Employment Rights Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

In early September, over 500 Oscar Mayer workers, organised by Unite the Union, launched strikes against the company’s appalling use of fire and rehire. Many of these workers are my constituents and are facing serious threats to their pay and working conditions, with potential losses of up to £3,000 annually. I hugely support this legislation, but immediate action is crucial to protect my constituents and workers across the UK from such exploitative practices. Will my right hon. Friend provide clarity on the timescales for reforms to unfair dismissal?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Deputy Prime Minister responds, may I say that if there are declarations of interest to be made, even in interventions, they should be made on the Floor of the House?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is why we have moved at pace. The previous Government promised an employment Bill to protect workers and they did not deliver. Within our first 100 days, we are delivering this employment Bill.

Losing a loved one is among the hardest things for any of us. That is why in this Bill we are setting a clear standard for businesses, giving employees the right to bereavement leave. Taken together, these new rights for working people—sick pay when they need it, an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts and to fire and rehire, bereavement leave, expanded entitlements, paternity leave and new protections for women in work—represent the biggest upgrade for working people in a generation, but we are not stopping there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

We have already written to the Low Pay Commission, as I have set out, and we want to go further through the fair pay agreement to make sure that carers are recognised for the valuable role they play. Care workers are not just people who do the shopping or call in for 15 minutes; they handle complex needs in the community and look after some of our most vulnerable loved ones. They should get the recognition they deserve, and that is why we are taking these measures.

We know the valuable contribution that trade unions make. That is why we are resetting industrial relations. The Conservatives presided over strike Britain with their scorched earth approach to strikes. First, we are repealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. Anyone with a brain could see that that legislation would do two things: increase tensions and fail to prevent a single day of industrial action. We said so at the time, and what happened? The rail dispute cost our economy over £1 billion. The law has failed and has no reason to stay on the statute book.

We are also repealing nearly every part of the flawed Trade Union Act 2016, which tried to smother trade unions in form filling and red tape and prevent them from doing their job. We will go further by strengthening the voice of working people by making it easier for trade unions to get recognised, giving them the right of access to workplaces and making sure that they have enough time to represent their members. When the rights of working people are flouted, a new fair work agency will be empowered to investigate. Today we are also launching a consultation on modernising trade union laws so that they are fit for the modern workplace and our modern economy.

In under 100 days, we have put together a transformative package that marks a new era for working people. We know that the Conservatives will oppose this every step of the way. We know because they have history, just as they opposed Labour’s minimum wage and now, shamefully, want to take us back to the dark ages when women were denied maternity pay. It is clear that they are out of step with modern Britain.

Our plans mark a new way forward—a new deal for working people, making jobs more secure and family friendly, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, supporting women in work at every stage in their life, a genuine living wage and sick pay for the lowest earners, further and faster action to close the gender pay gap, ensuring that rights are enforced and that trade unions are strengthened, repealing the anti-worker, anti-union laws, turning the page on industrial relations and ending fire and rehire, while giving working people the basic rights that they deserve from day one in the job. This is a landmark moment, delivered in under 100 days. This is a pro-business, pro-worker, pro-growth Bill and a pro-business, pro-worker, pro-growth Government. Today, after 14 years of failure, we are starting a new chapter and decisively delivering a better Britain for working people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

I just want to double-check: have you actually read the Bill? It talks about a consultation period with businesses, and the provisions will not be rolled out until 2026. There will be a probation period for certain businesses. We are pro-business, and maybe the shadow Minister should read the Bill properly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We should not refer to other colleagues in the Chamber as “you”. It is quite simple.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I wish the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) was with me for the hour I spent with the representatives of organisations this morning. They do not feel as she does—that there is nothing to see here and nothing to worry about. They are very concerned, and we should all be worried about that.

Through our approach, we doubled the minimum wage, boosted employment by 4 million, cut taxes on working people by £900, cut youth unemployment, slashed the employment rate and rolled out the biggest ever expansion of free childcare. Our approach recognised that by harming business, which is the strong horse that pulls the whole cart, we are harming workers—a fact that this Government have clearly failed to grasp. This Bill puts the cart firmly before the horse. For small businesses particularly, it creates an existential crisis of a magnitude not seen since the pandemic. The future of hundreds of thousands of business people and millions of jobs is in the Deputy Prime Minister’s hands. I urge her to think again, withdraw this legislation and listen carefully, not just to the unions but to the voice of business, before it is too late.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Over 80 Members wish to contribute. To try to accommodate most of them, I will limit Back-Bench speeches to three minutes and maiden speeches to five minutes. The first Back-Bench contribution is from Mike Amesbury, and I know that he will not want me to cut him off.

[Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)]

I stand here not only as the Labour MP for Runcorn and Helsby, but as a former trade union convener and shop steward for the wonderful trade union Unison. I am also a GMB member and a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. I am proud to have the opportunity to speak in this Parliament with a trade union voice, coming from a working-class background, and as part of a Labour Government. How fantastic is that? I also proudly refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Have a look: it is very clean money—trade union money.

This is an important day for the history of the labour movement and for industrial relations in this country. This Employment Rights Bill is pro-business, pro-worker and pro-growth. This is exactly the change that we were elected to make, just a few weeks ago. The Bill works in partnership with business and trade unions. It is not the work of fiction—I say this respectfully—that the shadow Minister described in his response to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Labour Members are pro-jobs, but pro good jobs. We are pro-business, but pro good business. The Bill is also good for Britain. We want to turn the page on an economy that has been blighted by insecurity, poor productivity and low pay, and we want growth that leaves nobody behind in our communities.

I pay homage to the architects of this landmark legislation: the trade unions, of course; the former shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald); my good friend the Deputy Prime Minister; and my neighbouring MP and good friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders). We were elected on a manifesto for change, and today that change begins—delivered within 100 days, as the Deputy Prime Minister said.

The Bill brings forward 31 employment reforms to help young and not-so-young workers alike. It marks the end of exploitative zero-hours contracts and fire and rehire practices, establishes day one rights to paternity, parental and bereavement leave for millions of workers, improves statutory sickness pay and collective bargaining, and provides for fair pay agreements. It means that 9 million people will have protection from unfair dismissal from day one, and that over 1 million people on zero-hours contracts will benefit from a guaranteed hours policy. This will help many in all our constituencies. An additional 1.5 million parents taking unpaid parental leave will be brought into scope of employment rights from day one. This Bill is a game changer. It is a manifesto commitment that I and everyone on the Labour Benches were proud to be elected on, and I look forward to our labour coming to fruition over the next few months and years.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Sarah Gibson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

As a proud member of the Community and USDAW trade unions, I am delighted with the legislation. In the short time available to me, I will focus on the particular issue of whether we work to live, or we live to work, because so far the debate in this place, particularly in the remarks made by Conservative Members, has sounded like something from the mesozoic era and the dying era of the dinosaurs.

Let us get something straight: tackling sexual harassment in the workforce is not about free speech, but about stopping a crime; flexible working does not mean people work less, just that they work flexibly; and rights do not make people irresponsible employees, any more than it is noticeable that our competitors internationally are ahead of us on this work. The measures in the Bill are about entrenching good practice, so that we have a race to the top, not a flounder to the bottom, as we did under the previous Government.

That is why I and others hope to push the Government to go further on maternity and paternity rights. It vital that the Bill contains protections for mothers around maternity discrimination, but such measures will only work if we include the other 50% and bring dads into the equation. We do not really have a gender pay gap in this country any more: we have a motherhood pay gap and a motherhood penalty. Women face the discrimination of being made unemployed not only when they have children but because they might have children, and women who have kids find that when they go back to work, they are considered to be less committed, capable and competent. Women who are childless are six times more likely to be recommended for a job and eight times more likely to be recommended for a promotion.

The issue cuts the other way too, because there is a fatherhood premium as fathers are considered to be more reliable employees. We must not entrench these inequalities but overturn them, so that dads can be part of their kids’ lives and mums can get a fair crack at being in the workforce. A third of dads in this country take no paternity leave at all; half of them say that is because they feel pressured financially to go back to work early. Modern employers get the problem and are offering more than the statutory minimum. Some 92% of fathers who are job hunting say flexibility makes all the difference when they choose which job to take. After the pandemic, the number of stay-at-home dads increased by a third. Frankly, dads want to step up to the plate, whatever Members on the Conservative Benches may think, and mothers want them to be there too.

Making such changes matters to the economy. The loss of productivity that comes from women caring for their parents or their children means that millions are being cut out of our economy. We have some of the longest working hours for dads in Europe, and some of the shortest working opportunities for mums. Putting in measures to support paternity leave will be good for both sides of the equation. Let us not be the generation in which dads say they never got the chance to know their teenage kids, and mums say they never got the opportunities they wanted. Let us amend the Bill to ensure paternity leave matches maternity—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Sir Alec Shelbrooke.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my membership of the GMB. I support this landmark employment Bill, the biggest expansion of workers’ rights for a generation. Today we see the difference that a Labour Government can make for people up and down the country.

Although I support all aspects of the Bill, I will focus specifically on the transport sector. During and following the covid pandemic, transport workers faced the short end of the stick of poor employment practice. I welcome the end of fire and rehire. That unfair practice was used as a sledgehammer against workers, particularly during the pandemic, by companies such as British Airways, which tried it on more than 35,000 staff members, including many of my constituents in Hounslow. BA staff who had worked for decades faced the prospect of being sacked and rehired on poorer pay and weaker terms and conditions.

After huge pressure from trade unions, Labour MPs and the Transport Committee, BA dropped its plans, but other firms such as P&O have also exploited the weakness in UK employment law that the Bill is intended to address. Those practices are still happening, as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) highlighted in his intervention on the Deputy Prime Minister. When workers were facing fire and rehire, Labour was clear that a Labour Government would ban that practice, and I am pleased the Government are doing that. I welcome clause 22.

On minimum service levels, the Bill will also repeal and scrap the previous Government’s Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023—a farcical bit of legislation designed to limit strike action. In Committee, when I pushed the rail operators on the proposed legislation, it was clear that they had not sought it and they appeared to have no plans to use it. The fact that so few rail operators chose to use the powers once they were enacted showed that the companies themselves doubted their value and use.

