Draft Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices During the Recognition and Derecognition Process
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice: Access and Unfair Practices during the Recognition and Derecognition Process.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. The code of practice was laid before the House in draft on 6 July. I will explain to the Committee why we are bringing the code for consideration.
In our plan to make work pay, we made a commitment to simplify the trade union recognition process. The Employment Rights Act 2025 updates the legal framework on statutory trade union recognition, so that workers have a meaningful right to organise through trade unions. That includes having removed, last April, the requirement for a union to demonstrate at the application stage that a majority for union recognition is likely, and having removed the requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the appropriate bargaining unit in support of union recognition.
The 2025 Act also makes changes to provide better access arrangements for unions and it aims to deal more effectively with unfair practices during the recognition and derecognition processes. The Government are therefore updating the 2005 version of this code to ensure that all parties, including employers, workers and unions, understand how the legislative changes on access and unfair practices affect them.
We consulted on the revised code between 4 February and 1 April. The consultation sought views on the clarity of changes made to reflect the updated legal framework, structural amendments to reflect the legislative changes made under the 2025 Act, and other changes made to the code, including updating the guidance within it so that it accurately reflects modern working practices and language.
A number of revisions were made to the existing 2005 code following the consultation. Previously, the code applied only to the recognition or derecognition ballot phase. Now, the draft code reflects the changes made by the 2025 Act to access and unfair practices and it applies from the point where the Central Arbitration Committee accepts an application for recognition or derecognition. The code also reflects a clear timetable for negotiations on access: 20 working days from the point that the CAC accepts a trade union recognition application. If no agreement is reached, the CAC will have 10 working days to determine a reasonable access agreement.
The code has been revised to reflect the fact that the 2025 Act allows five working days after the close of the recognition ballot for complaints to be submitted to the CAC where an unfair practice is alleged. Where such a practice is alleged, the Act makes it easier to determine the complaints by only requiring the CAC to consider whether an unfair practice has occurred, without considering the effect that it may have had. The updated code also increases the suggested access meeting frequency and minimum length of meetings to once every five working days and 45 minutes, respectively, during the access period.
The changes will provide more opportunities for meaningful engagement between the union seeking recognition and the workers within the bargaining unit. That will allow union representatives to answer any questions that the workers may have, before the balloted workforce decides whether to agree to statutory union recognition.
Employers will of course have similar opportunities for engagement with their workers throughout the duration of period. In addition, we have sought to reassure employers, small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, for example by clarifying that the statutory recognition process does not apply to employers that have fewer than 21 workers and that nothing in the revised code will require employers to breach general data protection requirements.
The draft code also provides guidance on what constitutes a good access agreement. It establishes a structured framework covering key areas, such as who may be granted access, how and where access should take place—including digital options—and arrangements relating to timing, frequency, privacy and communication. Finally, the Government have taken the opportunity to bring the code up to date with changes in digital communications. The code now provides significantly more detailed guidance in this area, including guidance on digital access.
The draft code in Committee reflects the updated legal framework for statutory trade union recognition. Together with the 2025 Act, the changes strengthen the collective voice in the workplace, enhance worker representation and help to foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions and employers. I therefore commend the code of practice to the Committee.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The Conservatives opposed the Employment Rights Act at every stage of its legislative journey and remain steadfastly opposed to that Act, elements of which this code serves to implement.
The Employment Rights Act 2025 burdens employers with 330 pages of red tape: the single largest increase in employment regulation in a generation. As a direct result, we have seen reduced hiring, job cuts and huge costs to businesses. Even the Government’s own assessment of the Act admits that it will cost business billions. We are not opposed to the Employment Rights Act because we want to see workers stripped of their rights. We are opposed because of the damage it will do to businesses up and down the country.
The code of practice is one piece of a much larger picture but an important one. Before turning to that, I will touch on the consultation that the Minister mentioned. Over 920 responses were received to the Government’s consultation, with over 80% of those coming from employers and their representative organisations. On the proposals to increase the frequency of access meetings from once every 10 working days to once every five, 98% of the respondents disagreed. Some 97% of respondents disagreed with the proposal to increase the minimum meeting duration from 30 minutes to 45 minutes. When asked if the code adequately reflects digital communication in the workplace, 94% said no. On the question of whether the code adequately explains the role of the CAC, 96% said no. When asked if section D of the code provides sufficient guidance on access arrangements, 97% said no. Finally, some 96% said that the code’s unfair practices guidance was insufficient.
The consultation on the code of practice is damning. On virtually every substantive question put to the consultation respondents, the overwhelming majority of them expressed concern or disagreement, or called for a significant revision. The Minister has said that the Government listened and made amendments. I will be fair and acknowledge that some clarifications have been made, particularly on digital access. That is welcome, but on the issues that matter most to small and medium-sized businesses, the Government have noted the near-unanimous concerns of the consultation responses and chosen to disregard those concerns and force the code through against that advice.
On the duration and frequency of access meetings, I would appreciate if the Minister would outline why the overwhelming view of the consultation respondents has been ignored. Will the Minister also outline if any assessment has been made of the extra costs that employers will incur in facilitating the increased frequency of access meetings? The consultation response makes clear that the majority of respondents—57%—were from relatively small organisations of between 10 and 49 staff. Those are not large corporations with dedicated human resources and legal teams. For many businesses the code will put serious demands on time and limited resources.
On unfair practice complaints, the code makes significant shifts. The CAC will now be able to uphold unfair practice complaints without the need to show that the practice actually affected the outcome of the ballot. We recognise that the old test may have been difficult to satisfy in the time allowed, and that did lead to some genuine complaints falling, but does the Minister not think that removing the need to prove an impact on the result of the ballot risks opening the door to vexatious claims to disrupt the process? Will the Minister outline if any safeguards are in place to prevent that?
