structure beds in, and in the autumn we will conduct a review to assess whether the fee structure should be amended further. We recognise the importance of ensuring that charges are fair and proportional for all ADR providers and the CTSI as the competent authority.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued advocacy for young adult carers. I have been honoured to visit Carers Count Calderdale in my own constituency of Halifax, and I know about the important and vital support that incredible unpaid carers across the country are providing to their loved ones. We are reviewing the employment rights available to them, including through a public consultation that launched last month and which is currently open for views. We are considering the merits of additional support, including paid leave, improved guidance and a right to return, while remaining mindful of any potential impacts on businesses.
Chris Vince
I thank the Minister for her commitment to unpaid carers. I speak to unpaid carers across my constituency all the time, and I personally thank them for all that they do in caring for loved ones and in the wider community. However, so many unpaid carers I speak to tell me that they struggle to hold down a job, and many of them have had to give up really important careers. I absolutely welcome the Government’s commitment to a review, which has the potential to be absolutely transformative, but does the Minister agree that we must continue to support unpaid carers in Harlow and beyond?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the vital contribution that unpaid carers make to their loved ones and their communities, and the experiences of families in his constituency reflect the challenges faced by unpaid carers across the country. We want to ensure that carers can remain in work and fulfil their potential. Through our review, we will ensure that we are backing our unpaid carers to balance work and care, as well as the employers who support them in the workplace.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
It was a pleasure to hear the hon. Member’s contribution in the recent Westminster Hall debate on seasonal hospitality businesses, including those in his constituency. We are delivering permanently lower business rate multipliers for more than 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties. That is backed by a £4.3 billion support package over three years, which includes transitional relief to protect businesses from large bill increases following the re-evaluation. We have increased the hospitality support fund to £10 million over three years, building on the previous scheme, to support larger, longer-term projects. I am committed to working in partnership with industry and across Government to support growth and resilience, including through targeted support measures and engagement, such as with the Hospitality Sector Council.
Andrew George
As welcome as that is, and I am not crying wolf, the hospitality sector faces a very high risk of substantial business failure in the next 12 months as a result of the tax burdens that it has to face simply for attempting to survive, rather than a tax burden to help it succeed—in other words, shifting from VAT and business rates to corporation tax. Will the Minister look again at this issue before real catastrophe comes to the sector? Will she talk to Treasury Ministers and find a way out of this extremely serious situation?
Kate Dearden
Unfortunately, we inherited an absolutely dire situation from the Conservatives when they left office. They left deep scars on our economy from a decade of stagnant growth. We know that hospitality thrives when our economy grows, wages rise and people have money to spend, which is why we are absolutely committed to supporting businesses and working closely with them. The hon. Member will know that the Government need to consider a wide range of factors when introducing new tax reliefs, such as whether they support wider Government objectives. He will also know that the Government keep all taxes under review as part of the policymaking process, and the Chancellor will announce any changes to the tax system at fiscal events in the usual way.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
The Northampton-based McManus Pub Company runs 18 pubs and employs 370 people. I spoke to Tom McManus yesterday, who told me that successive Governments have ignored hospitality and that in the past five years business costs have made it harder for him to turn a profit. Tom has asked me to lobby the Government to cut VAT to 10%. What message does the Minister have for family businesses such as Tom’s?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, for raising the preferences of businesses in his constituency and for his continued engagement on this issue on behalf of his constituents. He will know of the recent announcements on the temporary great British summer savings scheme, which will reduce VAT from 20% to 5% on selected hospitality activities between June and September. He will also know that we keep all taxes under review. He should say to his constituents, and particularly to his businesses and pubs, that we are absolutely committed to working with the industry and the sector to support them to thrive. They are vital to our local communities, people and jobs, and I know that he knows that too.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Harry Kane’s heroics last night mean that many England fans are looking forward to an early morning or a late night on Monday, depending on one’s perspective. That is a good thing, but pubs risk missing out on a real opportunity to get more money into the till if Ministers do not make a blanket extension to licensing hours. Will Ministers consider that with their colleagues in other Departments so that fans can enjoy the game in the pub?
Kate Dearden
I pay tribute in this House to the incredible Harry Kane, our captain, for his performance last night—he calmed my blood pressure—and we will be championing the boys on Sunday. The hon. Gentleman will know that pubs can stay open for an extra two or three hours depending on how late the match starts, so that they can still be open when the game finishes. Unfortunately that does not apply to Sunday, given the 1 am start, but going forward we are backing our pubs so that people can watch and support our lads. It’s coming home, hopefully.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Titanic Brewery, based in Stoke-on-Trent, makes a fabulous pint—I highly recommend the plum porter. However, the Minister will know that as an independent brewery, access to market is quite difficult because of the way that tied pubs insist that landlords buy their products. Could the Minister make an announcement before the summer recess on the access to market scheme, and in particular the guest beer arrangement that would allow 1,500 SMEs access to market? It would not cost the Government anything, and the Minister could find that lots of people raise a pint to her over the summer.
Kate Dearden
I sincerely thank my hon. Friend for his continued engagement—I know how important the issue of market access for our breweries is to him. I was delighted to meet him and colleagues across this House recently, and I look forward to continuing to engage and work with them as the Government consider the evidence ahead of any announcements.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The hospitality sector remains a major UK employer. It supported around 2.1 million jobs last year, or around 6% of total employment. Employment has grown by over 18% in the past decade, and although growth has stabilised more recently, that follows a period of strong expansion, reflecting the sector’s continued importance to local economies and youth employment. I know myself how vital the sector is for first jobs—my first job was in a café, and that opportunity gave me the skills to go on and succeed in my career. We are supporting jobs through skills investment, including new hospitality apprenticeships, incentives for SMEs to recruit young people, and sector-based work academy programmes to help people into work.
John Glen
I thank the Minister for her answer and the positive news about the sector apprenticeships. Hospitality is critical in Salisbury as we move towards our 800-year celebration next year, but last summer there was a 25% drop in temporary work in the sector, and the cost of employer national insurance contributions for part-time workers in the sector—those working 15 hours—increased by 73%. I say respectfully to the Minister that I recognise that tough decisions have to be made in the Treasury; I was there for seven years, and was part of those decisions. However, this sector is under real strain, and part-time jobs for the youngest workers are not there at the moment. Something quite significant needs to change in the Government’s approach.