This Bill also brings in much-needed modernisation of our maritime laws. In the last Parliament, the then Chairs of the Transport Committee and the Business and Trade Committee—one Conservative, one Labour—jointly wrote to the then Government about the need to update our laws to protect maritime workers. I welcome the Bill’s closure of the loophole whereby ships registered overseas previously did not have to inform the UK Government of collective redundancies, and the fact that this Government have committed to further strengthen workers’ rights at sea.

In conclusion—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Shivani Raja to make her maiden speech.

[Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)]

It is with great privilege and a deep sense of responsibility that I stand before you today, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I take my place in this historic Chamber, I am acutely aware of the profound trust placed in us by the constituents of our great nation. I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to the people of Leicester East for electing me to represent them in Parliament.

My story, like that of many in Leicester, is one of heritage, resilience and opportunity. My parents arrived in Leicester from Kenya and India in the late 1970s, bringing with them cultural and faith traditions and a remarkable work ethic. They made Rushey Mead their home, and I was born and raised there. From Herrick primary school to Soar Valley college and De Montfort University, Leicester has nurtured me every step of the way and for that I am deeply thankful.

As is customary, I pay tribute to Claudia Webbe, my immediate predecessor, who served the constituency to the very best of her ability. Claudia followed in the footsteps of Keith Vaz who, alongside Paul Boateng and Bernie Grant, broke new ground in the representation of people of colour in Parliament. In the election, I had the unique experience of standing against both Claudia and Keith—a testament to the vibrant political landscape of Leicester East.

Leicester is a city of remarkable history and diversity. Leicester hosts the largest Diwali festival outside India. It is home to the UK’s longest running comedy festival. It is one of England’s oldest cities, so much so that we found a king under one of our carparks; for those who do not know, one of our earliest kings, King Richard III, was found under a carpark in Leicester. The University of Leicester is the birthplace of DNA fingerprinting. Leicester is also home to the National Space Centre and we are proud of our contributions to the arts, sciences and sports.

We have got it all going on in Leicester, but if Members remain unconvinced that Leicester has influenced their life, because perhaps they are not a former monarch or a scientist in their spare time, Leicester has also given Britain icons like the late Lord Richard Attenborough and—very much living—Sir David Attenborough, Gary Lineker and Peter Shilton. Our city is where Walkers crisps were born and where fashion guru Gok Wan grew up. Leicester’s influence even extends to music, with entertainers like Engelbert Humperdinck and Showaddywaddy. So whether you have tucked into a bag of ready salted, gone to the cinema to watch “Jurassic Park” or boogied on down to “Hey Rock and Roll”, you’ve got Leicester to thank.

This is what true diversity looks like. In fact, in 2013 Leicester was described as the most multicultural city in the UK. Today, 59% of people living in Leicester are from ethnic minority groups, and 41% were born outside the UK. But most relevant to today’s debate is employment and businesses in my constituency. Leicester is located at the heart of England, and local businesses are the lifeblood of our city. Leicester was recognised as the UK’s most entrepreneurial city—a title that reflects the resilience, creativity and determination of its people. Our entrepreneurial scene is not just about numbers; it is about stories, of those who dared to dream big, hustled harder, and turned their ideas into reality.

The Employment Rights Bill threatens to undermine that spirit before those entrepreneurs have even made their first £1. The additional costs and regulations proposed will act as a barrier to entry, discouraging the very innovation and hard work that has earned Leicester that title. We must be cautious not to stifle the ambition of small business owners, who are the backbone of our economy. Our journey is one of innovation and community—a story of people coming together across different sectors and backgrounds to build something truly remarkable.

In a city as diverse as Leicester, many rely on flexible work to balance family commitments, faith observances or second jobs. By imposing blanket regulations that do not consider the unique needs of our communities, the Bill risks alienating the very workforce it aims to protect. We must ensure that employment regulations support businesses and workers alike. Imposing regulations that add costs without first offering support will harm the very people Labour claims to champion. For our small businesses in Leicester, many of which work with razor-thin margins, the burdens imposed by the Bill will be overwhelming. It is one thing to champion workers’ rights, but quite another to do so in a way that risks the survival of the very businesses that provide the jobs.

Let us not forget that successful businesses are the best way to secure meaningful long-term employment. Our decisions in this House will shape the future of our country for generations to come. It is imperative that we approach these challenges in a spirit of collaboration, transcending partisan divides to serve the best interests of all our constituents. With our nation facing economic challenges, the Bill risks raising costs for consumers and worsening the cost of living crisis, particularly in communities like Leicester East, where many are already struggling to make ends meet. We must find solutions that protect workers without penalising local businesses and their customers.

I am honoured to stand before the House as the Member for Leicester East, and I warmly invite you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all hon. Members to visit our great city. You can join us for our glorious Diwali celebrations, our annual Pride parade or our vibrant Caribbean carnival. Come and experience the city where fish and chips are just as popular as samosas and kebabs, and where Stilton and Red Leicester cheeses sit alongside Italian pizza and French patisserie. The road ahead may be challenging, but it is also filled with possibilities. I firmly believe that not only Leicester’s but our country’s greatest days are ahead of us, and I am grateful to be able to play my part, championing my constituents in that endeavour.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I had to let that speech run over; I was waiting for my invitation to have samosas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I support and welcome this transformative Bill. I place on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), and the Deputy Prime Minister, with whom I have had the pleasure of working to play a small part in bringing this transformative legislation to the House.

In reality, the balance of power in our workplaces has been fundamentally set against employees for too long, meaning that the UK has some of the weakest labour protections in Europe, with legislation curbing the rights of working people to organise in defence of their rights, and insecure contracts and poor wage growth leaving one in five people struggling in poverty.

Under the last Tory Government, we saw an explosion in the growth of exploitative zero-hours contracts, unscrupulous fire and rehire practices, and the unforgiving and abusive gig economy. Ordinary working people across the country have experienced the most sustained period of wage stagnation for hundreds of years compared with our counterparts across Europe. Despite that exploitation of working people by bad bosses, the Tories never strayed from their mission of dismantling the power of trade unions to secure better jobs, pay and conditions for the ordinary people they represent, even in the middle of a cost of living crisis.

The Bill that we are discussing today, however, sets us on the road to implementing the transformative new deal for working people and to repealing the last Tory Government’s draconian anti-trade union legislation, which restricts people from organising in defence of their pay, terms and conditions. Spanning over 30 different measures, the Bill could give any of us a lot to talk about. However, as time does not permit that, I will concentrate on two or three areas.

With the establishment of a framework for fair pay agreements in the adult social care sector, the Government have acknowledged the immense benefits that collective sectoral bargaining can play. Social care workers are among the most crucial yet worst paid and badly treated groups of workers in our economy. I very much hope that the Government will introduce that framework for further sectors, and I encourage them to do so. Secondly, by ensuring that workplaces offer a guaranteed-hours policy to end the exploitation trap of zero-hours contracts that millions of workers find themselves in, the Bill ensures that we can provide the eight in 10 workers who desire greater stability more certainty over their contracted hours.

Thirdly, the Bill takes an important step towards widening access to statutory sick pay by removing the requirement to earn the lower earnings limit, and by making SSP payable from the first day of sickness. My sincere request to the Government is that, with the rate currently at £116.75 per week, we need in the consultation process—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Alison Griffiths.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lola McEvoy]

I absolutely agree, because people want to work, and they want to work in good-quality jobs that allow them to spend a decent amount of time enjoying the things that matter in life.

The Bill will make thousands of my constituents in Darlington better off, safer and more secure at work. More than that, it will benefit businesses’ bottom lines, as they will have a happier, healthier and more productive workforce. That is essential for the growth we need to see, it is good for working people, it is good for business, and it is great for the economy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Katie Lam to make her maiden speech.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for letting me make not just my first contribution to this House, but the first contribution from the newly formed constituency of Weald of Kent. My predecessors are illustrious: William Hart Dyke helped invent tennis, Charles Barnett was a first-class cricketer, and Edward Percy Smith was a scriptwriter like me, penning the Hammer Horror hit “The Brides of Dracula”. We even have a Prime Minister in our history: Benjamin Disraeli began his parliamentary career representing a patch of Kent that includes the village of Linton, which is now in my constituency. However, only one of my predecessors, Ann Widdecombe, can boast Britain’s highest honour: an appearance on “Strictly Come Dancing”. [Laughter.]

Two of my most recent predecessors have left this place. Damian Green and Damian Collins both worked doggedly for the area and for the country in government—Damian Collins especially in the field of digital, culture, media and sport, the Select Committee for which he chaired for many years, and Damian Green with senior roles in government, all the way up to First Secretary of State. Both served my constituents with distinction, and on their behalf, I would like to say thank you.

I am not the first politician in my family. My grandmother came to Britain in 1937 at the age of 13 as a refugee from Germany. Her grandfather, Paul Heide, was a state senator and a fierce critic of the Nazis. When Hitler came to power, the whole family were arrested and stripped of their citizenship. After years in prison, Paul jumped out of the window of his second-floor cell and made it to Czechoslovakia despite his broken ankle. There, the family set up a resistance radio station broadcasting back over the border, until one night they were raided by the SS and one of the operators was shot dead. They managed to escape, and fled to England and freedom. My grandfather’s family were far less fortunate: Jews from Amsterdam, almost all of them were murdered in Sobibor and Auschwitz. One of them was eight years old.

My grandparents’ stories helped make me who I am, so even as a small child, I already knew the power of politics. It is an honour to take my place in Parliament, to serve my constituents and this country—the country that saved my family and saved the free world—but freedom does not come for free: it must be fought for. Every time I come into this Chamber, I see the shields that surround us and think of our country’s sacrifice. Colonel Victor Cazalet, whose shield is on the other side of the Chamber, lived in Cranbrook in my constituency. He had already served with distinction in the first world war, receiving the Military Cross for gallantry in 1917. He was killed in an air crash in world war two, as was Commander Rupert Brabner, whose shield is a few places further down. Commander Brabner was the Member for Hythe, a constituency that borders my own, and an ace Royal Navy pilot awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. We will remember them.