Another significant issue is that it is still unclear to many employers what constitutes unfair practice. In the consultation, employers consistently raised their concerns about the lack of clear examples and case studies of what constitutes an unfair practice and about the uncertainty that lack creates. The Government’s response stated that it was not appropriate to include examples in the code because it is the CAC’s role to make judgments on a case-by-case basis. Surely some basic examples could be provided to employers. Will the Minister outline now what an unfair practice is?
The Conservative party will continue to make the case for balanced employment rights that protect workers without unduly punishing the businesses that employ them. The code of practice fails to do that. It creates even more uncertainty for businesses and makes employing people even harder than the Employment Rights Act already made it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to my questions, but I am afraid that we cannot support this code of practice.
Kate Dearden
I welcome the shadow Minister and thank him for his speech and questions. The Government are committed to simplifying and improving the recognition process so that workers have a meaningful right to organise through their trade unions. I am not going to spend this time going back and forth over ideology and principles, why the Employment Rights Act is the right thing to do to drive up the quality of work across every area of this country so that people have the rights that they should expect in the workplace, and that we are updating employment rights legislation so that it is fit for the 21st century. We have spent a lot of time doing that, so I will bring my remarks back to the code that we are discussing today.
The revised code supports part of our wider ambition. It supports the Employment Rights Act to deliver better access arrangements for unions and deals effectively with unfair practices during the recognition and derecognition process. As I said in my opening remarks, we listened carefully to views that were expressed during the consultation earlier this year, and I am happy to respond to the particular questions that the shadow Minister raised today. The Government carefully considered the consultation responses and recognised the concerns that were raised about operational impact. However, we believe that workers should have a meaningful opportunity to hear from union representatives and ask questions before making a decision about recognition. That is why we have retained the proposed frequency and duration of meetings alongside guidance intended to minimise disruption and support those practical arrangements, and amended the code to try to aid clarity and support practical use as far as possible.
We think it is right that we provide a level playing field. Employers have access to the workforce throughout the recognition process. Granting the union access to the workplace from the point where the CAC accepts the recognition claim enables the union to also have access to the workplace from the start of the recognition process, at least once the terms of the access are agreed or determined. We think that that is a fair approach. The costs and benefits in the recognition process and the changes that the shadow Minister referenced in his speech were laid out in the impact assessment; the Government expect the cost to be very low, estimating the annual net cost to business at £0.3 million. The code is statutory guidance; it does not impose further costs on employers beyond what we discussed at length during the passage of the Employment Rights Act.
Turning to the shadow Minister’s questions around unfair practices, the legal definition as to what constitutes an unfair practice has not changed, as he referenced, in the Employment Rights Act:
“Unfair practices are actions by an employer, union, or worker intended to influence the outcome of a recognition ballot. These include bribery, coercion, threats, or actively interfering in union management to sway worker decisions.”
We have clarified in the code some issues to consider around some actions during the recognition process. As he referenced, amending the definition of an unfair practice would require separate legislation, and our priority has been to implement the reforms to the recognition process as soon as possible and on the October timeline, as we promised throughout our road map since the introduction of this legislation.
We want to give time for the reforms to bed in and, should it be necessary in the future, we will bring forward further proposals to amend the definition of an unfair practice in addition to our planned additional unfair practice in relation to e-balloting in recognition and derecognition ballots. This code is a key part of our approach of providing increased worker voices in the workplace, improving pay, conditions and productivity, which enables us to protect workers from the unfair practices that we are discussing today, and improving employer-employee relations in the kind of country and workplaces that we are fighting for and want to build. It makes sure that recognition is fair in terms of the access period. It needed to be updated since that 2005 legislation in line with the ambitions that we have for legislation and the Employment Rights Act.
This is a key part of that agenda, and I believe that the code before colleagues on the Committee today will assist unions and employers in complying with the new statutory requirements on access and unfair practices during the recognition and derecognition process. That is why this code is necessary, and I hope that colleagues can support it today to enable that vision and for this to work practically in workplaces.
Question put.
Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I want to point out that the cast list has been slightly altered. Matthew Patrick has replaced Jeff Smith.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to appear under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The draft regulations were laid before both Houses on 14 July. This instrument concerns the governance arrangements for the Windsor framework and Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements, as well as the UK-EU withdrawal agreement. It reflects the Government’s commitments to the Windsor framework, the UK internal market and building a stronger relationship with our partners in the EU.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will have listened carefully to the statement from the Prime Minister on Monday, where he confirmed the good news that the next UK-EU summit will take place on 20 November. That summit, as the Prime Minister put it, presents an opportunity to make progress on the crucial issues of our economic growth and immigration. Its outcomes stand very much to benefit Northern Ireland, alongside the arrangements set down in the Windsor framework. They include an agrifood agreement to smooth flows of goods and reduce the unique processes and paperwork required to do so, which will save businesses time and money and increase consumer choice—real benefits felt in the real world and in the lives and livelihoods of people in Northern Ireland. I was pleased that that was acknowledged by a number of right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber and in a Westminster Hall debate on Monday.
This instrument takes forward and supports certain commitments that the Government have already made in relation to the Windsor framework. Specifically, these commitments came in response to the recommendations of the independent review of the Windsor framework that was conducted by Lord Murphy and published last year. It does so by providing greater flexibility in the process for the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Democratic Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise regulations that are applicable under the Windsor framework. The instrument also clarifies the statutory obligations of Northern Ireland Departments to support the Northern Ireland Assembly Committee by providing it with responses to reasonable requests for information on relevant EU legislation. That similarly has the aim of supporting the Assembly’s scrutiny.
