Terms and Conditions of Employment

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, and I welcome the introduction of these two statutory instruments, which have been a long time coming. In 2019, the Conservatives made a manifesto commitment to introduce neonatal care leave. It was a shame that in that election, and in the most recent, no such commitment was made by the Labour party, now in government. That is no surprise, however; just like with all their good ideas, it usually turns out that they were ours.

Our commitment to introducing neonatal care leave led to our support of the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, which was stewarded by the former Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, Stuart C McDonald and Baroness Wyld. That Act is the reason why the Government are introducing these statutory instruments today.

I am pleased that, with reservations, we will support the measures, so that we can continue to build on the sensible improvements to workers’ rights that we, as Conservatives, introduced in government. We introduced shared parental leave, giving more choice and flexibility to families, and carers leave, giving employees more time off to give or arrange care for their families. We supported flexible working, giving employers and employees more flexibility over working practices, and we achieved all that while increasing employment and wages, a thing that the Government are now realising is no easy feat.

The result of our reforms to workers’ rights is that Britain has some of the most generous maternity and paternity leave globally, meaning families are able to spend more time with their newborns. Those achievements were reached by working with businesses and employees. We worked with businesses not just out of courtesy, but because we know that without consulting businesses and taking on board their concerns, no progress will be made, no matter how good the intention. That is not something this Government have done, which is why their Employment Rights Bill is driving up unemployment before it has even been passed.

In the plan to make work pay, the Government committed to rights from an employee’s first day, but for neonatal care pay, that is not the case. Will the Minister confirm whether this is the first step in rolling back on day one rights? Under the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, the right to neonatal care leave and pay will come into force in less than two months. Why have the Government waited to introduce the instruments until now, leaving businesses less than eight weeks to prepare and plan? We have heard that the Prime Minister has requested a growth test on all policies. Has the Minister conducted a growth test on this policy? If not, why not?

More generally, this Government’s record on health, in particular women’s health, has been disappointing. At the end of last month, the Health Secretary dropped women’s health targets and those for women’s health hubs. That decision will impact 600,000 women on waiting lists, lead to preventable disease progression and lead to more women attending A&E, unable to work, care or live a fulfilled life. The Labour manifesto made a commitment to prioritise women’s health, but this Government are making a habit of taking with one hand to give with the other. Will the Minister confirm whether he raised his concerns over the cancellation of health targets, which have an impact on these measures, with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care?

[Chris Vince]

The shadow Minister talks about targets, but was it not his own Government that got rid of the targets for A&E waiting times, and then failed to meet their lowered targets?

[Greg Smith]

It is a brave Labour politician who talks about health targets when, for so long, the NHS in Wales was performing, and continues to perform, worse than in England when it was run by the Conservatives.

To conclude, we will support these statutory instruments because they will support the 40,000 families who faced the incredibly difficult and worrisome experience of having a child in neonatal care. The instruments will build on our achievements that made the UK one of the best places in the world to be the parents of a newborn, and I hope the Government can continue to make progress.

I end by again thanking the former Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and Baroness Wyld. I also thank Bliss and the Smallest Things for their consistent work that has kept neonatal care pay and leave at the top of all of our agendas.

Draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. I am pleased to see that this statutory instrument builds on the good work of the previous Conservative Government in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, which received Royal Assent in May 2024, under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

As the Minister said, the instrument amends legislation in consequence of part 3, part 4 and chapter 2 of part 5 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which I shall refer to as the DMCCA henceforth. Part 3 of the DMCCA updates powers to investigate and enforce consumer protection law. Part 4 gives consumers protections in respect of unfair commercial practices, subscription contracts and prepayments to savings schemes, and regulates the provision of alternative dispute resolution for consumer contract disputes. Chapter 2 of part 5 confers statutory authority for UK regulators to provide investigative assistance to overseas regulators that have functions corresponding to those of UK regulators in relation to competition consumer protection and digital markets. The draft regulations update references across the statute book to the legislation that parts 3 and 4 of the Act replace, ensuring that regulators and others can disclose information to enable consumer enforcers to investigate and enforce breaches of consumer protections.

I welcome the measures taken by the Government in this statutory instrument, which builds on the work of the previous Government, but given the importance of the legislation, I would like the Minister to provide further clarity on a couple of points. The instrument updates various pieces of legislation that restrict disclosure of information to allow disclosure for the purposes of part 4 of the DMCCA. It also amends the Water Resources Act 1991 to allow disclosure for the purposes of part 3, part 4 and chapter 2 of part 5 of the DMCCA. Will the Minister elaborate on the protections in place to ensure that information sharing is handled appropriately and remains secure?

On perhaps more of a political note, my second question is about one of the DMCCA’s purposes, which is to provide consumers with protections against subscription traps. As the Minister well knows from our long time together in the Employment Rights Bill Committee, the Employment Rights Bill will automatically opt in trade union members to a political fund unless they expressly opt out. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position on subscription traps? Are they holding businesses and trade unions to different standards?

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

When consumer confidence is low, business confidence is low, and nowhere is that more visible than in our automotive sector, with UK car production slumping to its lowest level since 1954. Autocar magazine warned today that the zero emission vehicle mandate

“is currently the industry’s biggest headache, as…consumer demand is not there to meet the stringent regulations which are increasing each year.”

When policy fails, it is sensible to admit it and change course. Will the Minister accept that the ZEV mandate flies in the face of what consumers actually want, and that a radically different path is required to boost business confidence in our automotive sector?

[Gareth Thomas]

No, I do not accept that, and I would gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the policy to which he has referred was introduced by his party. I recognise that there are many aspects of the Conservative party’s record about which he and his colleagues are probably embarrassed. The Liz Truss Budget—which the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), helped to write—did huge damage to our country and to consumer confidence. The measures that the Chancellor announced yesterday, for example, will drive growth forward, and that is one of the reasons why businesses backed them so strongly yesterday.

[Greg Smith]

It normally takes longer than six months for a Government to drift that far from reality. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has predicted that just 775,000 cars will roll off production lines in 2025, compared to 1.3 million in 2019. Today’s edition of The Telegraph reports:

“The slump has been accelerated by a slowdown in demand across Europe, particularly by drivers shunning new electric vehicles”.

Why does the Minister persist in a policy to undermine our automotive businesses by forcing them to make a product that people just do not want to buy? Is it not time to get the state out of the way, let our innovators innovate, and boost automotive businesses’ confidence by letting them deliver to actual consumer demand?

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten the extra investment that Nissan has announced, and the extra investment that has been announced by a number of other car manufacturers. He and his colleagues were very clear in opposing the measures that we took in the Budget, including measures that backed investment in the automotive sector, and they set out no plans to pay for that investment. I gently encourage him to reflect a little further on the mistakes that his party made in government, which have caused some of the problems that we are having to sort out now.

Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am grateful to the Minister for outlining in such detail the provisions of the draft regulations, which build on legislation passed by the last Conservative Government. The broad picture is that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition welcome and support them and will not seek to divide the Committee on them. Essentially, they will expand the category of individuals who can apply to Companies House to have their information protected under the ROE and will allow trust information on the ROE that is currently restricted from public inspection to be accessed by application, subject to certain requirements.

Although I stress that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support the draft regulations, I have two sets of questions to which I would be grateful for an answer from the Minister, either directly this morning or in writing later.

First, who makes the assessment of who meets the threshold for being considered at risk of intimidation or violence? Is there a published list of criteria for meeting the threshold? Is there any means for applicants to appeal the decision?

Secondly, once an applicant has been successful in their application to have their information protected, how often will they need to reapply? How frequently will Companies House review their status?

Solar Farms: Agricultural Land

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Savage]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we should be prioritising locations that do not impact on our ability to meet our food security needs.

The environmental benefits of solar farms are not as clearcut as some would have us believe. Yes, they produce clean energy, but at what cost? Large installations can alter local ecosystems, potentially contaminate soil and even increase local temperatures due to heat absorption by the dark panels—and let us not forget the human cost. Tenant farmers face eviction. Land values are skyrocketing, making it harder for new farmers to enter the industry, and we risk losing the very character of our rural communities that underpins local tourism and our national identity.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I agree with every word the hon. Lady has said so far. Does she agree with me that if we are to protect food security and give it equal billing with energy security and national security, not just solar installations are inappropriate, but the ancillary projects like those I am seeing in my constituency? For example, we have battery storage and National Grid coming along and saying it has to completely rebuild all of the substations on—guess what?—more agricultural land. This is a much bigger problem than just solar.

[Dr Savage]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member’s points. I am not against solar energy—far from it—but we need to be smart about how we implement it and all the associated infrastructure. Why not require all new homes to be fitted with solar panels, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) in his sunshine Bill? Why not use the vast roof spaces of warehouses, public buildings and car parks? These are sensible, minimally intrusive ways to contribute to our net zero goals.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on securing this important debate and the number of interventions she received in such a short period of time reflects the strength of feeling.

Before I set out the Government’s approach, I reassure the hon. Lady and her constituents that we agree on most things in this space. We agree that we should be using renewables—whatever they are, wherever they are—in the best way possible. We agree that we need to look at our responsibilities in terms of the climate, agriculture, the countryside and food production. The Government take all those responsibilities very seriously and look them at very carefully. We agree that if we are building solar panels, for example, we should build on brownfield sites first. If we cannot, we should build on areas of lower-quality land first. We agree that food security is enormously important for this country. In the global conditions we find ourselves in, where there is more uncertainty—as we saw with the war in Ukraine and what followed with our energy prices—we need to be mindful of those things. When it comes to the principles, we agree.

I will set out the Government’s overall approach to our clean power mission, which might help to put the debate in context. We, like the hon. Member for South Cotswolds, have been clear from the start that the only way to tackle climate change, secure our energy supply, bring down bills and drive economic growth is through clean energy. The rapid deployment of clean energy infrastructure is essential for our future security and economy.

[Greg Smith]

Is it not the case that the Government are just plumping for the technology that is available right now, in the form of thousands of acres of solar, when we need 2,000 acres of solar panels to produce enough electricity for just 50,000 homes on current usage? A small modular reactor needs just two football pitches for 1 million homes. As I have said many times, why on earth are the Government messing about with solar given its impacts on food security, which the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) mentioned?

[Sarah Jones]

The previous Government messed around with solar quite a lot—we are building on what the previous Government did, up to a point. The answer is to look at all the technologies that are available to us. SMRs are enormously attractive in lots of different ways, and lots of colleagues have been talking to us about them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a process for the development of SMRs. We need all the tools in our armoury and we need to make sure we are using the most modern technology available. He makes a fair point on that front.

Sustainable power generated here in Britain will reduce our contribution to the damaging effects of climate change and our dependence on the volatile global fossil fuel market. It is already creating thousands of highly skilled jobs and will continue to do so. Instead of delaying the inevitable, we have set ourselves a target to push to clean power by 2030. The clean power action plan, published last month, sets out how we will get there, including the likely technology mix required. It is clear that solar will play a major role.

Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Ashley Fox]

That would not be quite enough to offset the £5 billion-worth of costs for small and medium-sized enterprises. The advantage of the new clause is that it would not cost either the taxpayer or employers any money. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.

The truth is that, currently, many people simply do not have the time to offer to the role without employer support. The measure I propose would make it easier for specials to perform their duties and, I hope, help recruitment. Unlike so many of the proposals in the Bill, it would not cost either employers or the taxpayer any money.

I am pleased that this campaign has the support of the Association of Special Constabulary Officers and more than a dozen MPs from Government and Opposition. We also have the endorsement of 10 police and crime commissioners. Importantly, Assistant Chief Constable Bill Dutton, acting in his capacity as the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for the special constabulary, has provided his written support for including special constables under section 50. The Minister has received letters from hon. Members in all parts of the House, and I believe that some of his ministerial colleagues, too, may have received letters or held meetings with Government Back Benchers.

The new clause could help with the recruitment and retention of many new special constables and it would make our streets safer. It would also finally recognise the work of the specials and put them on the same footing as the thousands of other people in this country who are allowed time off work to complete valuable civic duties. I ask the Minister to consider that.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I would like to add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater has proposed. The first duty of Government is to protect citizens from threats abroad and keep them safe at home. Given all the other rights and extensions of rights that the Government are pushing in the Bill, it would seem unusual if support for our special constables, whom I salute for all their hard work day in, day out as part of the mission to keep the British people safe, were not included. I urge the Minister to consider the new clause in a genuine spirit of trying to work together on this issue.

I am tempted to rise to the bait set by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles. We have many differences of opinion about the Bill’s provisions, but, in the spirit of the Bill, surely we can find some cross-party consensus on extending employment rights to special constables going about their duty—the often dangerous duty that they carry out on behalf of us all.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I rise to strongly support the new clause. We have seen throughout our debates in Committee that there are opportunities for changing the weather around our employment world, whether it is around foster carers, adoption or volunteering—the subject of new clause 38, championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster), which we will discuss later.

I hope that this new clause falls on fertile ground because, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater has highlighted, volunteering across the piece has significantly reduced. We need to change the weather around the employment world and make sure that people feel able and confident to volunteer, as we know that policing is a particular challenge.

I welcome the Government’s plans to invest in neighbourhood policing. Special officers are often involved in that. People feel confident when they see a uniformed officer on the street. The public do not care whether it is a paid officer or a special officer; it is a trusted individual. The more we can drive that agenda, as I know from my residents in Torbay, the more it will be welcomed. I look forward to a strong endorsement from the Minister.

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Christopher. I start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater on the new clause and join him in paying tribute to his constituent Emma-Elizabeth Murphy and all special constables who perform the vital work that Members have spoken in support of. We recognise and value the vital role that special constables play, which includes supporting neighbourhood policing. We are committed to ensuring that police forces have the support that they need from the Government to tackle important matters of public safety.