The weald of Kent has played its part in our nation’s sacrifices. Headcorn aerodrome operated in the second world war as RAF Lashenden, at the same time as Benenden school was converted for use as a military hospital, and Coxheath was once the British Army’s largest training ground. The constituency may be new, but the Kentish weald is anything but: Appledore was raided by the Vikings in 893, and the Archbishop of Canterbury had his palace at Charing as far back as the year 900. Enriched by ironmaking in Biddenden and clothmaking in Marden and Staplehurst, today the weald of Kent boasts hundreds of square miles of the most gorgeous countryside, surrounding two delightful towns—Tenterden and Cranbrook—as well as over 100 of Britain’s most charming villages, many 1,000 years old or more. From Aldington to Yalding, every one of the weald of Kent’s 56 civil parishes is a rural jewel. The area is awash with medieval churches, cricket clubs, intricate gardens, and a mosaic of farms growing the nation’s food—and now, vineyards growing the very finest British wine.

Do not take my word for it: the glory of the weald of Kent has been immortalised in films, books and television shows. H.E. Bates was inspired by his home, Little Chart, to write “The Darling Buds of May”, and the TV adaptation was filmed in Pluckley and neighbouring Bethersden. Godmersham Park was the inspiration for Jane Austen’s “Mansfield Park”, while Agatha Christie fans will know Chilham as the backdrop for episodes of “Poirot” and Smarden as a television stand-in for Miss Marple’s home, St Mary Mead. The steam train in the opening shot of “Downton Abbey” is the Kent and East Sussex railway, rolling from Rolvenden to Wittersham Road, and one of my favourite films, “Kind Hearts and Coronets”, shot its countryside scenes in Boughton Monchelsea.

Lastly, I should like to give a few personal thanks. First, I thank hon. Members on the Government Benches, for it was while delivering leaflets for their party that Grandma and Grandpa Lam met in the late 1940s. Had the Mill Hill Labour Club never existed, neither would this Conservative. [Laughter.] Secondly, I thank Alex, my family and my friends for all they have done for me. Thirdly, I thank the best Conservative association in the country. Finally, I thank the people of Weald of Kent who have sent me here to represent them. I will never look at the responsibility of being the Member of Parliament for Weald of Kent as merely a job; I will always treat it as an honour.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We now have another maiden speech. I call Sarah Smith.

Employment Rights Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ms Billington]

No, I will not give way.

This law will strengthen their hand. I say, in the words of the greatest pub manager of all time—Peggy Mitchell—to the proposers of the amendment, “Get outta my pub!”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Quite. I call Dr Jeevun Sandher.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

What a speech to follow. I cannot quite claim to be Peggy Mitchell, but I will try to live up to that brilliant remark.

I rise as a proud member of the GMB. I happily refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will speak to new clauses 37 and 38, which relate to part 3 of the Bill. They will strengthen the bargaining power of social workers and, by doing so, create a stronger working relationship between employees and employers that both sides will invest more in. That means higher wages for those who look after our parents, more training and a healthier social care workforce. Both sides will invest more; both sides will benefit more. Pro-worker, pro-business, pro-growth—that is what these amendments and this Bill will achieve.

Before entering this place, I was a trade union rep, and I worked with my colleagues to help stop a 33% pay cut in my workplace. Workers speaking with one voice meant a happier and more productive workplace—one voice to set out what it means to increase productivity. That is why this is a pro-growth Bill.

Social care workers are among the lowest paid in our economy. One in six are legally paid less than the minimum wage. Little proper certification, reward or recognition for skills means that there is little training. Poor conditions mean that almost half suffer from work-related stress. Low pay, little progression and poor conditions are the reasons why a third of social care workers leave the sector each year. That is what this Bill and these new clauses will fix. The Adult Social Care Negotiating Body will mean more social care workers speaking as one voice, gaining higher wages, better conditions and more training. Those benefits do not just appear on payslips; they mean less time spent worrying about paying the bills, and more time with our families and reading to our children. They make workers more productive and benefit employers—they make life worth living.

Those on the Opposition Benches say that life cannot improve. They have talked a lot of fear instead of hope and the change we can achieve. They will likely vote against our amendments and against the Bill. In doing so, they would deny their constituents better wages and, indeed, a better life. We cannot simply sit back and hope that wages rise, that training will magically appear, or that conditions will get better on their own. We have to act to make it so. The Bill and the amendments do exactly that by giving social care workers the power to speak with one voice to negotiate higher wages, better training and better conditions, benefiting employee and employer—pro-worker, pro-business and pro-growth. That is what the Bill stands for. That is what I stand for. That is what we stand for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Dixon]

The hon. Gentleman may know that I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers. We are very pleased that there are now unpaid leave requirements for carers; on other occasions, I have urged the Government to look into going further with paid entitlements for carers. There is a real opportunity to enable the 3 million carers in paid employment to remain in employment and to stop the loss of an estimated 600 people per day who leave work due to their caring responsibilities. While that is not part of this Bill, hopefully the Government and the Minister will respond to that.

That is the first area of the Bill that I really welcome. The second, which has huge benefit for care workers, is its provisions on pay and conditions through pay agreements. I echo some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), who is no longer in his place, about the huge benefits that these will bring to so many of our valued adult social care staff.

The establishment of the new Fair Work Agency will ensure that everyone is playing by the same rules, and strengthening powers to deal with modern slavery and labour abuse will further extend protections to care workers. Many care workers have come to this country on overseas visas and, having paid extortionate fees in their country of origin, have found themselves tied into accommodation here, on zero-hours contracts and being exploited by the care companies. As such, the provisions in the Bill are very welcome. We know that too many care workers live in poverty; research by the Health Foundation suggests that one in five care workers cannot afford the essentials, either for themselves or for their children. I am proud to be sitting on the Labour Benches as we bring forward fair pay agreements, along with the abolition of exploitative zero-hours contracts, which will finally provide security for our valued social care workers.

In implementing these changes, it is really important that we establish a framework to help home care workers in particular—some of whom I met recently—who are not paid for their travel time or their sleep-in hours, despite the fact that such practices should be illegal. As we take forward the fair pay agreement in adult social care, I urge the Minister to work with colleagues to ensure it is accompanied by an ethical charter for care providers to sign up to. This Government have already shown how serious they are about valuing those who do so much to care for, and provide support to, disabled adults and older people in this country.

The third area I want to mention, which other colleagues have talked about and which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) has addressed in his new clause 102—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I keep looking at the clock. I believe there is an issue; would you please advise me on my remaining time?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Yes, the clock has stopped. You started at 7 pm, but you did take an intervention, so I think you can go for one more minute.

[Anna Dixon]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Very briefly, I am delighted that the Government are strengthening statutory sick pay. During covid, many care workers were forced to go into work—at their own risk, and risking those they were caring for—because they were not eligible for statutory sick pay, so strengthening it is an excellent move.

In conclusion, this Bill, together with the proposed Government amendments and some of those suggested by my hon. Friends, will ensure that the 1.5 million people working in adult social care can get fair pay, guaranteed hours, statutory sick pay and day one rights. It is good for workers, and it is good for women.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deirdre Costigan]

No, because many Members are waiting to speak.

I welcome Government amendments 80 to 85, which specify the level of sick pay that low-paid workers will now be able to expect from day one. I know that some employers wanted to pay a bit less and trade unions wanted a bit more, but 80% is a compromise. I certainly do not support the delaying tactics of the Opposition, who have sought impact appraisals that already exist and show that these changes will lead to an increase in productivity and growth if we can get disabled people working when they want to do so.

This transformative Bill responds to a key demand of the disability employment charter for a default right to flexible working. For many disabled workers, the ability to organise their hours around taking medication and dealing with pain or fatigue will mean being able to keep their job rather than ending up sick or being marched out of the door. In line with the charter, this new law also introduces paid time off for trade union equality representatives, a subject that I know we will discuss tomorrow. Negotiating reasonable adjustments can take time, and input from a trained person, whose priority is to keep the worker in his or her job, will make all the difference.

However, Unison research has established that nearly a quarter of disabled workers who asked their employers for reasonable adjustments waited a year or more for help, and some never even received a reply. You cannot do a job that causes you pain, or sets you up to fail, so it is no wonder that disabled people end up out of the door. The disability employment charter calls for a new right to a two-week deadline for at least receiving a reply to a reasonable adjustment request. Currently there is no deadline for such a response, although in the case of flexible working requests the employer must respond within eight weeks. I have had constructive discussions with the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), and I am hopeful that we may see such a deadline included in the “Get Britain Working” plan, which complements the Bill.

Many good employers already support disabled workers, and I pay tribute to the 240 who have backed the disability employment charter and rights for those workers. The Bill and the Government amendments will ensure that there is a level playing field, so that bad employers cannot undercut those who want to do the right thing. They will ensure that more disabled workers can keep jobs that they value, and can contribute to the growth that we need to get our economy working again.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Alex Sobel, and ask him to keep his remarks to four minutes.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my 28-year membership of the GMB union.

New clause 72, which stands in my name, would place a duty on employers to investigate whistleblowing concerns and establish internal channels for reporting and managing whistleblower disclosures. In recent years we have seen scandals rock the country in which whistleblowers raised the alarm at an early stage only for their warnings to be ignored and for disastrous consequences to follow. Scandals with thousands of victims, such as the Post Office Horizon case, the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy and the collapse of Carillion, involved whistleblowers raising the alarm only to face a wall of silence. We saw the very worst of that at Yorkshire cricket club in my constituency when Azeem Rafiq suffered years of racist harassment and abuse. Despite the number of players who admitted to racist remarks or actions, the club’s leadership refused to accept their mistakes and refused to release the full report, instead releasing an edited summary. Only when Azeem appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee did the full scale of institutional racism at the club become known.

