Employment Rights Bill

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.

Clause 1

Right to Guaranteed Hours

14:46

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

I beg to move,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 1B.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 23 and amendments 106 to 120, does not insist on Commons amendment 106A but proposes Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 23 and Lords amendments 106 to 120.

That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 48B.

That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 60B and 60C but proposes Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 61 and 72 but proposes Government amendment (a) in lieu.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 62 but proposes Government amendment (a) in lieu.

[Kate Dearden]

I am pleased to speak on the Employment Rights Bill for our second consideration of Lords amendments, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her outstanding work on employment rights and her unwavering advocacy for working people. I know how close this Bill is to her heart, and I am grateful that she is here in support today. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for his work and dedication on this significant piece of legislation.

The Government’s top priority is to grow the economy and improve living standards. Essential to that is the recognition that greater productivity, security and dignity in work help to grow the economy. The stronger economic performance that our country needs cannot be built on the backs of people in insecure work. For too long employment law has failed to keep pace with the fundamental changes to how, when and where we work. It is time to build a modern industrial relations framework, fashioned on the principle of social partnership that consent and consensus must replace disputes and conflict in modern employment relations. That is good for workers and good for business. Both suffer when one employer is undercut by another, using reduced terms and conditions of service for their employees. Sustainable economic growth cannot be built on unfair competition and insecure employment.

The Employment Rights Bill extends the employment protections currently enjoyed by some employees in the best British companies to workers across the country. By doing so, work will become more secure and predictable while strengthening the foundations that underpin a modern economy. The Bill will back businesses that already do the right thing and give hard-working people the job security and opportunities they deserve. It is in tune with the times and in keeping with how the world of work is changing.

Industrial relations law in this country must move from the 20th century to the 21st. It has to recognise that certainty and security are essential for people at work, that the best relationship between employer and employee is best exemplified by fairness and trust within a framework for recruitment and retention that values both, and that dignity at work is as vital to the effective functioning of modern society as the dignity of work.

Some will seek to use this issue to entrench the idea that employers and employees have opposing interests that must always inevitably result in dispute and strife, and I reject that view. The very best trade unionists know, as do the best employers, that such a view only represents failure. For this Labour Government, success is to be measured not in division, but in the shared economic growth that we achieve, the opportunity and security we build and the prosperity we create, and that is at the heart of the Bill.

Today I ask the House to reaffirm its support for this important legislation as we move through the latest round of parliamentary ping-pong. We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, and in response we are offering, where possible, amendments in lieu that we believe strike a fair and workable compromise with the proposed amendments. Although we appreciate the range of perspectives offered, we will be unable to support certain amendments that conflict with the fundamental principles of the Bill and may compromise its intended impact.

We acknowledge that Lords amendment 1B, which relates to zero-hours contracts, is an amendment in lieu, intended as a compromise. It proposes a shift from a full right-to-request model to one in which employers must notify workers of their right to a guaranteed hours offer, and make a guaranteed hours offer unless the worker declines or opts out. I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, but it would undermine the Bill’s core aim of ending exploitative contracts and providing security for the workers who need it most. We therefore cannot accept it.

The Government are committed to ending one-sided flexibility so that workers are not left guessing about their hours or pay. These reforms reward fair employers, modernise the system and come with clear guidance to help everyone prepare. For employers, clear expectations mean better staffing and lower recruitment costs through better retention. We also appreciate that some groups, including younger workers, value the flexibility of zero-hours contracts. That is why workers will be able to decline a guaranteed hours offer and remain on their existing arrangement if that works best for them.

The Government are also committed to supporting young people into work. The youth guarantee will include a targeted backstop under which every eligible and unemployed young person on universal credit for 18 months without earning or learning will be provided guaranteed paid work. The scheme forms part of the Government’s aim to provide targeted support for young people at risk of long-term unemployment. Further details will be confirmed at the autumn Budget, following further engagement, including with employers.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 48B on seasonal work. The Government recognise that work in certain sectors fluctuates seasonally, and that there are ways in which employers may account for that and remain compliant with the legislation. They may, for example, use annualised hours contracts, which offer variable numbers of hours at work at different times of the year. Additionally, the Bill already allows guaranteed hours offers to take the form of limited-term contracts where reasonable—for example, a fruit-picker could be engaged on a contract tied to the end of the picking season. In such cases, after the initial reference period, the employer would be required to guarantee hours only for the duration of that limited-term contract rather than on a permanent basis. The Bill also already provides powers to address seasonal work through regulations, ensuring flexibility as workforce needs evolve. Consultation with employers, trade unions and stakeholders will take place before such regulations are made. We therefore do not support the amendment.

Let me turn to unfair dismissal. Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120 propose retaining a qualifying period of six months for unfair dismissal. These amendments have returned to this House as the Lords have insisted on them. We remain committed to delivering unfair dismissal protections from day one—not two years, not six months, but day one. That was a clear pledge in our manifesto and it will ensure that about 9 million employees who have worked for their employer for less than two years are protected from being arbitrarily fired. Crucially, day one protection from unfair dismissal will not remove the right of businesses to dismiss people who cannot do their job or do not pass probation, but it will tackle cases of unfair dismissal in which hard-working employees are sacked without good reason. A six-month qualifying threshold still leaves employees exposed to dismissal without good reason in the early months of a new job, which is why the Government cannot accept the Lords amendments on maintaining a qualifying period.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Does the Minister not listen to the voices of business and business organisations? They say that what the Government propose will make young people—whom it is riskier to take on—less likely to get jobs in the first place. Why does she think she knows better than employers and the people who create jobs in this country?

[Kate Dearden]

Yesterday, I was with the Hospitality Sector Council. I heard about all the brilliant work it does to provide employment opportunities for young people across the country. Indeed, my first job was in a café. Such opportunities to get on the employment ladder are significant for young people. That is why the Bill will work in alignment with all the other crucial work that the Government are doing through the youth guarantee.

As I have outlined on unfair dismissal, it simply is not fair that hard-working employees who have worked somewhere for 18 months can be unfairly dismissed and have no stability and predictability in their jobs. Protection through day one rights gives financial security to people who do not have it. We are striking a balanced approach by introducing a statutory probation period. As we have mentioned, the Government’s preference is for that to be a period of nine months, but we are engaging in consultation on the next steps for those light-touch standards. The probation period will ensure that in the early months of employment, employers can dismiss employees who might not be performing or might not be suitable. The measures will tackle the causes of unfair dismissal.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

Some 73% of employers support giving employees protection from unfair dismissal—the day one rights—according to the Institute for Public Policy Research and TUC research, and 83% of managers agree that improved workers’ rights can and do positively impact on workplace productivity. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should listen to that extremely important research?

[Kate Dearden]

My hon. Friend raises an excellent point about research. Providing employees with security at work results in a happier workforce, which increases productivity and helps businesses across the country, as well as our economy. The Bill will provide flexibility and security for people in workplaces across the country, which is vital for our productivity. That is our vision for our country and economy.

[James Wild]

The Minister referred to a nine-month probationary period as opposed to the six-month unfair dismissal period. A report from the Resolution Foundation—which is usually held in high regard on the Treasury Bench—says that this is a “messy compromise” that risks confusing employers and preventing them from taking people on. That is the point that I was making. Some 20% of jobs in my constituency are in the hospitality sector. The sector is not taking people on because of the jobs tax, and it will take on even fewer people because of these increased costs. Does she not realise the confusion that will come from this messy probation period, which is not on the face of the Bill?

[Kate Dearden]

As we have said from the start, the implementation of day one unfair dismissal rights will be done with a light touch. I am keen to work with employers across the country, including in the hospitality sector, which plays a key role in employing and providing opportunities for young people. I will work with all stakeholders on the next steps and implementation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as is the case for lots of employment rights legislation, we are setting the foundation here in this crucial Bill, but there are lots of details to work through in consultation, which I am absolutely committed to doing.

The framework will be founded on the principle of social partnership: consent and consensus must replace dispute and conflict in modern employment relations. That will ensure maximum flexibility, so that the new framework works effectively for employers and employees in each sector of the economy. We will minimise the cost of its implementation and operation.

The Government are committed to ensuring that employers can hire with confidence. As I have said, introducing the statutory probation period enables employers to fairly assess new hires’ performance and suitability for the role that they have been hired for. Most employers already use contractual probation periods of six months or less. The Government have been clear that our preference is for the probationary period to be nine months long. That would allow for a standard six-month term, with the option to extend supporting employee development without compromising operational needs.

We have heard the calls to ensure that the framework reflects real-world realities, and we have tabled an amendment in lieu to address that. Our amendment places a statutory duty on the Government to consult on key aspects of the framework. That would guarantee meaningful input from employers and employees, giving businesses a direct role in shaping the legislation to ensure a practical and fair approach. Additionally, we are tabling a further amendment in lieu, making technical changes to the words restored to the Bill by our rejection of the Lords amendments.

[Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill not only provides vital protections to the workforce, but gives businesses the certainty they need to grow our economy?

[Kate Dearden]

I completely agree. We are creating security for people across the country. Crucially, we are ensuring that employers do the right thing for their employees and go above and beyond the proposals in the Bill. That ensures a level playing field, which is good for our economy and for businesses that might otherwise be undercut by others that do not play by the rules.

We have also heard concerns about the pressures on the employment tribunal system. We will set up a taskforce to support us in fixing the employment dispute system, so that it works better for workers and businesses. The taskforce will have balanced representation from unions, businesses and other experts, including community organisations.