Kate Dearden
I thank the right hon. Member for raising the vital role that the hospitality sector plays in providing those first jobs and opportunities for people. I work closely with hospitality businesses, and I am really keen to continue to listen to them, to understand the challenges they face. I know that the right hon. Member will welcome our youth jobs grant, which was launched this week and is open for applications—that was welcomed by the chief executive of UKHospitality. We want to keep working with those businesses, and I thank them for their engagement so far on how we can continue to support them to crack on with the brilliant opportunities they provide in communities across the country.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The UK was the fastest growing G7 economy in quarter 1 of this year, and we know that we will only achieve a thriving economy once people have a wage they can count on. We want to grow our economy with people in secure work. That is why we are giving greater certainty to more than half the UK’s workforce through our Employment Rights Act 2025 and putting more money in their pockets. External analysis by world-leading experts shows that the Act could increase employment, and our impact assessment shows that it will benefit more than 18 million workers across the country.
Joy Morrissey
The Employment Rights Act, the minimum wage and national insurance contributions are all making it difficult for employers to keep taking on new employees, or even to keep them at all. What advice does the Minister have for small business owners in Beaconsfield and Marlow having to make the difficult decision to either cut jobs or close their businesses thanks to this Government?
Kate Dearden
We are focused on fixing the issues in our labour market that the Conservatives neglected: poor working conditions, insecure work, inequality, the undercutting of good employers in brilliant SMEs, and the bad industrial relations that we inherited. Since July, real wages have grown. We have the third highest employment rate in the G7, and we are focused on backing our brilliant SMEs. They are the backbone of the community. I come from a small business family, and it provided me with that first job and opportunity. We want to get more people into work and to work with our SMEs, so that we can build that thriving economy where people have a wage so that they can get on.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are working closely with various stakeholders to ensure that workers understand and claim their new rights under the Employment Rights Act. I know how vital trade unions are not just to organising, but to educating workers on their rights at work. I am so proud that they have been instrumental to development and implementation of these rights, and we look forward to continuing to working with them closely.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
In Aberdeen South, there is a jobs emergency, with 1,000 jobs a month being lost from the oil and gas sector. So will the Government ditch their damaging policies that are destroying the oil and gas industry and destroying jobs in Aberdeen South?
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The owner of Palace Cycles recently told me that while explaining to a customer that he would not service the illegally modified e-bike that had been brought into his shop, the bike shot across the shop of its own accord. When will the Government regulate to ban the sale of dodgy, illegal, unsafe e-bikes and the kits that create them?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for her constant campaigning on this issue. I know how important it is and, I value working closely with her. Businesses producing or supplying those products must ensure that they are safe before they are placed on the market, including online marketplaces. Businesses should not supply products they know—or should know—are unsafe. My hon. Friend knows that taking action includes regulatory action. We work alongside other Departments on this, and our recent consultation looked at how we can go even further to ensure that products are safe.
Employment Rights Act 2025: Implementation
Kate Dearden Excerpts(4 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 UK Government are today announcing further progress in the implementation of their landmark Employment Rights Act 2025, as part of the plan to make work pay. This update includes the launch of a public consultation on holiday pay compliance and enforcement, and three Government responses—detriments for workers taking industrial action, electronic balloting, and tipping. Further detail on each is provided in this statement.
As laid out in the “Implementing the Employment Rights” publication, 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. The implementation of the Employment Rights Act is a vital step towards doing this, creating the best environment for doing business, maximising job security to raise productivity, improve skills and cut the costs of staff turnover. Meanwhile, offering opportunity and security for working people requires profitable businesses that are supported to invest and grow.
The Government have committed to delivering this change in partnership with businesses, trade unions, public sector employers, and civil society. That is why we are undertaking full and comprehensive consultation with these groups on key changes. By delivering this change together, we are backing businesses that do the right thing and giving hard-working people the job security and opportunities that they deserve.
Consultation 1: Holiday Pay Compliance and Enforcement
The Employment Rights Act enables the expansion of state enforcement to a wider range of pay rights, including holiday pay. The Government want to build a compliance and enforcement framework that is fair, proportionate and effective for both workers and employers. As a part of our framework, the right to holiday pay will, for the first time, be backed by state enforcement, with the Fair Work Agency promoting compliance, investigating non-compliance and taking enforcement action where employers fail to meet their obligations.
The Government will be consulting on the proposed approach to enforcing holiday pay from 2027, as well as consulting on a number of important design features and how the Fair Work Agency can support employers to comply with their obligations.
This consultation will be open for 12 weeks, closing on 22 September 2026.
Government Response 1: Detriments for workers taking industrial action
The Government believe that industrial relations should be conducted with integrity, fairness and mutual respect. Although it should always be treated as a last resort, if workers do choose to express their collective voice through industrial action, it is important that they are treated fairly and respectfully.
The Employment Rights Act introduced new legislation that provided protection for workers from detriments that employers might enact to penalise, prevent or deter them from taking industrial action. This legislation gave the Government the power to introduce secondary legislation to either prohibit all detriments, the Government’s lead option, or to create a prescribed list of prohibited detriments. A consultation ran between 26 February and 23 April seeking stakeholder views on these two options.
The Government response, published on 23 June, sets out that following this consultation the Government will be introducing regulations, coming into force in October 2026, that will ban all detriments and enable awards to be adjusted by up to 25%.
Government Response 2: E-balloting
The Government have been clear that trade union law must be brought into the 21st century. Under current legislation, almost all trade union statutory ballots must be conducted solely by post, which is outdated and risks limiting participation. We are therefore introducing electronic and workplace balloting for certain statutory trade union ballots in a phased approach. In this first phase, electronic balloting will be permitted for all ballots except statutory recognition and de-recognition ballots, while workplace balloting will be extended to industrial action ballots. This will make participation easier and will align with modern voting practices already used widely across political parties and listed companies, supporting the commitment we set out in our plan to make work pay.
To support the introduction of these new voting methods, we are also issuing a new statutory code of practice. The code will provide clear and detailed guidance on how electronic and workplace ballots should be conducted, giving all parties confidence that union ballots are carried out to a high standard.
A consultation on a draft of the code ran from 19 November 2025 to 28 January 2026, seeking views from employers, trade unions, scrutineers and workers to ensure that the guidance is clear, balanced and workable in practice.
The Government response to this consultation, published on 22 June, outlines the changes made to the draft code in the light of the feedback received. At the same time, the updated draft code of practice has been laid in Parliament alongside the necessary secondary legislation to enable electronic and workplace balloting. Both the code and the legislation will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and will come into effect following approval by both Houses.