The instrument helps facilitate the governance of the UK-EU withdrawal agreement as we look to the future of our relationship with the EU. It does so by enabling the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee to use written procedure to adopt decisions or recommendations, such as those in relation to the Windsor framework, which is, of course, a crucial element of the withdrawal agreement.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
How have things changed since that safeguard was written in under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020? That safeguard was written in in 2020, and the Minister is now saying that we need to remove it. Why?
Mr Falconer
The decision to change followed the independent review conducted by Lord Murphy, which I referred to. It is intended to keep the governance arrangements working effectively, particularly where we need to keep rules that apply in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in step under the new and beneficial arrangements we are seeking with the EU.
Sir Christopher Chope
Will the Minister take another intervention on the same point from me?
Mr Falconer
I think I have to take turns, so I will take an intervention from the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Jim Allister
Can the Minister tell the Committee where in the Murphy review it recommends the removal of section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018? Where in the Murphy review is that? I cannot find it.
Mr Falconer
I do not have the full Murphy review to hand, but I am happy to respond in detail. I have tried to set out to the Committee why we think that this change does not in any way take away from the force of the arrangements in place, and why it is a reasonable change to better enable scrutiny of measures as they come through.
Let me explain in more detail how the instrument meets its purpose. First, it is in response to recommendations made by the independent review. I hear the anxiety of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim to see exactly where in the review those recommendations are made. I hope he will excuse me for not having the papers to hand, but I am happy to write to him in further detail, with quotes, if he would like.
We are committed as a Government to providing greater flexibility to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee in conducting its examination and consideration of EU legislation relevant to Northern Ireland. We judge that the committee plays a very valuable role in scrutinising regulations of relevance to Northern Ireland, and its reports and engagement with affected stakeholders inform the work of the Government, just as they inform the work of many Members of the Assembly. The changes to schedule 6B of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are aimed at providing the Assembly with greater latitude in conducting its work within the two-month window following the publication of a relevant EU Act, if it wishes to use it.
A timeframe for the scrutiny of EU Acts under the Windsor framework is provided for in law so that everyone—Members of the Legislative Assembly, businesses and civil society—is clear about how the process works and the impacts of those enactments. Currently, the committee has five working days to vote on whether to hold an inquiry into a replacement EU Act. If an inquiry is held, a report must be produced no later than 15 working days before the end of the two-month scrutiny period, which begins on the day the EU publishes the Act in its Official Journal.
The instrument gives the committee greater flexibility by expanding the inquiry decision window to 10 working days, and it moves the publication deadline for inquiry reports to no later than 12 working days before the end of the scrutiny period. Those changes will allow the committee greater latitude to choose how to run any inquiries it conducts into relevant EU legislation, take evidence and report on them.
Secondly, the instrument takes account of the need to ensure continuing effective governance arrangements for the UK-EU withdrawal agreement that are also fit for the future. As the Prime Minister set out on Monday, that future includes the vital deals on the table for the upcoming summit in Brussels on 20 November, spanning agrifood trade, linking emissions trading systems and energy co-operation.
This change, to support the governance of the withdrawal agreement and the future agreements we are seeking with the EU, is made by omitting section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It reflects our strengthening relationship with the European Union and will allow the UK to agree to decisions at the Joint Committee between meetings. This process will enable decisions to be made by written procedure, which cannot currently happen because of domestic law. The Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee typically meets only twice a year, so this change will enable the UK to take necessary and time-sensitive decisions as needed, which it currently cannot.
The change will also allow the Government to ensure that, where relevant EU legislation is applicable in Great Britain under future agreements, Northern Ireland can keep pace. That will be an important factor both for the implementation of relevant rules and for allowing businesses the maximum amount of time to adapt. It is a relevant consideration as the Government take forward future agreements with the EU on agrifood, emissions trading and electricity. For instance, on electricity, the proposed arrangement could cut wholesale energy prices in Northern Ireland by 20%, including lower bills for households and businesses alike, while protecting the smooth operation of Northern Ireland’s dual market access and its place within the UK market.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Can the Minister just explain how it would cut electricity bills in Northern Ireland by 20%? The Government keep asserting that but have not explained how it would happen.
Mr Falconer
I am looking forward to the conversation about the electricity provisions and a future arrangement with the EU, but I am not sure that that is relevant to the changes before us.
Mr Falconer
We hope that, in a future arrangement with the EU, on which we have not yet concluded negotiations, the changes that I am proposing will enable us to operate the existing arrangements more smoothly, so that we might be able to adopt new ones with speed. Conscious of the Committee’s time, I do not think it is wise at the moment to go through all three of those agreements in great detail.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
On a point of order, Mr Efford. The Minister appears to be making assertions that he cannot substantiate. Is that in order?
The Chair
Heaven forfend that someone should do such a thing in Parliament, but I do not think that is a matter for the Chair at the moment. What is a matter for the Chair is that we do not go down this rabbit hole, which is not within the scope.
Mr Falconer
I hosted some of my constituents earlier and they asked me what parliamentary debates were like. I did not tell them that “He started it” was a regular feature, but now I will.