Special constables, along with the full range of police volunteers, bring valuable and diverse skills that complement the roles that officers and staff play in delivering the best service to the public. We recognise that there has been a fall in the number of special constables over recent years. Further work needs to be done to understand exactly the reasons for that. Initial consideration suggests that a range of factors has led to the reduction in the number of special constables. It is not clear whether the new clause would reverse that trend or what its impact on business would be—the hon. Member for Bridgwater has been a constant critic of the Bill’s impact on businesses—so we need to understand that better.

We are already doing a range of work to support special constables and employment rights more broadly. We are introducing the neighbourhood policing guarantee, which will put thousands of additional police officers, police community support officers and special constables on our streets and restore patrols in town centres across the country.

Many employers already support their employees to volunteer in a special constabulary. Under the Employer Supported Policing scheme, led by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, a number of organisations across a range of sectors have committed to supporting members of their workforce to serve as special constables, in recognition of the opportunities to build new skills and support local communities. The Home Office is also supporting the NPCC to develop and implement initiatives to improve the recruitment and retention of special constables. That includes developing a refreshed national citizens in policing strategy and a national special constabulary working group.

I will not be able to accept the new clause, but I am sympathetic to the case that has been made. In preparation for dealing with it, I learned that that the initial legislation that introduced time off for certain public duties is now 50 years old, so it seems time to consider this issue in the round, and the role of special constables will no doubt be included in that. The Home Office will clearly have an important say. As I said, a number of factors has led to the decline in the number of special constables in recent years.

[Greg Smith]

The new clause has been tabled for some weeks now. Has the Minister engaged with the Home Secretary, the Policing Minister or any officials in the Home Office? Have they presented a view on this proposal yet?

[Justin Madders]

We have had various discussions within the Department. Information has gone over to the Home Office, and we are waiting for a response. Obviously, I cannot speak for the Home Office, so I cannot set out its position. As I say, I think it is time more generally to consider all the legislation relating to the right to time off for public duties. It is too soon to accept this new clause, but I hope the hon. Member for Bridgwater is assured that we are taking this issue seriously and considering it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I commend the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling new clause 35. It is not the Opposition’s intention to support it at this stage, but I want to be clear that the principle behind it is fundamentally good: ensuring carers are not left on a financial sticky wicket, which is a very real problem in the country. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Torbay said that it was a probing amendment, but we believe that it is not currently fully thought through. We can all agree—I would be surprised if we did not—on saluting the incredible work that carers do up and down the land. They are all heroes in their own right and they do incredible work to look after those they care for. Their work merits a genuine use of the word “amazing”. It is a word that has been applied to far too many things in this world that are not amazing, but I think we can all agree that the work carers do genuinely is amazing.

Our rationale for saying that this new clause is not thought through enough is that it does not produce realistic solutions to solving the financial gap for carers, which we acknowledge exists. I would be interested to know the rates of payment the Liberal Democrats think would be appropriate for carer’s leave, how the rates they envisage have been benchmarked, and if they have understood the likelihood of take-up of carer’s leave and therefore the ability of employers to absorb this cost. The hon. Gentleman was very clear about that 10.6 million figure he gave. Any solution that seeks to close the financial gap must accept some of the realities and take on board the costings that will have to come from somewhere to ensure that that financial burden can be met, notwithstanding the acceptance that carers need more support for—I repeat—their amazing work. That is why we believe this new clause just does not work at this time, and I would be surprised if our position were that different from the Government’s.

[The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)]

I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my membership of the National Education Union and USDAW.

New clause 35 would commit the Government to introducing an entitlement for employees with caring responsibilities, to be paid at their usual wage level, while taking carer’s leave. It would give carers an entitlement of up to a week of paid leave and require employers to cover the cost.

I want to underline that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting employed unpaid carers. In the October 2024 Budget, we increased the earnings disregard for carers from £151 to £196, meaning that they can earn up to £196 without losing any of their carer’s allowance. In effect, that means that they can work 16 hours a week at the national living wage.

We have two concerns about the new clause. First, it would introduce significant new costs for employers without giving consideration to the potential impact on businesses, in particular small ones. Secondly, under the proposed approach, individuals taking carer’s leave would be treated more favourably than employees taking other forms of leave to care for family members, such as maternity or paternity leave, where a flat statutory rate is available. There is no clear rationale for taking a different approach, and it could raise questions about differential treatment of different groups. For those reasons, the Government do not support the new clause.

However, supporting carers who want to work alongside managing their caring responsibilities is an important element of our plans to modernise the world of work, which will ensure that there are good jobs for carers and a skilled workforce for employers. The Carer’s Leave Act 2023 gave employed carers a new right to time off work to care for a dependant with long-term care needs. We will review that measure and consider whether any further support is required. That will include looking at potential options for paid leave. The review will draw on evidence from carers and employers and learn from their experiences, so that we can understand what is working in the current system and identify where improvements may be needed. Through that work, we will also engage closely with smaller employers and sector bodies to ensure that we fully understand the potential impacts and benefits that further policy development could bring for them. It is right that we allow the review to run its course to enable an evidence-based decision on whether there is more we can do to support working carers while balancing impacts on businesses.

I heard what the hon. Member for Torbay said about the new clause being a probing amendment, and I hope that what I have said gives him reassurance about our commitment to that review. I therefore invite him to withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

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

The new clause would ensure that workers in the early stages of an employment dispute, such as a disciplinary or grievance hearing, can be supported by those who are qualified, rather than just by trade union representatives or similar colleagues. It would allow for matters to be brought to a head much sooner and prevent cases from necessarily going to tribunal, which clogs up the tribunal system. I hope the Government will take the new clause in the positive sprit in which we tabled it.

[Greg Smith]

I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Torbay said. On one level, I would be interested to know why the Liberal Democrats think the expansion is needed, where the shortfalls are in the current right to be accompanied, and what benefits the new right would bring. I think that what the hon. Gentleman is proposing could be done through existing legislation in many respects.

That said, representatives of the charity and third sector who seek to represent those in the teaching profession have welcomed the new clause, because the teaching unions have a bit of a monopoly at the moment. Although my mother has been retired for many years, she always joined a union through considerably gritted teeth—she may have been the only Conservative in the staff room, but she gritted her teeth. In fact, she may even have taught for many years in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield. The teaching unions have that monopoly because of the insurances and so on that they give to teachers. The new clause would widen things out and allow teachers who do not wish to join a union to get the support they need—accompaniment at a hearing—from a charity or third sector organisation, which may be welcome.

We need more clarity on the impact that would have on the teaching profession, which is why we do not think the new clause should be accepted at this time. However, the hon. Member for Torbay has opened the door on an area that it is important for us to explore as the Bill proceeds, and perhaps in future legislation.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling the new clause. I think its origins are in written evidence to the Committee from the edu-legal organisation Edapt, which has been raising this issue with successive Governments for a number of years.

It is important to set out the position under current law. Section 10(3) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 explains that when a worker is asked to attend a disciplinary or grievance hearing they are entitled to bring a companion who is either a fellow worker, an official employed by a trade union, or a workplace trade union representative that the union has reasonably certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion at such hearings. Employers are free but not obliged to allow workers to be accompanied by someone who does not fall into those categories. Some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed, such as a professional support body, partner, spouse or legal representative.

As one of the initial steps in resolving tensions when the worker-employer relationship has broken down, the provisions of the 1999 Act seek to keep disciplinary and grievance procedures internal to a workplace. Expanding the types of organisations that can be involved in representing workers could lead to hearings requiring legal representation for both worker and employer. We certainly do not want to see internal disciplinary or grievance hearings ending up in a legal battle. That would invariably increase the cost of holding a hearing and potentially decrease the chances of an amicable resolution. Equally, introducing increased legal expertise from outside the workplace could increase the likelihood of a tribunal. Workers and employers may judge ACAS conciliation or mediation unlikely to resolve a dispute because legal arguments have been made during an internal disciplinary hearing. We certainly believe that amicable resolutions are the swiftest way for justice to be delivered.

The new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to set out and define in regulations the professional bodies that could represent employees in disciplinary and grievance hearings. Although, as the shadow Minister said, this measure relates specifically to the education sector, one can easily see a whole range of organisations beginning to knock on the door. It would raise all sorts of questions about regulations, standards and enforcement, and it would inevitably expand quite quickly.

As the shadow Minister said, it is not clear beyond the written submission to the Committee where the demand is for the expansion of this right. Employers are of course entitled to nominate individuals or organisations for recognition. The Government are clear that trade unions are best placed to provide workplace representation. The legislation is fit for purpose in terms of ensuring that that is done in a proportionate and balanced way. On that basis, we reject the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

The new clause would not set things in stone. We are saying, “Let’s go and consult.” There is a real opportunity here. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, who helped to propose this measure; it is his brainchild. I think it is a real golden opportunity, and I am sure the Minister will grasp it with both hands and get it over the line for us. I will be pressing the new clause to a vote.

[Greg Smith]

I heard very clearly what the hon. Member for Torbay proposed on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I think we all salute everybody who volunteers. We can all celebrate people who give up their time freely to do something worthy in our constituencies, communities and neighbourhoods—including the Scout and Girlguiding groups that the hon. Gentleman spoke of.

It is clear from the passion with which the hon. Gentleman spoke that the Liberal Democrats are still pining for the coalition days, when the big society was the centrepiece of the vision that the Prime Minister—now my right hon. Friend the noble Lord Cameron—had for this country. On one level, I had thought that one of the greatest successes of the coalition Government was—until the 2024 general election—the electoral annihilation of the Liberal Democrats, but they are still pining for many of the things that my party and theirs did together in that coalition period.

In theory, the new clause is actually very appealing; we all want to support people to do good and give their time freely in their communities, neighbourhoods and areas—in our constituencies. But where I take issue with the hon. Gentleman is that, time and again in this Committee, too much has been left to yet another consultation. While I hear his argument, “What harm would another one do?”, I think we are consultationed out at the moment. I do not think it would be helpful either for the Government, in achieving what they wish to achieve through this very wide-reaching piece of legislation—albeit with disagreement from the Opposition Benches—or for employers to have to take on yet another strand of burden in this regard, so the Opposition will not be supporting new clause 38.

However, we do want to explore ways in which volunteering can be more greatly encouraged in all of our communities. As a starting point, although consideration of the definition of volunteering would be included as part of the hon. Gentleman’s proposed consultation, we need a better definition before we consider any wider consultation on time off and so on. At the moment, it is far too wide-open a goal and too broad a word. If we asked everybody in the country to give their definition of volunteering, we would probably get 70 million different answers. If we had greater clarity about what we are really talking about—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater’s very clear and defined proposal on special constables, which of course is an incredibly worthwhile and nation-enhancing bit of volunteering—then we could potentially get somewhere, but at the moment, volunteering could mean literally anything to anyone. That is not to undermine the good work that people do day in, day out across our country, but we need greater clarity.

[Justin Madders]

Let us start where we can all agree: volunteering is a very important part of our society and we want to do everything we can to encourage it. It is a central part of civic life and has a positive impact on our society, and we all pay tribute to the volunteers in our communities. There are large employers that have impact days and corporate social responsibility days where they come into the community—there are a number of examples in my constituency where that has happened. Larger employers, in particular, have been able to pool their resources and have a real benefit in their communities.

However, as the shadow Minister outlined, the Government will be undertaking a significant number of consultations, and we do not wish to add to that at this stage. We want to focus on the priorities in our “Make Work Pay” agenda. In particular, we want to see how the enhanced right to flexible working will benefit people’s ability to volunteer. We believe that when we implement the new rights to flexible working in the earlier parts of the Bill, they will enable employees to access flexible working requests in order to fit in their volunteering, and that further legislation is not necessary at this time.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is delivering the Know Your Neighbourhood fund, which has a key focus to ensure that learning is shared

“on how people in disadvantaged areas can be supported to volunteer and improve their social connections”.

So there is work going on in Government, and a recognition that volunteering is an important part of the fabric of our society, but, as has been indicated, we do not wish to undertake additional consultations at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith]

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

The new clause would require the Certification Officer to publish a report on the impact on various sectors of the economy of introducing a four-day week. The Certification Officer is responsible for ensuring that trade unions carry out their statutory duties, and it is important that it is aware of the impacts of this policy, which various elements of the labour movement and the trade union movement have supported.

We have seen just how effective the four-day week has been where it has been tried. Let us take the example of South Cambridgeshire district council, which introduced it for its workers in 2023. The Mail reported last week that one in six staff have a second job during their day off. That is despite the council’s website stating that the time off is to allow workers to “recover and re-energise” for the “more intense” four-day week. It is full-time pay for part-time work, and then some.

It would be extremely helpful for all concerned if we had a little more transparent information about the effects the four-day week might have on the economy as a whole if introduced more widely. That is why we have tabled new clause 42, which would require the Certification Officer, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the economic and financial impact of introducing a four-day week.

The report would be required to cover the retail and wholesale industry; the manufacturing industry; the finance and insurance industry; the health and social care industry; the construction industry; the education industry; the public sector and defence industry; the transport and storage industry; the arts and recreation industry; and agriculture, mining and fishing. To ensure that the report is balanced, the Certification Officer must consult business owners, workers and consumers, although that, of course, is not an exhaustive list.

For full transparency, we would like to make sure that any submissions that are received are published, preferably in a way that can be questioned in this House. The new clause aims to introduce a “look before you leap” ethos into the Government’s policymaking. Given the state of the Bill, I would argue that that is very much needed.

[Steve Darling]

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has had a road to Damascus moment on the need for further consultation on the Bill. I am delighted that the Conservatives believe that consultation is a good thing, unlike my Conservative council colleagues in Torbay. I look forward to the Minister looking kindly on the new clause, which shows that the Conservatives believe in consultation. I would ask that he please grasp this opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

As should be clear, no plans are included in the Bill to mandate a four-day week for five days’ pay. Compressed hours already exist in some workplaces, but that does not always mean working fewer hours. Businesses can refuse a request if it does not suit their needs. Therefore, any assessment of a four-day week is unnecessary, and I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.