These failures have a tragic human cost, and they often place a significant strain on the taxpayer. According to the report “The Cost of Whistleblowing Failures”, the avoidable costs incurred owing to the failure to listen to whistleblowers in the Post Office Horizon, Carillion and Letby cases was £426 million.

It is unacceptable for the taxpayer to have to bear the burden of failed systems and a failed legislative framework, which is why we need a new legal duty on employers to investigate whistleblowing. New clause 72 would ensure that employers must take “reasonable steps” to investigate any protected disclosure made to them. It would compel large employers to establish internal channels and appropriate procedures for reporting. By ensuring that disclosures are investigated, we can prevent scandals such as Horizon from occurring and ensure that harm in the workplace is dealt with early. The new clause is proudly pro-worker and pro-business, and would tackle one of the long-standing issues with our current whistleblowing legal framework for workers. The status quo provides only an after-the-event remedy for whistleblowers, and this new clause would ensure that there are channels for whistleblowers from the start.

Employment Rights Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 40—Political funds: requirement to pass political resolution.

Government new clause 41—Industrial action ballots: support thresholds.

Government new clause 42—Notice of industrial action ballot and sample voting paper for employers.

Government new clause 43—Period after which industrial action ballot ceases to be effective.

Government new clause 44—Power to give notice of underpayment.

Government new clause 45—Calculation of the required sum.

Government new clause 46—Period to which notice of underpayment may relate.

Government new clause 47—Notices of underpayment: further provision.

Government new clause 48—Penalties for underpayment.

Government new clause 49—Further provision about penalties.

Government new clause 50—Suspension of penalty where criminal proceedings have been brought etc.

Government new clause 51—Appeals against notices of underpayment.

Government new clause 52—Withdrawal of notice of underpayment.

Government new clause 53—Replacement notice of underpayment.

Government new clause 54—Effect of replacement notice of underpayment.

Government new clause 55—Enforcement of requirement to pay sums due to individuals.

Government new clause 56—Enforcement of requirement to pay penalty.

Government new clause 57—Power to bring proceedings in employment tribunal.

Government new clause 58—Power to provide legal assistance.

Government new clause 59—Recovery of costs of legal assistance.

Government new clause 60—Power to recover costs of enforcement.

New clause 8—Prison officers: inducements to withhold services—

“In section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (Inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline)—

(a) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (a);

(b) omit subsection (1A);

(c) omit subsection (7).”

This new clause would repeal provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that prohibit inducing a prison officer to take (or continue to take) any industrial action.

New clause 9—Inducement of prison officers: exempted persons—

“After section 127A of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline), insert—

“Section 127B: Prison officers and trade unions: exempted persons

Section 127 (inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline) does not apply to—

(a) Any listed trade union representing prison officers, or

(b) any person acting on behalf of a listed trade union representing prison officers.””

This new clause would repeal, with respect to trade unions representing prison officers, provisions that prohibit the inducement of industrial action or indiscipline by a prison officer.

New clause 19—Right to be accompanied—

“(1) Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3), after paragraph (b) insert—

“(ba) person who has been reasonably certified in writing by a Professional Body as having experience of, or as having received training in, acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary or grievance hearings, or”

(3) After subsection (7) insert—

“(8) In this section, “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (9).

(9) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.””

This new clause would expand the right to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings.

New clause 28—Enforcement against companies subject to insolvency or voluntary liquidation—

“(1) A Labour Market Enforcement Strategy under section 81 must include—

(a) the Secretary of State’s assessment of—

(i) the scale and nature of non-compliance with employment tribunal awards due to insolvency or voluntary liquidation during the period of three years ending immediately before the strategy period;

(ii) the scale and nature of such non-compliance involving phoenixing during the same period; and

(iii) the likely scale and nature of such non-compliance during the strategy period;

(b) a proposal for the strategy period setting out how enforcement functions of the Secretary of State are to be exercised in relation to such non-compliance.

(2) An annual report under section 82 must include―

(a) an assessment of the effect of the applicable strategy on the scale and nature of non-compliance with employment tribunal awards, including non-compliance due to insolvency or voluntary liquidation, and

(b) an assessment of the effect of the applicable strategy on the scale and nature of non-compliance involving phoenixing.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “phoenixing” means the practice of dissolving or otherwise closing a business and establishing a new one with a similar purpose, with the effect of avoiding the enforcement of employment tribunal awards or other debts.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to include, in the Labour Market Enforcement Strategy and annual reports under this Bill, information about non-compliance with employment tribunal awards by, and enforcement against, companies ordered to pay such awards that have been subject to insolvency or voluntary liquidation, including in instances in which the directors go on to set up a similar company to avoid enforcement.

New clause 29—Trade union representatives: right not to suffer career detriment—

“(1) In Part V of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Protection from suffering detriment in employment), after section 47(1A), insert—

“(1B) This section applies where the detriment in question relates to matters of internal promotion or progression.”

(2) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended in accordance with subsections (3) to (6).

(3) In the italic title before section 137, after “Access to employment”, add “and career progression”.

(4) After section 138, insert—

“138A Career progression

(1) An employer must ensure that any employee undertaking trade union representative duties does not experience detriment in matters of internal career progression as a result of the employee’s trade union activities.

(2) Where an employee who is a trade union representative has not been appointed to a more senior role, in circumstances in which the employee met the minimum criteria for the role and demonstrated that criteria through the application, the employer must provide a written statement.

(3) The written statement under subsection (2) must include evidence to demonstrate that the decision not to appoint the employee was not affected by the employee’s trade union activities.

138B Career progression: support for trade union representatives

An employer must have in place a policy to support the career progression of employees who are trade union representatives. The policy must set out―

(a) how the employees will be supported in matters of internal progression and promotion; and

(b) how the employer will consider trade union experience in assessing applications for more senior roles.””

(5) In section 140(1), after “section 138” insert “or 138A”.

(6) In section 142(1), after “section 138” insert “or 138A”.””

This new clause would enhance protections to trade union representatives, extending them to cover detriment in matters of career progression, and would require employers to demonstrate that they have not denied promotion to trade union representatives as a result of their trade union activities. It would also require employers to have a policy in place to support the career progression of employees who are trade union representatives.

New clause 31—Removal of secondary action provisions—

“In the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, omit section 224 (secondary action).”

New clause 64—Duties of trade unions—

“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 219 (protection from certain tort liabilities), after subsection (4) insert—

“(5) But subsection (4) does not have effect in relation to any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute which relates wholly or mainly to proposals by an employer to vary terms and conditions of employment of two or more employees accompanied by the threat (explicit or implied) of dismissal if that variation is not agreed.””

New clause 65—Personal Liability for breach of tribunal orders—

“(1) Where, in relation to a body corporate—

(a) a financial order made by an employment tribunal or agreed by the claimant and the body corporate; or

-(b) an order of reinstatement or re-engagement made by an employment tribunal or agreed by the claimant and the body corporate

has not been fulfilled by the date specified in the order or agreement, without reasonable excuse, and that failure is proved—

(a) to have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer of the body, or

(b) to be attributable to any neglect on the part of such an officer,

that officer shall be personally liable to reimburse the claimant in whose favour the order had been made or agreed.

(2) An officer found liable for reimbursement under subsection (1) may be disqualified as a director or prevented from becoming a director.”

New clause 66—Public sector contracting: trade union recognition—

“(1) The Procurement Act 2023 is amended as follows.

(2) In Part (2) (principles and objectives), after section 14A insert—

“14B Obligations of contractors to recognise trade unions

(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that any contract entered into by a—

(a) government department;

(b) executive agency of government;

(c) non departmental public body; or

(d) non Ministerial department,

is compliant with the requirements set out in subsection (2).

(2) A contract under subsection (1) must─

(a) recognise an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining, and

(b) take steps to ensure that any sub-contractor to the contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract recognises an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “recognises”, “independent trade union” and “collective bargaining” have the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

(4) An independent trade union may make a complaint against a contracting authority, which is a party to a public contract, that it or a contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract is in breach of the term in subsection (2).

(5) The complaint may be made to the Central Arbitration Committee.

(6) If the Central Arbitration Committee finds the complaint to be well founded, it shall grant a declaration to that effect.

(7) Where the Central Arbitration Committee makes a declaration in accordance with subsection (6), it shall order that the respondent contracting authority shall take whatever steps appear to the Central Arbitration Committee as necessary to ensure that the contracting authority and every contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract comply with the implied term in subsection (2).

(8) The steps that may be taken under subsection (7) include termination of the contract, which shall not be regarded as a breach of contract by the contracting authority concerned if a principal reason for the termination is compliance with an order of the Central Arbitration Committee under (7).

(9) An appeal lies on a point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal by either party to proceedings brought under subsection (5).””

New clause 67—Sectoral collective bargaining: 80 per cent coverage—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an action plan to achieve, within five years, that the principal terms and conditions of employment of at least 80 percent of workers in the United Kingdom are determined by collective agreement.

(2) The action plan under subsection (1) must be informed by consultation with organisations representing employers and trade unions.”

New clause 68—Sectoral collective bargaining: other sectors—

“(1) Regulations under this Act may include regulations for collective bargaining in other sectors of the economy.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1)—

(a) may only be made following consultation with representatives of workers and employers in those sectors; and

(b) may provide that agreements reached by such collective bargaining shall apply to the workers and employers in the relevant sector save to the extent that a previous or subsequent collective agreement has provided a more favourable term or condition.”

New clause 69—Statement of trade union rights—

“Every employee, worker and self-employed person has the right—

(a) to join an independent trade union of his choice, subject only to its rules;

(b) to take part in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time, subject only to its rules.”

New clause 70—Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces—

“In part 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (trade unions), before Chapter 5A, insert—

“Chapter 5ZA

RIGHT OF TRADE UNIONS TO ACCESS WORKPLACES

70ZA Right of access

(1) A designated official of an independent trade union shall have a right to enter premises occupied by an employer in order to access a workplace or workplaces, subject to the conditions set out below.

(2) An employer shall not—

(a) refuse entry to a designated trade union official seeking to exercise his or her right of access under sub-section (1), or

(b) otherwise obstruct such an official in the exercise of his or her right of access under sub-section (1).