Government Response 3: Tipping
The Employment Rights Act strengthens the law, adding a requirement that employers must consult with their workers—if possible, via trade union or other elected workplace representatives—when developing or reviewing their written policy on tipping.
The Government ran a public consultation between 5 February and 1 April. We sought views from stakeholders about how best to implement the new requirements, to support worker participation in the distribution of tips, and enhance the voices of workers. We also sought views about any improvements to the existing statutory code of practice on fair and transparent distribution of tips, to ensure that it remains clear, helpful and effective for workers and employers.
The Government response sets out the feedback received during the consultation, and the changes to be made to the statutory code of practice. The new measures are expected to come into effect in October 2026.
Next steps for consultation
The Government continue to work in collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders to implement their reforms to workers’ rights at pace. Continued engagement with employer and worker representatives is critical to shaping the practical implementation of these plans, helping the Government to deliver reforms that are both effective and inclusive. The Government will continue to keep Parliament updated on the implementation of the Employment Rights Act and the plan to make work pay.
A further package of consultations and Government responses, to follow over the coming weeks, is expected to include a consultation on a new code of practice for fire and rehire, as well as Government responses regarding fire and rehire regulations, trade union access, trade union recognition, and a duty to inform.
[HCWS158]
Draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026
Kate Dearden Excerpts(4 weeks 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 Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. This statutory instrument was laid before the House on 1 June 2026. I will begin by setting out the background. The instrument concerns machinery, which includes a wide range of workplace and consumer products such as cranes, excavators, leaf blowers and lawn mowers. The current framework for machinery safety is, like many other product regulations, based on EU rules that were assimilated into UK law following our departure from the European Union.
The current EU directive and our UK regulations were first introduced in 2006 and 2008, respectively. Members will appreciate that machinery has adapted and advanced significantly in that time. As such, it is important that we review our legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose and accounts for potential risks from new and emerging technologies, as well as changes in supply chains and how they operate.
I will now explain in more detail how the instrument meets its purpose. It has two functions: first, it ensures that updated EU machinery legislation can be fully enforced in Northern Ireland, as required under the Windsor framework; and secondly, it amends domestic legislation so that machinery that meets the updated EU requirements can continue to be placed on the market in Great Britain.
The SI will introduce mechanisms to allow the EU’s new machinery regulation to be enforced effectively in Northern Ireland. The EU has updated its machinery rules through a new regulation that will apply from 20 January 2027, when it will replace the existing directive. The SI will give full effect to the machinery regulation in Northern Ireland by establishing a robust enforcement framework. It designates enforcement bodies, including the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland and district councils, and makes it an offence to fail to comply with obligations under the regulation.
The instrument also provides for appropriate penalties, including fines and custodial sentences. This ensures that effective enforcement action can be taken where products are non-compliant. I reassure Members that the Northern Ireland Department of Justice has confirmed that the measures will not have a detrimental impact on the criminal justice system. In the vast majority of cases, compliance should be achieved through engagement and support for businesses rather than recourse to criminal sanctions. However, it is essential that penalties are available in serious cases of non-compliance.
The instrument also provides for the continued role of UK-notified bodies in certifying machinery for the Northern Ireland market using the UKNI marking, a conformity marking that must be displayed alongside the CE marking when used for goods placed on the Northern Ireland market.
In Great Britain, the instrument continues CE recognition, allowing businesses to place on the GB market goods that meet certain updated EU requirements, avoiding costly duplicate conformity processes. It achieves that by amending legislation to ensure that machinery that meets the relevant requirements of the EU machinery regulation can still be placed on the GB market. The instrument also includes provisions relating to Northern Ireland qualifying goods, ensuring that products in free circulation in Northern Ireland continue to benefit from unfettered access to the GB market.
The EU’s machinery regulation aims to respond to new technological developments by introducing updated provisions that include clarified responsibilities across the supply chain, including clear importer and distributor obligations; provisions for digital documentation to reduce environmental impacts; and mandatory third-party assessments for certain high-risk products. The Government’s position is that those changes are beneficial, sensible and proportionate, and reflect how the machinery industry has developed since the previous regulations were introduced. As such, the Government will introduce a second SI in due course that will update legislation in Great Britain in line with requirements in Northern Ireland.
The approach we are taking will support economic growth by eliminating costly duplicative processes, reducing unnecessary burdens on businesses, and helping to maintain the UK’s competitiveness with other markets. It will also support commitments in our trade strategy to reset the UK’s relationship and facilitate easier trade with the EU. It will protect the UK internal market and the free flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while also improving trade with the EU and other partners.
My officials have carried out extensive stakeholder engagement regarding the future of machinery legislation in the UK. We ran a call for evidence last year and gathered verbal feedback through a series of roundtable events held across 10 locations and attended by more than 200 stakeholders. My officials engaged with businesses and trade associations across the UK and in key global markets. Stakeholders were supportive of modernising machinery safety requirements and continuing CE recognition, to reduce costs, support trade and maintain competitiveness.
We received several responses from businesses in Northern Ireland and held two roundtable events in Belfast. There was broad support among stakeholders for the measures being introduced, including those to modernise and strengthen safety requirements. Many Northern Ireland stakeholders also expressed support for continued CE recognition in Great Britain. They told us this would ensure a clear and consistent approach to machinery regulation across the whole of the UK internal market.
As the Committee is aware, we have already announced our approach in respect of introducing measures similar to those in place in the EU and Northern Ireland. Officials have also proactively engaged with the devolved Governments and enforcement authorities throughout the policy development and legislative process to discuss the upcoming changes and ensure they work for all parts of the UK. No significant issues have been raised with my officials, and we continue to engage regularly with stakeholders. It is clear from our engagement that this legislation is in the best interests of both industry and consumers across the UK, including in Northern Ireland.
The Government are taking proactive steps to ensure that industry is well supported in complying with the new requirements. The approach we are taking reflects the feedback we have received from stakeholders and is designed to work in the best interests of business as well as consumers. The changes have been widely viewed as a pragmatic solution to support competitiveness, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises and sectors with more limited resources. As machinery is a global sector, many businesses that manufacture and supply machinery have already begun preparing to meet the updated requirements to continue trading with Northern Ireland and the EU. Through our engagement with industry, officials have not identified significant adverse impacts arising from the instrument.
The Government remain fully committed to supporting businesses in Northern Ireland. In the most recent Budget, we announced a £16.6 million UK internal market package to help businesses to adapt to the evolving regulatory landscape. We will also provide clear and timely guidance to give businesses the support they need to comply with the requirements with confidence and certainty. I commend the draft instrument to the Committee.