I turn now to the Lords amendments on heritage rail. The Government agree with the principle of the amendment and have tabled an amendment in lieu that captures the intent, while refining the drafting to provide more clarity and ensure that the legislation works as intended. The Government’s amendment, which has been tabled with the support of sponsoring peers Lord Parkinson and Lord Faulkner, places a statutory duty on the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive to produce guidance supporting 14 to 16-year-olds who volunteer on heritage railways.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I rise as co-chair, alongside Lord Faulkner, of the all-party parliamentary group on heritage rail. I express my thanks to the Government for bringing forward the amendment and recognising that volunteering with heritage railways is an immensely useful experience for young people aged 14 to 16. I am glad that we are now undertaking a 12-month assessment for guidance.

11:30

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the right hon. Member for working with us and for her support throughout the passage of the Bill. I understand her passion and work in this area. As she says, the guidance will offer a clear benchmark for reasonable activities and assist inspectors in important decisions. The Government are committed to the work, as she will know, with publication targeted by 31 March 2026. We believe that this collaborative effort will provide practical guidance that empowers children to engage safely and meaningfully in heritage railway volunteering.

Turning to the issue of political funds, Lords amendments 61 and 72 would remove clause 59 from the Bill. That clause reverses measures in the Trade Union Act 2016, which we have committed to repeal, that require members to opt in to political funds. This therefore reinstates longstanding arrangements where members are automatically included unless they choose to opt out. Removing clause 59 would break that commitment to restore balance and fairness in union operations. The opt-in system, introduced in 2016, added bureaucracy without improving transparency or strengthening members’ choice. To be clear, we are not removing that choice. At the point of joining, every new member will be clearly informed on the application form that they have the right to opt out of contributing to a political fund. The same form will make it plain that opt-out has no negative bearing whatsoever on any other aspect of union membership. That is why the Government cannot support Lords amendments 61 and 72.

We have heard reflections around how opt-out notices would take effect and have tabled an amendment in lieu to refine that process. Under the pre-2016 legislation, an opt-out notice was effective on 1 January following the year in which it was given. Under the Government’s amendment, opt-out notices will now have effect from either 1 January or the following year after it has been provided, or on a date specified or determined in the rules of the union, whichever of those dates comes first. This provides unions with flexibility in the legislation to act more quickly and process the member’s request to opt out, without having to wait until the subsequent 1 January to do so. In practice, unions already do this. We will also commit today to engage with unions directly, to continue to make clear our expectation that opt-out notices can be honoured as swiftly and practically as possible. Our amendment is simply about ensuring that legislation matches what has been the established practice.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I hope that the Minister has not referred to this already, but small businesses in my constituency that do not have human resources departments tell me that they will find it hard to navigate these legislative waters. Although we need strong employment rights and I support the Bill’s objectives, we need to ensure that there is support for employers, so that they know how to implement the measures and how to defend themselves, which they will sometimes need to do, without paying costly solicitors’ bills that are detrimental to their business. Will the Minister reassure me on that matter?

[Kate Dearden]

I come from a family that has a business in the hospitality sector, which is close to my heart. In the first eight weeks that I have been in this role, I have had the pleasure to meet small and large businesses, and I have made clear our determination to work closely with them on the implementation of this legislation and to ensure that they are prepared for the changes when they come. We published our road map earlier this year and have committed to stick to that, which has been welcomed by businesses small and large.

Finally, turning to the issue of industrial action ballot thresholds, Lords Amendment 62 would remove clause 65(2) from the Bill, which would retain the existing 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. The Government do not support this amendment. Clause 65 removes an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle and aligns union democracy with other democratic processes, such as parliamentary votes and local elections, which do not typically require turnout thresholds but are still accepted as legitimate. As the period of disruption under the Conservatives’ watch between 2022 and 2024 has shown, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. This Government’s approach will foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions and employers.

[James Wild]

If this provision is introduced, does the Minister think that there will be more or fewer strikes?

[Kate Dearden]

Strikes were a failure of the Tory Government who had stopped listening and, to be frank, had stopped working, so I will not be taking any further interventions from the hon. Gentleman.

We want to create a modern and positive framework for trade union legislation that delivers productive and constructive engagement, respects the democratic mandate of unions and works to reset our industrial relations. Nonetheless, we recognise that this issue has generated debate, which is why the Government have tabled an amendment in lieu that will require the Secretary of State to have regard to any effects of the introduction of electronic balloting on the proportion of those entitled to vote in industrial action ballots who actually do so. We have previously committed to aligning the removal of the threshold with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. This amendment gives statutory effect to that commitment and makes it explicit in the underlying legislation. In having regard to the effects of e-balloting, the Government will monitor and assess the practical impacts of e-balloting on participant rates and the 50% threshold.

To conclude, I urge hon. Members to support the Government’s motions before the House today, including our amendments in lieu, which are part of a package that strengthens rights and reflects the value we place on fair work. We have listened throughout the Bill’s passage and made meaningful changes where needed, and we will continue to listen to all relevant stakeholders as we move into implementation We are committed to full and comprehensive consultation with employers, workers, trade unions and civil society. As set out in our “Implementing the Employment Rights Bill” road map, we are taking a phased approach to engagement and consultation on these reforms. This will ensure that stakeholders have the time and space to work through the detail of each measure, and will help us to implement each in the interests of all. This is a win-win for employers, employees and a more competitive British economy.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Act in haste, repent at leisure: never has that been wiser advice than in respect of this Bill. It is a rushed Bill that was half-baked when it was introduced, and has got worse since. It has failed every test of scrutiny, from the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to the Constitution Committee, to its low-balled impact assessment.

On the day that the Mayfield report outlines the scale of the challenge that we face on worklessness, it will create generation jobless. Every family in the country will know a son, daughter, niece or nephew who cannot get work as a result. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) reminds us, every Labour Government leaves unemployment higher than when they started, but only this Government have actually legislated for that.

The Minister asks us to disagree with all the main compromise amendments from the other place. If she wished to listen to stakeholders, now would be a fantastic moment to start. Her motions to disagree reject sensible compromises on qualifying periods, seasonal working, guaranteed hours, strike thresholds and opting in to political funds. Who will be the victims if the motions are carried today? Young people, the neurodiverse, those with a disability, female returners to work, the over 50s and former prisoners—some of the most vulnerable groups in society who deserve their chance in life, their shot at employment and a job.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman said the Conservatives

“will repeal those most damaging elements of the Employment Rights Bill”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 776.]

Could he inform us which elements of the Bill they will retain?

[Andrew Griffith]

We will have our work cut out, with its 330 pages and 122,000 words—[Interruption.] Labour Members seek to hide behind measures that we support, such as enhanced maternity rights. But will the hon. Member tell me how many times the word “maternity” appears in the Bill, and how many times the word “union”—his paymasters—appears in it?

[Laurence Turner]

I did not realise that was a genuine offer. I do not have the ctrl+F function in front of me to do a word count, but, again, I would be interested in hearing an answer to the question I posed to the hon. Gentleman. All I will say is that, as his colleague the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) said in Committee, trade union-associated MPs have been assiduous at declaring donations. I think only one Member on the Conservative side has declared an interest throughout all these proceedings; I find that utterly incredible.

[Andrew Griffith]

I trust that you will want all Members this afternoon to declare any relevant interests, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have none. To answer the question that the hon. Gentleman did not manage to answer, the word “maternity” appears in this Bill three times; the word “union” appears in this Bill 478 times. Follow the money, Madam Deputy Speaker.

With unemployment higher every month—[Interruption.] Listen and learn. This will be Labour’s legacy: with unemployment higher every month of this Government, it is a bleak time for those trying to find work. The independent Office for National Statistics estimates that vacancies are down by 115,000 since this Government came into office. Some 41% of those graduating in 2023 were not in full-time work 15 months later, and it is estimated that almost half the top 100 UK employers have reduced their graduate intake. In fact, graduates are competing for so few jobs that getting a job is as improbable as spotting a Labour Member who has not received a union donation.

But it is not just graduates: for many, seasonal work is the first opportunity to get a foot on the career ladder yet this Bill in its current form forces hospitality businesses or anyone who relies on seasonal workers into an impossible position. That is why we are supportive of the Lords’ compromise amendment that would allow employers who need flexibility across the calendar year to continue to have it; what could be so objectionable about that?

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The hon. Gentleman is talking about seasonal work but has he thought about the impact on young people of so-called zero-hours contracts and the pressure that puts on their being able to live a decent life and plan for the future? I was at a conference last week about mental health in the workplace, which Opposition Members are concerned about. Zero-hours contracts and flexible working are really difficult for young people, and we must address their concerns as well.

[Andrew Griffith]

Mental health is a huge issue; across the House we would agree on that and the Mayfield report this morning is just one of many contributions to the debate. But for so many—this goes to reform of our welfare system as well—the right answer will be to be in employment, and the Mayfield report talks about creating barriers to employers giving young people a chance. There will of course be some challenges with any form of contracted employment, including zero-hours, which many find a very flexible way of combining work with study and parental or other responsibilities.

The way to try to solve that challenge across this House is not the clunking fist of regulation dictating and providing perverse incentives and maybe unintended consequences, which mean that employers do not take a chance at all on young people and they do not get that first step on the employment ladder. I understand that the hon. Lady’s concerns and contributions are well meant, but that is why it would be so much better if we approached the Bill collectively, after so many hours of debate in Committee in this place and in the other place, and if the Government showed compromise to help mitigate—not shelve the Bill, as I might prefer—some of the worst damage that will manifest itself in fewer jobs, fewer opportunities and some of the most vulnerable finding it very hard to get into work.