Let me emphasise that, as with the modifications to the Democratic Scrutiny Committee’s procedures that I have already set out, the use of written procedure will be optional and not used for every decision at the Joint Committee. I emphasise that the instrument does not amend the process for scrutinising the decisions that the Government propose to take at the Joint Committee, where the Government maintain obligations to Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The scrutiny process remains as it is today, including where it is provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Government’s EU scrutiny arrangements with Parliament. By removing this restriction, the governance of the withdrawal agreement will be aligned with that of the trade and co-operation agreement, which has no similar restriction on the use of written procedure. As with the UK-EU partnership council established under the TCA, the Joint Committee will remain the default forum for UK-EU decision making in relation to the withdrawal agreement and will continue to meet, just as the partnership council does.
Finally, the instrument provides for and clarifies the responsibilities that Northern Ireland Departments and Ministers are already under to the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. This is aimed at supporting the work of the committee and the governance arrangements of which it forms part. The instrument clarifies the duty on those authorities to comply with a reasonable request for information from the committee and that it should not be regarded as unreasonable solely on the grounds that a Northern Ireland Department or Minister lacks primary responsibility for the EU Act in question. This change is made in response to recommendations in the independent review on how Northern Ireland Departments should be empowered to provide evidence and support to the committee.
I also note for completeness that the instrument makes some technical amendments to existing legislation. Specifically, it amends outdated references within the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 so that they now refer to the Windsor framework. This minor change achieves greater clarity on the statute book.
This instrument clearly shows that the Government are committed to implementing the recommendations of the independent review of the Windsor framework. We are making every effort to ensure that Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements work for its people and businesses to deliver growth in every postcode, and to facilitate a future relationship for the UK with the EU that takes the country forward.
As the Prime Minister set out on Monday, building that future relationship with the EU is vital if we are serious about promoting growth, controlling immigration, and upholding our values and our security. How we build that future is a conversation that we must have, and one that the Government will approach with care and transparency. Part of that is about ensuring that the arrangements we have in place for Northern Ireland work effectively, just as it is about preparing for the new agreements that are on the table at the UK-EU summit. For those reasons, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I want to make it clear from the outset that while His Majesty’s Opposition do not object to every provision within these draft regulations, we cannot support them today.
We have no quarrel with the purely technical updates to statutory terminology, nor do we oppose implementing the practical recommendations of Lord Murphy’s review to strengthen the hand of the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Democratic Scrutiny Committee. Giving the committee 10 working days rather than five to decide whether to hold an inquiry and clarifying that Northern Ireland Departments must comply with reasonable requests for information are sensible steps. However, statutory instruments are unamendable and the Government have chosen to package these modest Stormont reforms alongside regulation 2(6), a measure that points in the exact opposite constitutional direction by deleting section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
We oppose that approach for three fundamental reasons. First, we resist the use of Henry VIII powers to weaken governance and strip away primary legislation safeguards in this area. Section 15C was not a drafting oversight. When Parliament inserted it via section 35 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act, paragraph 325 of the explanatory notes stated explicitly that its purpose was to preclude a Minister of the Crown from using the written procedure to adopt Joint Committee decisions or recommendations. That lock was enacted by primary legislation to ensure that decisions are taken by a Minister in person, and that there is full ministerial accountability, including to Parliament, for all decisions made in the Joint Committee. Using delegated powers in secondary legislation to reach back into an Act of Parliament and delete a deliberate accountability safeguard placed upon the Executive is a misuse of Henry VIII powers, and it is a particularly concerning precedent ahead of the Government’s EU reset Bill.
Secondly, we strongly oppose removing the prohibition on the Joint Committee making decisions between meetings. We have great sympathy for the submission made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. As he rightly exposed, paragraph 5.7 of the Government’s explanatory memorandum merely states the mechanical effect of deleting section 15C, without offering a single word of explanation as to why a safeguard that was once deemed essential is no longer required.
Worse still, there has been no meaningful consultation on removing that safeguard. Section 7 of the explanatory memorandum relies on the Murphy review as its consultation basis, yet Lord Murphy never recommended repealing section 15C. In fact, Lord Murphy noted that the Joint Committee meets at ministerial level alongside the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, and he specifically recommended broadening the inclusion of stakeholders into these meetings to bring greater transparency and openness, not less.
Under section 15C, formal Joint Committee meeting dates are announced well in advance, giving Parliament and the public a clear focal point to track decisions. By repealing section 15C, decisions and recommendations can be signed off on paper between meetings and slipped through at any time without notice. Only when pressed by the Scrutiny Committee in July did the Cabinet Office finally admit that the real driver behind this change is facilitating decision making between meetings for the point when future UK-EU agreements are in force.
Sir Christopher Chope
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does he agree that his points are compounded by the fact that the Minister has refused, or expressed himself unable, to respond to any of these issues?
Mike Wood
My hon. Friend obviously has a long and strong record of promoting accountability in Government. That was not always to the pleasure of the Whips Office when we were in government, but it is particularly important that he continues that function when measures like this are being implemented through secondary legislation. If the Government want new governance mechanisms for future EU reset deals, they should make that case openly in primary legislation rather than stripping away statutory locks by stealth today.
Thirdly, we need better oversight of the Windsor framework regulation-making process, not weaker scrutiny. As the House of Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee highlighted, we are currently in the extraordinary position of not even having a complete public list of all the EU laws to which Northern Ireland is subject under dynamic alignment. That Committee rightly called on the Cabinet Office to establish a dedicated regulatory divergence unit to maintain an up-to-date public database on the National Archives website, alongside more detailed statements after joint meetings.
Yet in its July responses to the Scrutiny Committee, the Cabinet Office admitted that section 15C provides no statutory notification mechanism and that Westminster scrutiny relies on explanatory memorandums triggered by EU Council decisions establishing the EU’s position, not the UK’s position, which are then followed by publication on the gov.uk website after the fact. Relying on Brussels paperwork to alert the UK Parliament to decisions our own Ministers are taking by written correspondence, and publishing those decisions on gov.uk only after they have been signed, is no substitute for proper parliamentary oversight.