Kate Dearden
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their consideration of the draft regulations and their contributions to the debate. They raised a significant number of issues that I will pick up on in my response.
First, on our product regulation legislation, since getting into Government we have legislated for the flexibility to ensure that product regulation, now and in future, is tailored to the needs of the UK. There will be some instances where we will take our own approach and some instances where we will want to take a similar approach to the EU. However, we have done that, and will continue to do that, on a case-by-case basis, where it is absolutely in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers and in our national interests.
The arrangements under the Windsor framework are a settled and important part of UK law, agreed by Parliament to protect the UK internal market. We have made the sovereign decision that is right for the whole of the UK to improve safety and modernise in particular machinery legislation, which we are discussing today, to reduce duplicative and costly burdens on businesses and ensure that there is no friction with the UK internal market. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, our approach is supported by the overwhelming majority of stakeholders.
This SI does not implement EU law in Great Britain; it does, however, continue CE recognition in Great Britain so that products that meet the new EU requirements can be placed on the GB market. That is not a new concept, but the continuation of current Government policy and the policy of prior Governments. The UK and the EU are strategic partners, and it is in our mutual interest to maintain trade flows and avoid trade friction, while responding to emerging technologies and maintaining a commitment to product safety and consumer protection. Mutual transparency and regular discussions are an indispensable part of that.
Informed by our engagement with industry, the Government have reviewed the changes introduced by the machinery regulation, and we believe that they are sensible and proportionate and will ensure that safer products are available to consumers and businesses alike. That is why we are continuing CE recognition and seeking to introduce similar measures in GB. As I have said before, we are prepared to align with EU regulation, but we will take a pragmatic, case-by-case approach, doing it where it clearly advances the national interests, supports long-term growth, promotes consumer interests, attracts investment and supports jobs. Where that is not the case, we will take a different approach to deliver the best outcomes for businesses and consumers in the UK.
At the centre of any long-term plans for the alignment between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we will maintain the integrity of the UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s rightful place within it. My officials engage with the Northern Ireland Government and enforcement authorities on a regular basis to discuss any issues or concerns they might have, and that close relationship will remain ongoing. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire mentioned Northern Ireland businesses and dual labelling, and I thank him for raising that. The answer is no: they can continue to CE mark only, and UKNI marking is optional if the conformity assessment is in the UK.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, and a number of Members on the Opposition Benches, mentioned the impact assessment for this SI. As she knows, a de minimis assessment has been prepared for the provisions of this instrument relating to continuing CE recognition in Great Britain. These measures are considered to have a low impact per business from their introduction, and that is additionally the case for the Northern Ireland aspects of this instrument. The measures resulting from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are out of scope of the assessment. The Windsor framework is already given effect in legislation through the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement Act) 2020, which adds provisions and powers to the 2018 Act.
Kit Malthouse
I am finding it hard to understand how the Minister can claim that there will be no impact on businesses in Northern Ireland. To give a practical example, many production lines nowadays have built-in AI safety monitoring systems. At the moment, companies in manufacturing have to certify that AI against a national standard, and they can self-certify. As I understand it, the EU regulations around AI and cyber-security would mean moving to a notified body certification system. If I had a production line, I would have to go out and find a recognised body to come in and independently certify the software behind the safety system in my manufacturing line as compliant. That has to be an extra cost—how can going from self-certification to external certification by an outside body not have a significant impact? As far as I can see, these regulations are riddled with those kinds of changes, which must impose a significant cumulative burden.
Kate Dearden
The right hon. Gentleman rightly raises AI and cyber-security as part of our considerations. That is why it is so important that we keep up to date with technological developments and the impact on machinery. The EU’s machinery regulations, as he says, include provisions on software and AI to ensure that those new technologies do not affect the safe functioning of machinery. We are also working with the EU to ensure that the changes in Northern Ireland are compatible with wider product safety and regulatory reforms, including cross-cutting legislation on AI and cyber-security.
Overall, we expect the instrument to benefit Northern Ireland. We have extensively engaged with stakeholders in Northern Ireland, and SMEs in particular have indicated that it significantly helps in terms of resources—that is from our direct engagement with those businesses and the feedback we have received. It is a key consideration for businesses that they will be able to continue to benefit from dual access to both EU and UK markets. As we work towards introducing similar measures in Great Britain, continuing CE recognition and ensuring that the same machinery products can be placed on the market across the whole of the UK without unnecessary duplication of testing and administrative process will be absolutely vital.
The shadow Minister asked about the numbers of businesses involved. We estimate that around 230 businesses in Northern Ireland and 5,380 in Great Britain are in scope of the machinery legislation. She also referenced the £16.6 million of funding that I mentioned in my opening remarks. Funding was allocated in the Budget to deliver an enhanced “one-stop shop” advice service for small businesses beyond what is available on gov.uk, along with the new funding for Intertrade UK, and that commitment will be delivered in the course of the next financial year. The project has moved into a phase of more active engagement, with robust interest from stakeholders. Formal co-design workshops are ongoing to refine the service specification and ensure that the delivery model meets business needs.
I have briefly touched on the implementation of similar measures in Great Britain. My officials have already begun actively developing a further SI to modernise GB machinery regulation, which will ensure that the UK framework remains proportionate and aligned with the technological developments raised numerous times throughout this debate. Announcements about implementing similar measures have already been made, to provide businesses with the certainty that the shadow Minister also asked about.
The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire referenced enforcement and parliamentary scrutiny. The day-to-day enforcement of product safety legislation is largely local. For machinery in Northern Ireland, it would generally be undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland or by district councils, for workplace and consumer products respectively. However, the Secretary of State has enforcement powers under legislation, as the Office for Product Safety and Standards has an active enforcement role on behalf of the Secretary of State, particularly where issues are nationally significant, complex, novel, high risk or large scale. For example, the OPSS can intervene where a product risk affects consumers nationally or where co-ordinated enforcement action is needed across multiple agencies. I hope the right hon. Gentleman understands that enforcement will remain as it is under the current regime and that nothing will change; I hope that reassures him and answers his question.
When it comes to parliamentary scrutiny of CE recognition under the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025, we have consulted with stakeholders, and Northern Ireland provisions are done as part of the Windsor framework, which I touched on right at the start of my remarks. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the parliamentary process uses the affirmative procedure.