15:15

Employers face the prospect of a hire going wrong when they take a chance or a risk, and of an employee being able to turn up in the morning on day one and before lunch file a claim with the employment tribunal that puts their business at the back of a two-year long queue behind 491,000 open claims. It is staggering that we have been talking about this Bill when the queue for the tribunal in many parts of the country stretches out for two years. That is incredibly expensive, and justice deferred is justice for nobody. Why not focus much more of our endeavours on trying to fix that issue?

I would be very happy to be intervened on if there are any real business groups—not the Institute for Public Policy Research or the TUC, but real business groups—that the Minister or anyone else would like to cite in defence of this Bill and that supports it in its current form. I am all ears, because that is not true of the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Confederation of British Industry, Make UK, the Institute of Directors, UKHospitality, the British Retail Consortium and so many more.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

The answer to that question is the Chartered Management Institute.

[Andrew Griffith]

Well, I am glad we have found one; I have not had any representations from it.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

The shadow Secretary of State is showing how much he despises the trade union movement and ordinary working people—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

[Ian Lavery]

I must declare a financial interest with regard to my connection with the trade union movement: I am a very proud member of a trade union.

In response to what the shadow Secretary of State said about support for the Employment Rights Bill, it was a manifesto pledge and the British public voted in their millions to support the Labour party to put this manifesto pledge through in its entirety. And guess what? That is what we are doing.

[Andrew Griffith]

I ask the Member strongly to withdraw that: I do not despise trade unions; not a single word I have ever said at the Dispatch Box indicates anything of the sort, and I would ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to get the Member to withdraw that comment as it is not worthy of him. I would have hoped for better form in the conduct of this debate.

I support people’s rights to trade unions—well-regulated trade unions. For 30 years, the Labour party accepted a broad consensus on the balance between the rights of workers and the rights of employers. Tony Blair never sought at any point to reopen the consensus on that balance that has served this country well, and it does no one a service to render people unemployed.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andrew Griffith]

I should give way to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who did so much service on this Bill.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. I am pleased that he has learned to count now; he must have improved his skills since his time under Liz Truss in the Treasury. He talked about the consensus over 30 years, but was it not his Government who introduced the Trade Union Act 2016, which did so much to damage trade union relations?

[Andrew Griffith]

I am trying to be generous to the hon. Member, as this Bill was part of his legacy before he was so rudely fired by a bad boss without any notice.

It is not unreasonable to say that a strike must be supported by a mere quarter of workers in order to be valid. I do not think the Labour party would claim the mandate that the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) was talking about on the votes of merely a quarter.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is not being very clear. Does he like the pre-2016 trade union regime, which is the one this Bill takes us back to, or does he like the post-2016 trade union regime, which is the one he seems to be advocating except when he talks about the 30 years of settled consensus? Which is it, because it cannot be both?

[Andrew Griffith]

We on the Conservative Benches seek to respect the role of trade unions, but in a flexible workplace where we see growth in the economy and—unlike what we see today—more people in jobs, rather than fewer people in jobs. That does not help anybody at all, least of all a Government who claim that their No. 1 obsession is growth. That is not an unreasonable position.

Not for the first time, I think Ministers have got themselves in a bind. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade is going around telling business groups that he is listening, but every one of them is against this Bill. From what the Health Secretary has been saying privately, it is clear that he is no fan of giving more power to militant unions to call low turnout strikes. The welfare Secretary has commissioned reports on getting people from welfare into work, and those reports talk about not disincentivising employers from hiring. Are Treasury Ministers really looking forward to the Office for Budget Responsibility next week scoring the impact of this Bill, given the independent estimates that it could shave up to 2.8% off GDP? The Chancellor likes to blame everyone from the dinosaurs onwards for her failure, but this one will definitely be on her.

The looming disaster of this Bill is the truth that dare not speak its name. It may be a triumph for the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), but it is a disaster for Britain. It is bad for business, bad for growth, and bad for jobs. Far from furthering workers’ rights, it punishes those who want a job. We do not protect workers by bankrupting their employers. Even the Government’s allies are warning them against this Bill.

Government Members have a choice. They can stand by and watch as their Government bring into law decades-worth of economic stagnation, or they can be on the side of the young, the vulnerable and the enterprising. History will remember this moment, because when unemployment skyrockets, businesses shut their doors, and young people stop believing and stop hoping, no one on the Government Benches will be able to say that they were not warned.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am proud to declare an interest as a lifelong trade unionist in the labour movement, which has helped me to get where I am today. Let me start by placing on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and all those colleagues in the other place who spent so many late nights working on this Bill.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden) to the Front Bench. She was among the many trade union leaders who helped to develop this Bill before it came to this place. The shadow Secretary of State thinks that the Bill was cooked up on the back of a fag packet, but it took years and millions of union members and ordinary people in this country, who have faced decimation since the Conservatives’ Bill in 2016. I offer my support to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax in finishing her job, because the House will know that this Bill is unfinished business.

I started my working life as a carer on casual terms, not knowing if there was going to be a pay cheque from month to month. It was because of a good, unionised job with decent conditions that my life and the lives of the workers I represented changed. As I toured the country in the election campaign, in every community I heard from so many who were in the same position—they wanted change, they wanted fairness and they wanted respect at work. That is why when we promised to deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation, we meant it.

It is very clear from the shadow Secretary of State’s opening remarks, and from what he said as the Bill passed through the House, that the Conservatives do not want to improve working people’s lives. In fact, it is very clear from his submission today—let us face it—that he wants to water the Bill down. When he mentioned the state of tribunals, I nearly fell off my chair. I cannot believe he can say that with a straight face, after the state in which the Conservatives left our justice system. I won’t even talk about the economic mess they left us in.

Despite the fierce criticism from Opposition parties and the relentless lobbying from vested interests, I am proud to speak in this debate as we deliver nothing less than a new deal for working people. Every time we have made progress on employment rights over the last 45 years, it has been resisted. It is always easier to do nothing—to take the path of least resistance—but in each generation, it has been the Labour party that has had the courage and conviction to change lives. Maternity allowance; equal pay for women; health and safety rights; the minimum wage—Labour changed lives, and this generation is no different.

This Bill shows that Labour is on the side of working people. They will know that ordinary people are better off, and it will have an effect on their families—their children, their brothers and their sisters. They will have basic rights from day one, such as protection from unfair dismissal. I cannot believe the Conservative party thinks that in this day and age we should dismiss people unfairly. I do not understand it.

We are going to strengthen sick pay, family rights, bereavement leave and protections from sexual harassment at work. We will have a ban on zero-hours contracts, a historic fair pay agreement in social care, an end to fire and rehire, a genuine living wage and the single biggest boost to rights at work in a generation, creating an economy that works for working people. That was the promise we made to the British public, and I urge the Secretary of State to fight every step of the way to deliver it in full. The public have no patience for the Tory and Lib Dem lords who, cheered on by Reform, are standing in the way of better rights for workers and frustrating what was a clear manifesto promise. Tonight, this House will once again send the message that we will not back down.

I will not go through every Lords amendment, but I will pick out a couple of the most damaging. First, Lords amendment 23 and Lords amendments 106 to 120 would break the pledge that we made to the British people to give them day one rights. The last Conservative Government shamefully doubled the qualification period against unfair dismissal to two years and stripped workers of protections at the stroke of a pen, and now they are at it again. Government Members believe that workers deserve fairness, dignity and respect at work, and they deserve it from day one on the job. Opposition Members say that these rights against unfair dismissal will slow down hiring, so let me be clear that employers can absolutely still have probation periods for their new staff; they just will not be able to fire them unfairly at will, for no good reason.

Secondly, Lords amendment 1B would tear up protections for workers on zero-hours contracts. This Government made a commitment to provide workers with an offer of guaranteed hours, and the Lords amendment would water down that right. We promised to ban zero-hours contracts—no ifs, no buts—and that is exactly what we should do. This Bill is a promise we made to the British public. It is our duty to deliver it, and I say to my Front-Bench colleagues that I will be with them every step of the way as we do just that.

Make no mistake: the Bill is good for workers, and good for business. It is not just the right thing to do; it is the foundation for the high-growth, high-skill economy that the UK needs. Its key measures are backed by many of Britain’s best businesses, including the Co-op, Centrica and Richer Sounds. Those businesses prove that if you treat people well, you get the best out of them. They know that being pro-worker is not a barrier to success, but a launchpad to it. That is why the Bill takes the very best standards from the very best businesses and extends them to millions of workers. It is also why we say proudly that this is a pro-business and pro-worker Bill. Respected business voices, such as the Chartered Management Institute, have indicated their support for the key measures in the Bill. We will continue to consulting businesses and hear their voices, to make sure that we get the detail right.

15:30

We talk a lot about growth in this place, but as the results from New York overnight show, growth means nothing if ordinary people cannot see it, and if communities have nothing to show for it. The reforms we are making today will give people security and dignity that they can feel. They will mean something to the thousands of pregnant women and mothers who will benefit from new maternity protections; the tens of thousands of fathers and partners who will be brought into the scope of paternity leave; the 1.7 million who will benefit from new policies on flexible working; the 2 million who will receive a right to bereavement leave; the up to 9 million employees who will benefit from protection from unfair dismissal from day one; and the 15 million people in every corner of this country who will benefit from Labour’s plan. Across this country, people will benefit from secure work and a decent wage that they can raise a family on. This Bill is a once-in-a-generation chance to reshape the world of work—to drive a race to the top on standards, achieve real growth, and build an economy that works for everyone.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and hear her passionate advocacy for this Bill.