Until the Government bring forward proper transparency and scrutiny over the Windsor framework regulation-making process and stop using inappropriate Henry VIII powers to dismantle primary legislation safeguards on Joint Committee decision making between meetings, His Majesty’s Opposition cannot support these regulations.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Tucked within these regulations—it does not have its genesis in the Murphy review, and the Committee will have noted that the Minister was unable to verify that it did—is regulation 2(6), which will omit section 15C of the 2018 Act, which stated:
“The United Kingdom’s co-chair of the Joint Committee may not consent to the Joint Committee using the written procedure”.
Why might it have said that? We get the answer to that when we look at the reasoning of the then Government for inserting that section through section 35 of the 2020 Act. What did the explanatory memorandum say about why section 15C was being inserted? It stated:
“No use of written procedure in the Joint Committee…The provision precludes a Minister of the Crown, as the UK’s co-chair, using the written procedure…to adopt recommendations or decisions of the Joint Committee. This ensures that decisions made by the Joint Committee are made by a Minister in person. The purpose of this provision is to ensure there is full ministerial accountability, including to Parliament, for all decisions made in the Joint Committee.”
That was the fundamental reason for ensuring that the Minister made the decision in person, and to ensure that that gives some semblance of accountability.
Why does this matter? What does the Joint Committee do? It has some very fundamental functions, one of which is to evaluate all new EU laws that might be relevant and to decide whether they are within the scope of the Windsor framework—in other words, to decide whether they should apply without further ado to a part of this United Kingdom. That is what the Joint Committee does, among other things, although that is probably its most critical function. When the EU makes a new law, the Joint Committee decides whether that falls within the Windsor framework and therefore whether it should automatically—without further debate, without scrutiny, without the right to amend it and without the right to even debate it—apply directly to a part of this United Kingdom. That is such a fundamental issue that it was properly written into section 15C as a safeguard that the matter would be considered seriously by a Minister. It would be done in person, and there would be some semblance of accountability.
What the Government want to do today is to remove that safeguard and to do it on the false premise that it falls out of the Murphy review. There is not a word in that review about this—not one word. So why is it in regulations supposedly implementing the Murphy review? Let me say this about the Murphy review: the Government promised there would be a debate on the Floor of the House of Commons on the Murphy review. There has never been such a debate. But they come to this debate and try to slip in this fundamental change.
It is no accident that this statutory instrument is specified as dealing with constitutional law. So it does; it fundamentally affects constitutional law. Remember what my constituents are subject to in more than 300 areas of law: EU law that they do not make. They do not elect anyone there and cannot change those laws, which have their entry point on to the Northern Ireland statute book through the Joint Committee. That is it: once it gives those laws the go-ahead, they are on the statute book. Constitutionally, that is utterly absurd in itself, but to then, in those circumstances, withdraw the one safeguard there is—namely, the assurance that a Minister has at least considered them and not just ticked a box in some written exercise—adds great insult to the injury already done by the process that exists.
Would any member of this Committee contemplate, for one moment, lawmaking of that sort for their constituents? I respectfully suggest that none of them would be so dismissive of the rights and interests of their constituents as to say that it is okay to apply law by means of a written procedure, where no one ever debates that law, no one can ever amend it and we did not make it ourselves, but where we just colonially implement it from the EU. No one on this Committee would accept that for their constituents, so why should this Committee ask me to accept it for my constituents?
The very least of safeguards is to be removed. Many decisions will slip through unnoticed. At least when the Joint Committee meets, there is a publication. Even though it meets in private, there is a publication of what it does and what it approves, so we can at least, by a very tortured route, try to follow what it is doing. Take that away from the meetings of the Joint Committee, and we will be left with virtually nothing but unbridled colonial rule from the EU.
That, of course, goes against the entire trend of the need for more transparency. Murphy himself talked about it. The first report of the House of Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee demonstrated that, rather than requiring less transparency and scrutiny, the Windsor framework is crying out for more. This is what it said:
“We recommend that the Government engages with the EU in order to bring greater transparency to the workings of the UK-EU bodies of the Windsor Framework. This should include producing more detailed statements after joint meetings.”
Now they are going to remove the substance of the joint meetings—the ministerial involvement in them—and allow things to be done in a paper exercise, whereas the House of Lords Committee is quite right to say that the opposite direction of travel should be pursued.
I say to the Committee that this is not just some technical change. Yes, there are lots of technical changes here, changing words to insert the words “Windsor framework” and so on, but that is not the substance of this. The substance is the surreptitious removal of the single protection that exists under section 15C. Why do the Government want to remove that? We have had no explanation. The explanatory memorandum does not give an explanation. The Minister tried to tell us that it is because of the Murphy review; I stand on the ground that it is not. There is nothing in the Murphy review to that effect, so why are we doing this, other than the convenience of not having to bother considering, in any sensible way, legislation that might apply to my constituents, and of just rubber-stamping and passing it all through, because who cares whether it is good law or bad law? That is not an attitude for any legislator to take. Members of the Committee need to pause, think and put it in this context: would you do this to your constituents? If not, do not do it to mine.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.
I want to say a few words, as the Minister did, about the context of these regulations. The history of our relationship with the European Union was that, whenever a Minister brought a proposal to the House to increase the powers of the European Union or to enlarge its activities in our own jurisdiction, it was always, “There’s nothing to see here. This is already being done. This proposal just recognises what is already happening. There is no change.” By increment, we got further and further away from democratic accountability, which led to the British public deciding that they wanted to leave the European Union.