To conclude, we are using the PRAM Act powers, as I have mentioned, for CE recognition, which requires consultation with stakeholders. UKNI marking will only be used by a UK notified body; otherwise, it will be a CE mark only. We have heard that from businesses in Northern Ireland through that stakeholder engagement, and that is what they have told us.
As explained previously, this draft instrument ensures the effective enforcement of the EU machinery regulation in Northern Ireland. It maintains access to the GB market for compliant products and supports high safety standards while minimising unnecessary burdens on business. This draft instrument also ensures our compliance with international law in relation to Northern Ireland’s continuing dual access. I am pleased to commend this draft instrument to the Committee.
Jim Allister
Will the Minister address my question about what impact, if any, there is on GB-Northern Ireland sales?
Draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026
Draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026
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 Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026.
Kate Dearden
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. These two instruments, alongside the amendments made by the Employment Rights Act 2025, extend the time limit for presenting claims to the employment tribunal from three months to six months across the majority of employment rights. The draft regulations apply to Great Britain, while the draft order applies to England and Wales. The changes will help to create a framework that is more consistent and accessible, and better aligned with the realities faced by workers and employers. I recognise that Members will be rightly concerned about the capacity of the employment tribunal and the wider dispute resolution system to adapt to this change, given the growing caseload. However, I make it clear that we fully understand the challenges and are already working on reforms focusing on making the system more effective, efficient and resilient.
The dispute resolution system taskforce was set up by the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice last year. It comprises representatives from business, trade unions, legal organisations and third sector organisations. The taskforce is helping to inform our work to develop reform measures, which include short-term, targeted measures to reduce pressure on the system as well as forward-looking measures intended to increase the efficiency, effectiveness and resilience of the system. Those will follow a phased approach, with work on some measures currently under way. We will have further opportunities to discuss that work, but I will now turn to the two instruments on employment tribunal time limits.
The draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 are important because they ensure consistency with changes made by the Employment Rights Act and the current six-month time limit for statutory redundancy and equal pay claims. For many people, three months has proved to be a difficult window, and the short timeframe has led to rushed claims or, in some cases, people missing the opportunity to bring a claim altogether.
By moving to a six-month time limit, the regulations create a more realistic and fairer system that better reflects the realities people face, provides more time for disputes to be resolved without needing to go to an employment tribunal and supports fair access to justice. They give employees and employers more opportunity to engage with concerns early and, where possible, resolve disputes before they reach tribunal. The additional time, alongside the consistent approach to time limits across jurisdictions, will support employees to consider the merits of bringing a case to the employment tribunal, particularly in complex cases, as well as time to consider the legal costs and funding that may be required.
In practical terms, the regulations do this by updating a series of existing regulations so that the six-month time limit applies across a range of workplace rights that were not already amended by the ERA, including those relating to part-time workers, fixed-term employees, zero-hours workers, information and consultation and negotiating representatives, trade union blacklists and certain NHS-related protections. By bringing those time limits into line with a single six-month timeframe, the regulations support a clear and straightforward process.
The commencement date for the change is 1 October 2026. The new six-month limit will apply only to claims where the problem at work occurred on or after 1 October 2026. Any claims based on earlier events will continue under the current three-month time limit. That approach provides clarity and avoids disruption for cases already in progress.
The draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 extends the time limit for bringing breach of employment contract claims by employees from three months to six months in England and Wales. The new time limit will apply only where the relevant employment contract is terminated on or after 1 October 2026. Claims relating to contracts terminating on earlier dates will continue under the current three-month time limit. The change ensures consistency by aligning breach of employment contract claims with the extended employment tribunal time limits introduced by the Employment Rights Act. The instrument applies to claims of this nature in England and Wales only and does not extend to Scotland, as the power to change the parallel Scottish legislation, the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994, lies with Scottish Ministers and not the UK Government. We are working closely with the Scottish Government so that the change will also be made in the parallel Scottish legislation. However, in relation to Scotland, the change is expected to take effect in mid-November. We will provide clear guidance to ensure that those based in Scotland are aware of this temporary discrepancy in the time limit for breach of employment contract claims.
Taken together, these instruments represent a sensible step forward by aligning with the changes to employment tribunal time limits in the Employment Rights Act. By creating a more realistic timeframe, improving consistency and supporting better-prepared claims, they help deliver a fairer and more workable system for all.
I commend the regulations and the order to the Committee.
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton for a brilliant and well-made speech about why this legislation is so important.
Unfortunately, the shadow Minister conveniently missed out a couple of statistics in his opening remarks. I will start with the first one. Going back to historical statistics on the previous Government’s inability to fix and appropriately resource our employment tribunal, if we look at 2017 and 2018, the percentage increase year on year of the number of outstanding single cases reached a shocking 89%. From 2008 to 2018, the average time from receipt of a claim to the first hearing was stable at around 30 weeks. That increased to 49 weeks by early 2021. If we look at the stats published in 2023, employment tribunal delays had increased by 60% since 2010 due to resource shortages. I certainly do not want to go back to those targets, nor commit to them here today.
These measures are absolutely necessary because they recognise the reality that many people need more time to understand what has happened to them, seek advice and prepare their claim properly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton outlined. By creating a more realistic timeframe, they will reduce the risk of a rushed or missed claim and support fair access to justice. At the same time, they will give employers greater opportunity to engage early to resolve concerns and avoid unnecessary employment tribunal claims.
The shadow Minister also asked what other work the Government have planned. I am sure he will welcome this update. He heard me refer to the dispute resolution system taskforce, which actually met this afternoon to progress that work at pace. I thank all members of the taskforce for their commitment and engagement so far to consider that longer-term reform. We are considering reform measures, from early resolution to enforcement, to ensure that the system is more efficient and resilient, and to make up for the lack of resource we saw under the previous Government.
In the shorter term, we are continuing to invest in recruitment to build employment tribunal capacity. New salaried employment judges will be sitting from this summer, and recruitment is under way for up to 55 employment judges, who will add capacity from 2027. Recruitment for up to 150 non-legal members will also conclude this year, which I am sure the shadow Minister will welcome.
The Government are also actively improving efficiency and productivity, including through virtual hearings to enable judges to hear cases remotely. Where local shortages arise, we are deploying legal officers to optimise limited judicial resource and centralised telephone support so that litigants get a consistently good service and so that tribunal staff can focus on case progression. We are also rolling out digital systems and piloting AI transcription to support employment tribunal performance.
We have talked about the impact of this legislation and why it is so important. Businesses will benefit from the increased time in which workplace procedures and conciliation can be completed. That creates an opportunity for disputes to be resolved before they even reach the employment tribunal, potentially reducing pressure on the employment tribunal system in turn.