The Liberal Democrats support many of the principles of this Bill. We have long advocated for strengthening employment rights in several ways, including by increasing support for carers, boosting statutory sick pay, and giving people on zero-hours contracts more certainty about their working patterns. There is a lot in the Bill that we support in principle and that moves us in the right direction, but we remain concerned about the specific way in which the Government plan to implement many of its measures. So much of the detail that should have been in the Bill has been left to secondary legislation or future consultations, making it impossible for businesses to plan ahead with certainty.

For that reason, we support amendments that provide clarity for businesses, for example by setting the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims at six months. Training, hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues that affect businesses across the country, and we must ensure that this legislation strikes the right balance for both employees and businesses.

[Antonia Bance]

Does the hon. Member believe that, in the first six months of employment, it is appropriate for people to be dismissed for unfair reasons and without a fair process?

[Sarah Olney]

The point has been made on a number of occasions that it is always possible for employers to make mistakes in their hiring—for people to not be the right fit for the job. There should be a straightforward way for those employers to dismiss those people without being challenged on the basis that the dismissal was unfair. The key point is not that employers should be allowed to make unfair dismissals, but if a dismissal has been fair, they should not have to defend it.

[Justin Madders]

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson has just said that it is not right that employers should pay for a mistake they made in hiring someone. Why should the employee pay for that mistake, if it was not theirs?

[Sarah Olney]

There is a balance between the employer and the employee. If the fit is not right, it is better for both sides that the employment is brought to an end, and that the employee is free to seek more appropriate employment.

There are very significant concerns. The lack of clarity about probation periods, which the Minister mentioned, and exactly what they mean, risks piling undue worry on to business managers who are struggling to find the right skills. We can compare that with the provisions in the amendment tabled on unfair dismissal.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I, both here and in the other place, have been clear in our support for an amendment that would change the obligation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request guaranteed hours. Amendment 1B would allow an employee to notify their employer if they no longer wished to receive guaranteed hours offers, but they would be able to opt back into receiving guaranteed hours offers at any time. That reasonable and balanced approach would relieve employers from having to issue guaranteed hours offers each reference period to workers who may simply not be interested in them, while ensuring that those who wished to receive such offers could continue to do so.

The Liberal Democrats strongly believe in giving zero-hours workers security about their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many workers are struggling with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. However, we also recognise that many people value the flexibility that such arrangements provide. Adaptability in shift patterns is often hugely valuable for those balancing caring responsibilities or their studies alongside work. It is therefore important to strike a balance that ensures that workers can have both security and flexibility.

Specifically, small and medium-sized businesses have highlighted that having to offer employees fixed-hours contracts on a rolling basis could impose significant costs and administrative burdens on their limited resources, compounding other challenges, such as the recent increase in employer national insurance contributions and the fallout from the previous Government’s damaging Brexit deal. The Liberal Democrat amendment that was debated in the Lords is in line with our long-standing policy that zero-hours and agency workers should have the right to request fixed-hours contracts—a request that employers could not unreasonably refuse. We believe that measure would maintain valuable flexibility and benefit both parties when the obligation to keep offering guaranteed hours, even to workers who clearly are not interested in them, imposes a significant burden that does not benefit either side.

As with all workplace rights, employees should be supported to exercise a right to request guaranteed hours without fear of any negative consequences in their workplace. The unified fair work agency being set up by the Government, which we welcome, could help ensure that employees received that protection and support. This approach would still give workers the vital security that they deserve, while avoiding unnecessary burdens for employers.

Last time the Bill was debated in the Commons, I spoke in favour of measures that would improve the clarity of the legislation on seasonal work, so I will once again speak in favour of Lords amendment 48B. The sustainability of so many companies, such as farming businesses, depends on getting the right people into the right place at the right time. Any obstacles to actioning that can have a huge impact on company operations, potentially throwing the entire business into jeopardy. Hospitality firms such as pubs, cafés and restaurants also rely on seasonal workers and are particularly vulnerable.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Can the hon. Lady define what rights somebody working behind a desk in this place should have under amendment 48B that somebody working behind a bar in this place should not?

[Sarah Olney]

They are different kinds of work with different work patterns, requiring different skills and experience. I am not entirely certain what point the hon. Member wants me to respond to.

If a different regulatory framework is to apply to seasonal work, a clear definition of seasonal work must be created to prevent employers from avoiding their legitimate responsibilities by claiming employees as seasonal workers in inappropriate circumstances. We continue to call for businesses that are especially reliant on seasonal workers to be properly considered when secondary legislation is created, so I urge Members to support amendment 48B.

On trade unions, I again speak in favour of Lords amendment 62B to maintain the status quo, in which a 50% ballot threshold is required for industrial action. The Government’s proposal to remove the threshold entirely means that a trade union could take strike action with only a small minority of eligible members taking part in the vote. That is bound to raise questions among the public about whether the will of workers has been accurately represented, and it risks unnecessarily creating tensions between workers, employees and the general public. That would not be a good outcome for any of the parties involved. We should maintain a robust process for launching industrial action.

[Ian Lavery]

Will the hon. Lady inform the House of the statistics relating to her election at the general election? She was elected by a minority. If it is good enough for her—she is doing a great job, by the way—why is it not good enough for ordinary working people?

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Gentleman will be happy to hear that 53.3% of Richmond Park voters voted for me to be their representative, so I was, in fact, elected by the majority of my constituents. I am delighted to hear that he thinks I am doing a good job for them. I think he was attempting to highlight that many of the people in the Chamber were elected on less than 50%. The first thing I would say to that is that on most ballot papers, there will have been a choice of more than two candidates.

[Ian Lavery]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Olney]

May I finish the point? If people are choosing from a list of five people, it is likely, under the first-past-the-post system, that the winning candidate will receive less than 50% of the vote. In a strike ballot, the choice is between two options. That is why there should be more than 50% of all members voting for the option to strike. That is the important point here.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has given me an excellent opportunity to point out that the Liberal Democrats have long been advocates of voting reform. Last December, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill advocating for proportional representation, which was passed. It remains the will of the House, as expressed on that occasion, that we should change the way in which we elect hon. Members.

Maintaining a robust process for launching industrial action is particularly important when we consider the scale of the disruption that the public face when strikes happen. The Liberal Democrats also continue to support measures that would retain the current opt-in system for contribution to trade union political funds. Amendment 72B maximises choice and transparency for individuals about the political funds to which they are contributing.

Most employers are responsible businesses that want to do the right thing by their staff, many of whom support the Bill’s aims, but they have significant concerns about the extent of the Bill, much of which is still undecided on and risks compounding other challenges that they face. Changes in employer national insurance, slow progress on reform of the apprenticeship levy and the absence of any meaningful action to bring down commercial energy prices continue to be extremely damaging to businesses, and to our economy as a whole. We must find a way to support small and medium-sized businesses in particular, and to provide clarity, so that they can plan ahead. If the Government were prepared to make meaningful improvements to the Bill that would make things easier for small businesses—for example, through the amendments suggested by the Liberal Democrats—they might find it easier to make progress with the legislation.

We support many of the aims of the Bill, and the spirit of the measures that strengthen employment rights, but I urge Members to support our amendments, which will help to ensure that this legislation strikes the right balance for both workers and business.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Justin Madders. After his speech, there will be a five-minute speaking limit for Back Benchers.

[Justin Madders]

Let me first draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which refers to an election donation from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and to my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions.

It is nearly nine months since the Bill completed its Commons stages and over a year since it was first introduced, so it is disappointing to see yet another delay. I know that many of my constituents would want these vital manifesto commitments to be enacted as soon as possible, but recent proceedings in the other place have demonstrated the intention of the Opposition parties to elongate the process and attempt to water down important protections that the Bill offers to workers. It is as simple as this: Labour Members were elected on a manifesto that committed us to making work pay, and the Employment Rights Bill is central to delivering that. It will be the biggest upgrade of workers’ rights in a generation. It is long overdue, and we will all be unashamed of our commitment to improving the lives of working people.

This Bill will have a transformative impact on the world of work, and particularly on people who lack job security and dignity. Make no mistake: at every single stage the Conservatives and Reform have voted to water the Bill down or weaken its protections, and now it seems that the Liberal Democrats have joined in. Our constituents will no doubt conclude that those on the Opposition Benches are siding with the bad bosses, and I urge them to reconsider and choose the side of working people. That is not an exaggeration, because the Lords amendments under consideration will gut the Bill of important protections for the millions of people currently in insecure work.

We do not have much time, so I will focus on Lords amendments 1B and 62 and Lords reason 120B, which I consider to be the most damaging amendments. Lords amendment 1B represents a continued attempt to undermine our commitment to banning exploitative zero-hours contracts. The Government, and Labour Members, have always been clear that the only way to tackle the most pernicious elements of such contracts is to make the right to guaranteed hours a right that people can genuinely exercise. Workers on zero-hours contracts are some of the least empowered in our economy, and the least able to actively assert their rights. Their working hours are inherently precarious and often depend on the vagaries of their bosses, and they are more likely to be younger and working in the lowest-paid sectors of the economy. Shifting this commitment to a “right to request” model, as the Liberal Democrat amendment suggests, would completely fail to recognise the power imbalance in the working relationship, and the real risk that assertion of rights would have negative consequences for those who just want some basic security and dignity at work. I am therefore pleased that we are rejecting those amendments.