[Greg Smith]

I listened carefully to the Minister’s response. The four-day week is subject to much media interest at the moment, and it is important that we keep a close eye on moves to shorten the working week, given the impact it would have on productivity and growth in our economy going forward. For the time being, I am happy not to press the new clause, but the Opposition are concerned, and we will keep an incredibly close eye on the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 46

Adoption pay: self-employed persons

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations enable statutory adoption pay to be payable to persons who are—

(a) self-employed, or

(b) contractors.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the meaning of ‘self-employed’ and ‘contractors’ shall be set out in regulations under this section.”—(Steve Darling.)

This new clause extends statutory adoption pay to the self-employed and contractors.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Steve Darling]

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

The new clause would extend statutory adoption pay to those who are self-employed or contractors. I must declare something of an interest, although I do not formally need to, because I am adopted myself, and this issue is extremely close to my heart. When I was leader of the Torbay unitary council, we went from “failing” to “good” for our children’s services within two years. That is probably the biggest achievement of my life. Again, it was something I was driven on because I am adopted. In the ’70s, I was very fortunate to be adopted by Eric and Penny. Eric was not a toolmaker, but he was a lorry driver, and would potentially have benefited had there been an opportunity such as the one I have outlined in the new clause.

I encourage colleagues to step back slightly and to reflect on the challenges in social care, and particularly children’s social care, and on the heavy costs—I am sure colleagues are only too aware of them—to local authorities, which have a responsibility for children’s services. For those kids who need support, the best people are foster carers or those who adopt. When there is a lack of such people—when there is not that capacity—kids might have to be picked up by the private sector, and hard-pressed local authorities often have to pay through the nose for that. The new clause is about changing the weather again around support for youngsters in need. By extending statutory adoption pay to those who are self-employed or contractors, we would enhance the pool of those who can participate.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for her help with the new clause. Earlier this week, she led a worthwhile debate on this issue, and I acknowledge the positive feedback the Minister in that debate gave on the proposals. I look forward to hearing from this Minister how the Government could take the proposals in this probing amendment forward.

[Greg Smith]

I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Torbay. The issues he raises are worthy of debate, but as he said this is a probing amendment, so these are matters for a future occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Murray]

That is a very helpful intervention, because it draws me on to my final point. There is a distinction between what rights there are and what rights are enforced. We have seen from the discussion around the fair work agency and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority that the issue is that rights are not enforced. The good part of this Bill is that it sets up a fair work agency that will look at enforcement.

Not supporting the new clause does not mean not recognising the objective that it puts forward. The argument is that this point should and could be dealt with more effectively through other legislative avenues, such as the modern slavery legislation brought in by the previous Government, which they then completely gutted. Looking at how the labour exploitation components of that legislation could be strengthened would deal more effectively with the issues that the hon. Member is raising via his new clause.

[Greg Smith]

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition cannot support new clause 51. The horrible practices outlined by the hon. Member for Dundee Central need to be tackled, but the Bill will already do that. I actually find myself in agreement with parts of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said. There are other routes within immigration law where such things can and should be tackled. No matter how much we disagree with parts of the Bill, if we take the view that the law must apply equally to everybody whether or not they are a British citizen, it is unnecessarily to carve out a particular section of people through new clause 51, when there is other legislation to deal with the abuses that no one on the Committee or in the House wants to see.

[Justin Madders]

Let me start by reaffirming our strong view that every worker has the full right to protection under the laws of this country. That includes migrant workers, as is clear from our plan to make work pay, which recognises that particularly vulnerable sectors are open to abuse from unscrupulous employers. The immigration framework is an important part of ensuring that those who come to this country under visas and sponsorship are protected and that modern slavery abuse is tackled.

Sponsorship is a privilege that comes with certain responsibilities for sponsors to ensure that they adhere to employment rights in the United Kingdom. They must have full responsibility for the work that workers are conducting, and in all cases they must ensure that those they sponsor are paid appropriately and that they act in compliance with relevant legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh says, a lot of work is ongoing in this area, particularly from the Home Office, which recently announced that it would ban from future sponsorship any business found guilty of serious employment law breaches, including failing to pay the national minimum wage.

We are committed to strengthening the enforcement of rights more broadly through the fair work agency. The Committee has heard plenty of evidence that the current system of enforcement is fragmented. Unfortunately, as we know, that often means that not everyone gets the protection that they should have. One of the essential functions of the new fair work agency will be to produce a strategy setting out its assessment of the scale and nature of non-compliance with labour market rules. This is to ensure that the risks of abuse across all sectors and groups of workers are properly understood and captured. In producing the strategy, the fair work agency will need to consult with an advisory board made up of trade unions, business and independent experts. That will ensure that we get a broad view of the gaps and risks in the labour market.

The hon. Member for Dundee Central suggests that this area is a blind spot for the Government. I can assure him that it is not. I have had conversations with the Director of Labour Market Enforcement about the issue, and plenty of work is under way at the Home Office. The hon. Member need only consider the Low Pay Commission’s report to see that the issue is clearly on our radar. An additional report would not add anything to the work that is already under way. I therefore ask him to withdraw his new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I will be brief. The clauses are simple and standard, and they appear in most legislation.

Clause 113 will allow the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments—that is, amendments that are immediately consequent upon a provision in the Bill—to primary or secondary legislation. Consequential amendments are necessary changes to other legislation to ensure that the law works alongside the changes to the law made in the Bill. Subsection (2) will allow the power to be used to amend primary legislation where we would not expect to be burdened with further primary legislation to make changes. Subsection (4) sets out that regulations that amend primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, thus maintaining Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the provisions made under the power.

Clause 114 will allow the Secretary of State to make two types of provision. The first type is a transitional provision, which can be used specifically to assist the changeover from the state of the law before the Bill comes into force to the state of the law when it is fully in force. The second type is a saving provision, which can be used to preserve certain elements of the old law even after the new law comes into effect. They are used to maintain specific rights, obligations or legal effects that existed under the old law so that the changes will not apply in certain pre-existing cases.

We have ensured that the powers conferred on the Secretary of State to make provisions under clauses 113 and 114 are limited. As I say, the clauses are customary provisions. I commend them to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

As the Minister says, the clauses are standard in a lot of legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 113 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 115

Regulations

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move amendment 164, in clause 115, page 104, line 2, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives when making any regulations under this Act—

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

(b) its growth in the medium to long term.”

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 165, in clause 115, page 104, line 2, at end insert—

“(3A) No regulations may be made under this Act unless the Secretary of State has—

(a) consulted such persons as they consider relevant to the proposed regulations; and

(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament a report of that consultation.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult and publish a report of that consultation before making any regulations under the Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I think this will be the last set of amendments we discuss, so let us ensure that they are good ones. Amendment 164 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term when making any regulations under the Bill. Amendment 165 would require the Secretary of State to undertake consultations on all regulations published under the Bill.

The effects of the Chancellor’s Budget of broken promises are apparent for all to see. On 7 January, the yield on a 30-year gilt broke a 27-year record, at 5.198%. That is the highest figure since the Debt Management Office was created in 1998. On Monday, the yield rose to 5.461%. That is not abstract; it reflects dwindling confidence in the UK economy, puts extra pressure on the Government’s headroom against their own fiscal rules and could lead to taxpayers paying billions more just to service the Government’s debts.

The Chancellor has chosen to increase borrowing by an average of £32 billion a year for the next five years. That is the largest fiscal loosening in any fiscal event in recent years. It will add substantial pressure to those debt repayments. Earlier this week, The i Paper reported that average two-year and five-year fixed deals for those with 25% equity or deposit are now expected to rise above 5% in the coming weeks, causing more financial pain for buyers and those trying to remortgage.

The Budget, the rise in employer national insurance contributions and, importantly, the provisions in the Bill could not be described as pro-growth, yet the Government repeatedly assure us that growth is the one thing they will deliver, which will unlock everything else.

Amendment 164 would restore the Government’s good intentions and get them back on track. It would ensure that the Secretary of State has regard to the need to ensure growth when making regulations under the Bill. On the basis of all the evidence that we have seen since the general election, growth is clearly not front and centre in the Government’s thinking when they are making policy. It must be.

Amendment 165 would ensure that the Secretary of State consults properly before making regulations under the extensive powers in the Bill. It is merely to hold the Government to their word: they acknowledge that in many respects the policy in the Bill is undercooked and needs further work before implementation.

With these final amendments that the Committee will discuss, let us lay down the gauntlet and see whether the Government will put their money where their mouth is. If the Government are serious about growth, they will surely accept amendment 164.

[Steve Darling]

Throughout our debates, Conservative colleagues have been critical of the Government for not having an oven-ready Bill and emphasising the need for further consultation. I have sympathy with that, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham. However, the last Conservative amendment that we will consider in Committee would require consultation, so I wonder whether the Labour party’s proposals have worn the Conservatives down into believing in it. I am delighted by that; perhaps they have changed their minds on the rest of the Bill, too. I hope that the Minister will grasp the opportunity with both hands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

The shadow Minister’s amendment 164, as he said, would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the UK’s growth and international competitiveness when making any regulations under the Bill. As the shadow Minister knows, the Government are committed to getting growth in this country back on track and to maintaining and strengthening our international standing. I noticed that in his litany of negative economic news, he forgot to mention today’s growth figures, which show us back in positive territory.

Our employment rights framework is about ensuring that the economy works for everyone. The Government believe our plan to make work pay will bring the UK back in line internationally and tackle issues with low growth, productivity and pay. The plan is not only a core part of the mission to grow the economy, but crucial to delivering on our milestone to raise living standards across the country and to create opportunities for all. It sits alongside work on planning reform, the skills revolution, tackling inactivity and launching our vision for a modern industrial strategy. The strategy will enable the UK’s already world-leading services and manufacturing sectors to adapt and grow, seizing opportunities internationally to lead in new sectors, with high-quality, well-paid jobs. It will be grounded in long-term stability, a renewed commitment to free and fair trade, and a pro-business approach focused on reducing barriers to investment in the UK.

We have committed to full and detailed engagement with businesses and trade unions alike as we develop the detail of regulations under the Bill. Our published impact assessment evaluates a wide range of evidence and concludes that the package could have a direct and positive impact on growth. Our intention is to refine our analysis as policy development continues, including by publishing updated option assessments and impact assessments, alongside future consultations and secondary legislation, to meet our better regulation requirements. In developing the detail of regulations, our officials and Ministers will pay close heed to the potential impacts on growth, as well as to our international comparability. We are committed to ensuring that we get support across the country among workers and employers alike.

Amendment 165 would require the Secretary of State to consult, and to publish a report of consultation that has been undertaken on specific measures, before making any regulations under the Bill. As was noted by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, those on the Conservative Benches have taken a rather vacillating approach to consultation during the passage of the Bill, but we have been clear that we are pro-business and pro-worker. That is reflected in our approach, not just in Committee but with engagement since before the Bill’s publication, to ensure that our plan to make work pay is delivered.

As the Committee knows, we have committed to full and comprehensive consultation with all stakeholders. We began in October with an initial consultation package and, as set out in the “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document, we will consult further on the implementation of the Bill’s measures. Alongside formal consultations, we have conducted extensive engagement on how best to put our plans into practice. We have already held and attended about 40 meetings of external stakeholders related to “Make Work Pay”. Eighteen of those meetings have been specific to businesses, eight specific to trade unions, and seven held in a tripartite setting.

I have written to the shadow Minister with details of the engagement that has already taken place. The figures are not exhaustive and do not include officials’ meetings or recurring meetings with external organisations to discuss a range of topics. I therefore suggest that we are engaging and consulting fully and that the amendment is not necessary.

[Greg Smith]

Well, there we have it. The Government who say they are pro-growth have shown their true colours and will not back our amendment to prove their intentions towards growth. This whole Bill is a socialist charter and we know that we cannot have socialism and growth at the same time. The history books have taught us that time and again.

We deeply regret the Government’s resistance to these two amendments. We will continue to be the party that champions business, growth and getting our economy going again, while this Government do everything they can, in this Bill and in their Budget and in so many other ways, to hold our economy back.

[Michael Wheeler]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Greg Smith]

Of course I will. Bring it on.

[Michael Wheeler]

I am going to try an entirely new tactic to derail the shadow Minister mid-stride. This is a genuine question, and I hope he answers it. Does he agree that throughout our line-by-line discussion of the Bill, he has been most generous with his time in accepting interventions that I believe to have been valuable?

[Greg Smith]

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is for others to judge whether any Member of this House has been generous or otherwise.

What I can say, as we come towards the end of our debate on the final amendments and move on to the final clauses, is that we have had a good debate in this Bill Committee. It has not been one of those where those on the Government Benches are told to be quiet in the interest of getting on with it. We have had a genuine debate and a back and forth. Although we have not always agreed, and it looks like we do not agree on the amendments we are debating right now, we have had a debate. Our constituents sent us all here to represent them in arguments over ideas, concepts and values, and practical steps to meet the ideas and values that we hold dear, and we have done so. I agree with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

On amendments 164 and 165, I repeat that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition regret that the Government do not wish to accept these pro-growth amendments. I will not press them for now, but we may well be seeing them very soon, when the Bill returns to the main Chamber on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Justin Madders]

I hope the Committee will agree that, like other clauses we have debated in part 6, clause 115 is a straightforward and customary provision. It sets out various procedural aspects that are relevant to the making of regulations under the Bill by statutory instrument, with the exception of commencement regulations, which I will speak to separately as they are dealt with in clause 118.

Subsection (2) sets out that regulations made under the Bill may make different provision for different purposes, and that they may contain supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provisions. Subsections (4) and (5) explain what is meant by references in the Bill to the negative procedure and the affirmative procedure. The delegated powers memorandum sets out each power in the Bill, as introduced, and justifies the procedure set out in the relevant clause.

[Greg Smith]

I reiterate that we think the clause could have been improved by our amendments, but, for the time being, that is not to be the case.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 115 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 116

Financial provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 117 to 119 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for taking us through those standard clauses at the end of the Bill. The only thing worthy of comment, which has come up during our debates on many of the clauses, is the variable commencement timings of some of the provisions, as listed in clause 118. I appreciate that that can happen in legislation from time to time, but the variable timescale adds an element of confusion for businesses. Some provisions will be commenced immediately, some after two months, and some after longer than that.