This statutory instrument is another chip being taken out of our democratic process. The Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework are about as undemocratic as one could possibly imagine—that is, there is no direct possibility of intervention by the people of Northern Ireland in the lawmaking process for their own Province. Incidentally, if we have dynamic alignment in the UK as a whole, that will apply in the UK. No Member of Parliament, no majority of the House of Commons and no majority of both Houses will have the power to block or stop a new regulation being applied by the European Union if we cement ourselves into a process of dynamic alignment.
The sanitary and phytosanitary agreement is meant to generate an extra £10 billion of economic activity in the UK over the period to 2040—I think I have that correct. Well, that adds up to barely more than £700 million a year. That is a peanut in the overall scheme of things. What is holding back the economic activity in this country is excessive regulation and excessive taxation. [Interruption.] I note what you are indicating, Mr Efford. My point is that the trade-offs for agreeing to the SPS agreement are not matched. As the Secretary of State for Business and Trade said recently, were we to join the customs union, it would have an adverse effect on the trading arrangements we have agreed with the rest of the world.
These regulations seem to embed Northern Ireland further into an undemocratic regulatory process with the EU, by removing the safeguard of section 15C of the 2018 Act. The Minister has not provided an explanation for why that is going to happen. I reinforce the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim: it is not in the review to which the Minister referred. If it is in the review, please can he quote from it? If it is not, what is the justification for doing it? He has not given an explanation, and it is time that he did.
Mr Falconer
I am surprised by the degree of emphasis on the point about letters or meetings. I will come back to that, but I emphasise to the Committee that I am a Minister in writing, in person, when I am sitting and when I am standing. In all those guises, I am fully accountable to Parliament for the decisions I make. I thought the tone of some of the interventions from Members earlier was suggesting that letters in my name—for I am the British co-chair on the Joint Committee—would be done by other people. I reiterate to the Committee that I take my responsibilities both as co-chair and as a Minister in this House very seriously. I reject any suggestion that, whether in writing or in person, I would not take my responsibilities with the seriousness that the Committee would expect.
Let me turn to the question about the purpose of the review, and therefore the purpose of the regulations. The purpose of the review was to provide for the streamlining of these arrangements. The purpose of the regulations is to see that effected. For the reasons I set out in my introductory remarks, I do not think that my accountability is reduced by writing letters. I have justified the change with reference to the larger streamlining of governance.
I had two different flavours of objections from the Opposition Benches: one flavour of objections, from the Traditional Unionist Voice Benches, was about adding insult to an injury introduced by those on the Conservatives Benches in the Windsor framework and the Northern Ireland protocol while they were in government. The Government of which I am a part have inherited those arrangements, and we are seeking to improve them in the way I set out in my opening remarks.
I emphasise to right hon. and hon. Members that this instrument is not the only action that this Government are taking at home to build a strong future relationship with the European Union. We have announced £16.6 million to strengthen the UK internal market and help Northern Ireland boost trade with Great Britain. That includes a comprehensive one-stop shop regulatory support service beyond what is available on gov.uk currently. We will be helping businesses to trade across the UK and EU markets and to benefit from Northern Ireland’s unique dual-market access. We have improved the duty reimbursement scheme so that businesses whose goods are determined to be at risk when entering the UK can easily secure a reimbursement of duty. We have continued to ensure the smooth supply of veterinary medicines. And we have been working concertedly to ensure that the impacts of changes to the rules that apply in Northern Ireland account for its specific circumstances.
However, there is more to do. Right hon. and hon. Members have already touched on the approach to the future relationship with the EU and the important role of scrutiny in that. This Government are very clear that we see the interests of Northern Ireland at the heart of the UK-EU relationship looking ahead. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there are overwhelmingly tangible benefits in our pragmatic approach for Northern Ireland, particularly in easing burdens for our traders and our agrifood sector.
Getting the right outcomes for Northern Ireland and the rest of the country rests on a relationship of trust and co-operation. I have been pleased to hear that recognised, including in some of the responses to the Prime Minister’s words on Monday afternoon. I emphasise that we can build that trust and co-operation only if we work on the basis of agreed arrangements, which are the best way of delivering certainty and stability for businesses and people. For the Government’s part, we will only accept arrangements that protect Northern Ireland’s place in the Union and its internal market, prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland and deliver certainty to businesses on the basis of agreement with the European Union.
I invite those in this Committee Room and beyond who may be instinctively more sceptical towards an SPS agreement to consider what that means for businesses: no practical solutions for the businesses moving their goods, no lifting of paperwork burdens and no reduction of costs. That, to my mind, seems to be the exact opposite of protecting the UK internal market. It simply holds our traders back. As the Prime Minister rightly asked, why would we not do everything we can to deliver those savings for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland?
For those reasons, we look forward to the UK-EU summit in November, where we hope to build on the progress since last year’s summit and secure deals that make a real difference to people’s lives, and around which we will set out the different options for our long-term relationship with our European partners, helping us find a path forward. We must continue to build on these foundations and bring real benefits to all parts of the UK. As we do so, I assure the Committee that we will also remain focused on smoothing flows of goods to Northern Ireland where we can, within the arrangements that apply now, with an eye to a better future.
Question put.
Draft Boiler Upgrade Scheme (Amendment to the Energy Act 2008 etc.) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Boiler Upgrade Scheme (Amendment to the Energy Act 2008 etc.) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 13 July. The boiler upgrade scheme is the Government’s flagship scheme for supporting the decarbonisation of heating in homes and small non-domestic buildings across England and Wales. Through the scheme, households can receive grants towards the installation of eligible low-carbon heating technologies, primarily heat pumps, helping them to overcome the up-front costs of moving away from fossil fuel heating systems.