(3) A “designated trade union official” means a person nominated by the trade union to exercise the right of access on its behalf.

70ZB Access purposes

(1) The right of access may be exercised for the access purposes.

(2) The access purposes are to—

(a) meet, represent, recruit or organize workers (whether or not they are members of a trade union); and

(b) facilitate collective bargaining.

70ZC Notice to employer

(1) The right of access may be exercised only after the designated official of an independent trade union has given notice of an intention to do so to the employer whose premises it is proposed to enter for the purposes of access to a workplace or workplaces.

(2) The notice must be—

(a) in writing; and

(b) given at least 24 hours before it is intended to exercise the right of access;

(3) The notice required to be given under subsection (2) shall—

(a) specify the purpose for which entry is sought; and

(b) identify the workers or categories of workers the designated official intends to meet, represent, recruit or organize.

(4) The right of access may be exercised without giving notice where there are exceptional circumstances such as to justify access without prior notice.

(5) Whether circumstances are exceptional shall be determined by having regard to the relevant provisions of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS.

70ZD Access conditions

(1) The right of access is subject to the following conditions.

(2) The right of access may be exercised—

(a) only at a reasonable time, and

(b) subject to reasonable conditions imposed by the employer.

(3) What is reasonable for the purposes of subsection (2) shall be determined by having regard to the relevant provisions of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS.

70ZE Dwellings

(1) The right of access does not apply to any part of premises which are used exclusively as a dwelling.

(2) Where sub-section (1) applies and only where sub-section (1) applies, the employer shall provide a reasonable, suitable, and alternative venue to enable the right of access to be exercised.

(3) What is reasonable and suitable for the purposes of subsection (2) shall be determined by having regard to the relevant provisions of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS.

70ZF Enforcement of right of access

(1) Where an employer refuses or obstructs access contrary to section 70ZA, a complaint may be made to the CAC by the trade union of which the designated official is a representative.

(2) Where the CAC finds the complaint to be well-founded it shall make a declaration to that effect and may make an order requiring the employer to comply with section 70ZA, subject to such conditions as the CAC may determine.

(3) If the CAC makes a declaration under subsection (2) the trade union may, within the period of three months beginning with the date on which the declaration is made, make an application to the Employment Appeal Tribunal for a penalty notice to be issued.

(4) Where such an application is made, the Employment Appeal Tribunal shall issue a written penalty notice to the employer requiring the employer to pay a penalty to the trade union in respect of each refusal or obstruction of access unless satisfied, on hearing representations from the employer, that the refusal or obstruction of access resulted from a reason beyond the employer’s control or that the employer has some other reasonable excuse.

(5) If the CAC makes an order under subsection (2) the order shall be recorded in the High Court and on being recorded may be enforced as if it were an order of the High Court.

70ZG Penalty notice

(1) A penalty notice issued under section 70ZF(4) shall specify—

(a) the amount of the penalty which is payable;

(b) the date before which the penalty must be paid; and

(c) the failure and period to which the penalty relates.

(2) A penalty set by the Employment Appeal Tribunal under section 70ZF(4) may not exceed a prescribed amount.

(3) Matters to be taken into account by the Employment Appeal Tribunal when setting the amount of the penalty shall include—

(a) the gravity of each refusal or obstruction of access;

(b) the period of time over which each refusal or obstruction of access occurred;

(c) the number of occasions on which each refusal or obstruction of access occurred;

(d) the reason for each refusal or obstruction of access;

(e) the number of workers affected by each refusal or obstruction of access; and

(f) the number of workers employed by the undertaking.

(4) The Employment Appeal Tribunal shall also take into account any previous refusal or obstruction of access to a designated official of the independent trade union to which the application relates.

(5) If the specified date in a penalty notice for payment of the penalty has passed and—

(a) the period during which an appeal may be made has expired without an appeal having been made; or

(b) such an appeal has been made and determined, the trade union may recover from the employer, as a civil debt due to it, any amount payable under the penalty notice which remains outstanding.

(6) The making of an appeal suspends the effect of a penalty notice pending the outcome of the appeal.

70ZH Other provisions relating to trade union access

(1) Sections 70ZA-70ZG are in addition and without prejudice to any other provisions relating to trade union access to workers.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt, the latter include but are not confined to—

(a) Section 188(5A) of this Act

(b) Sections 198A and 198B of this Act;

(c) Schedule A1, paragraphs 26 and 118 of this Act;

(d) ACAS Code of Practice on time off for trade union duties and activities issued under section 199 of this Act, for the time being in force; and

(e) Any collective agreement which makes more favourable provision.””

New clause 82—Fair Work Agency: review of resourcing—

(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the resources available to the Fair Work Agency.

(2) The review must be published and laid before Parliament within six months of this section coming into force.”

This new clause asks the Secretary of State to review the resources available to the Fair Work Agency to ensure that enforcement of provisions in the Act are effective.

New clause 88—Rules as to political fund—

(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) of section 84 (Contributions to political fund from members of the union), after subsection (1), insert—

“(1A) An opt-in notice under subsection (1) must include the member of the trade union’s consent to annual renewal of the contribution to the political fund (a “renewal opt-in”).

(1B) The renewal opt-in must be sent by the member of the trade union─ (a) within six months of the initial opt-in and every six months thereafter, or (b) each time payment is due, at least 28 days before payment is taken, whichever is longer.

(1C) If the member of the trade union does not provide a renewal opt-in, the trade union must provide a date by which the member must notify the trade union of their consent to continued contribution towards the political fund, which must be no earlier than 28 days before the next payment to the political fund is due.

(1D) If the member has not—

(a)opted into an arrangement under subsection (1A) or (1B), or

(b) given notification of their consent to continued contributions by the date specified under subsection (1C),

their payments to the political fund must cease before the renewal date.””

This new clause will ensure that trade union members are asked whether they wish their contribution to the political fund to renew automatically and would require that, if the member does not wish to renew their contribution, the union must provide a date by which the member has to confirm they wish to continue to contribute.

New clause 89—Certification Officer: growth duty—

“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 254 (The Certification Officer), after subsection (2), insert—

“(2A) In discharging the functions of the Certification Office, the Certification Officer must, so far as reasonably possible, act in such a way as to advance the following objectives—

(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom; and

(b) economic growth of the United Kingdom in the medium to long term.””

This new clause would require the Certification Officer to advance the objectives of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.

New clause 90—Regulations under Part 4—

“When making regulations under Part 4 of this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives—

(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom; and

(b) the economic growth of the United Kingdom in the medium to long term.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State, when making regulations under Part 4 of the Bill, to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.

New clause 98—Pressure to impose union recognition requirement—

“In the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, omit section 225 (Pressure to impose union recognition requirement).”

This new clause would remove section 225 from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 on pressure to impose union recognition requirement.

New clause 99—Electronic balloting—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a statutory instrument containing an order under section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004.

(2) That order must specify that—

(a) permissible means may, in the case of any description of ballot or election, include (or consist of) electronic voting; and

(b) any ballot or election including (or consisting of) electronic voting must be conducted pursuant to section 230 (Conduct of ballot) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

(3) The Secretary of State must not make an order under this section until a consultation with the Trades Union Congress and the Certification Officer has been conducted.

(4) An order under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make an order for electronic voting in a ballot or election pursuant to section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004 within six months of the passing of this Act, and following consultation with the TUC.

New clause 100—Notice to employers of industrial action: amendment—

“In section 234A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, omit subsections (3) to (9) and insert—-

“(3) For the purposes of this section a relevant notice is one in writing which—

(a) identifies—

(i) the day or the first of the days on which, at the time of the service of the relevant notice, the union proposes to call industrial action; and

(ii) the categories of employee the union intends to call on to take industrial action; and

(b) must be provided to the employer as early as practicable after the ballot result is known and the decision to take industrial action in furtherance of it has been taken.

(4) If the industrial action relates to an event which has already taken place, no relevant notice shall be required.””

This new clause replaces the provisions in section 234A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to define a relevant notice for industrial action, when one must be provided and when one is not required.

New clause 103—Public sector contracting: trade union recognition—

“(1) The Procurement Act 2023 is amended as follows.

(2) In Part (2) (principles and objectives), after section 14A insert—

“14B Obligations of contractors to recognise trade unions

(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that any contract entered into after the coming into force of this Act by a—

(a) government department;

(b) executive agency of government;

(c) non departmental public body; or

(d) non Ministerial department,

is compliant with the requirements set out in subsection (2).

(2) A contract under subsection (1) must require the contractor to such a contracting authority to—

(a) recognise an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining, and

(b) take steps to ensure that any sub-contractor to the contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract recognises an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “recognises”, “independent trade union” and “collective bargaining” have the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

(4) An independent trade union may make a complaint against a contracting authority, which is a party to a public contract, that it or a contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract is in breach of the term in subsection (2).

(5) The complaint may be made to the Central Arbitration Committee.

(6) If the Central Arbitration Committee finds the complaint to be well founded, it shall grant a declaration to that effect.

(7) Where the Central Arbitration Committee makes a declaration in accordance with subsection (6), it shall order that the respondent contracting authority shall take whatever steps appear to the Central Arbitration Committee as necessary to ensure that the contracting authority and every contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract comply with the implied term in subsection (2).

(8) The steps that may be taken under subsection (7) include termination of the contract, which shall not be regarded as a breach of contract by the contracting authority concerned if a principal reason for the termination is compliance with an order of the Central Arbitration Committee under subsection (7).

(9) An appeal lies on a point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal by either party to proceedings brought under subsection (5).””

This new clause is designed to ensure that all public contractors comply with the duty to recognise a trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining and that such contractors take steps to ensure that any sub-contractors do the same. The terms “contracting authority” and “public contract” are defined in section 2 and 3 of the Procurement Act.

New clause 106—Collective bargaining—

“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 209, after “industrial relations” insert—

“and in particular to encourage the extension of collective bargaining and the development and, where necessary, reform of collective bargaining machinery.””