The shadow Minister knows that we published an impact assessment setting out the impacts on both employers and employees. Although we expect that more claims could be brought to the employment tribunal, as he alluded to, he unfortunately missed out that the six-month time limit will give employers and employees longer to resolve disputes without needing to go to tribunal. We expect that the additional time to submit a claim will result in fewer claims being submitted late, thereby saving judicial time by reducing the resource spent on considering time limit extensions. It would have been good of the shadow Minister to reflect on that latter part, too.
Just as importantly, the instruments will bring greater consistency across the system, aligning time limits and making the process clearer and easier to navigate for everyone involved. These are measured reforms. They will ensure that the system works better in practice by being clearer, fairer and more effective. I therefore commend the statutory instruments to the Committee.
Question put.
Human Rights: Supply Chains
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I join hon. Members in thanking you for chairing today’s debate at short notice.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing a debate on this deeply important subject. He made some excellent points, particularly about how fundamental supply chain resilience is to our economic security, and the importance of the public sector procurement regime to ensuring that public bodies do not inadvertently support international labour and humanitarian abuses. He and the other Members here today continue to be excellent and thoughtful advocates on these matters, and I thank all colleagues for their important contributions.
Human rights are just that: they are fundamental, and they exist to protect us all. Infractions cannot be ignored or dismissed simply because they occurred far enough back in a supply chain for us to feel insulated and not responsible for supporting exploitative practices. Never has this issue been more important now that more than 70% of global trade runs through complex global supply chains. Although globalisation has driven productivity, innovation and technological advances that have lifted billions out of poverty and created the life that we depend on, it has also made supply chains more complex and opaque and has reduced the transparency and accountability that consumers, retailers and the Government need to protect workers and the natural world from exploitation.
Members have rightly drawn attention to the egregious human rights abuses that come with forced labour. In 2026, more than 27 million people remain in the shackles of modern slavery across all six inhabited continents, often enduring imprisonment, abuse and coercion, and being exploited for profit. As we approach the 200th anniversary of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which abolished slavery in much of the British empire, it is right that I reaffirm this Government’s commitment to tackling this vile practice, which continues to generate nearly £176 billion in illegal profits each year, in all its forms, including non-payment or underpayment of wages, excessive working hours and unsafe working conditions. There is also clear evidence of severe environmental harm in our global supply chains, as we lose the equivalent of 11 football pitches of tropical rainforest every minute, and threaten nearly 1 million animal and plant species with extinction.
As we have heard, the UK has a proud record of pioneering global advances to support human and workers’ rights. We put this issue on the international stage with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) spoke about. That legislation was world leading and crucial in solidifying our place as a global leader on this issue. For the first time, businesses were made to report how they tackled the modern slavery that might be present in their supply chains. However, as Members have rightly said, although the Modern Slavery Act was world leading at the time, it is now more than a decade old and in need of review if we are to tackle the many violations that still occur globally.
Although many UK businesses respect human rights and the environment throughout their supply chains, unethical international violations undercut the vast majority of UK businesses that support fair international supply chains. That will only increase as geopolitical, industrial and technological shocks continue to transform how and where goods are produced and extracted. That is why we must take a more strategic approach by working with our global allies and trading partners to secure forced labour provisions in our free trade agreements, and by using the developing countries trading scheme to suspend preferential trading arrangements on the ground of serious violation of labour rights.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green noted, I travelled last week to the 114th International Labour Conference in Geneva, where I met trade union delegations and labour and employment Ministers from across the world, alongside some of the most significant manufacturers, extractors and business hubs. This issue is close to my heart, and I worked closely on it before I was elected to this place. Last week, we talked a lot about the work we are proudly doing in Government on the Employment Rights Act and the domestic agenda, and I thank Members for raising that today. We are clear that a collaborative, holistic and cross-border approach is the only way to drive the change that exploited workers and environments need, alongside our recognition of other international transitions from voluntary to mandatory measures, such as human rights and environmental due diligence laws.
In the trade strategy, the Government underlined how responsible business conduct is a positive part of our mission to grow the economy, and we launched a review of our approach to responsible business, focusing on the global supply chains of businesses operating in the UK. It is an evidence-based review of our policy framework and alternative measures to enhance it, including mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence measures and forced labour bans. It naturally also considers the approaches of our international trading partners and the best way to promote a co-ordinated approach that minimises costs, consistent with the Government’s commitment to reduce the administrative costs of complying with regulation by 25% over the course of this Parliament.
So far, we have engaged with more than 200 organisations through the review, including businesses, investors, civil society, trade unions and academic institutions. We have learnt from international partners and met communities affected by supply chain harms. I heard many hon. Members stress the need for urgency today, and I reassure them that we will update Parliament on the review in due course. I thank Members for raising that pressing issue, and we will of course work closely with all those at the debate today.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Could we get a commitment today that the Government will look carefully at what countries that are well in advance of us, such as the United States and some European countries, are doing, to make sure that we urgently get on to resolving this issue, rather than delaying with another review and more debates? We know what needs to be done, and surely we can get on with it pretty quickly.
Kate Dearden
I thank the right hon. Member for that and his contributions today. I reassure him that we are working closely with the US on the review, updating the Americans on all the work we are doing and understanding their practices too. I will turn soon to the other important points he raised throughout the debate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) highlighted our work with the Treasury as part of this review, and I thank him for that. We are doing the review economy-wide, and as well as working with the Treasury, we have engaged with investors. We will of course keep him updated, as I know he is interested in—indeed, passionate about—this subject.
We took another key step in the trade strategy by launching the Office for Responsible Business Conduct to provide UK businesses, trade unions and charities with a simpler route to compliance, supporting the integration of responsible business practices and helping victims of corporate malpractice by providing a non-judicial grievance mechanism. Alongside the broader RBC review, we are considering how to strengthen the section 54 transparency regime, which lots of Members mentioned today—I thank them for it—including mandatory reporting requirements that extend to the public sector and penalties for non-compliance. We published updated statutory guidance on transparency in supply chains in March 2025, calling on businesses to go further and faster.
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), for his contribution today, his work in the Joint Committee on Human Rights and his engagement in and focus on this vital issue. I mentioned our work and relationship with the US. I hope that he is reassured by those comments and by our continued and regular engagement with the US Administration as part of our negotiations.