The draft regulations are an important enabling step towards the future inclusion of heat batteries within the scheme, helping to ensure that consumers can benefit from a wider range of low-carbon heating technologies. In 2025, the Government consulted on expanding the range of technologies supported through the boiler upgrade scheme, including the potential introduction of heat batteries. For members of the Committee who may be unaware, heat batteries are a type of thermal energy storage system that can use low-carbon electricity to generate and store heat for use when it is needed. Following the consideration of consultation responses, the Government confirmed our intention to support heat batteries through the scheme, once appropriate standards and consumer protections are in place.
The draft regulations amend section 100 of the Energy Act 2008, which provides powers for the Secretary of State to establish
“a scheme to facilitate and encourage renewable generation of heat”
in England and Wales. At present, those powers apply only in relation to specified technologies and energy sources. The draft regulations add thermal energy storage systems to that list, providing the necessary legislative foundation for thermal energy storage systems, including eligible heat batteries, to be supported through Government schemes made under those powers, such as the boiler upgrade scheme.
It is important to be clear that the draft regulations will not themselves introduce grants for heat batteries into the boiler upgrade scheme. Instead, subject to Parliament approving the regulations, the Government intend to introduce a further statutory instrument to amend the Boiler Upgrade Scheme (England and Wales) Regulations 2022 and enable support for eligible heat batteries through the scheme. The Government are supporting the future inclusion of heat batteries to increase consumer choice, recognising the potential to provide an alternative low-carbon heating solution in properties where heat pump installation may not be suitable.
The draft regulations also make a technical amendment to the 2022 regulations to clarify the powers available to the scheme administrator, Ofgem, where an installer has received an ineligible payment. The amendment will allow amounts owed to be recovered through a combination of repayment and offsetting against future grant payments, helping to strengthen scheme administration and safeguard public money.
In conclusion, the draft regulations ensure that the legislative framework underpinning the boiler upgrade scheme can accommodate thermal energy storage systems. They represent an important enabling step towards the future inclusion of heat batteries within the scheme, supporting greater consumer choice and helping more households across England and Wales to transition to low-carbon heating. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse, in my first outing on an SI from a Department I spent 18 months in. Not only is it amazing how much things have changed; it is amazing how much they have not, given some of the arguments that have come forward.
As the Minister rightly set out, the draft regulations extend the BUS to thermal energy storage systems and make it a little easier for Ofgem to recover payments. However, it would be remiss of me not to point out the context of this debate, when we have heard in the media that this could be one of the schemes facing funding cuts.
We only have to look at paragraph 5.5 of the explanatory memorandum to see that it still refers to the £2.7 billion. We discussed this issue yesterday in Energy Security and Net Zero questions, when we asked whether every single penny of the warm homes plan—that £15 billion-worth of funding—would be kept. However, the Minister was unable to give an answer, so it will be interesting to see whether that will be the case today.
When we boil this SI down, the real question is whether this further extension of subsidy represents value for money. The Government’s wider ambition was to install 600,000 heat pumps a year by 2028, but deployment remains far below that level. Of course, this scheme was introduced by the Conservative Government, but we should judge policy by its results, and not defend it simply because we introduced it. The fundamental problem is that electricity remains too expensive. Rather than addressing the underlying problem, the Government continue to reach for subsidies. That risks having to ask taxpayers to compensate for an energy market that makes electric heating less attractive than it should be. There is also a question of fairness: households unable to afford a new heating system should not face additional costs to subsidise those who can.
Heat batteries may well have a role, particularly in homes unsuitable for heat pumps. We are not opposed to the technology; we are simply questioning the economics of subsidising it. The Government have announced a grant of £2,500 per installation, but they appear to have decided the level of subsidy before demonstrating publicly why that figure represents good value. In essence, Ministers have put the cart before the horse. A question still arises over whether the necessary standards have been established. If so, that is welcome, but standards tell us whether a system is safe and properly installed; they do not tell us whether it is worth subsidising. For example, a car can pass its MOT, but that does not mean the Government should give anyone £2,500 to buy it.
I therefore have three areas to explore. The first is the standards, which was also raised in the other place. Can the Minister confirm that all necessary product safety, design and installation standards are now in force? Will those standards assess real-world performance and not just safety? What redress will consumers have if properly installed systems fail to deliver the efficiency or savings they were promised?
The second area I would like to explore is the methodology. What evidence led Ministers to select heat batteries for taxpayer support? Heat batteries can store energy bought at cheaper times for use later. That may lower bills, but shifting electricity consumption is not the same as reducing it. The benefit depends on efficiency, household demand, electricity tariffs and the system’s operating life. Will the Minister publish the Department’s underlying analysis, including its assumptions about consumption, efficiency, running costs and lifetime carbon savings? How does that analysis compare heat batteries with other heating technologies? My question is not whether heat batteries work, but why the technology was selected for subsidy over other electric heating solutions. What criteria were applied and what alternatives were assessed? If another technology can deliver the same or greater carbon reduction at lower cost to the taxpayer, why should it not qualify?
That leads me to the final area: the costings. I simply ask the Minister how the Government arrived at £2,500. It would be helpful to understand what average purchase and installation costs were assumed. What annual running costs have been modelled, and what proportion of the total cost will taxpayers fund? Most importantly, what is the expected taxpayer cost per tonne of carbon saved, and how does that compare with the equivalent support for heat pumps? If the Government cannot answer those questions, how can this Committee judge whether £2,500 represents value for money?