This would add duties around collective bargaining to the general duty of ACAS.

New clause 107—Whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract—

“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) For section 179, substitute—

“179 Whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract

(1) A collective agreement shall be conclusively presumed to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract unless the agreement—

(a) is in writing, and

(b) contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties do not intend that the agreement shall be a legally enforceable contract.

(2) A collective agreement which satisfies those conditions shall be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract.

(3) If a collective agreement is in writing and contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties intend that one or more parts of the agreement specified in that provision, but not the whole of the agreement, shall not be a legally enforceable contract, then—

(a) the specified part or parts shall be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract, and

(b) the remainder of the agreement shall be conclusively presumed to have been intended by the parties to be such a contract.

(4) A part of a collective agreement which by virtue of subsection (3)(a) is not a legally enforceable contract may be referred to for the purpose of interpreting a part of the agreement which is such a contract.””

This new clause replaces Section 179 on whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

New clause 108—Industrial action: workers’ rights—

“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 219, insert—

“219A Right to strike

Every worker shall have the right to take industrial action, whether or not in breach of any contract, subject to the provisions of this Part.”

(3) Omit section 223 (Action taken because of dismissal for taking unofficial action).”

This new clause would establish a clearer right to strike and remove provisions from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that make strike action unlawful on the grounds that it turns out (retrospectively) that the action the worker took was unofficial.

New clause 109—Industrial action and ballots—

“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit—

(a) section 224 (Secondary action)

(b) 225 (Pressure to impose union recognition requirement)

(c) 226A (Notice of ballot and sample voting paper for employers)

(d) 228 (Separate workplace ballots), and

(e) 228A (Separate workplaces: single and aggregate ballots).

(3) In section 234 (Period after which ballot ceases to be effective), omit subsections (1) to (5) and substitute:

“(1) Industrial action that is regarded as having the support of a ballot shall cease to be so regarded when─

(a) the dispute which gave rise to it ceases, or

(b) the union has taken no steps to pursue the dispute for a period of six months.”

(4) In subsection (1) of section 244, (Meaning of “trade dispute" in Part V)—

(a) omit “a dispute between workers and their employer” and substitute “a dispute between workers and one or more employers”.

(b) omit “which relates wholly or mainly to” and substitute “connected with”.

(5) In subsection (5) of section 244, omit “a worker employed by that employer” and substitute “a worker employed by an employer”.”

This new clause would remove provisions that ban all forms of secondary action; make changes to the definition of “trade dispute”; enable industrial action to be taken to achieve recognition for collective bargaining; remove obligation on a TU to provide a ballot paper to the employer; give TUs more freedom to choose which constituencies they will ballot; and remove an obligation on the union in a long running dispute to re-run the ballot every six months.

New clause 110—Review into the impact on small businesses—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a review on the impact of Part 4 (Trade Unions and Industrial Action, etc) of this Act on small and medium-sized enterprises.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must have regard to—

(a) administrative costs;

(b) legal costs; and

(c) tax changes affecting small and medium-sized enterprises taking effect from the 2025-26 financial year.

(3) For the purposes of this section, small and medium-sized enterprises are businesses employing 250 or fewer employees.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a review on the impact of Part 4 of this Bill, on Trade Unions and Industrial Action, on SMEs within 3 months of the passage of this Act.

New clause 111—Legal aid in employment tribunals—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the options for expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the impact employers' compliance with measures contained within this Act; and

(b) the impact on employees’ personal finances.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals within 3 months of the passage of this Act.

New clause 112—Review of single enforcement body—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a review on the impact of a single enforcement body as provided for under Part 5.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must assess the impact of the single enforcement body with the impact between 2019 and 2025 of the following four enforcement bodies—

(a) Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA)

(b) Employment Agencies Standards Inspectorate (EAS)

(c) His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC)

(d) Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

(3) The review under subsection (1) must have regard to—

(a) business compliance costs

(b) Employers’ compliance with employment law

(c) the number of employees seeking support in relation to employment disputes.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of a single enforcement body compared with separate enforcement bodies within 3 months of the passage of this Act.

Amendment 270, page 61, line 14 leave out clause 50.

New clause 70 is intended to replace clause 50.

Government amendments 162 to 164.

Amendment 282, clause 50, page 61, line 31, after “workplace” insert, or

“(b) the right to use to any digital communications tools used by workers in the workplace.”

This amendment aims to ensure that access for unions to workplaces includes digital means of communication with workers.

Government amendments 165 to 185.

Amendment 271, clause 51, page 69, line 18, at end insert—

“(2A) In paragraph 22 (collective bargaining: recognition)—

(a) leave out sub-paragraph (1)(b) and insert—

“the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf’.”

(b) leave out subparagraphs (3), (4) and (5).

(2B) In paragraph 25 (collective bargaining: recognition)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (3)(a) leave out “20 working days” and substitute “10 working days”, and

(b) leave out sub-paragraph (3)(b).

(c) after sub-paragraph (4)(a) insert “(aa) by secure electronic voting,”

(d) in sub-paragraph (4)(c) leave out “and b” and substitute “to (c)”

(e) after sub-paragraph (4)(c) insert—

“(d) only amongst those who are employed in the proposed bargaining unit and were so employed at the time the application was made”.

(2C) In paragraph 26 after sub-paragraph (4) insert—

“(3A) In the event that the union (or unions) consider that such access has been unreasonably refused, it (or they) may apply to the CAC for a declaration and order that access be granted and in the event that such a declaration or order is made and the union (or unions) consider that such a declaration or order has been breached it (or they) may apply to the High Court for relief.”

(2D) In paragraph 26 after sub-paragraph (4B) insert—

“(4BA) The sixth duty is to refrain from any act or omission, direct or indirect, likely to encourage a union member or members to resign from union membership or likely to discourage a person from joining a union or any particular union.

(4BB) It shall be unlawful to compel a worker or workers by threat of detriment or dismissal to attend any meeting in which the employer, its servants or agents expresses the view directly or indirectly that—

(a) membership of a union or any union; or

(b) recognition for the purposes of collective bargaining of a union or any union by the employer,

is undesirable.”

(2E) In paragraph 27B(2) leave out “must be made on or before the first working day after” and substitute “must be made within 20 working days after”.

(2F) In paragraph 29 (collective bargaining: recognition) leave out sub-paragraph (3)(b).

(2G) In paragraph 35(1) leave out “a collective agreement under which a union (or unions) are recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining” and substitute “a collective agreement under which an independent union (or independent unions) are recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining”.

(2H) In paragraph 35(1) after “in the rules” insert “‘in relation to all pay, hours and holidays”.

(2I) In paragraph 39(2)(a) leave out “years” and substitute “months”.

(2J) In paragraph 40(2)(a) leave out “years” and substitute “months”.

(2K) In paragraph 41(2)(a) leave out “years” and substitute “months”.

This amendment makes changes to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 regarding union recognition and balloting.

Amendment 291, page 71, line 1, leave out clause 52.

Amendment 292, clause 52, page 71, line 6, at end insert—

“(2A) In subsection (1) of section 82 (Rules as to political fund), after paragraph (d) insert—

“(e) that trade union members who have not opted out of the political fund must signal, in writing, their agreement to continue contributing to the fund at the end of a period of 12 months after last opting into the fund, and

(f) that trade union members must be given an annual notice about their right to opt out of the political fund.

(1B) A notice under subsection (1)(f) must include a form that enables the member to opt out of the fund.””

This amendment would require trade unions to notify their members every year of their right to opt out of the political fund, and to obtain an annual opt-in to the political fund from their members.

Government amendments 186 to 191.

Amendment 293, page 73, line 6, leave out clause 54.

Amendment 294, page 74, line 14, leave out clause 55.

Amendment 296, clause 55, page 75, line 3, after “employee”, insert—

“, and

(c) in relation to a public sector employer, the performance condition is met.

(3A) The performance condition is met if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the public sector employer is meeting any performance standards set out in a relevant enactment.”

This amendment prevents facility time for equality representatives from being provided unless the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory targets for performance.

Amendment 295, page 78, line 5, leave out clause 56.

Amendment 299, page 78, line 30, leave out clause 58.

Government amendments 192 to 199.

Amendment 315, page 79, line 28, leave out clause 60.

This amendment would leave out Clause 60 on electronic balloting for industrial action. NC99 is intended to replace clause 60.

Government amendments 200 to 201.

Amendment 297, clause 61, page 80, line 6, leave out “seventh” and insert “fourteenth”.

This amendment would increase, from seven to 14 days, the notice period that trade unions are required to adhere to when notifying employers that they plan to take industrial action.

Government amendment 202.

Amendment 348, page 80, line 9, at end insert—

“(3) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is also amended as follows.

(4) In section 231 (Information as to result of ballot), omit from “shall” to after “told” and insert—

“display, reasonably prominently on its website, on a webpage reasonably easy to find and which is freely accessible to the general public—”

(5) Omit section 231A.”

This amendment would change the requirements for notification about the results of a union ballot.

Amendment 346, clause 62, page 80, line 19, at end insert—

“(3) In section 220 (Peaceful picketing)—

(a) in subsection (1), after “attend”, insert “a place of work”;

(b) omit subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b); and

(c) omit subsections (2) to (4).”

This amendment, along with amendment 348, would remove the restriction confining pickets to a worker’s place of work.

Amendment 300, clause 63, page 83, line 9, at end insert—

“236E Actions short of a strike: exemption

(1) The right of a worker not to be subjected to detriment under section 236A does not apply in cases where the worker is involved in one or more of the following activities—

(a) intimidation at picket lines;

(b) protests organised by trade unions in furtherance of a dispute—

(i) at the premises of a company;

(ii) at the private residences of senior managers; or

(iii) at the premises of other organisations that are connected with the dispute;

(c) harassment or bullying of non-striking workers, or those who are covering for striking workers;

(d) victimisation or harassment of senior managers; or

(e) action aimed at damaging property or disrupting business contingency planning.