As a proudly internationalist and pro-worker Government, we have a responsibility to remain a world leader in tackling modern slavery, clearances and human rights abuses wherever they rear their ugly head. The Government stand firm on human rights, including in Xinjiang, where China continues to persecute and arbitrarily detain Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities. Lots of Members raised that, and I thank them for it. I hope they know that we raise these concerns with China at the highest levels. That was done recently by the Prime Minister himself and the former Foreign Secretary. We continue to co-ordinate efforts with our international partners to hold China to account—for example, by joining a UN statement in October 2024 and co-signing a joint statement with the US and others in November 2025.
I respect the work done by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and thank him for his consistency in raising this issue today and outside the House. He also spoke about GB Energy, as did the shadow Minister. As a publicly owned energy company, GB Energy is of course expected to demonstrate leading practice in complying with the UK modern slavery legislation and aligning with the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. We have established an ethical supply chain advisory group to review and inform GBE’s approach to ethical supply chains in its investments and operations; its chair is Baroness O’Grady. Representatives of my Department will serve on that group, and it meets for the first time next week, which I am sure the right hon. Member will welcome.
We must continue working with our international counterparts, and key stakeholders across the international trade union movement and business community to take action against those who illegally destroy families, communities and our natural world for profit. As Members have outlined, this action cannot be singular or a patchwork of separate policy decisions. Only co-ordinated, root-and-branch decisions will enable our constituents to know that they can trust that the T-shirt they are wearing, the bag they are carrying and the food they are eating did not arrive in our country at the expense of exploited people and areas thousands of miles away. Delivering that confidence for British people is good for business and good for growth, and re-cements our position as a world leader on these matters.
I again thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. We look forward to working closely with them on the review and more widely to ensure that we continue to focus on this issue, which is a priority for our Government. I will end, Mr Dowd, by wishing you a very happy birthday for Saturday and thanking you again for chairing the debate.
Employment Right Act Implementation: Unpaid Carers and Time off for Public Duties Consultations
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)
Once implemented, the Employment Rights Act 2025 will raise the minimum floor of employment rights, raise living standards across the country and level the playing field for those businesses who are engaged in good practices. There are clear, evidence-based benefits of Government action through the Act. Not acting would mean a continuation of the current issues within the labour market: poor working conditions, proliferation of insecure work, growing inequalities, and fractious industrial relations.
Over 18 million employees will benefit from new protections, but it will be those who are lowest paid in the labour market, in sectors such as social care, hospitality and retail, that will benefit most. Our analysis, using UK and international evidence alongside economic modelling, finds that the Act will help boost employment, and improve job quality and productivity, while having a positive direct impact on economic growth.
Our latest delivery timelines demonstrate this Government’s commitment to delivering these reforms at pace, while giving businesses and workers time to get ready. April 2026 saw the delivery of significant changes that workers will now benefit from, including:
Strengthened rights to statutory sick pay, including expanding eligibility to up to 1.3 million of the most vulnerable workers who previously earned below the lower earnings limit and making it available from the first day of illness rather than the fourth day, meaning workers do not need to choose between working and getting better, improving workplace productivity and reducing the spread of infections in the workplace.
The introduction of day one rights to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave, ensuring new parents are able to spend time with their families.
The launch of the Fair Work Agency, a new body that brings together the patchwork of state enforcement of workers’ rights in one place, with plans to further expand its remit.
This week the Government will publish two consultations to continue our work in delivering these changes for all. Further details are outlined below. Today we are publishing a consultation on the employment rights of unpaid carers, and on 12 June a consultation on time off for public duties.
Consultation 1: Unpaid carers
Unpaid carers play a vital role in supporting their loved ones, and this Government recognise the enormous contribution they make to their families and communities, and to wider society. We are aware that too many unpaid carers struggle to combine work with their caring responsibilities. In the plan to make work pay, we committed to reviewing the implementation of the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 and examining the benefits of paid carer’s leave, while being mindful of the impacts on businesses. We set this out in more detail in November 2025 through our terms of reference for the review of employment rights for unpaid carers.
To build on the work of the review so far, we are launching a consultation that seeks views on whether there is more that Government should do. It considers several approaches such as improvements to guidance and communications, and new statutory leave entitlements for unpaid carers. It also asks questions on support for parents of seriously ill children in recognition of the acute challenges that arise for families following a diagnosis of serious or life-threatening illness during childhood, as we committed to do during the passage of the Employment Rights Act.
We will analyse all consultation responses and wider evidence as part of the ongoing review before deciding whether any further interventions are needed.
This consultation will be open for 12 weeks, closing on 1 September 2026.
Consultation 2: Time off for public duties
The Employment Rights Act 2025 set out the Government’s commitment to reviewing the list of public duties in section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for which individuals are entitled to time off work, with consideration of special constables. The aim of the review was to ensure the list of public bodies and offices that individuals can take time off work to undertake remains fit for purpose and continues to support the effective functioning of modern public services.
The review found that the list of public duties would benefit from updates to reflect changes to public services, governance structures and devolution arrangements. The list also places insufficient emphasis on locally rooted roles linked to community governance and representation. Therefore, these targeted changes are proposed to modernise the entitlement:
Special constables should be entitled to time off under these provisions;
People carrying out eligible public duties with a clear local focus should gain the right to reasonable time off; and
People carrying out public duties for certain national public sector organisations should no longer be entitled to time off work.
Insights drawn from the consultation will help shape the future of this important entitlement and possible legislative changes, ensuring it continues to serve the public interest.
This consultation will be open for 12 weeks, closing on 4 September 2026.
Next steps for consultation
This package of consultations sets out the next steps in delivering our plans. They are critical to shaping the practical implementation of this legislation, helping the Government to deliver reforms that are both effective and inclusive. It is in everyone’s interest to get the relationship between employer and worker right. The Act is the first phase of delivering our plan to make work pay, supporting employers, workers, and unions to get Britain moving forward. The Act will support the Government’s mission to increase productivity and create the right conditions for sustainable, inclusive, and secure economic growth. The Government have further plans for both consultation and the release of Government responses over the coming months and will continue to update Parliament appropriately.
[HCWS100]
General Strike Centenary Commemorations
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks 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)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing this debate on commemorations for the centenary of the 1926 general strike—a moment in our nation’s history that is not always recognised as I believe it should be.
I thank Members across the House for their moving contributions about the background, events and impacts of the strike. My hon. Friend’s brilliant contribution painted an evocative picture of those events and the particular experience in Birmingham. He reminds us that what this Labour Government are trying to achieve in protecting and strengthening rights in the workplace is a case of not only unpicking recent anti-worker legislation, but building on the struggles and sacrifices of previous generations who were often fighting against brutal tactics by their employers and the Government. While he is right that many of the questions he posed are for a different debate, I hope that I can start to answer some of them today by outlining the Government’s approach to workers’ rights in the 21st century.