Ministers may point to high satisfaction, as they did in the other place, among existing boiler upgrade scheme recipients, but satisfaction with one subsidised technology does not justify the price of subsidising another. They may also argue that the extension increases customer choice—the Minister mentioned that in his speech—but genuine choice requires clear information about installation costs, running costs and long-term performance, not simply the Government promising a grant. This is not an argument against innovation, but one for evidence-led policy and proper stewardship of taxpayer money.
We ask the Government to establish the standards, publish the methodology, and demonstrate the carbon savings and value for money, then determine the subsidy. Parliament should not be asked to approve an extension of subsidy without clear evidence that the Government have the economics right. The Minister would do well to explain not simply why heat batteries might work, but why the taxpayer should pay £2,500 toward them, and what measurable benefit we will see. Of course, this is all in the context of what will come in the Budget, so I am very interested to see if the Minister can answer those questions today.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. To be clear, the Liberal Democrats support this statutory instrument. We have long called for home energy policy to move beyond a fixation on heat pumps as the only solution. Heat pumps work well for many homes, but heat batteries offer another low-carbon option.
With energy bills rising because of the conflict in the middle east, the Government must do more to improve home energy efficiency and protect households from volatile energy prices. The Liberal Democrats are calling for an ambitious 10-year emergency home upgrade programme, starting with free installation for people on low incomes, alongside a commitment to zero-carbon new homes and decoupling from the marginal pricing system.
As I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ClimateTech, it would be remiss of me not to mention that we must make better use of data when delivering home upgrades such as heat pumps and batteries. Decisions based on factory estimates do not reflect how building upgrades actually perform. Verified performance data can help households to get better advice, improve the success of retrofit programmes, reduce costs and encourage private investment.
The Government should go further to help households to access these solutions and ensure that low-carbon heating is affordable and practical for more people.
Martin McCluskey
I welcome the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth to his new role. I am sure this will be the first of many Committees in which we will face each other.
Turning to the hon. Member’s points, he obviously heard what I had to say yesterday about departmental budgets. What is in the explanatory memorandum is still dependent on future departmental budgets. They are obviously ultimately decisions for the Treasury, in Budgets and spending reviews, so they will be decisions for the Chancellor at the end of this month.
On the shadow Minister’s broader point about the cost of electricity versus the cost of gas, the previous Government and this Government have both prioritised the delinking of electricity and gas, which is important to encourage the uptake of these technologies. I gently say to him that his party had 14 years in Government in which to reduce the spark gap and did not make much progress.
Since we have been in Government, we have made sure that the reduction in levies has fallen heavily on the electricity bill rather than just on gas, and also adopted contracts for difference and encouraged companies on to CfDs so that there are fixed costs rather than the high costs linked to gas for certain generation. We have already taken significant action in the last couple of years on delinking, and we will take further action down the line.
On the question of standards, the Government have been clear that support for heat batteries will be introduced only once the appropriate product and installation standards are in place. They will need to be certified under the microgeneration certification scheme, just as heat pumps are now, and comply with the MCS design and installation standards. There is good reason to introduce this statutory instrument now, to make sure we are in a position to move quickly once those standards are in place.
The hon. Member may already know that the standard for air-to-air heat pumps, which have been in legislation for some time, is still being worked on by MCS and the accreditation bodies. Passing this legislation will enable us to get the technology in place, so that we are ready to support heat batteries as soon as possible once the standards are in place.
On the hon. Member’s questions about the methodology and why we are, in his words, supporting heat batteries ahead of other forms of electric heating, the responses to the consultation we ran in 2025 showed broad support for expanding the scheme to additional electric technologies. Heat batteries were the technology most frequently highlighted by respondents. In answer to the questions about value for money and minimising running costs, they pointed to the potential benefits associated with heat batteries, including the ability to take advantage of charging at off-peak times and to be installed as a like-for-like solution for many gas or electric boilers, unlike some other solutions. I am sure the shadow Minister has read the Government response to the consultation, which includes the many of the answers to the questions he has asked today. It was only after that deliberation that we decided to include heat batteries in the boiler upgrade scheme.
On his final question around the value of the £2,500 grant, we arrived at that number largely because it was judged to be the best amount, given the lower cost of heat batteries versus heat pumps. We think the £2,500 grant will bring the cost of installation of a heat battery to around £6,000, about the same level for heat pumps, once the £7,500 grant is taken into account. Part of the reasoning is to avoid distorting the market by creating an uneven playing field for heat batteries versus heat pumps.
I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset for his support for the SI. There is much common ground between our parties on these issues. He has talked about the ambition behind his party’s 10-year plan. I would say that the warm homes plan is indeed an ambitious programme for retrofitting homes across the country, with billions of pounds behind it.
I welcome and agree with what the hon. Member said about data. The Department is making moves around the comprehensive environmental data archive, using and enhancing smart meter vectors, to ensure that data is used to inform proper assessments of homes. That might in future take us beyond what is available through energy performance certificates, which is really valuable. There is work going on in that area, which I would be happy to discuss with the hon. Member, if that is useful.
The regulations are an enabling measure. They do not by themselves introduce support for heat batteries through the boiler upgrade scheme, but they do provide the necessary legislative foundation to do so through future secondary legislation. They also support the effective administration of the boiler upgrade scheme by clarifying Ofgem’s powers to recover ineligible payments, strengthening the protection of public money. These regulations are an important step forward in delivering the Government’s commitment to support heat batteries through the scheme.
Question put and agreed to.