(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that the circumstances under subsection (1), in which the right of a worker not to be subjected to detriment do not apply, are set out in a code of practice.”

This amendment would disapply the right not to suffer detriment as a result of industrial action in certain circumstances.

Government amendments 203 to 226 and 236 to 239.

Government new schedule 2—Trade union recognition.

Government amendments 247, 249, 251 to 261.

New clause 77—Employment Law: Scotland Act—

“(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows—

(2) In Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, omit section H1 (Employment and industrial relations).”

This new clause would remove matters related to employment from the list of the reserved matters that remain the responsibility of the UK Parliament alone and would enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate on those matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for the Chair of the Select Committee’s intervention. We accept that there are gaps between the modern slavery network enforcement processes and current employment rights enforcement. We are working with the Home Office and the GLAA to improve that. These are things we can continue to work on as we develop the scope and remit of the Fair Work Agency.

As well as reforming and strengthening the powers, the Government are moving amendments to expand the remit of the Fair Work Agency to ensure effective enforcement of statutory sick pay and holiday pay. Today’s amendments will bring Northern Ireland SSP legislation into the scope of the Fair Work Agency, and will introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the Northern Ireland Executive before bringing any further devolved legislation in scope. Further amendments will bring within the agency’s scope the duty in the working time regulations for employers to retain records relating to holiday pay and annual leave for six years. It is the Government’s intention for the Fair Work Agency to take on enforcement of new protections relating to zero-hours contracts. That is subject to a consultation on the detail, and to the outcome of the spending review.

New clause 60 gives the Fair Work Agency the power to recover the cost of taking enforcement action from businesses that are found to be non-compliant with the law. That is in recognition of the “polluter pays” principle. It is similar to how other regulators operate, such as the Health and Safety Executive. We will consider carefully and discuss the matter with businesses as appropriate before exercising that power, but it is an important principle that where there is wrong, the person in the wrong makes some contribution towards the cost to the taxpayers of enforcing the law.

To sum up—I know many people are eager to speak in the debate—the Bill will ensure that workplace rights are fit for a modern economy, empower working people and contribute to economic growth. I urge hon. Members to support the Bill and the amendments that we are moving today, which show that we are pro-business, pro-worker, pro-family and pro-growth.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Ahead of getting into the detail of the many amendments before us, which the Minister rattled through in just 10 minutes, let me say that overnight we learned that the Government are moving the responsibilities of one quango to another. They are moving the responsibilities of the Payment Systems Regulator to the Financial Conduct Authority, putting one quango into another. Conveniently, they already share a building. The Prime Minister has hailed that as “the latest step” in the Government’s attempt to “kick-start economic growth”, though the amendments we are discussing do the very opposite.

The Chancellor said:

“The regulatory system has become burdensome to the point of choking off innovation, investment and growth”,

but that is precisely what the Bill does. I do not know how the Government can say that with a straight face when, as we stand here today, blocking regulatory burdens cost every business in the land—small, medium or large—£5 billion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Is it really a point of order?

[Gareth Snell]

We can find out, Madam Deputy Speaker; I believe it is. Can you advise whether Conservative Members who received money from businesses affected by this legislation should make a declaration in the same way that we trade unionists do?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

This is going to end up in a back and forth on things that are not a matter for the Chair. Declarations are the responsibility of individual Members to make appropriately through the right processes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does the shadow Minister agree that the only jobs that will be created by these Bills are for people employed by trade unions?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before Mr Smith responds to that intervention, I must add that we have just shy of 40 people hoping to contribute to this debate, and I want to get them all in.

[Greg Smith]

As ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take your advice and will speed up. [Interruption.] The Minister urges me to carry on, but of course I would not ignore your advice—never say never again.

I make no comment on the value that those activities will add to public sector employers and their productivity. What I will say is that we have already seen this Government being happy to hand over large pay increases to trade unions with no guarantee of anything in return. That is why we have tabled amendments 293, 295 and 296, in an attempt to ensure that the taxpayer gets something out of this latest concession to the trade unions.

On amendment 297, trade unions can create significant disruption in the economy, whether by stopping work from taking place or preventing people from getting to work, school, hospital appointments or many other activities. We must strike a fair balance between the ability of trade unions to strike and the public whom we all serve.

Our amendment 297 will mean that vital public services such as the NHS can better plan and prepare for strikes. It simply seeks to keep the status quo of two weeks’ notice. Without adequate warning, constituents of Members from across the House are more likely to miss hospital appointments, not be able to travel to see loved ones or get to work, or suffer greater disruption when schools close due to strikes. That is part of the reason why, in the consultation on thresholds, 58% of those who responded supported retaining the 14-day period as it currently is, with 7% preferring a longer period. Two thirds of respondents therefore wanted the period to stay the same or be longer. Labour promised that it would work with business on this Bill, but its response to that consultation is just another example of the Government having their fingers in their ears and simply not listening. The reduction to 10 days is against the wishes of business and will do harm to all our constituents. That is why we have tabled amendment 297 to retain the notice period of 14 days.

On amendment 299, strikes should only take place when there is a clear mandate for them, but clause 58 will mean that strikes can happen with low thresholds by removing the 50% turnout requirement and the 40% support requirement. Combined with Government amendments to extend the mandate for strikes from six months to 12 months, this Bill allows unions to unleash waves of low-support, rolling strikes. Those costs will come on top of the national insurance jobs tax and changes to business rates—mistakes that the Government are already making—making it more difficult to run a business. That is why we have tabled amendment 299, which will remove clause 58.

There is much in this Bill to speak to, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will not test your patience or the patience of the House further by going into those things. I look forward to a thorough debate that will further point out—not least through Conservative Members’ contributions—why the amendments to this Bill that the Government have tabled this afternoon will harm our economy, destroy jobs, and just give more power to the trade unions.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Is it pertinent to the actual debate?

[Jerome Mayhew]

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. As we all know, Members are required to draw attention to any potential conflicts of interest prior to speaking, in order to avoid any impression of, among other things, paid advocacy. Given that clause 52 will lead directly to increased payment of money from unions to Labour Members of Parliament, I ask for guidance on the proper declaration of interests. Most Labour Members due to speak this afternoon have received thousands of pounds from the unions—totted up, I make it £283,974.86. In addition to a general reference to their entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in this instance, where there is a direct link, should they not also set out the actual amount of money they have received?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Obviously, further clarity on this issue is required, as it was raised earlier. It is the responsibility of individual Members to ensure that they declare their interests properly. The procedure for raising a complaint of this sort is by writing to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The guide to the rules sets out the rules relating to the declaration of interests in debates. This is not otherwise a matter for the Chair. I hope that brings some further clarity to the issue.

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

The hon. Member will no doubt have heard the remarks made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the weekend. I suspect that the hon. Member, like every Member of this House, will see some pretty radical steps taken in the comprehensive spending review to improve the efficiency of the civil service. Of course, the civil service grew very significantly in the years after covid, and now it has to be reinvented for new times. I am confident that those productivity gains will come.

My second point was to draw the House’s attention to some of the evidence taken by our Select Committee. That evidence is contained in our report, which I commend to all hon. Members. What struck me about the evidence we heard from the most productive firms in the country, such as Jaguar Land Rover, Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems, was that those are world-beating companies—some of the most productive companies in our country—and what characterises the workplace arrangements of all of those companies is that they have very long-standing, robust and deep partnerships with good trade unions. Those trade unions help make decisions, help de-conflict things and help businesses thrive and succeed. That is why stronger collective rights are important.

We also took evidence from companies where, I am afraid to say, there was not that harmony, such as Amazon. It has had to call ambulances to its warehouses 1,400 times in just five years. We on the Committee received whistleblower evidence from workers who were literally having to urinate into bottles because they did not dare take time out from their tasks to go to the bathroom and back. We heard all kinds of whistleblower complaints about injuries being sustained, and pay is rising much more slowly than sales.

When we had executives from that company in front of us, they could not—or would not—tell the Committee why strike action had been taken by workers in their firm. If a company executive cannot explain to a Select Committee of this House why so many of their workers are on strike, that is not a story of harmony or a recipe for success. That is why the measures that the Minister has brought forward in this Bill to improve the opportunities for trade unions to organise—in a way that was recommended by the former Member for Harlow, actually—are a good thing.

The Minister has gone some way in recognising recommendations made by our Committee, such as improving the window in which complaints can be heard beyond 24 hours, bringing in template access agreements and strengthening the role of the Central Arbitration Committee in dispute resolution. There is just one further step that I suggest, which is the subject of amendment 282. We suggest that access rights for trade unions should include digital access rights, because in the modern workplace, of which Amazon is a case in point, there simply is not an opportunity for workers to get information about the opportunities to join a trade union and make a fair choice one way or the other in the way that there could be in the modern economy.

My final point is about enforcement. The first factory Act passed by this House was the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802. It was celebrated in parliamentary history as an Act that failed because there was no enforcement attached to it. Enforcement of this Bill is essential if it is to succeed, but labour market enforcement today is much too weak. Just 21 employers have been prosecuted for minimum wage enforcement since 2007, despite the fact that we all know that abuses of this sort are taking place in our constituencies.

Spending on labour market enforcement has been flat since 2014, and we are well off the International Labour Organisation target of one labour market inspector for every 10,000 workers. New clause 82 in my name would require the Secretary of State to set out a road map for reaching that ILO target, for ensuring there is greater use of penalties where appropriate, and for much stronger partnerships between the Home Office, the police and the Fair Work Agency. We cannot have a situation in this country where the best of British firms are being undercut by the worst labour market practice.

In conclusion, I welcome this Bill. Some of the amendments that have been tabled would improve it, but ultimately we have to remember that if we want to create a genuinely pro-business, pro-worker economy, the measures in this Bill are long overdue.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I rise to speak to parts 4 and 5 of the Bill, and specifically to new clause 19, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), and new clauses 110, 111 and 112, which stand in my name. I wish to put on record my thanks to my two Liberal Democrat colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay and for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson), for their work in the Public Bill Committee, alongside many other Members of the House.