With that, we come to the end of our debates on the clauses and will move on to decide on measures that we have already debated. As I said in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles in the last debate, we have had a good debate in Committee. We have clearly outlined a number of areas where the two major parties in the House of Commons disagree on the approach to the Bill, but let nobody be in any doubt that we have gone through it line by line and debated it in a good level of detail.

I will end simply by saying that although clause 119 gives the short title of the Bill and says that

“This Act may be cited as the Employment Rights Act 2025”,

the Opposition’s view is that it will, in reality, be the Employment (Job Losses) Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 116 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 117

Extent

Amendments made: 206, in clause 117, page 104, line 22, for

“Part 3 of this Act extends”

substitute

“Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 3 of this Act extend”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 207.

Amendment 207, in clause 117, page 104, line 22, at end insert—

“(ba) Chapter 3 of Part 3 of this Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland;”.

This amendment states the extent of the new Chapter proposed to be formed by NC48 and NS3.

Amendment 107, in clause 117, page 104, line 24, at end insert—

“(1A) Sections (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: removal of waiting period) and (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: lower earnings limit etc) (statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland) extend to Northern Ireland only.”

This amendment is consequential on amendments NC5 and NC6; it limits the extent of new clauses (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: removal of waiting period) and (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: lower earnings limit etc) to Northern Ireland only.

Amendment 108, in clause 117, page 104, line 27, leave out “An amendment or repeal” and insert

“Except as set out in subsection (4), an amendment, repeal or revocation”.

This amendment is consequential on NS2 and amendment 109.

Amendment 109, in clause 117, page 104, line 28, leave out “amended or repealed.” and insert

“amended, repealed or revoked.

(4) In Schedule (Increase in time limits for making claims) (increase in time limits for making claims)—

(a) the amendments made by paragraph 9(3) and (4) extend to Northern Ireland only;

(b) the amendments made by paragraphs 10, 12 and 13 extend to England and Wales and Scotland only.”—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment would limit the extent of certain amendments in NS2 so that they only extend to Northern Ireland or Great Britain (where they would otherwise extend to both). This is to ensure that the increase in time limits in those cases only applies in relation to employment tribunals in Great Britain.

Clause 117, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 118

Commencement

Amendment made: 110, in clause 118, page 105, line 17, at end insert—

“(na) section (Employment outside Great Britain) (employment outside Great Britain);”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment would bring NC7 into force two months after Royal Assent.

Clause 118, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Title

Amendments made: 208, in title, line 6, after

“Adult Social Care Negotiating Body;”

insert

“to amend the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023;”.

This amendment is consequential on NS3.

Amendment 209, in title, line 6, after

“Adult Social Care Negotiating Body;”

insert

“to make provision for the implementation of international agreements relating to maritime employment;”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC52.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Justin Madders]

I wish to thank you, Sir Christopher, and the other Chairs who have presided over this lengthy Bill Committee. I also thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers and Hansard reporters. I thank all members of the Committee who have participated in what has been a healthy and engaging debate. No doubt there will be more discussions and debates to come as the Bill progresses. I also thank the officials Cal Stewart, Jack Masterman and Shelley Torey.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Christopher. All good things must come to an end, and sadly that includes this Committee. I echo the thanks given by the Minister to the workers—to everyone who has supported the Committee—and I thank our Front Benchers, who have done a sterling job and from time to time gently and appropriately warded us off our individual enthusiasms. Perhaps that was just me.

Work on what became this Bill began a long time ago. It is hard to believe that almost five years have passed since my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles and I first became involved in the discussions. To name contributors is to commit the sin of omission. That is the case too for the staff of the Labour party, due to the party’s professional code of modesty, but I would like to place a few names on the record. They include my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Kate Dearden) and for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), who previously ably represented the Community and Unison unions respectively, including through the Labour party’s national policy forum. That was in itself an exhaustive process. I just say to hon. Members that if they liked this Committee, they would have loved the NPF. I am sorry to disappoint Opposition Members, but there was no smoke in those rooms, and no beer. There were occasionally sandwiches.

I would be in error if I did not personally thank Jaden Wilkins in my office and the staff of the TUC for their consistently excellent research publications. I also thank some of the GMB figures who made critical contributions during that time, including the national political officers during that period—Tom Warnett, Caitlin Prowle and Gavin Sibthorpe, who put in more hours than anyone—the national legal officer, Barry Smith, and the staff of the research and policy department, Anna Barnes, Ross Holden and Cassie Farmer. Finally, I would like to mention the staff of the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation: Robbie Scott, Kieran Maxwell and Helen Pearce—the best political organiser in the labour movement, who herded cats and moved mountains.

[Greg Smith]

I echo the thanks that the Minister gave, particularly to the Clerks of the Committee, the wider Scrutiny Unit and everyone else who has worked so hard. These Bills are an enormous amount of hard work for the staff of the House, particularly the Clerks, and it is always appreciated by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Likewise, from the Doorkeepers and Hansard to everyone who prepares the room for us, it is an enormous job of work, and we thank them most sincerely. The Bill will shortly move on to Report, when the battle will recommence. In the meantime, Sir Christopher, I thank you and the other Chairs of the Committee for your chairmanship. We look forward to the next round.

[Steve Darling]

I echo the thanks to you, Sir Christopher, and the other Chairs who have ably chaired the Committee. I thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers and Hansard, who have reported throughout. I thank colleagues for the good-natured way that the Bill has been debated. This is my first Bill Committee, and I look forward with gusto to my next one. I also thank Laura Green, who has ably supported me throughout the Committee.

Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

I beg to move amendment 183, in schedule 6, page 135, line 6, leave out “‘Secretary of State’.” and insert

“‘Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority or the Secretary of State’.”

This amendment would ensure that section 12(2) of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which makes it an offence for a person to be in possession or control of a “relevant document” that is false or has been improperly obtained with the intention of inducing someone to believe that the person has a licence under that Act, continues to apply in respect of documents issued by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in connection with a licence before its abolition.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Mundell. As is customary, I refer to my declaration of interests and to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The amendment is essential to upholding legal continuity and to preventing any ambiguity or loopholes in enforcement. It will ensure that provisions under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 remain enforceable. Without the amendment, there is a risk that any improper conduct in relation to documents issued before the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority could fall outside the scope of enforcement.

Fraudulent licences have been used to exploit vulnerable workers and to mislead employers, particularly in industries such as agriculture and food processing. The amendment will strengthen deterrence against document fraud and ensure that enforcement agencies retain the tools that they need to protect workers effectively.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once more, Mr Mundell.

As the Minister has outlined, Government amendment 183 will ensure that section 12(2) of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which makes it an offence for a person to be in possession or control of a relevant document that is false or has been improperly obtained with the intention of inducing someone to believe that the person has a licence under the Act, continues to apply in respect of documents issued by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in connection with a licence before its abolition.

Clause 109 will abolish the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, a non-departmental public body that investigates reports of worker exploitation and illegal activity such as human trafficking, forced labour and illegal labour provision, as well as making offences under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Employment Agencies Act 1973. Significantly, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority also issues licences to employment agencies, labour providers or gangmasters who provide workers in the sectors of agriculture, horticulture, shellfish gathering and any associated processing or packaging. That is important work; we do not in any way, shape or form deviate from that.

The Government amendment will rightly ensure that providing false licences remains an offence, including where that was identified before the Bill receives Royal Assent and becomes an Act at some point this year, but I would like to be reassured about the work of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in connection with the provisions of the Bill. For example, what will happen to the staff at the authority once it has been abolished? The Bill provides for the transfer of staff, property rights and liabilities to the Secretary of State. Does the Secretary of State envisage redundancies or envisage that the same staff will continue to do the same work under a different ultimate authority? Will the reorganisation lead to any disruption? I think we all accept that any change will bring with it some level of disruption, but how can the disruption be minimised?

Likewise, the amendment appears to ensure continuity with existing legislation once the Bill has passed. I will be grateful if the Minister can confirm that that is the case. If any new powers are being taken, please could they be explained?

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I welcome the clarity offered by the Government in the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Schedule 6 outlines consequential amendments to other legislation and will ensure consistency with the provisions introduced by the Bill. It will also ensure that our legislative framework is cohesive and functional.

The amendments will make essential technical adjustments to section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to reflect the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers with enforcement officers, as defined in part 5 of the Bill. They will update references, revise definitions and ensure consistency between this Bill and existing legislation. The amendments will avoid confusion and ensure that our statutory framework functions effectively. I commend these minor technical amendments to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining these further minor amendments to section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, being made as a result of the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers with enforcement officers under part 5 of the Bill. The amendments are another consequence of centralising the different enforcement agencies that operate under the auspices of the fair work agency.

I would be grateful to have the Minister’s reassurance that all current enforcement work will still be able to be carried out to the same standard during the period of reorganisation. In the previous debate, he indicated that he did not expect disruption; I gently put it to him that that is probably on the optimistic end of the scale. No matter the good intention behind any reorganisation, or the will, endless planning and everything that goes into it from a lot of good people putting in a lot of hard work, the reality is that any reorganisation can cause disruption, either in its own right or through unexpected events.

I will give a parallel closer to home. In my constituency, Buckinghamshire unitary council was created to go live just as the pandemic was starting. Four district councils and a county council were put together at the point at which we were all sent home, so everyone was working from home and having to rise to a local authority’s duties to put in place resilience measures to support people through the pandemic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

It seems we have a little double act developing on the Opposition Front Bench. It reminds me a little bit of Waldorf and Statler, without the puns. Both the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire and the hon. Member for Bridgwater sought similar and important assurances that the work of the agencies would be able to be carried out effectively during this period of transition. I note what the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire mentioned about the Mid Buckinghamshire reorganisation.

[Greg Smith]

All of Buckinghamshire.

[Justin Madders]

All of Buckinghamshire, yes—with the hon. Member right in the middle where he truly belongs. I do recall that the previous Government decided to set up the UK Health Security Agency in the middle of the pandemic, which was a challenging time to do that. It has been shown that the people doing the job day to day can continue to do it while the institutional reform carries on, making it more likely that they will be effective in carrying out their work through the sharing of resources, evidence and expertise, as well as, hopefully, a more unified approach to enforcement. Clearly, we want those doing the day-to-day work to be able to carry on doing that and a number of these amendments enable them to do that. We hope that, as the agency forms and more joint working is developed, they will become more effective.

Amendment 104 agreed to.

Amendments made: 105, in schedule 6, page 140, line 26, at end insert—

‘(4A) In subsection (10), for “Any other” substitute “A”.’

See the explanatory statement for amendment 104.

Amendment 106, in schedule 6, page 140, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—

‘(5) For subsection (11) substitute—

“(11) In this section—

“enforcement officer” has the meaning given by section 72(3)

of the Employment Rights Act 2025;

“labour market offence” has the same meaning as in Part 5 of that Act (see section 112(1) of that Act).”’—(Justin Madders.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 104.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Schedule 6 makes consequential amendments to existing legislation to ensure consistency with the new provisions introduced by the Bill. The amendments make essential technical adjustments to the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, updating references and ensuring consistency between the Bill and existing legislation.

Government amendment 184 omits section 19A(10A) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, which makes provision for the disclosure of settlement terms to an enforcement officer appointed under section 37M of the same Act. Section 37M is repealed by the Bill, as it has been superseded by the new provisions of the Bill on the appointment of fair work agency officers. Clauses 98 and 99(1) of the Bill provide gateways for the disclosure of information to fair work agency officers. Government amendment 184 repeals section 19A(10A), as the provision is no longer required in the light of the new provisions introduced by the Bill. Government amendment 188 is consequential to Government amendment 184. The amendment prevents confusion and ensures our statutory framework continues to function effectively.

[Greg Smith]

For the next part of the double act —I will casually ignore the Minister’s comparison—I will speak to Government amendments 184 and 188. Amendment 184 is a minor amendment relating to part 5 of the Bill and amendment 188 is consequential on amendment 184. As the Minister said, amendment 184 removes section 19A(10A) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Section 19A concerns the

“recovery of sums payable under settlements”

and subsection (10A) provides that the court may make provision as to the time within which an application to the county court for a declaration under subsection (4) is to be made. Subsection (4) states:

“A settlement sum is not recoverable under subsection (3) if—

(a) the person by whom it is payable applies for a declaration that the sum would not be recoverable from him under the general law of contract, and

(b) that declaration is made.”

 

Notwithstanding the Minister’s explanation, it is still not entirely clear to the Committee, or indeed to the whole House, why it is necessary to delete subsection (10A) from the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. I am sure there is a very convoluted reason for it out there somewhere, but it seems to us that the will of the Government in putting this legislation before Parliament does not need that deletion in order to function. I would be grateful if the Minister gave a fuller explanation of the need for that deletion in his summing-up.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Amendment 184 proposes the removal of subsection (10A) from section 19A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, which deals with the recovery of sums payment under settlements, specifically addressing situations in which a party seeks a declaration from the court regarding the recoverability of a settlement sum.

Under subsection (10A), the court has the discretion to make provisions regarding the timeframe within which an application must be made to the county court for a declaration under subsection (4). Subsection (4) essentially provides that a settlement sum will not be recoverable if the person liable to pay the sum seeks a declaration from the court that, under general contract law, the sum is not recoverable from them. The removal of subsection (10A) raises important questions about the implications of the timing and procedure of such applications.