Of course, that is not the only form of insecurity that those on the Opposition Benches want to keep on the table, as they support Lords reason 120B, which seeks to allow workers to be unfairly dismissed in the first six months of their employment. Maybe those in the other place, who have jobs for life, do not understand what it feels like to be tossed aside without any explanation. Maybe they do not appreciate how debilitating it can be for someone to go into work every day with the sword of Damocles hanging over their head, knowing that, if the chop comes, there will be absolutely nothing that they can do about it, but those bills will still need paying and their dependants will still depend on them. We need to drive out the insecurity that eats away at so many hard-working people in this country.

15:45

I do not agree with Opposition Members who protest that our change would, overnight, put a stop to hiring. The Government have been clear that employers will be able to pursue a lighter-touch dismissal process within a probationary period, and have rightly committed to consulting closely with employers on the implementation of that.

We often hear—we did again today regarding employers’ organisations—how it is not right that employers should pay the price for making a mistake when hiring someone, but why should the employee? Why should someone who may have given up a perfectly good job to take on another bear all the risk and the consequences if an employer does not get their hiring practices right? The Liberal Democrats, in their response, talked about this being needed to “strike a balance”, but I think the proposals for a statutory probation period actually do strike the right balance and deliver fairness to both the employee and the employer.

Opposition Members have also gleefully referenced a recent report by the Resolution Foundation on this issue. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), has been generous to me, but I will have to pull him up on something that he said in yesterday’s Opposition day debate: that the Resolution Foundation actually opposed this Bill. Well, I am afraid that shows that he simply has not read the report, because it says, in black and white, at the top of the first page:

“The Government’s Employment Rights Bill is important and welcome”.

I accept that it then goes on to argue against day one rights, but the only statistical evidence it put up in respect of that is a chart comparing us to other countries, and said that we currently have some of the weakest protections against dismissal and that this Bill will give us some of the strongest. Well, that is the actual point of this Bill, and I do not think it is a compelling argument to say that it is something we do not want to see delivered.

[Laurence Turner]

Is it not also the case that, within that graph, a number of the nations that the Resolution Foundation says have weaker protections actually have higher unemployment rates than our own? There is clearly not the relationship between the two that some in the Opposition have tried to suggest.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, that is something that the Resolution Foundation said when giving evidence to the Bill Committee. I will quote that directly:

“Internationally, we can draw scatter plots of the employment level in a country and the extent of employment regulation, and basically those lines come out flat. You have some countries with very high employment and very high levels of regulation, and some countries with lower employment and high regulation”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 116, Q119.]

So there is no clear relationship with the employment levels across countries. That is confirmed by the OECD, which has done lots of detailed work. That is what the Resolution Foundation said in its evidence to the Bill Committee last year.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Would the hon. Member like to put his money where his mouth is and tell us whether his faith in the Employment Rights Bill is such that he is prepared to make a commitment to his constituents in Ellesmere Port and Bromborough that if, having passed this Bill, unemployment goes up, he will resign his seat?

[Justin Madders]

I absolutely cannot believe that the Conservative party, which saw massive increases in unemployment in my constituency in the 1980s and 1990s when they were in power, have the cheek to start talking about the effects of unemployment on my constituents now.

The Resolution Foundation has said some things in recent weeks that I do not agree with, but it has said things in the past that are much more in line with what we believe the international evidence shows. So the kindest thing I can say about the Resolution Foundation is that I prefer its earlier work.

I turn to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 62, on repeal of the last remnants of the Trade Union Act 2016 and the removal of thresholds for industrial action ballots. I have always held the view that the introduction of e-balloting, if done properly, will lead to much greater participation in ballots and render arguments about turnout obsolete. The implementation timetable that the Government published indicates that e-balloting will begin next April. I hope that the Minister, when she responds, can provide some reassurance that that is still on track, and that we can therefore expect the end of thresholds to come at the same time, or very shortly thereafter. I would be disappointed if the amendment was an attempt to kick this issue into the long grass. I am not particularly keen on the conditionality in the amendment, which talks about whether to repeal the thresholds. There should be no question of “whether”; it should be about “when”. After all, that is what we promised to do in our manifesto. I urge the Minister to resist any temptation to introduce any conditionality and to deliver the Make Work Pay agenda in full, as we said we would.

I will conclude, because I am conscious that a number of Members wish to speak. I am proud that the Government are continuing to commit to implementing this Bill in full. The policies in the Bill are overwhelmingly popular with the public. They formed a key part of our manifesto and remain central to the Government’s plan for change. We on the Labour Benches proudly stand against those who seek to water down this Bill and hamper its implementation. We are proud to back workers and to deliver meaningful change in their working lives. We stand against maintaining the status quo of low pay, low security and little dignity at work, and we stand for job security and for delivering on our promises.

[Antonia Bance]

I wish to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, my proud 23 years in Unite, and the generous support from the millions of ordinary members of the GMB and ASLEF in paying into their political funds to put representatives of the working class here in Parliament.

I am here to deliver a simple but firm message: there will be no concessions on this Bill—not one. Opposition parties in the House of Lords are trying to water down the rights that working people voted for, but we will stand firm. The new deal for working people was a Labour manifesto commitment, and it will be delivered in full.

I want to talk about two sets of amendments, starting with Lords amendments 61 and 72, on political funds. The Lords want to keep the opt-in system, but it is abundantly clear that this is a deliberate attack on the political voice of working people. All this Bill does is restore the long-standing opt-out system that has lasted since 1946. Union members will still have robust rights, and they can opt out easily. Unions are tightly regulated—no other membership organisation has faced these rules. Unions’ political spending is transparent and accountable, with annual returns to the certification officer and the Electoral Commission regulating donations and campaigning. Of course, these political funds support wider campaigning, not just party donations, although I am proud to say that they support party donations too.

I also oppose Lords amendment 62, on keeping the unnecessary and unneeded ballot thresholds, which are designed to stop workers having a voice. The Tory and Lib Dem Lords want to reinstate the 50% turnout threshold that was introduced by the draconian Trade Union Act 2016. I remind Members from the Liberal Democrat party that they opposed that Act in 2016, including the ballot thresholds, and I wonder why they have now reversed their position. Ballot thresholds weaken unions and stall negotiations. Before 2016, ballots triggered talks and resolved disputes early. Now the thresholds delay dialogue and make resolution harder. No other organisations face turnout thresholds; this just singles out unions. Of course, anyone who is familiar with how the trade union movement works knows that no union would call members out on strike if they are not up for it.

With all due thanks and respect to the other place, we will still repeal the Trade Union Act 2016 in full, with no concessions. This Bill is the first step in delivering the new deal for working people—our promise to the working people of this country. This is the change that working people voted for. The Government will not give in to unelected Tory and Lib Dem Lords siding with bad bosses to weaken workers’ rights—not now, not today, not ever.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to support from trade unions, of which I am most proud.

The past four decades of structural decline in the share of the national income going to employees, decades marked by the erosion of trade union rights, has been exacerbated by 14 years of the Conservative Government forcing down real wages across the United Kingdom, leaving working families still struggling to recover. Against that backdrop, the most urgent task of this Labour Government is to raise living standards. Trade unions are critical to that mission and the Employment Rights Bill will help to deliver that.

The Bill represents a cornerstone of the Government’s new deal for working people, a vote-winning manifesto pledge. I very much welcome evidence of the popularity of these policies in the platform of Zohran Mamdani, New York’s newly elected Democrat mayor. Among other things, he pledged protection for delivery workers, including guaranteed hours. Yet the amendments to this Bill made in the other place would water down that commitment and deny working people the rights they were promised. I therefore must speak in strong opposition to the Lords amendments, which, taken together, would weaken the protections that this House has committed to deliver for working people across the United Kingdom.

Lords amendment 23 and Lords amendments 106 to 120, which concern day one rights, would remove the right not to be unfairly dismissed from the very start of employment. Instead, they would impose a six-month qualifying period and empower Ministers to introduce a further initial period in which only limited protections apply. That is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Government’s manifesto. It would leave new employees vulnerable to arbitrary dismissal and recreate the very insecurity that the Bill was designed to end.

[James Wild]

When the hon. Gentleman has spoken to employers in his constituency about this specific provision—I am sure that he has—what have they said?

[Andy McDonald]

The concept is pretty simple. Conservative Members are conflating different issues around unfair dismissal and probationary contracts. They are scaremongering. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents the continuation of probation periods. The only thing we are saying is that it would be unfair to dismiss somebody for an unlawful reason. I really wonder why it is so difficult to grasp that concept.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy McDonald]

No, because I am conscious of time.

There is no impact on retaining probationary periods—they remain intact. Having day one rights against unfair dismissal does not prevent an employer vetting and doing recruitment properly, and using probationary periods legitimately.

Turning to Lords amendment 1B, the so-called guaranteed hours opt-out, this provision transforms a clear right into a conditional option. Instead of guaranteeing a contract that reflects the hours a person actually works, it allows employers to invite workers to opt out of that right altogether. Experience with the working time opt-out shows exactly where this leads: it becomes a standard clause, routinely signed away. That is not the end of exploitative zero-hours contracts; it is their re-badging.

Finally, Lords amendment 62, which reintroduces ballot thresholds for industrial action, seeks to restore one of the most restrictive elements of the Trade Union Act 2016. This House has already agreed that those provisions were excessive and undemocratic. No other organisation is bound by such turnout requirements before it may act. Reinstating them would frustrate meaningful negotiation and delay the resolution of disputes, not promote it. Let us drop the thresholds and quickly move to e-balloting, as we promised.