Overall, throughout its passage, we Liberal Democrats have indicated our support for many aspects of the Employment Rights Bill, such as those we debated yesterday, including boosting statutory sick pay, strengthening parental pay and leave, and giving people on zero-hours and low-hours contracts more certainty. However, a lot of crucial detail has been left to secondary legislation, to lots of new Government amendments and to continuing consultations, which makes it impossible to explicitly endorse the Bill as a whole at this stage. Even with 264 amendments in Committee and 457 Government amendments on Report, major issues are still yet to be determined, especially in part 4. Even after all those amendments, the Government say that they intend to

“consult further on modernising the trade union landscape following Royal Assent”

of this Bill, including on admissibility requirements, a code of practice and secondary legislation. It is therefore clear that part 4, which we are debating today, is still far from finalised.

We Liberal Democrats believe that employee participation in the workplace is vital, but we also believe that it should go hand in hand with wider employee ownership. That is so important for diffusing economic power, promoting enterprise, increasing job satisfaction, improving service to customers and getting long-term economic stability and growth. The Government’s proposals on trade unions are aimed at strengthening employee rights in what can often be a combative and confrontational working environment, and we Liberal Democrats see this Bill as a missed opportunity to improve employee engagement and ownership to provide collaborative working environments and long-term growth, whether by reforming company purpose rules or putting a duty on employers to encourage employee ownership in large listed companies. However, given what we have before us, we have tabled a few amendments.

First, new clause 19 is about the right to be accompanied, and it does what it says on the tin. It would expand the right for staff to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings. That is a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy, and I hope it is not too controversial, as it simply rectifies an anomaly. The current law allows only trade union representatives or colleagues to accompany an employee, and that leaves many without proper support. Some sectors, such as the medical profession, already allow accompaniment by non-union companions, yet that is not reflected in law. Our targeted amendment would fix that anomaly, and I urge the Government to accept it.

New clause 110 simply requests that the Government conduct a review on the impact on small business. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have expressed concern about the cumulative impact of all the Government’s work in this area and the impact it will have on small businesses in particular. Just the other day, the Federation of Small Businesses told me that it spends thousands and thousands of hours giving advice to small businesses on employment matters, and these new obligations will create a huge amount of extra law for them to understand, interpret and apply.

Small businesses do not have the same resources as big business. They often have no legal department, no compliance team and perhaps no human resources specialist. Because small businesses are often rooted in their community, they are conscious of their reputation. They know their employees and they want to get things right. That means it will take extra time, effort and cost for them to navigate and comply with this part of the Bill, and that is before we get to everything else that the Government are seeking to introduce.

Small businesses are telling me that, taking the measures of the employment Bill together with the changes to national insurance and business rates and everything else, they feel overwhelmed. All that new clause 110 does is ask the Government to conduct an impact assessment. We know that small businesses are passionate about their employees. Small businesses are often the ones to give people their first job. They are often the companies that give people a second chance. They provide part-time, flexible working and opportunities to return to work, so I encourage the Government to look at the impact of part 4 on small businesses.

New clause 111 is about introducing legal aid in employment tribunals. When legal aid was first introduced, the intention was for it to become the NHS of the justice system, but we know that today legal aid is far from that. Our amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on options for expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals. We already know that many employees cannot afford legal representation, and that creates an imbalance of power when facing well-resourced employers. The amendment simply asks the Government to look at the options that might be available in that regard.

New clause 112 asks for a review of the single enforcement body. We Liberal Democrats positively support the Government’s efforts to create a single point of contact, rather than four. A similar measure was in our manifesto, where we called for a powerful new worker protection enforcement authority. As a matter of good practice, when putting different organisations together, it is important to make sure that no gaps are created in that protection. The review we ask for is not just a formality, but an important safeguard to ensure that employment rights enforcement is effective, fair and fit for purpose.

There is much in the Bill that we Liberal Democrats welcome, but there are many parts of it that we simply cannot support because it is not yet clear what the Government’s intentions are. We urge the Government, in the strongest possible terms, to look at the impact on small business, as it is an area about which we are deeply concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. More than 30 Members wish to speak. I do not want to set a time limit, but if Members can police themselves and keep their speeches to just shy of eight minutes, everyone will definitely get in.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

I wish to develop some of the detailed and eloquent arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), and to speak in particular about the amendments relating to part 4 of the Bill and the trade union movement.

Before he leaves, let me thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) for his very measured comments. I enjoyed his referral back to the industrial relations of the 1950s, although I should point out that we have moved on a little since then; I will say more about that shortly. I also thought that he simplified the Opposition’s position. We are not here to bash the unions. We support a progressive, modern trade union movement in which the balance is struck correctly between employer and employees. Unions should not and do not run businesses, but they are an important part of our industrial relations landscape.

There can be little doubt that this is, unfortunately, a Bill drafted by the few to the detriment of the many, and the numerous provisions that will largely abolish the Trade Union Act 2016 threaten to drag the country back to the dark days of the 1970s. The very enjoyable speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) perhaps illustrates that return to the 1970s. I am pleased to see a number of his friends from the rebellious left on the Government Benches, and I look forward to hearing their comments in due course.

The Trade Union Act 2016 was brought in by the last Conservative Government to reflect the modern British economy and workplace. It moved the trade union movement into the 21st century and ensures that hard-working people are not disrupted by little-supported strike action.

--- Later in debate ---

In the interests of time, let me say that I completely endorse this Bill and every aspect of its enforcement. Everybody knows somebody who is being exploited at work. The Bill will prevent that happening. It is time to rebalance the employment relationship.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Miss Murray, you used the term “you”. If it makes it easier, you can speak focused on the Chair, and that way you will not make such a mistake. Saying “thank you” means thanking me, and it gets very complicated for Hansard, so it is best not to do that. Just focus on the Chair, and that will help.

I need to make a correction. I should draw Members’ attention to a printing error in Government new clause 52 as it appears in the printed version of today’s amendment paper. The closing words at the end of subsection (1) should read:

“the Secretary of State may withdraw it by giving a notice of withdrawal to the person.”

A corrected version of the amendment paper is available online.

[Jerome Mayhew]

This is a chaotic mess of a Bill, cobbled together in 100 days to satisfy a press release. We have the unedifying spectacle of an amendment paper that is 274 pages long, as the Government try to correct their many mistakes.

The main thing that I want to address in my short speech is the idea that Labour is beholden to the unions. That is often suggested, but let us just look at the facts, because we need to put this to bed. Between 2019 and 2024, Labour received only £31,314,589 from the unions, and in this Parliament more than 200 Labour MPs have been paid directly by the unions. The Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade have collectively received about £120,000 from unions. What are the unions paying for? Whatever it is, they have been handsomely repaid in the drafting of this Bill. To make it easier for Labour Members, who were all here to hear my point of order, perhaps they could put their hands up if they have not received any cash from the unions—oh dear, oh dear!

Clause 52 suggests that there should be a requirement to contribute to political funds when people join a union. It changes the rules on how union members should donate and how they should contribute political funds to the Labour party. Clause 52(2) changes subscriptions from an opt-in to an opt-out. That raises the question: why do we need this clause? What is the problem that the Labour party is trying to fix? Is £31 million just not enough? This clause encourages unions, when signing up members, to take advantage of their distraction, because members will not be focused on that and they will fall into what is in effect a subscription trap.

In other circumstances, the Labour party does not think that subscription traps are a very good idea. In fact, the Government sent out a press release on 18 November 2024 entitled, “New measures unveiled to crack down on subscription traps”. That sounds good so far. It says:

“Consultation launched on measures to crack down on ‘subscription traps’ and better protect shoppers…Unwanted subscriptions cost families £14 per month per subscription and £1.6 billion a year in total”.

It goes on:

“New proposals to crack down on subscription traps have been unveiled today…‘Subscription traps’ are instances where consumers are frequently misled into signing up for a subscription…It comes as new figures reveal consumers are spending billions of pounds each year on unwanted subscriptions due to unclear terms and conditions and complicated cancellation routes.”

The Business Secretary says:

“Our mission is to put more money back into people’s pockets and improve living standards across this country, tackling subscription traps that rip people’s earnings away is an important part of that.”

Clause 52 flies in the face of that press release.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

As has been said already in this debate, trade union donations have been declared, but donations from employers who have a direct private interest in particular sectors that we have debated in this place have not been declared. If any of the hon. Member’s colleagues have not drawn attention to such an interest, will he encourage them to do so? Does he agree with us on the Labour Benches that they were wrong not to make such a declaration?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. There were two points of order on declarations earlier, and I think I made the situation quite clear. I just wish to let Mr Mayhew know that, if he is referring to Members directly with any form of criticism, he is meant to give them prior warning, so he should be mindful of that for what comes next in his speech.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The intervention from the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) is a classic distraction technique. This Bill addresses the unions and union membership, and clause 52 moves money from unsuspecting union joiners directly to the Labour party. There is no other explanation for the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is a fearsome campaigner on the Business and Trade Committee. She talks about intimidation and paints a lovely picture of unions working actively for their workers, but how can we square that with the version of intimidation that the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) seems to be referring to with the return of flying pickets?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before the hon. Lady responds, she will no doubt realise that she is close to eight minutes. I know she will want to speak for a little while, but not too much longer.

[Antonia Bance]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my fellow member of the Business and Trade Committee for his intervention. As he will have seen from the amendment paper, the Government are not proposing the return of secondary picketing.

New schedule 2 will give unions greater protection from unfair practices during a recognition process and make winning it more likely. I wish that Ministers had gone the whole hog and deleted the three-year lockout; perhaps there will be an opportunity to take that forward.

In conclusion, as a whole, this package of modern industrial relations will lead to more sitting roundtables sorting out issues, fewer picket lines, fewer strikes, more productive relationships, more long-termism across our industrial base, better jobs, higher wages, higher skills and higher productivity. That is why the changes in this Bill to both collective rights and individual rights are so crucial, and so opposed by the Tories and the absent Reform party. This is the type of growth that my party stands for—the type of growth where proceeds are shared by all. It is time to make work pay.