Given that the removal of subsection (10A) may have significant consequences for how significant settlement sums are handled and claims are processed in the future, will the Minister explain why this provision is being deleted? Understanding the reasoning behind the change is important for assessing its potential impact on workers and employers. Will the removal of this provision simplify the process for parties seeking a declaration regarding the recoverability of settlement sums or will it introduce new challenges or delays in the legal process? Furthermore, how will this change affect the ability of individuals to seek a fair resolution in cases where disputes over settlement sums arise? Clarification from the Minister on these points would be appreciated as it would help ensure that stakeholders fully understand the intended effects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful for the Minister’s brief explanation of Government amendments 185 to 187, which enable the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling the director general of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to deal with complaints and misconduct relating to enforcement officers who exercise police powers. Amendments 186 and 187 allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to deal with complaints. Misconduct relating to enforcement officers created by the Bill who exercise the powers in amendment 185 is consequential to amendments 186 and 187. Amendment 186 states that the Secretary of State

“may make regulations conferring functions on the Director General in relation to enforcement officers acting in the exercise of functions conferred on them by virtue of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.”

Can the Minister provide examples of the sorts of functions it is envisaged the Secretary of State will confer by regulations and how those powers will be used? Probably more significant to this debate and to give us the full picture, will the Independent Office for Police Conduct be granted greater powers to investigate misconduct claims? Will it have additional sanctions compared to that which it is already able to impose? If so, what are they and what will be the resourcing implications for the Independent Office for Police Conduct to take on oversight of the reorganisation?

We can all accept that many elements of the public sector are incredibly stretched. Whenever any reorganisation comes about or there is a need to oversee new bodies, there will be a resource implication. No matter how well intentioned the provisions of the Bill and the three amendments are, there will be a resource implication, even if it is a minor one. It is important that the Government acknowledge that and make a clear, unambiguous commitment to the resourcing of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to take on oversight of the reorganisation and future enforcement officers and their functions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 190, in schedule 6, page 144, line 10, at end insert—

“Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022

92B In Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (extraction of information from electronic devices: authorised persons in relation to all purposes within section 37), after the entry relating to section 15 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 insert—

‘A person who is an enforcement officer for the purposes of Part 5 of the Employment Rights Act 2025.’”

This amendment would authorise enforcement officers under Part 5 of the Bill to exercise the powers conferred by section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to extract information stored on electronic devices for the purposes of, among other things, criminal investigations.

Government amendment 190 is another technical amendment to ensure continuity and effectiveness of the enforcement power under section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The Bill provides the building blocks for us to set up the fair work agency, which involves transferring enforcement functions that are currently split between multiple bodies, including the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. The GLAA office currently exercises its power across the UK under section 37 of the 2022 Act. Without this amendment, enforcement officers in England, Wales and Scotland would not have access to critical investigatory powers under that Act. Only officers enforcing the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 in Northern Ireland would retain those powers, creating an unjustifiable enforcement gap.

Investigations increasingly rely on access to electronic data, such as payroll records and communication logs. Excluding fair work agency officers from these powers would severely hinder their ability to obtain critical information, leaving them ill-equipped to tackle non-compliance and labour exploitation effectively.

The amendment ensures that enforcement powers remain consistent across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, aligning with the policy aim of the fair work agency to deliver robust and uniform enforcement. Fair work agency officers would exercise the section 37 power in relation to labour market offences. That expands the scope of the power, as currently the power is exercised by GLAA officers only in connection with enforcement of the 2004 Act.

This amendment would mean that the power is used by fair work agency officers to enforce the broader range of legislation under their remit, which means that the power could be exercised in relation to any labour market offence, instead of just offences under the 2004 Act. That will prevent any disparity in enforcement capabilities that could undermine efforts to protect vulnerable workers and uphold compliance.

This amendment corrects a minor technical oversight during the drafting process, ensuring that the legislation accurately reflects operational needs. It aligns with the overarching policy intention to ensure that there is no reduction in enforcement capability as enforcement bodies transfer into the fair work agency, and it directly addresses concerns and strengthens the Bill’s overall effectiveness. In conclusion, this amendment is essential to prevent enforcement gaps, ensure parity across jurisdictions, and equip enforcement officers with the tools that they need to combat exploitation in the modern economy.

[Greg Smith]

As the Minister outlined in his opening remarks, Government amendment 190 would authorise enforcement officers, under part 5 of the Bill, to exercise the powers conferred by section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to extract information stored on electronic devices for the purposes of, among other things, criminal investigations.

As I understand it, the power conferred by section 37 of the 2022 Act may be exercised only for the purposes of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting crime; helping to locate a missing person; or protecting a child or at-risk adult from neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm. How often does the Minister envisage that that power would be needed when enforcing employment law?

It is a very important power in the cases that I have outlined—not least for the critical work of protecting children and at-risk adults from neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm—but, I repeat, how often does the Minister envisage that it will be needed in employment law? What safeguards will be in place to prevent an inappropriate or intrusive use of the power? It seems an odd fit in this Bill.

Those matters are all rightly—I have double underlined that word—covered in other parts of legislation and enforced daily by the police and other agencies. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition salute everyone involved in the prevention of harm and the prosecution of its perpetrators, but I repeat that the power seems an odd fit with this Bill.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Government amendment 190 seeks to amend the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 by extending the powers conferred by section 37 of that Act to enforcement officers for the purposes of part 5 of this Bill. Section 37 of the 2022 Act allows the authorities to extract information shared on electronic devices for the purposes, among other things, of criminal investigations. I have some familiarity with these issues from my time working with the police, security and intelligence agencies and other public bodies with investigatory responsibilities when I worked in the Home Office between 2010 and 2015. Then, we were confronted with the danger that changing technology meant that the ability of these important public agencies to access the communications data necessary for their work was diminishing. That was because the nature of the way we communicate was changing from conventional phone calls and written material to internet-based communication. That obviously included methods such as messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal but also messaging within other apps like Facebook or even within online gaming systems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

Through this morning’s debate on the 10 Government amendments to schedule 6, most of the points about the schedule have been well aired. As we consider whether it should fully stand part of the Bill, however, I genuinely believe that a number of questions posed—in particular by my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk and for Bridgwater—on the practicalities of the transfer of some of the powers have not been adequately addressed during the debate by the Minister.

We do not challenge or seek to undermine in any way, shape or form the intention of the schedule. I appreciate the Minister’s willingness to write to me on a couple of the points I made, and I accept the good faith in which that offer was made, but any transition involves some disruption. That is simply a fact of life, and I think that the Government would do well, given the good intent of what the schedule seeks to do, to reassure not just the Committee, but the whole House and the country at large, that that disruption will in fact be minimised and practical steps taken to make that the case.

Fundamentally, however, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition understand and accept the necessity of the schedule. We just think that some unanswered questions remain.

[Steve Darling]

I echo the shadow Minister, who sits to my right—in more ways than one. Definitely, further clarity from the Minister would be welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

The schedule sets out transitional and savings provisions. It ensures a smooth changeover from the existing enforcement framework to the new provisions introduced by the Bill. That is of course important because it makes our legislative framework cohesive and functional.

Government amendment 191 is a necessary technical provision to ensure that the transition of enforcement responsibilities under part 5 of the Bill is well ordered. By clarifying that actions taken not just “by” but “in relation” to enforcement officers will continue to have effect as if done in relation to the Secretary of State, we are safeguarding a continuity in enforcement processes and ensuring no disruption to ongoing cases or decisions, which I am sure Members will be relieved to hear.

Government amendment 192 makes a consequential change to align with Government amendment 191, and Government amendments 197 and 200 make minor drafting changes in schedule 7. They do not affect the substance of the Bill, but they improve its clarity and accuracy. I hope that hon. Members will support what I imagine are uncontroversial amendments and support achieving the aim of ensuring continuity and cohesiveness as we move forward. On that note, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

Government amendments 191 and 192 ensure that things done “in relation to” existing enforcement officers—for example, before part 5 of the Bill comes into force—continue to have effect as if done “in relation to” the Secretary of State. I fully accept that Government amendments 197 and 200 make minor drafting changes, which look as though they ensure legal continuity—that would be the case, based on the Minister’s opening remarks—and therefore seem sensible, given the policy direction.

I can conclude my comments on the amendments only by asking the usual question, which I have asked many times in Committee and fear I will ask a few more times during the debate over the remainder of today, Thursday and next Tuesday: should the amendments have been included in the Bill on its introduction? This is yet another example of why it is foolish to rush anything, particularly getting a Bill out in 100 days and its consideration in Committee.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Government amendments 191 and 192 are designed to ensure legal continuity for actions and decisions made regarding existing enforcement officers prior to the implementation of part 5 of the Bill. They stipulate that any actions or procedures carried out “in relation to” enforcement officers before the new provisions come into force, such as appointments, disciplinary actions or administrative functions, will continue to have the same legal effect as if they had been made “in relation to” the Secretary of State. That is important, because it prevents any disruption or confusion in the legal standing of prior actions, ensuring that they are not rendered ineffective by the changes introduced by the Bill. Essentially, the amendments provide a mechanism to ensure that the transition to the new legal framework does not invalidate or interfere with prior administrative or operational activities.

The rationale behind the amendments is straightforward: it is legal continuity. As enforcement officers are brought under a new regulatory framework, it is crucial that past actions related to their roles, such as those conducted before the Bill takes effect, are preserved and do not need to be revisited or re-executed under the new provisions. That ensures that there is no disruption in the functioning of enforcement operations and that any ongoing matters involving enforcement officers continue seamlessly under the authority of the Secretary of State. The amendments clarify that past decisions and procedures will be treated as if they were made under the authority of the new system, which will help to avoid any potential legal challenges or confusion.

Amendments 197 and 200 involve relatively minor drafting changes. Although the specifics of those changes may not substantially alter the substance of the Bill, they are important for clarity, consistency and precision in the text. These types of amendments typically address technical issues, such as language inconsistencies, ambiguities or minor adjustments to improve the readability and legal accuracy of the provisions. Although they do not represent major shifts in policy, such amendments are crucial in ensuring that the Bill’s provisions are clear, unambiguous and legally sound. Even small drafting changes play an important role in improving the overall functionality and effectiveness of the legislation.

Amendments 197 and 200 help to fine-tune the Bill’s language, ensuring that there are no interpretive uncertainties that could arise during its application. By addressing potential issues in the drafting, the amendments help to streamline the implementation process and reduce the risk of legal challenges or confusion in future interpretations of the law.

Taken together, the amendments—particularly amendments 191 and 192—help to ensure that there is no legal disruption when the provisions in part 5 of the Bill come into effect. That is an essential part of the legislative process, as it guarantees that previous actions remain valid and that transition to a new regulatory framework is smooth. In addition, the minor drafting changes provided by amendments 197 and 200 contribute to legal clarity, ensuring that the Bill’s language is precise and consistent, which will help to avoid any future complications in the application of the law.

Although these changes are reasonable and sensible, in the light of the Bill’s policy objectives, it is worth noting that they should ideally have been included at the time of the Bill’s introduction. The legal continuity ensured by amendments 191 and 192, as well as the technical refinements in amendments 197 and 200, could have been addressed earlier in the drafting process, to ensure that the Bill was as comprehensive and clear as possible from the outset. None the less, these changes at this stage still serve to enhance the legal robustness and practical application of the Bill, which will ultimately contribute to more effective enforcement and smoother implementation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

Government amendment 193 ensures that the transitional provision in paragraph 6 of schedule 7 would apply in relation to officers acting for the purposes of part 2A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, which relates to the enforcement of employment tribunal awards. The function of such officers is being transferred to the Secretary of State by the Bill. Amendments 194 and 195 are similar to some of the amendments in the previous group—I fully accept that these are minor drafting changes.

Overall, the changes introduced by this group look as though they ensure legal continuity so that the fair work agency can act as the enforcement authority. That seems sensible, given the policy direction behind the Employment Rights Bill that has been outlined by the Minister and the wider Government. However, I ask again for updates on ensuring the effectiveness of the enforcement of employment law during the period of transition, and about the processes that will be put in place to minimise disruption for businesses, which we have spoken about at length earlier, and to ensure effective enforcement. Again, it is hard to envisage why this set of amendments were not considered at first publication of the Bill; they seem entirely sensible, but it is a mystery why they were lacking the first time round.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Amendment 196 will ensure that there is a smooth transition in the frameworks. Amendment 198 is a transitional provision ensuring that anything done by a labour abuse prevention officer before the abolition of the GLAA continues to have effect as if done under the fair work agency. Amendment 199 is another transitional provision for warrants that have been granted under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, but not yet executed. It allows those warrants to have the same effect as before. It is a continuation of the amendments we have debated this morning, ensuring that enforcement officers have continuity when delivering their functions.

[Greg Smith]

Amendment 196 makes it clear that the general provision in paragraph 6 of schedule 7 is subject to any more specific provision in that schedule. Amendment 198 makes transitional provision to ensure that things done by or in relation to labour abuse prevention officers before the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority continue to have effect as if done by or in relation to enforcement officers granted the equivalent powers under section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Amendment 199 makes transitional provision in relation to warrants under section 17 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act, which is being re-enacted for England, Wales and Scotland, with some changes, through clause 83. In particular, proposed new paragraph 7C of schedule 7 of the Bill provides that, where a warrant issued under section 17 of the 2004 Act has not yet been executed, the warrant is treated as if issued under clause 83, but any changes introduced by the Bill that would not have applied if the warrant had been executed under section 17 —in particular the additional requirements in part 3 of new schedule 1—are disapplied.

On the face of it, these are sensible amendments to make sure that nothing falls through the cracks as enforcement functions transfer to the fair work agency. A number of Government amendments of this nature have been considered by the Committee. This set of amendments therefore leaves me slightly nervous, not about the intention, but about whether anything else has been missed. I would appreciate the Minister’s reassurance on that point.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Amendment 196 seeks to clarify the applicability of general and specific provisions and the relationship between the general provision outlined in paragraph 6 of schedule 7 and any more specific provision within that schedule. The amendment ensures that, in the event of a conflict or overlap between general and specific provisions, the more detailed or specific provisions will take precedence. This is an important measure for maintaining legal clarity and consistency in the application of the Bill. By prioritising specific provisions where applicable, the amendment prevents any unintended gaps or inconsistencies in the legal framework, ensuring that enforcement activities and related actions are governed by the most precise and relevant rules.