For those reasons, I urge hon. Members to resist the Lords amendments and to insist on the Bill as originally passed by this House. It must be delivered in full, for it represents the baseline of a fair work settlement. However, while defending the Bill, we must also recognise that it is only a starting point. The consultations now under way must ensure that secondary legislation goes further and fulfils the Government’s wider promise to make work pay. I hope we see a robust and enforceable right of access for trade unions to workplaces, both physical and digital, so that unions can reach and represent workers effectively, with penalties that deter obstruction. I hope we will create a process to expand fair pay agreements beyond adult social care and schools, embedding sectoral collective bargaining across the economy to raise pay and standards in every workplace. We must also make progress towards a single status of worker.

The Employment Rights Bill is a landmark measure, but its promise will be realised only if this House defends it against dilution and strengthens it in implementation. I therefore call on all Members to reject the Lords amendments and to stand by our commitment to working people: to deliver the new deal for working people in full and to build from it a fairer, more secure world of work.

16:00

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Given that time is short, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will endeavour to keep my remarks brief. I intend to speak to specific amendments today, but I feel compelled to start with a general comment in respect of financial interests. Throughout the stages of the Bill, and again today, it has been suggested by the Opposition that a number of Government Members speak not from genuine and sincere belief, but because of arrangements involving donations to their constituency Labour parties. I say to those on the Opposition Benches that that argument and line of thought betrays a laziness towards this issue that is reflected in their lack of effective scrutiny of the Bill, with the Opposition resorting instead to hackneyed and ancestral stereotypes and lazy assumptions that reflect nothing about the world of unions and the world of work.

[James Wild]

Members of the public who are watching this debate will not necessarily have ready access to the records of the thousands of pounds that have been taken by each Member referring simply to their financial interests. In the interest of transparency, will the hon. Gentleman therefore say how many thousands of pounds he took from trade unions, if any, to support this Bill?

[Laurence Turner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for proving my point exactly. I will happily tell him that since becoming a Member of this House, I have not received a penny in political donations from trade unions. My constituency Labour party received a donation before the election, but that is an entirely different matter. I have only one matter to draw attention to in my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which is my chairship of the GMB parliamentary group, which is an unpaid role.

We are asked today to consider a number of amendments that directly contradict our manifesto commitments. Lords amendments 61 and 72 on political funds are a case in point. In the other place, the noble Lord Burns gently questioned whether this was a manifesto issue, but the Make Work Pay document, which our manifesto said would be implemented in full, clearly said that the Trade Union Act 2016 would be repealed. That must include this provision.

The amendments before us seek to preserve the punitive restrictions that were originally imposed as retribution in 1927 and repealed in 1946, after which we had 70 years during which arrangements worked effectively. The actual impact of these amendments, were they passed, would be the same as any arrangement that moves from opt-out to opt-in, which is a reduction in the ability of working people to speak with a collective voice.

Let us not forget that trade union political funds do not exclusively fund donations to parties. Look at the campaigns that have been run and the cross-party support they have won, such as GMB and Unison’s “Protect the Protectors” and GMB’s campaigns on domestic defence manufacturing—two campaigns that the Conservatives came to support—as well as USDAW’s “Freedom from Fear”, and the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, the result of Unite’s campaign in the aftermath of the Morecambe Bay disaster, in which so many cockle pickers tragically and disgracefully lost their lives. Even today, in this place, trade union funding helps to address the abuse that has occurred within the confines of the estate, and which there is a risk will continue in the future.

Trade unions are democratic bodies. Any member of a trade union can demand to see the receipts of political expenditure, and decisions on party donations are taken on a collective basis. When that provision was originally repealed, the Attlee Government’s Attorney General of the day said—I think this bears repeating today—that the Conservatives relied on the

“old delusion that the Labour party was being built upon the hard-earned pennies of honest Conservatives who were too timid to declare their true political colours and were being bullied by horrid, nasty trade unionists into supporting the political funds of a party to which they were so much opposed.”

Anyone who has worked with trade union members will recognise that to be a delusion indeed, and we have heard much of that delusion from the Opposition through the passage of the Bill.

I was going to make similar comments to those my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance)—who is both honourable and a friend—made in respect of Lords amendment 62, but she covered it expertly. I will finish by talking about Lords amendment 121B on the school support staff negotiating body, which has not been discussed so far today. I recognise that this amendment is substantially different from other amendments that have been sent to us on this matter, but I still believe that it is unnecessary.

First of all, the overwhelming majority of academy employers do subscribe to the National Joint Council terms and conditions for school support staff—terms and conditions which, as has been widely recognised for more than 20 years, are out of date in respect of school support staff. The effect of Lords amendment 121B would to be to create a two-tier arrangement between school support staff in local authority maintained schools and academies. It states that employers could introduce terms and conditions. I am concerned about the potential contradiction with the provisions in the Education (Schools) Act 1992, which that require such changes to be made on a collective and not a unilateral basis. Furthermore, it states that terms and conditions that could be changed should be “in aggregate” an improvement. That clearly leaves room for employers to introduce a weakening to some areas to the detriment of the 1,700 school support staff in my constituency.

I am proud to have had an association with this Bill, and I look forward to rejecting those specific amendments tonight.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I proudly refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my involvement in the trade union movement throughout my professional career.

The Employment Rights Bill is long overdue, and although others continually seek to wreck it with worker-unfriendly amendments, we will not allow it. We on the Government Benches know that this Bill is about economic growth and security for all workers. It is about banning unfair dismissals, strengthening statutory sick pay, outlawing fire and rehire, and gaining new maternity and paternity leave rights and rights to bereavement leave.

There are so many fantastic measures in this Bill, and as the Minister noted, we are today again presented with a number of amendments that we do not support. I want to speak to just one. Lords amendment 1B is about the Employment Rights Bill’s most vital protection—a manifesto commitment on which I proudly stood in my city to deliver: the statutory entitlement to fixed hours. This is not an abstract legal reform; it is a common-sense protection for people who are often invisible in our labour market and for whom insecurity is the norm, not the exception.

[Naushabah Khan]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does she agree that exploitative zero-hours contracts are a huge problem for workers and that banning them is a big step, so we should oppose any steps to try to water down the legislation?

[Amanda Martin]

I absolutely agree; I think the key word there is “exploitative”.

People in Portsmouth North and across the country deserve fairness, dignity and the ability to plan their daily lives and future. In sectors such as retail, hospitality, construction, social care and logistics, many workers are on unpredictable, variable hours,, with shifts cancelled at short notice or only a minimal work week offered in order for employers to control their labour costs. This makes budgeting, second jobs, childcare, healthcare planning and indeed everything in life almost impossible.

Let me give the House a local example. One of my constituents, “Sara”, has worked in a Portsmouth café on a zero-hours contract for four years. She is told at the beginning of each week what hours she might get. One week she might have 25 hours, and the next week she might get eight—and the next she might get nothing. Because she cannot predict her hours, she ends up in debt, skipping medical visits and having to rely on emergency credit to pay her bills. Under the Bill’s intended protection, Sara could request fixed hours and have far greater stability for herself and her family.

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful point. Does she agree that for Sara and for my constituents who are on short or zero-hours contracts, the meat of the amendment, which would introduce the bureaucratic farce of an offering of an offer, instead of a right, would ruin the meaningful change in the Bill and that the introduction of an ability for workers to opt out would open up a loophole with detrimental effects in the real world, where people could be rewarded with overtime if they agreed to opt out?

[Amanda Martin]

Absolutely. It would leave workers unable to reject overtime, even if they were knackered, having already done 60 or 70 hours that week.

That brings me to Dave, a plasterer working on one of my local building sites. He is technically self-employed, but in reality he is also on a rolling zero-hours contract. Some weeks he earns enough to keep his mortgage, and some weeks he earns enough to put aside a little bit of money for Christmas; other weeks, he earns nothing at all. He is told to stand down when winter hits and work slows, with no pay, no notice and no safety net. That insecurity is corrosive and affects not just finances, but families, health and morale on jobs.

Let us be clear, the public are firmly with us. According to the TUC’s 2025 mega-poll, support for guaranteed-hours contracts sits at over 70% across the regions and nations of the UK. This is not about denigrating businesses and business owners—many are fantastic and provide great opportunities—but without the bill, unscrupulous employers will continue to sidestep responsibility and run a race to the bottom.

Arguments are made that these measures would impose burdens on business, discourage hiring and risk flooding employment tribunals. Those concerns should not be a pretext for hollowing out protections and should instead ensure that workers know how much they will earn each month so that they can plan and live their lives. Sara and Dave, who I referred to earlier, are just two names; behind them are thousands of lives blighted by unfair employment practices. Sara and Dave will not mind me saying that they are not young. Despite what the Opposition want us to believe, zero-hours contracts are not just exploitative for the young; they are exploitative for many other people in our society.

People deserve the right to security. I urge colleagues to reject these Lords amendments, which would weaken the Bill, because fixed-hours entitlement is not a radical idea but a basic standard of decency in the modern world of work. If we really mean it when we say in this House that we respect working people, we must deliver laws that protect them.

[Euan Stainbank]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud, experienced hospitality worker of six years. I have proportionate respect for the work of the other place on the Bill, and am once again bemused and frustrated on behalf of my constituents that this generational, fundamental and basic common sense bit of legislation is once again before us, along with the hill that many in other place seem to want to make a stand on.