As we have heard, the general strike was called by the TUC on 3 May 1926 in response to 1 million coal miners being locked out of their mines by owners who wanted them to work longer hours for less money. This was against a backdrop of declining wages, the severe dangers of working underground, and difficult economic conditions in the aftermath of the first world war.
In solidarity with the demands of the miners, more than 1.7 million workers took strike action from industries including bus, rail, printing, gas, electricity, building, iron, steel, chemical industries and the docks.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I just want to add to that list the 19,000 members of the National Society of Pottery Workers, which now forms part of the GMB, who, even when the strike ended, still found their jobs at risk because the supply of coal was not available to power the kilns. The local community came together at the time to form solidarity and support committees to ensure that the workers’ families were fed while alternative sources of coal were being found. I think the Minister would agree that that is a testament to the strength and power of the solidarity of the labour movement when it comes to supporting not just the workers but the families of those workers as well.
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. I will come on to exactly that point about the importance of solidarity.
The next nine days became the largest expression of worker solidarity in British history. Some of the strongest support for the strike was found in industrial heartlands, such as the area that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield represents, where unions had a strong presence. Those areas included south Wales, the midlands and northern constituencies like mine of Halifax, where 10,000 people attended a mass meeting in Savile Park on 9 May 1926 to support the strike. The trains stopped running, and the Halifax Courier, itself impacted by some of its workers joining the action, reported that even the clock at Halifax station stopped ticking during the strike. This was a pattern experienced across the country: public transport stopped, newspapers could not be printed, and many parts of the economy stood at a standstill.
The Government responded with emergency measures to break the strikes, deeply dividing the country. After nine days, the TUC called off the strike action, though the miners continued their struggle for several months, with many returning to work, though on worse conditions than before.
Emma Foody
I wonder if the Minister will indulge me in paying tribute to a particular striking miner who was born in Hirst in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery). His name was Robert Wallace Pringle. He was one of the striking miners, and he died the following year in a horrendous accident as an assistant lamplighter, after catching on fire as a result of the fuel-soaked rags. He was my great-grandfather, and I wanted to take this opportunity to get his name on the record.
Kate Dearden
I sincerely thank my hon. Friend for bringing that story to the House and commemorating the memory of her family member. What an incredible story to share with the House.
Although the strike did not achieve its immediate aims, it became a defining moment for the British labour movement. For many workers, it was a stand against falling living standards and a system that was stacked against them. The strike brought workers from across different industries together to demand a fairer deal.
The events of 1926 changed the relationship between workers, employers and the Government, helping to shape the labour movement for the next century. It reinforced the importance of trade unions as a collective voice for workers and sparked debates about workers’ rights, industrial relations and the role of the state. Those debates, as we have heard, continue to this day.
Over the decades since 1926, union campaigning and collective action have secured many of the rights that people now rely on at work, from paid holidays to safer workplaces, protections against unfair dismissal, maternity and parental rights, and the national minimum wage. Those gains were not inevitable; they were the result of workers organising together and demanding change.
One hundred years on, it is clear that many workers in this country feel, as they did back in 1926, that the system does not work for them. After 14 years of Tory austerity and attacks on rights in the workplace, I understand why so many people feel angry and left behind. That is why this Labour Government are working to change that. Our plan to make work pay has brought employment rights legislation into the 21st century, ensuring that workers are paid fairly, have secure work and are protected from discrimination and harassment, extending the protections that many of the best British companies already offer their workers.
My hon. Friends will know that we will not build a robust and growing economy by rewarding the minority of businesses that offer insecure work and predatory environments; instead, we must build an economy based on job security for workers, fair pay for hard work and fair competition between businesses. That is the path to greater productivity in the workplace and our wider economy.
The Employment Rights Act 2025 is the first phase of delivering our plan to make work pay, supporting employers, workers and unions to get Britain moving forward. Alongside the new industrial strategy, the Act supports this Labour Government’s mission to increase productivity and create the right conditions for long-term, sustainable, inclusive and secure economic growth.
For too long, employment rights legislation has only protected some of our workforce—not all. The Act changes that, delivering stronger rights, greater fairness and more security for more than 18 million more people, providing a new baseline of protection from sexual harassment, strengthening statutory sick pay, introducing the right to guaranteed hours, tackling fire-and-rehire and reversing previous Governments’ laws that restrict workplace democracy.
As a lifelong trade unionist, I am proud that this Government champion the vital work of unions in protecting and representing workers across the country, ensuring that they are listened to, supported and heard. By tearing down barriers to trade union activity and ensuring that industrial relations are carried out in good faith, the Government are empowering working people to organise collectively, helping to settle disputes and secure a fair deal in their workplace.
As part of that, the Act repeals the majority of the Trade Union Act 2016 and the entirety of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, undoing the Tories’ damage to our workers and our economy. By simplifying the statutory trade union recognition process, strengthening trade unions’ rights of access to workplaces and introducing a duty on employers to inform all new employees of their right to join a union, we are enabling unions to recruit and organise.
We are also delivering new rights and protections for trade union representatives, alongside tackling the illegal blacklisting of trade union members through predictive technologies. This is the biggest increase in trade union and collective rights in a generation, but we know that legislative change alone is not enough; we need attitudes to change, too. That is why we are committed to introducing a new framework for industrial relations, setting out the Government’s vision for a new approach: one that is fit for the challenges of the 21st century, based around the principles of collaboration, proportionality and accountability, and which balances the interests of workers, businesses and the wider public.
My hon. Friends posed questions and raised some important points in the debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) and for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for raising the issue of the Cramlington derailment of the Flying Scotsman. I know that the memory of the incident still inspires strong feelings in the region, and there will be a range of opinions on how that memory should be marked. I pay tribute to the Cramlington community hub in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth, which has done some brilliant work in commemorating the incident. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington mentioned pardons, and I direct him to the process to submit a petition to be considered by the Ministry of Justice.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield for bringing this important debate to the House and allowing parliamentary time to commemorate the events of the general strike. Many Members who were unable to make the debate have shared their stories with me, as I am sure they have with other Members in the Chamber. We must never forget these important parts of history, and we must take the time to reflect on how we can work across Government, industry and the union movement to deliver a stronger, fairer future for working people.
Question put and agreed to.