Amendment 198 introduces a transitional provision designed to ensure that actions taken by or in relation to labour abuse prevention officers prior to the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority will continue to be recognised as valid. Specifically, it ensures that any activities, decisions or functions performed by those officers before the GLAA’s dissolution will have the same legal effect as if they had been carried out by or in relation to enforcement officers who have been granted equivalent powers under section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This is critical because it provides a seamless transition as enforcement responsibilities are transferred, making certain that actions taken by the GLAA’s officers before the abolition of the agency are not rendered void or ineffective.

The amendment is vital for legal continuity. It guarantees that there will be no disruption in enforcement activities during the transition period. Officers who previously worked under the authority of the GLAA, particularly those involved in tackling labour abuse, will carry out their roles without interruption, as their actions will be treated as if undertaken by enforcement officers with the equivalent legal powers. The measure strengthens the overall framework for worker protection and labour abuse prevention, ensuring that the enforcement of relevant laws continues smoothly as the responsibility shifts to new authorities.

Amendment 199 focuses on the transitional provision for warrants issued under section 17 of the 2004 Act, which is being re-enacted in a revised form as clause 83 of the Bill. The amendment introduces new paragraph 7C, which addresses the scenario where a warrant issued under section 17 has not yet been executed at the time of the change. In such cases, the warrant will be treated as if it were issued under the new provisions in clause 83, but with a critical distinction. Any changes introduced by the Bill that would not have applied under section 17, such as the additional requirements in part three of new schedule 1, will be disapplied.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any ongoing enforcement actions involving warrants issued under the old regime are not hindered or invalidated by the transition to the new framework. By allowing the warrants to be treated as though they were issued under the new clause, the amendment facilitates a smoother enforcement process and reduces the risk of legal challenges or procedural delays. This is an important safeguard for the enforcement of labour laws and ensures that the power to execute warrants continues without disruption, regardless of the legislative changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Existing enforcement bodies will have obtained information prior to the creation of the fair work agency. This information may be needed by the Secretary of State once part 5 of the Bill comes into force. Schedule 7 therefore provides for transitional and saving provisions to enable that. Amendments 201 and 202 provide that information obtained by officers acting under existing legislation prior to the coming into force of part 5 of the Bill, and which is held by the Secretary of State, can be used or disclosed in accordance with clause 98.

[Greg Smith]

Amendments 201 and 202 provide that information that was obtained before the coming into force of part 5 of the Bill by officers acting under existing legislation and is held by the Secretary of State can be used or disclosed by the Secretary of State in accordance with clause 98. These are sensible amendments on the face of it, to make sure nothing falls through the cracks as the enforcement functions transfer to the fair work agency—very similar to the previous set of amendments that we have just considered. It is part of a continuing theme of amendments of this nature that we as a Committee are being asked to consider.

I heard the Minister’s response to the previous debate about this being an iterative process and about the need to listen and best understand concerns or practical points raised by those being asked to prepare for and ultimately do this work. It remains a legitimate point of nervousness that there will be more such cracks that need repairing as part of this Bill. Accepting the Minister’s good faith in his explanation on the previous set of amendments, I put on record that we remain a little nervous that more cracks will need that legislative repair as the Bill goes forward.

We urge the Government to get on at pace with the conversations necessary to ensure that they have best understood where any further edits may be required—preferably before Report stage in the House of Commons, but if it does have to bleed into the time when the Bill goes to the other place, so be it. However, I think it would a far more satisfactory position if we were able to consider at our end of the building any further amendments that may be required before we ask their lordships to consider the Bill.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Government amendments 201 and 202 are designed to address a key aspect of the transition process under the Bill. Specifically, they are designed such that any information that was obtained prior to the coming into force of part 5 of the Bill by officers operating under existing legislation and is currently held by the Secretary of State, can still be used or disclosed in accordance with the provisions outlined in clause 98 of the Bill.

That is crucial because, as enforcement functions transfer to the fair work agency, there needs to be continuity in how information is handled. By allowing the Secretary of State to continue using and disclosing this information under the new framework, the amendments ensure that no critical data or intelligence gathered under the previous system is lost or becomes unusable during the transition.

This provision is particularly important for maintaining continuity in enforcement activities. The information collected by officers acting under earlier laws may be vital for ongoing investigations or enforcement actions. For instance, data about businesses that are non-compliant with labour laws, or evidence of potential worker exploitation, could be crucial for future legal proceedings or further investigations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 203, in schedule 7, page 148, line 20, at end insert—

“9A The repeal of section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (inspection) by paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 does not prevent the use in evidence against a person, in criminal proceedings taking place on or after the day on which that repeal comes into force, of a statement made before that day by the person in compliance with a requirement under that section (subject to subsection (2B) of that section).”

Section 9(3) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 provides that a statement made by a person in compliance with a requirement made under that section to provide information may be used in evidence in criminal proceedings against the person. This amendment enables such a statement to be used in criminal proceedings taking place after the repeal of section 9 by the Bill.

Schedule 7 sets out transitional and savings provisions ensuring a smooth changeover from the existing enforcement framework to the new provisions. That is important, as Members have debated at length already. Amendment 203 addresses the repeal of section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the evidentiary treatment of statements obtained under that provision. The amendment will ensure that such statements can continue to be used in criminal proceedings post repeal, subject to existing protections against self-incrimination under section 9(2B). This is a targeted, proportionate and necessary amendment, which safeguards the integrity of enforcement proceedings during a period of legislative transition. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

As the Minister outlined, Government amendment 203 relates to section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, which provides that a statement made by a person in compliance with a requirement under that section to provide information may be used in evidence in criminal proceedings against the person. The amendment enables such a statement to be used in criminal proceedings taking place after the repeal of section 9 by the Bill.

Similar to the previous two groups of amendments we have considered, this is a sensible amendment to make sure that nothing falls through the cracks as enforcement functions transfer to the fair work agency. It is all part of a continuing theme, and the points that I made in the previous debate apply as much to amendment 203 as they did to the previous amendments.

I understand what the Minister said about every Bill being subject, during its passage, to a number of technical amendments by Governments of all different political compositions. I gently it put back to him that this Bill seems to have had an extremely high number of technical Government amendments, and that all tracks back to the unnecessary speed with which it was presented to Parliament.

Government amendment 204 contains transitional provision to ensure that once the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority under the Modern Slavery Act 2015—

[The Chair]

Order. We will debate amendment 204 separately.

[Greg Smith]

I am sorry, Mr Mundell.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Government amendment 203 seeks to address an important transitional issue arising from the repeal of section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 by the Bill. Section 9 currently stipulates that a statement made by an individual in compliance with a requirement to provide information under that section may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings against them. The amendment ensures that any statements made under the provisions of section 9 prior to its repeal can still be used in criminal proceedings that occur after the repeal takes effect.

The amendment is a necessary adjustment to maintain the integrity of the legal process. It will ensure that evidence obtained while section 9 was in effect remains valid and admissible in criminal cases, even after the section’s formal removal from the statute. Without the amendment, there could be ambiguity and potential legal challenges regarding the admissibility of evidence, which could undermine ongoing enforcement efforts and hinder the administration of justice. By making this provision, the Government ensure that no gaps are created in the legal framework, preserving continuity and clarity in the application of the law.

As we transition enforcement functions to the fair work agency, such amendments are vital to ensure the process is as seamless as possible. The purpose of amendment 203, and others like it, is to safeguard that critical aspects of the previous legal framework remain intact, even as the functions are reassigned or modified under the Bill. The changeover to the fair work agency is a significant shift, and these amendments are an important step in maintaining enforcement consistency. Given the complexity of transferring powers and responsibilities between agencies, the amendments ensure that no legal actions or evidence will fall through the cracks during the transition. They will ensure that enforcement remains robust, and that any evidence gathered or actions taken before the changeover still hold legal weight under the new system.

Although the adjustments are sensible and necessary, the number of Government amendments made in Committee leaves me with some concern about whether every possible issue has been addressed. The amendments we have seen so far have been well intentioned and critical for ensuring legal continuity, but I would appreciate the Minister’s reassurance that nothing has been overlooked in this important process.

As we know, the task of realigning enforcement powers can be complex, and with numerous provisions being amended or repealed, the risk of something slipping through the cracks is a valid concern. Opposition Members are asking for clarity that even with these detailed and helpful amendments, the transition to the fair work agency will not inadvertently create gaps or unintended consequences. I urge the Minister to provide additional assurances that all potential legal or procedural pitfalls have been anticipated, and that the Government have taken every necessary step to guarantee that the work of enforcement officers and the legal process will continue without interruption. Although the amendments are certainly a step in the right direction, we must remain vigilant to ensure that the full scope of the transition is properly managed and that the system continues to protect the rights of workers effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 204, in schedule 7, page 148, line 28, at end insert—

“10A (1) Where—

(a) a slavery and trafficking prevention order requires a person to notify the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in accordance with section 19 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”), and

(b) immediately before the day on which paragraph 53 of Schedule 6 comes into force, that requirement has not been complied with,

that requirement has effect, on and after that day, as a requirement to notify the Secretary of State.

(2) On and after the coming into force of paragraph 54 of Schedule 6, the reference in section 20(2)(g) of the 2015 Act (as amended by that paragraph) to a slavery and trafficking prevention order made on an application under section 15 of that Act by the Secretary of State includes a reference to such an order made on an application under that section by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.

(3) In this paragraph “slavery and trafficking prevention order” has the same meaning as in the 2015 Act.

10B (1) Where—

(a) a slavery and trafficking risk order requires a person to notify the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in accordance with section 26 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”), and

(b) immediately before the day on which paragraph 56 of Schedule 6 comes into force, that requirement has not been complied with,

that requirement has effect, on and after that day, as a requirement to notify the Secretary of State.

(2) On and after the coming into force of paragraph 57 of Schedule 6, the reference in section 27(2)(g) of the 2015 Act (as amended by that paragraph) to a slavery and trafficking risk order made on an application under section 23 of that Act by the Secretary of State includes a reference to such an order made on an application under that section by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.

(3) In this paragraph “slavery and trafficking risk order” has the same meaning as in the 2015 Act.”

This amendment contains transitional provision to ensure that, once the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 have been transferred to the Secretary of State, that Act continues to operate as intended.

The amendment is essential to ensure the seamless and effective operation of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 during the transition of functions from the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority to the Secretary of State. At its core, it is about continuity and clarity. Slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders are critical tools in the fight against modern slavery. They impose important requirements on individuals for the purpose of protecting people from being victims of modern slavery, including requirements to notify enforcement authorities, and those obligations must remain enforceable.

Without the amendment, there is a clear risk that existing legal obligations could become unclear, creating loopholes for offenders to exploit. The amendment ensures that notification requirements transfer seamlessly to the Secretary of State, safeguarding our ability to hold individuals accountable and protect victims of exploitation. It also ensures that where an application is made to vary, renew or discharge a slavery and trafficking order, the courts can treat orders originally made by the GLAA as if they had been made by the Secretary of State. That provides legal certainty for courts, enforcement agencies and affected individuals alike.

This is a technical but vital amendment that protects the integrity of the legal framework and ensures continuity.

[Greg Smith]

Apologies for my premature comments on amendment 204, Mr Mundell; I accidently believed it had been grouped with the previous amendment.

Amendment 204 contains transitional provision to ensure that, once the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 have been transferred to the Secretary of State, that Act continues to operate as intended. I would be grateful for the Minister’s assessment of how the creation of the fair work agency will allow for more effective identification and prevention of modern slavery offences. As we debate the amendment, it is important that we are fully appraised of the detail and the assessment that the Minister, the wider Department for Business and Trade and the Government have made. This is an important matter that all Committee members, and Members of the wider House of Commons, take incredibly seriously, and I urge the Minister to do so.

Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Justin Madders]

I will not detain the Committee long, as we have debated schedule 7 and the amendments to it at length.

Part 5 of the Bill lays the groundwork for the creation of the fair work agency. As a result, it will abolish the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and the Director of Labour Market Enforcement. Schedule 7 sets out transitional and savings provisions that we need in place to set up the new body. Part 1 of schedule 7 gives powers to the Secretary of State to make transfer schemes to move staff, property, rights and liabilities of the GLAA and the DLME to the Secretary of State, and part 2 provides for other necessary transitional provisions, such as to ensure that smooth sharing of information can continue and to retain provisions that devolved legislation relies on.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I wish you a happy new year, too. As the Minister said, we have debated schedule 7 in some depth through the various amendments to it, so I have nothing further to add.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 7, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 111

Meaning of “non-compliance with relevant labour market legislation”

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 112 stand part.

[Justin Madders]

These clauses set out a single set of investigatory and enforcement powers that inspectors will have to carry out their job of enforcing the list of labour market legislation in part 1 of schedule 4.

Clause 111 defines what constitutes non-compliance with relevant labour market legislation. It provides a clear definition of non-compliance, ensuring consistency and transparency in enforcement actions. It therefore underpins the enforcement purposes of the Bill.

Clause 112 defines the key terms used throughout part 5 of the Bill relating to the governance of the fair work agency, including the concepts of the advisory board, the enforcement function and the role of an enforcement officer under clauses 75, 73 and 72, respectively. Other key terms defined by the clause include labour market enforcement undertakings and orders, “non-compliance with relevant labour market legislation” and “labour market offence”. It does not introduce any additional policy, but it is a necessary and normal part of the Bill to ensure that it is functional.

[Greg Smith]

The clauses give some rare clarity to the Bill. Clause 112, in particular, goes into significant detail, which His Majesty’s loyal Opposition of course welcome.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 111 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 112

Interpretation: general

Amendment made: 205, in clause 112, page 102, line 7, at end insert—

“‘GCHQ’ has the same meaning as in the Intelligence Services Act 1994;

‘intelligence service’ means—

(a) the Security Service;

(b) the Secret Intelligence Service;

(c) GCHQ;”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment defines “GCHQ” and “intelligence service” for the purposes of Part 5 of the Bill.