It is apparent that after years of stagnating living standards, job No. 1 for the Government was to make work pay again, tipping the scales in favour of working people and, especially for the younger generation who have been discussed today, recapture a work ethic and value of work that I worry had been lost during the years of Tory Government. Why, then, does the other place insist on Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120, which would remove the day one right on unfair dismissal? That is once again telling young, predominantly lower paid and insecure British workers in hospitality, in factories and on work sites across our constituencies that their continued employment and income is precariously balanced on the benevolence of their employer, not on the value of their labour.

That feeling is real every day that this measure is not on the statute book. Young men and women are being bullied, prodded and pushed out of their jobs by the small minority of bad employers that do exist across our constituencies. I have had kids in their first jobs straight out of school, further education or higher education—this was their first chance—tell me that they were sacked in the weeks prior to two years of service. Looking at Lords amendment 106 from my perspective, I see no reason why that same circumstance would not then occur a few weeks before six months of service.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that good employers have nothing to fear from anything in the Bill and that many good employers will embrace these measures, as indeed many do?

[Euan Stainbank]

When I listen to businesses in my constituency I find, as I am sure every Member of this House does, that they are worried across the piece for a number of reasons and have been for a number of years. Yet many good employers do not rank this in their top five concerns coming forward, and especially not the employers that I worked for in the hospitality and retail sector. Actually, they see the benefits in keeping workers for longer and having more security in knowing who their workforce is. That was a major concern for the hospitality and retail sectors that I worked in, especially on coming out of the pandemic, and not being able to keep staff was also a major cost.

On unfair dismissal, if we accept the amendment, we will leave people without a legal right of action when they are unfairly dismissed. We must reject it; it is an unfair proposal.

16:15

Moving on to Lords amendment 1B, why did the Opposition insist on that? It fundamentally mischaracterises the dynamic of the workplace for the majority of those who are on zero hours contracts, as I was for six years in the relatively recent past. Rather than the employer proactively offering a guaranteed hours contract, the amendment would put the obligation on the employee to access and accept. In the lowest-paid and most insecure industries, this would be rife with potential for interference and bad incentives for employees to opt out to convenience the employer. As I have experienced in hospitality and retail, in reference to the working time directive, this was rife throughout the sector, especially when someone was finishing a shift late on and the employer needed somebody in the next day. I cannot see a world in which this situation would not be subject to similar interference from the employer; or worse, with the reference period, the employee will be given fewer hours, especially if they have pre-emptively insisted to their employer that they would access that right.

On amendment 48B, I am exasperated, as I have stated several times, that with the definition of “seasonal work” as captured including work in the creative industries, retail, hospitality and other sectors, there would be an attempt to carve out those sectors from other rights in the Bill. The Tories, Lib Dems, Reform and anybody else who supports the amendment tonight will have to go back and explain to their constituents why they believe that those who serve them behind a bar should access fewer rights than those who work behind a desk. The industries targeted under the amendment are very specific.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, who I like very much, for giving way on that point. He is clearly a massive fan of the Employment Rights Bill. The people of Falkirk are watching him, so would he like to commit to them that if, having passed the Employment Rights Bill, unemployment goes up and therefore we have fewer workers with fewer rights, he will resign from his seat?

[Euan Stainbank]

I make the commitment to the people of Falkirk that the quality of their work, especially for younger people, will go massively through the roof. Younger people in my constituency who have been subject to insecure work, low pay and zero hours contracts have seen the quality of their work diminished, so my guarantee to the people of Falkirk is that the quality of work will go up. I think other Members referred to this, but it is a cheek for Tory Members to talk to post-industrial communities such as Falkirk, which were savaged by the Thatcherite Government. They will get absolutely no credence in my constituency.

I say to those on the Opposition Benches that they have time to change their mind. They can back the Government today, get the Bill passed without it being watered down and stop the attempts that are perceived, at least in my constituency, as an attempt to betray young British workers who are doing the right thing, going out and earning their way. For too long under the Tories, those workers have lost the belief in the quality and opportunity that work provided. They will see massive benefits from the Bill. Make work pay and get this done.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

For the final Back-Bench contribution, I call Anneliese Midgley.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my membership of and financial support from the trade union movement.

I stand here as a proud trade unionist, with a couple of decades of work behind me standing up for the working class. I pay the truest of tributes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders).

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about some hon. and right hon. Friends and the work that lots of people have done to bring this transformational Bill to the Commons. We also need to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for his tremendous work at the very beginning of this process. It is transformational and everybody deserves lots of credit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Success has many mothers.

[Anneliese Midgley]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I absolutely agree with him about the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East has done on this for over a decade.

This Bill brings changes that tip the scale in favour of working people and, taken together with the rest of the new deal for working people, it amounts to the greatest uplift in workers’ rights in our generation. That is down to the friends that I have just mentioned here today. It is their legacy and it is one that will change the lives of millions of working-class people for the better. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), will do a great job of completing the process.

This is personal for me, because it was my dad’s secure, well-paid, unionised job on the production line in Ford’s Halewood plant that gave me a better life than my mum and dad had. It lifted us out of poverty and provided us with enough money and stability for a decent home, and enough to live a life of dignity on. Everyone should have that, and that is why I will fight for work where people can flourish and thrive and for jobs to take pride in that can provide a good life. No way would I be here in this place, representing the place where I was born and raised, if it was not for my dad’s job.

The Tories, backed by the Lib Dems in the other place, are trying to water down the Bill. They are aided and abetted by Reform, who are never in this place to debate this and have consistently voted against the Bill. Some of the Lords amendments would rip out the heart of the Bill. I am going to speak briefly to amendments 23 and 106 to 120, which would delay protections from unfair dismissal until a worker had been in their job for six months. This would mean that a worker could be dismissed at whim, for no reason. How is this okay? How is it defensible? A day one right not to be unfairly dismissed is good for workers and good for businesses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) spoke about the research from the IPPR and the TUC, which found that 73% of employers supported giving employees protection from unfair dismissal from day one of employment. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), dismissed the TUC’s research from the Dispatch Box, but it represents 5 million workers and everyone else at work. Are they not stakeholders who should be listened to as well? We know that good employers up and down the country already live up to the standards that we are setting out in this Bill. Today, we need to stop these attempts to water down the Employment Rights Bill, deliver the protections from unfair dismissal that our constituents voted for and make sure we deliver the new deal for working people in full.

[Kate Dearden]

I thank all Members for their brilliant contributions today and for their engagement with the Bill throughout the many months we have been debating it. That is incredibly appreciated and valued.

I start by reiterating a quote from Professor Simon Deakin at the Cambridge University centre for business:

“strengthening employment laws in this country in the last 50 years has had pro-employment effects. The consensus on the economic impacts of labour laws is that, far from being harmful to growth, they contribute positively to productivity.”

I remind the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who made a number of contributions, of my opening remarks. UK employment laws are mostly a product of the 20th century. They have not kept pace with how businesses employ people or with how people experience their working lives today: when, how and where they work. The world of work has fundamentally changed in recent years. It is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman’s party spent 14 years impotently watching the rise of the gig economy and the many changes in our employment landscape but now pretends that the status quo still works for everyone. It simply does not. That is why the Bill is so important: it raises those standards and levels the playing field for businesses, so that they are not undercut by people who do not play by the rules, which negatively impacts their businesses and productivity. The Bill is important for working people so that they get that security and those rights at work, as well as for businesses, including those good businesses that already go above and beyond and do brilliant work supporting our workforce and different economies across the country.

The shadow Minister mentioned seasonal work. The initial reference period will be set out in regulations, as I have already spoken to. I reiterate that we believe that 12 weeks is the right length, balancing the need for qualifying workers to be offered those guaranteed hours reasonably soon after they start a role and the need for a reference period long enough to establish the hours that they regularly work.

I was surprised to hear the remarks from the shadow Minister on employment tribunals. On their watch, average wait times for an employment claimant increased by 60% between 2010 and 2022 due to funding cuts. The previous Government’s introduction of fees had a disproportionate impact on woman and the low-paid. Yet again, we are fixing messes that they left behind. The taskforce I mentioned in my introductory speech for how we can fix our employment tribunal system, and our work under the Fair Work Agency, which will be up and running next year, are incredibly important as part of that wider package.

[Amanda Martin]

It is good to hear about the taskforce. Could the Minister give us more information about what other things it will look at and investigate that will support employees?

[Kate Dearden]

The taskforce will bring together different stakeholders so that we can assess the problems within the system and work out the best way to fix them, because at the moment it is not working for employers or workers, who want access to justice and want it quickly.

[Andy McDonald]

Would the Minister agree that the introduction of these rights and protections is absolutely critical, but equally important is the ability to enforce those rights? The Fair Work Agency has the potential to bring that to fruition and ensure that when people are in those circumstances and are the beneficiaries of an award, they will ultimately receive it, because far too many people take on these cases and do not get any redress.

[Kate Dearden]

We met Matthew Taylor, the new chair of the Fair Work Agency, this week to discuss the agency’s progress to ensure that it is up and running at speed. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, enforcement is vital, and it is crucial that workers are aware of their rights. That is why the agency is so transformational in our approach and important for our wider agenda.

To respond to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), I urge her to support the Government as we seek to update and upgrade our employment rights to be fit for the 21st century. She mentioned lots around detail. As I mentioned earlier, as is standard for lots of employment rights legislation, we want to consult extensively with businesses, unions and employers to ensure that we get this right, and I am sure that she agrees with that approach.