Clause 112, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 5

Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: removal of waiting period

“(1) Part 11 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (statutory sick pay) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 147(1) (employer’s liability), for ‘sections 148 to 150’ substitute ‘sections 149 and 150’.

(3) In section 148 (period of incapacity for work)—

(a) omit subsection (1);

(b) in subsection (2), for the words from ‘any’ to ‘is’ substitute ‘a period of one day which is, or of two or more consecutive days each of which is,’.

(4) In section 149(1) (period of entitlement), for ‘second’ substitute ‘first’.

(5) In section 150(1) (qualifying days), for ‘third’ substitute ‘second’.

(6) In section 151 (limitations on entitlement), omit subsection (1).

(7) In section 152(2) (notification of incapacity for work), omit paragraph (b) (and the ‘or’ at the end of paragraph (a)).”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause makes the same provision for Northern Ireland as is made by clause 8 of the Bill for Great Britain. It is intended that this new clause and NC6 be inserted after clause 9.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: lower earnings limit etc

“(1) Part 11 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (statutory sick pay) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 153 (rate of payment)—

(a) for subsection (1) substitute—

‘(1) The weekly rate of statutory sick pay that an employer must pay to an employee is the lower of—

(a) £116.75, and

(b) the prescribed percentage of the employee’s normal weekly earnings.’;

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) omit the ‘and’ at the end of paragraph (a);

(ii) after paragraph (a) insert—

‘(aa) prescribe a percentage, or percentages, for the purposes of subsection (1)(b);’.

(3) In Schedule 11 (circumstances in which periods of entitlement to statutory sick pay do not arise), in paragraph 2, omit paragraph (c) (lower earnings limit).”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause makes the same provision for Northern Ireland as is made by clause 9 of the Bill for Great Britain.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

Employment outside Great Britain

“In section 285 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (employment outside Great Britain)—

(a) in subsection (1), before ‘works’ insert ‘ordinarily’;

(b) in subsection (1A), before ‘works’ insert ‘ordinarily’.” —(Justin Madders.)

This new clause would correct omissions of the word “ordinarily” in provisions of section 285 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Justin Madders]

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

[Justin Madders]

New clause 7 and amendment 110 have been tabled to fix an apparent drafting error in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Committee has already debated a Government amendment to section 285(1B) of that Act, which will close a loophole in the requirement to notify the UK Government of collective redundancies for foreign-flagged ships.

New clause 7 and amendment 110 concern subsections (1) and (1A) of the same section. Section 285(1) currently disapplies the collective redundancy notification requirements and certain other requirements for employees who are “working”—as opposed to “ordinarily working”—outside Great Britain, and section 285(1A) disapplies the requirements of sections 145A to 151 of the 1992 Act,

“where under his contract personally to do work or perform services a worker who is not an employee works outside Great Britain.”

This, unfortunately, could have the effect of excluding employees who spend any of their working time outside the UK from the requirements of the legislation. I apologise, as that appears to have been a drafting oversight.

New clause 7 will introduce the word “ordinarily” ahead of the words “works outside Great Britain”, which will ensure that employees who spend some of their working time outside the UK or its territorial workers will not be excluded from the legislation. I hope that Members can see that this is an important and necessary change.

[Greg Smith]

New clause 7, as the Minister outlined, will correct omissions of the word “ordinarily” in provisions of section 285 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Amendment 110 would bring new clause 7 into force two months after Royal Assent. The only real question that follows that is: could the Minister clarify why it is necessary to commence this measure earlier than the usual three months?

[Justin Madders]

The shadow Minister has been eagle-eyed and spotted the difference there. I am not aware of whether there is any specific reason, other than that, although this measure is quite important in its scope, it will not actually have too much of a practical day-to-day effect. As always, I will write to him if there is any more information that I can give him about the difference.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 7 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant

“(1) An enforcement officer may not by virtue of section 79 enter any dwelling unless a justice has issued a warrant authorising the officer to enter the dwelling.

(2) A justice may issue a warrant under this section only if, on an application by the officer, the justice is satisfied—

(a) that the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that—

(i) there are documents in the dwelling which for any enforcement purpose the officer wishes to inspect, examine or seize, or

(ii) there is computer or other equipment in the dwelling to which the officer wishes to have access for any enforcement purpose, and

(b) that any of the conditions in subsection (3) is satisfied.

(3) The conditions are—

(a) that it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant entry to the dwelling;

(b) that it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant access to the documents or equipment;

(c) that entry to the dwelling is unlikely to be granted unless a warrant is produced;

(d) that the purpose of entry may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless an enforcement officer arriving at the dwelling can secure immediate entry to it.

(4) In this section—

‘enforcement purpose’ has the same meaning as in section 79;

‘justice’ means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, a justice of the peace;

(b) in relation to Scotland, a sheriff or summary sheriff;

(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, a lay magistrate.

(5) For further provision about warrants under this section, see section (Warrants) and Schedule (Warrants under Part 5: further provision).”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause provides that an enforcement officer may not exercise the power conferred by clause 79 to enter premises that are a dwelling without first obtaining a warrant.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

Warrants

“(1) A warrant under section (Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant) or 83 may be executed by any enforcement officer.

(2) A warrant under section (Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant) or 83 may authorise persons to accompany any enforcement officer who is executing it.

(3) A person authorised under subsection (2) to accompany an enforcement officer may exercise any power conferred by this Part which the officer may exercise as a result of the warrant.

(4) But the person may exercise such a power only in the company of, and under the supervision of, an enforcement officer.

(5) Schedule (Warrants under Part 5: further provision) contains further provision about—

(a) applications for warrants under section (Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant) or 83, and

(b) warrants issued under section (Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant) or 83.

(6) The entry of premises under a warrant issued under section (Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant) or 83 is unlawful unless it complies with the provisions of Part 3 of that Schedule (execution of warrants).”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause makes further provision about warrants under Part 5. It enables warrants to authorise people to accompany the enforcement officer executing the warrant. It also provides that entry under a warrant is unlawful unless it complies with provisions of NS1 relating to the execution of warrants.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

Increase in time limits for making claims

“Schedule (Increase in time limits for making claims) makes amendments for the purpose of increasing time limits for making claims in employment tribunals in Great Britain (and, in certain cases, industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland) from three months to six months.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause would introduce NS2.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11

Orders and regulations under Employment Rights Act 1996: procedure

“In section 236 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (orders and regulations), after subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) A statutory instrument containing an order or regulations under this Act to which subsection (3) applies may include an order or regulations under this Act to which subsection (3) would not otherwise apply.

(4B) In such a case, the statutory instrument is to be proceeded with as if all of the orders and regulations contained in it were orders or regulations to which subsection (3) applies.’”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause, to be inserted into Part 6 of the Bill, would enable the combination of orders or regulations under the Employment Rights Act 1996 that would otherwise be subject to different Parliamentary procedures (or no Parliamentary procedure) in a statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 48

Seafarers’ wages and working conditions

“Schedule (Seafarers’ wages and working conditions) amends the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause introduces the Schedule proposed to be inserted by NS3.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

This group concerns the mandatory seafarers’ charter and amendments to international maritime convention measures. New schedule 3, and consequential amendments new clause 48 and Government amendments 206 to 208, deliver on our commitment to introduce a legally binding seafarers’ charter. The actions of P&O Ferries in 2022, when it sacked almost 800 seafarers in order to replace them with agency workers on much worse terms and conditions, highlighted the lack of protections for those working on the frequent international services that keep our country moving.

We are expanding the scope of the Seafarers Wages Act 2023, which will become the Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023. The Act currently makes payment of the national minimum wage equivalent for work in UK waters a condition of port access for international services that call at a UK port at least 120 times a year. It does that by requiring harbour authorities to request declarations from operators to confirm that they are paying the national minimum wage equivalent, or they will impose surcharges each time a vessel enters the port. Non-payment of surcharges will result in access to the port being refused.

The new schedule introduces provisions that, once the necessary regulations have been made, will require harbour authorities to also request safe working declarations and remuneration declarations from operators in scope. Operators will be required to confirm that they are meeting the requirements of those declarations, which will be set out in regulations. We will consult on the requirements and the services they will apply to in due course.

Safe working regulations can specify conditions relating to working patterns and rest requirements, including maximum periods of work and minimum periods of rest. They can also require operators to produce fatigue management plans, and make provision relating to safety training of seafarers. Remuneration regulations may specify requirements relating to the remuneration of seafarers, whether in UK waters or outside them. Where we are able to make agreements with other countries about pay on routes between us and them, this provision will allow us to enforce those agreements. Operators that provide false or misleading declarations, or act inconsistently with declarations, will be guilty of an offence under the Seafarers Wages Act. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency will be responsible for enforcing those offences, as it is for the existing provisions of the Act.

The new schedule represents a proportionate and necessary approach to ensuring that the seafarers who serve our country are not subject to dangerous or unfair working conditions. It will level the playing field by setting an appropriate minimum standard for seafarers, which will ensure that good employers are not undercut by those willing to exploit their workers.

I turn to new clause 52. The UK has a proud and long-standing reputation as a maritime nation, and is a leader on the global stage in matters of international maritime employment law. To maintain that position, it is crucial that we are able to keep pace with the international conventions that we have ratified and meet our future obligations. The new clause will fix a powers gap that was left following Brexit. It will give us the powers to make regulations under the negative procedure giving effect to the maritime labour convention and the work in fishing convention, and to make regulations giving effect to any other international agreements ratified in the UK relating to maritime employment. The first time that regulations are made in relation to a particular agreement, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and subsequent regulations relating to that agreement will be subject to the negative procedure.

The new clause allows for regulations to make the necessary provisions to give effect to the conventions in question. For example, it allows for regulations to make provision relating to monitoring compliance, and to criminal offences and detention of ships for contravention of provisions in the regulations. It may not represent any changes in Government policy, but it will allow us to uphold our existing obligations and any future obligations under conventions that the UK may choose to ratify.

[Greg Smith]

New clause 48 introduces the schedule to be inserted by new schedule 3, which in turn amends the Seafarers Wages Act 2023 to give the Secretary of State power to make regulations specifying conditions relating to the wages and working conditions of seafarers who work on ships providing the services currently covered by that Act. Those conditions are enforceable in the same way as existing provisions of the Act. Amendment 208 is consequential on new schedule 3. Amendment 207 states the extent of the new chapter to be formed by new clause 48 and new schedule 3, extending it United Kingdom-wide. Amendment 206 is consequential.

New clause 52 inserts into the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations to give effect to the maritime labour convention, adopted on 23 February 2006, to the work in fishing convention, adopted on 14 June 2007, and to future international agreements that relate to the employment of masters and seamen.

Let me turn to the substance. As I said, the maritime labour convention was adopted on 23 February 2006, and the work in fishing convention on 14 June 2007, so the first question is why the then Labour Government did not see fit to introduce provision in legislation in the first place? Will the Minister explain why it is necessary to legislate to give the Secretary of State sweeping powers to

“by regulations make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of giving effect”

to those two conventions? Precisely what regulations are needed?

Will the Minister give the Committee specific examples of the regulations that the Government intend to make under this power, and justify them? I do not think it is good enough for us to be in this position. Notwithstanding the usual comments the Minister makes about not predetermining consultations and about talking to stakeholders at a later point, this is one of those areas where we need concrete examples of where he expects to go.

A key reason for my asking is that article IV of the maritime labour convention, on seafarers’ employment and social rights, states:

“1. Every seafarer has the right to a safe and secure workplace that complies with safety standards.

2. Every seafarer has a right to fair terms of employment.

3. Every seafarer has a right to decent working and living conditions on board ship.

4. Every seafarer has a right to health protection, medical care, welfare measures and other forms of social protection.”

Will the Minister explain which of the rights I just outlined are not already enforceable under United Kingdom law? Is there difficulty with implementing any of the implementation and enforcement responsibilities in article V?

Will the Minister further explain whether any of the provisions of the work in fishing convention are currently unenforceable under United Kingdom law—I seek just one example—and if so, what specific changes would be needed to enforce them? I ask because I do not think that is clear from any of the new clauses, the new schedule or the amendments that we are considering in this group.

New clause 52 also takes sweeping powers for the Secretary of State, who can make regulations that

“may make provision in respect of the checking or monitoring of compliance with any provision of the regulations, including (among other things) provision for—

(a) the making and keeping of records and the keeping of documents;

(b) the issue of certificates;

(c) the furnishing of information.”

What on earth is encompassed by “the furnishing of information”? That seems like a very vague term to be put on to the statute book. To what intrusive or burdensome use is the Secretary of State planning to put this power? Precisely what does the Minister mean by it?

To convince the Committee that these powers are necessary, can the Minister name one occasion on which the Government’s ability to enforce the provisions of the maritime labour convention has been found wanting, and in what respect? If such an example exists, could the Government better target the powers in proposed new section 84B(4) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to actually solve the problem, rather than allow a Government free-for-all?

This is not a trivial matter, as proposed new section 84B(5) allows the Government to

“provide for the detention of a ship in respect of which a contravention of the regulations is suspected to have occurred”.

Will the Minister explain how long such a detention might last? How great an infraction would need to have been committed for a ship to be detained?

As if the Government had not hoarded enough power through this new clause, proposed new section 84B(8) contains the real kicker, stating that regulations may

“make different provision for different purposes”.

Will the Minister explain the limits on this power? That language is far too woolly and loose to be contained in any piece of primary legislation in this country.

I also do not think it is appropriate that regulations to

“make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of giving effect to an international agreement that has been ratified by the United Kingdom, so far as the agreement relates to maritime employment”

should be subject to the negative procedure. The regulations apply to international agreements that have not yet been entered into. Parliament should at least be guaranteed the ability to debate regulations that implementing such agreements. Otherwise, proposed new section 84B(13) is the very definition of a blank cheque.