The hon. Member mentioned turnout thresholds. As I have mentioned, we want to create an industrial relations framework fit for a modern economy and workforce and that works for everybody. We have been clear that we intend to ensure that trade union legislation is proportionate and effective and does not create unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. We remain committed to removing the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots through the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016. We support a strong mandate for strike action, but a threshold set in legislation is not the best way to achieve that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) talked about our proud Labour legacy of the courage and conviction to change lives, and she is a powerful and inspiring demonstration and testament to that. That is why this legislation is so important, reshaping the world of work and delivering security and dignity that people can feel, as she rightly mentioned. We cannot build a strong economy through employment insecurity. The legal loopholes that exist have contributed to the erosion of living standards and allowed a race to the bottom. I am always grateful for her support and thank her for her offer of support as we proceed to Royal Assent and the implementation stages to ensure that everybody across the country can benefit, workers and business alike, and that is why the Bill is pro-worker, pro-business and pro-growth.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) made a powerful speech and responded eloquently to lots of points raised by Opposition Members, and I thank him for that. I reassure him that we remain committed to the repeal of the 50% turnout threshold, and we have been clear that it is our intention to align the removal of thresholds with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for unions. The amendment does not change that commitment. We are working at pace to permit electronic balloting by April 2026. He will be pleased to know that we will shortly launch a consultation on an electronic and workplace balloting code of practice, and I encourage all stakeholders to respond to that consultation.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for her excellent points on the importance and use of political funds. I reiterate my remarks on the 50% threshold and hope that she is reassured by them. She will have heard the Government’s commitment to delivering the Bill in full from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State at Labour conference. I hope to have reiterated that commitment at the Dispatch Box today.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for all his work on this legislation. It has been a pleasure to work with him over a number of years. He mentioned fair pay agreements, which we are introducing for social care, as he rightly said. We will learn from that process before considering their introduction in other sectors, but I appreciate his passion for this area. I am sure that we will be in touch with him to speak about that progress.

16:30

On trade union access, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East may be aware that we launched a consultation last week seeking views on a number of changes to modernise and hardwire negotiation, engagement and dispute resolution into industrial relations, including the enforcement mechanism for the right of access. I thank him for raising that matter.

My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) made brilliant points. I am forever grateful for their support. They are strong advocates for working people across the country. It has been wonderful to work with them over a number of years, and to be in this House today with lots of friends who have contributed to this agenda and this vital work. I hope that we have the chance to celebrate it at some point.

[Laurence Turner]

May I invite the Minister to respond to two things? First, I was asked earlier how many times the word “maternity” appears in the Bill. The word “pregnancy” appears 16 times, “parental” 27 times, and “bereavement” 34 times, but we cannot restrict the debate to individual phrases. Secondly, this is not some abacus exercise; the real impact of the Bill is the change and improvement it will make for millions of working families thanks to day one rights.

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent and well-made point. I am glad that he has managed to find the ctrl+F function with such speed. I always rely on him to provide such efficiency and clarity. The Bill will benefit more than 15 million workers. That is an incredibly powerful statistic to give at the Dispatch Box. More than 2 million people on zero-hours contracts could benefit, as well as the many workers he mentions who will benefit from further protections and rights at work.

[Michael Wheeler]

I thank my good and hon. Friend for giving way. Millions of workers, including those on zero-hours contracts, stand to benefit from the measures in the Bill. Does she agree that the amendments tabled by Liberal Democrat peers on the right to guaranteed hours are an unworkable bureaucratic mess that opens up scope for abusive practices in the workplace and removes the Bill’s meaningful protections from far too many workers?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my good and hon. Friend for his important contribution. Like him, I meet many people in my constituency who do not know day to day whether they will have enough money for food and rent because they do not know how many hours they will work that week. That is why it is so important that we give people basic security by banning exploitative zero-hours contracts. We know that people value the flexibility that those contracts offer, which is why we are tackling the exploitative ones, as he rightly outlines. Those amendments might look for a different route to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts, but we want to protect working people, because it is so important that they have certainty, week by week, on what they will be paid—that is what they deserve. I thank him for all his work in this area over a number of years. He brings a wealth of experience to this part of the Bill.

The Government are clear that we cannot build a strong economy while people are in insecure work. Employment law has not kept pace with modern working patterns, and that has allowed some employers to exploit gaps in the law, undercut responsible businesses and fuel a race to the bottom. Backed by our new industrial and trade strategies, the Bill will drive productivity, foster innovation and lay the foundations for long-term secure growth. It will level the playing field for good employers and put the UK economy in step with competitors in other advanced economies.

As we have heard today, I stand on the shoulders and build on the incredible hard work of many right hon. and hon. Friends. I pay tribute to them, and put on record my thanks and gratitude for all their work in getting us to where we are today. I hope that all hon. Members support the Government in our determination to get the Bill over the line and update our employment rights legislation in this country, for businesses and for employers, for the future and for growth. I thank hon. Members for their contributions.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.

16:35

Division 339

Ayes: 310

---

Labour: 283
Independent: 11
Scottish National Party: 6
Green Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1

Noes: 155

---

Conservative: 85
Liberal Democrat: 63
Independent: 3
Reform UK: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Lords amendment 1B disagreed to.

16:49

More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords message, the proceedings were interrupted (Order, 15 September).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83G).

Clause 23

Right not to be unfairly dismissed: removal of qualifying period, etc

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 23 and amendments 106 to 120, does not insist on Commons amendment 106A, but proposes Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 23 and Lords amendments 106 to 120.—(Kate Dearden.)

16:49

Division 340

Ayes: 308

---

Labour: 283
Independent: 10
Scottish National Party: 6
Green Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 153

---

Conservative: 86
Liberal Democrat: 63
Reform UK: 2
Independent: 2

After Clause 26

Definition of seasonal work

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 48B. —(Kate Dearden).

17:00

Division 341

Ayes: 310

---

Labour: 281
Independent: 12
Scottish National Party: 6
Green Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 150

---

Conservative: 85
Liberal Democrat: 61
Independent: 2
Reform UK: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

After Clause 54

Industrial undertakings

Resolved,

That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 60B and 60C but proposes Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.—(Kate Dearden.)

Clause 59

Requirement to contribute to political fund

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 61 and 72 but proposes Government amendment (a) in lieu.—(Kate Dearden.)

17:12

Division 342

Ayes: 312

---

Labour: 285
Independent: 11
Scottish National Party: 5
Green Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1

Noes: 151

---

Conservative: 84
Liberal Democrat: 62
Independent: 2
Reform UK: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Clause 156

Orders and regulations under Employment Rights Act 1996: procedure

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 62 but proposes Government amendment (a) in lieu.—(Kate Dearden.)

17:24

Division 343

Ayes: 311

---

Labour: 286
Independent: 12
Scottish National Party: 6
Green Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1

Noes: 152

---

Conservative: 84
Liberal Democrat: 62
Independent: 2
Reform UK: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendments 1B and 48B;

That Kate Dearden, Nesil Caliskan, Dr Jeevun Sandher, Laurence Turner, Antonia Bance, Andrew Griffith and Charlotte Cane be members of the Committee;

That Kate Dearden be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee;

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, at Prime Minister’s questions earlier today, the Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) no fewer than five times whether he was aware of any prisoner being released early, having claimed asylum. We now know that he had in his possession at that time a folder containing details of the accidental release of Brahim Kaddour-Cherif from Wandsworth prison last week—a man previously convicted of sex offences and who is, as we speak, at large and posing a risk to the public. It has emerged since then that another man, William Smith, was accidentally released on Monday.

The Deputy Prime Minister failed to disclose that relevant information to this House. The House and the public are entitled to be told about such things, but the Deputy Prime Minister withheld that information. The police have subsequently confirmed that they have no objection to that information being released, contrary to briefings from the Government. Will the Justice Secretary come to this House before the close of business and make a statement so that Members can question him? We cannot wait until the House returns on Tuesday for a proper account.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. Whether the Government choose to make a statement is not a matter for the Chair; however, the Treasury Bench will have heard the right hon. Member’s concerns.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that he was held back for operational reasons by the Metropolitan police from answering that question at Prime Minister’s questions. Mr Swinford of The Times has published right now that far from that being the case, there is

“significant frustration in the Met Police”,

as they said that there was clearly “no operational issue” at all with the release of that information. I wonder if you will take that into consideration, Madam Deputy Speaker, because surely this is a process of misleading the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I refer him to my answer to the previous point of order. It is not a point of order and not a matter for the Chair, but it is a matter of debate.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Can you confirm that it is a point of order?

[Graham Stuart]

It is, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that a Bill was presented to Parliament only this week that provides for a duty of candour for public servants. It is not enough simply to tell the truth; there has to be a duty of candour. Can you, Madam Deputy Speaker, share with the House whether the sponsoring Minister, the Justice Secretary, has decided to remove himself as the sponsor of that Bill?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order; it is not a point of order, but a point of argument.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I do hope that this is a point of order.

[Dr Murrison]

It very much is, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have this week had the publication of a very important Bill—so important that the Prime Minister himself came to this House to present it on Second Reading. The sponsor of that Bill is the Justice Secretary. While I have no doubt that the Justice Secretary was being truthful today, there is a question over whether he was being candid, which is a higher test. Can you advise me on how the Justice Secretary might be requested to come to this House to clarify his position?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. However, I repeat that this is not a matter for the Chair. It is not a point of order.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill: Programme (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7))

That the following provisions shall apply to the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 3 February 2025 (Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery): Programme):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 1, 75, 30 and 31, 43, 84, 97, 2 to 29, 32 to 42, 44 to 74, 76 to 83, 85 to 96 and 98 to 121.

Subsequent stages

Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to.