The Government tabled new clause 52 just in time for debate today; we have been given very little opportunity to scrutinise it. Given the powers it takes for Ministers, I gently suggest that that is discourteous to the House. The least the Minister can do is provide answers to each of the questions I have posed, so that we are able to understand a little better whether the new clause is even necessary and to what use Ministers actually intend to put the powers.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The maritime labour convention, which was adopted on 23 February 2006, and the work in fishing convention, adopted on 14 June 2007, represent significant international agreements aimed at improving the working conditions and rights of seafarers and those working in the fishing industry. However, despite their adoption many years ago, the provisions in those conventions have not yet been fully legislated for within the UK framework.

One must ask why the previous Labour Government did not introduce this crucial provision into UK law during their time in office. The conventions were in existence long before the current Government came to power, and it is concerning that they were not prioritised earlier. What led to that omission, and why has it taken so long to bring them into the scope of our legislation? Given the importance of these rights, we must understand why it has taken so long for the Government to act on these matters.

New clause 52, which grants the Secretary of State broad and sweeping powers to, by regulations,

“make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of giving effect”

to the maritime labour convention and the work in fishing convention, raises several questions. I would like to understand more about why it is deemed necessary to grant such wide-reaching power to the Secretary of State. Specifically, why does this provision allow for the creation of regulations that give the Secretary of State the authority to determine what should be done without offering a clear, predefined set of actions? It is important to explore whether such overreach is truly necessary and what specific circumstances justify such broad powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. When I became an MP, I never thought that I would be standing before a Committee talking about clause 4. However, this is not about public ownership but is actually about non-disclosure agreements. Non-disclosure agreements were originally about keeping trade secrets but, over recent years, they have proliferated and, sadly, have kept shameful secrets away from the public eye in situations where light needs to be cast to make sure that things are tackled. Sadly, I personally have been signed up to one of these agreements. I reassure the Committee that it was not a business in my constituency, but another one where I suffered a level of discrimination, and I had to sign an NDA. That did not allow me to cry foul on a certain issue that myself and my family suffered.

As for the bigger picture of where NDAs have been used at an industrial level, one only has to look at Harrods and the stories that have come up around sexual harassment. Part of the Bill is about trying to tackle harassment and sexual harassment. New clause 4 strengthens the Bill by making sure that NDAs are exempt from this area. As I alluded to with Mohamed al-Fayed, these were used at an industrial level when people were at a very confused stage, and were very vulnerable. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to incorporating the new clause in our proposals.

This is a golden opportunity. We have already seen Ireland take this step. I encourage the Minister to embrace new clause 4.

[Greg Smith]

I shall speak briefly to new clause 4, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Of course, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support all practical measures to combat harassment and sexual harassment wherever it occurs. Our challenge to the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Torbay on behalf of the third party is about understanding where the shortfalls are in existing whistleblower legislation that make the amendment necessary. I heard what he said about his personal experience, but our analysis of the provisions of legislation that is active and live now, as we consider the new clause in Committee, shows that whistleblowing legislation already covers what he is trying to achieve. We are not certain why it is necessary, on a practical level, to add the new clause to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Substitution clauses enable a culture of maximising profit at the expense of workers and without any regard for the law or the wider community. They have created an illegal workforce without access to the rights that should underpin the labour market. That is why I urge Labour Members here today to look at the new clause with an open mind and consider how it could help to tip the scales against those in positions of power who are willing to see the misery endure. It is the right thing to do.

[Greg Smith]

I commend my hon. Friend for proposing new clause 12 and amendment 111. He has just outlined a very serious and live concern in our economy today. I cannot believe that any Government Member, having heard the evidence that my hon. Friend has outlined, would want those practices to continue in our economy, not least given the grave and worrying evidence presented about sexual harassment, sexual offences and rape. Those facts cannot be ignored. Even if the Government will not take action off the back of my hon. Friend’s new clause, I call on the Minister to take very seriously the evidence that he has outlined and come up with another vehicle in which to get protections into legislation.

My hon. Friend has explained the situation at some length, so I will conclude by saying that the Government have a clear choice here. They can go down the political route and, having heard compelling evidence, still say, “We do not want to do this because it has come from a Conservative Member,” or find some language to say that in a different way. Alternatively, we can do something all too rare in this place: we can take a real and live problem identified by my hon. Friend and reach cross-party consensus on the need to tackle it, and acknowledge that tackling it fits very neatly with the aims and objectives of the Bill we have been considering for some weeks in Committee. We all make political choices in this place. It is now incumbent on the Minister to give us the political choice that he and the Government wish to make on this: stand with the victims whom my hon. Friend’s new clause aims to protect, or go down the political route.

[Justin Madders]

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for West Suffolk for raising this matter, because I take it extremely seriously. I am pleased to see that he and the shadow Minister do too. It has clearly become more and more of an issue in recent years. It is based on exploitation of vulnerable individuals. It is about a race to the bottom and about a labour market that is, as Matthew Taylor identified all those years ago, fundamentally not working.

That said, we are not able to accept the new clause, and I will explain why. That does not mean I am not sympathetic to it. We have been doing a number of things. I recently met the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, Margaret Beels, and the Home Office to discuss this matter. In fact, we have now met the Home Office twice on this issue, because we are aware that there are concerns about how substitution clauses in the gig economy, in particular, are operating. I have recently written to Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber, because their substitution clauses—certainly some of them—do not appear to have any cognisance of whether the substitute has the right to work in the UK. I would not say that applies to all gig economy companies—I could say “employers”, but of course they would say that they are not employers. They do not all take that view of substitution, but it is clear from what we have heard that this is not being policed properly at the moment, so we want these companies to step up and make sure that those who are working for them are entitled to do so legally, that they know who they are and that they are who they say they are, and that all the checks that we would expect any responsible employer to make have been made.

The challenge is that there is a broad definition of self-employment and substitution clauses are used far more widely than the gig economy. There have been cases going back decades on whether someone has employment rights, and that often centres on the use of a substitution clause. In recent years, that has been turbocharged by gig economy companies to create this new network of workers, but there would be a number of unintended consequences in the wider economy if we accepted the new clause, because of its broadness. It would make people such as IT contractors or plumbers—indeed, there was a case involving a gym instructor who had a substitution clause—unable to provide a substitute. There are all sorts of jobs out there—many thousands and possibly millions—where substitution clauses are used perfectly well, and unfortunately, because of the way the new clause is drafted, it would mean that none of those people could continue to use them. Clearly, we would not want to see that, because it is an important part of self-employment for someone to be able to provide a substitute for their services if they are unavailable, but we recognise that the law needs modernising in this area. We have committed to consulting on a simpler, two-part framework for employment status. We think that is really important to drive out the many abuses that we have heard about.

I agree with the hon. Member for West Suffolk that it should not be left to the courts to determine whether someone has particular rights. That should be set down by Parliament, and it should be clear and make sure that there is no room for loopholes. It is important that we get that right. I think that the new clause would create a whole range of unintended consequences and exclude people from carrying out their legitimate business, but I assure hon. Members that I take this matter very seriously and I am doing what I can, before we have the review, to make sure that those companies that are employing people in this way are doing so safely and responsibly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

The new clause would create new rates of statutory maternity pay, paternity pay, adoption pay, shared parental pay and parental bereavement pay. That all sounds very good, and I do not necessarily oppose it—everybody would love to see those rates increase.

Without making any comments on the merits or otherwise of this policy choice, I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Torbay could comment on why the Liberal Democrats have alighted on these specific rates of pay. Why not more? How did they come to this conclusion? What research have they done to ascertain whether these rates are affordable for employers? I am sure that we would all like to see these rates offered, but we always need to be able to pay for them. It is incumbent on anyone proposing a new clause such as this to be certain that the rates are affordable for employers. Let us not forget that the rates proposed are effectively double the current rates.

On maternity, paternity and shared parental pay specifically, what engagement have the Liberal Democrats undertaken with businesses on whether the proposed rates would make them more hesitant about hiring candidates at the stage of life when they might be thinking about having children? It is very important that nothing stops any employer considering people at that stage of their life. It is also very important that we understand, when considering such a new clause, which on the face of it has great merit—I do not intend to distract from that point—what work the Liberal Democrats have done on its potential unintended consequences. I repeat that, on the face of it, this proposal has strong merit, but I just do not see any evidence that the research has been done to substantiate its affordability or effectiveness, no matter how much we might all want to see it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

Apologies, Ms Vaz; I was somewhat premature on the previous item. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, who has highlighted this matter and proposed this new clause on kinship care. The kinship care APPG discussed this proposal and was mostly in favour of it.

The number of children in our United Kingdom who benefit from kinship care is 130,000—equivalent to the population of Colchester or Watford. That is three times more than the number of youngsters who benefit from fostering, which is where one imagines, and one would hope, most youngsters in need of support would get it. The new clause, by allowing additional leave, would allow greater flexibility to get those youngsters into the family, and would help families come to terms with, and settle into, kinship care.

There are eye-watering costs in the care system. Some companies are making outrageous profits from family breakdown. I encourage Members to think about how we can reshape society to give more support. As somebody who has adopted myself, adoption and fostering are matters very close to my heart, and I would strongly welcome more opportunities for kinship care.

Equally, new clause 45, which would provide for an additional week of unpaid leave for foster carers, is extremely important. We need to change the workplace so that it supports foster families and kinship care families, making sure that, the vast majority of the time, the best place for a child is within a loving family home—whatever shape or form that takes—rather than in a care home or similar place miles away from home.

This collection of proposals would help to drive the agenda to change our culture in the UK and support young people in loving homes, with families.

[Greg Smith]

I preface my comments by saying that I welcome anything that supports kinship carers. I had an inspirational meeting with a constituent who is a kinship carer over the summer, which certainly opened my eyes to many of the challenges faced by those who take on the heroic and wonderful mission in life of looking after those young people.

New clause 14 sets out an entitlement to kinship care leave. That in its own right seems to me a very good, sensible and noble proposal. Where the clause falls a little short is that it appears to be very trusting of the Government. Some on the Committee might think that is equally a very sensible and good thing, but obviously Governments come and go. Anything set out in any legislation that leaves things open also leaves them open to misinterpretation and the risk that they will not necessarily deliver that which was intended.

The entire eventual policy that new clause 14 would enable would be left up to Ministers, including the extent of an employee’s entitlement to leave, when leave may be taken and much more. I wonder whether the Liberal Democrats have a policy position on those matters; if they do, it seems rather trusting to just leave it up to the Government to determine, rather than setting it out in the new clause.

New clause 15 defines what is meant by kinship care. There is some confusion here, because the Government have set out their definition of kinship care in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which specifies that a child is in kinship care if

“the child lives with a relative, friend or other person connected with the child for all or part of the time”,

or if the child lives with that person

“for all of the time, or for more time than the child lives with a parent”,

and that person provides

“all of the care and support provided for the child, or more of that care and support than is provided for the child by a parent.”

A child is also in kinship care if the child lives with two or more relatives, friends or other persons

“all or most of the time (whether or not the child lives with those persons at the same time)”,

and

“those persons, taken together, provide all or most of the care and support provided for the child.”

That definition was introduced after new clause 15 was tabled, so it would be interesting to know whether there are aspects of the Government’s definition that the Liberal Democrats support, or whether they prefer their own, and why. It seems to me that, now there is live Government legislation in this area providing a perfectly good and well-meaning definition of kinship care, we do not need the new clause.

New clause 45, on additional leave for foster carers, would ensure that local authority foster parents are entitled to at least one extra week’s leave every 12 months. I would be interested to know whether the Liberal Democrats have undertaken any assessment of how businesses would be able to absorb the additional cost. That is not to say that we necessarily oppose the principle, but again, like with new clause 13, it would be important to know, before we could formally support any such change—well-meaning as it might be—whether that research has been done to understand the cost to business.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

New clause 14 aims to establish a new kinship care leave entitlement for employed kinship carers, with a minimum of 52 weeks of leave being available for eligible employees. New clause 15 then seeks to create a legal definition of “kinship care” to be used to establish eligibility for kinship care leave.

I start by emphasising how much I value kinship carers, who provide loving homes for children who cannot live with their parents. This Government are committed to ensuring that all employed parents and carers receive the best possible support to balance their work and family lives. We are also aware that the existing system of leave for parents and carers needs improvement.

Some of the improvements to that system will be made through this Bill, while others will be delivered separately. As the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has mentioned, for the first time, this Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will create a legal definition of kinship care for the purposes of measures within that Bill, including the duty to provide information to children and their kinship carers by local authorities, and extending the role of a virtual school head to promote the educational achievement of children in kinship care. That is a vital part of our commitment to keeping families together and supporting children to achieve and thrive.

That Bill defines kinship care as a situation in which a child lives with, and is cared for by, a relative, friend or someone else connected to them, instead of their parents, and that person provides all or most of the care and support to the child. By defining kinship care in law, the legislation will ensure that local authorities have a clear and consistent understanding of what constitutes kinship care.

I am also pleased to say that the Government recently announced a £40 million package to trial a new kinship allowance, which is the single biggest investment made by Government on kinship care to date. That investment could transform the lives of vulnerable children who can no longer live at home. It could allow children to grow up within their extended families and communities, reducing disruption to their early years so that they can focus on schooling and building friendships.

Employed kinship carers may already benefit from a number of workplace employment rights that are designed to support employees in balancing work alongside caring responsibilities. Those rights include: a day one right to time off for dependants, which provides a reasonable amount of unpaid time off work to deal with an unexpected or sudden emergency involving a child or dependant and to put care arrangements in place; the right to request flexible working; and the right to unpaid parental leave, which, through this Bill, we are making a day one right.

An employee may not automatically have parental responsibility as a result of being a kinship carer, but they may acquire parental responsibility through, for example, a legal guardianship order. We have also committed to a review of the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports all working families. That review will be conducted separately from the Employment Rights Bill, and work is already under way on planning for its delivery.

New clause 45 proposes to introduce an entitlement to a week of leave for local authority foster parents. Foster parents offer crucial support to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. They provide love, stability and compassion to children and young people when they need it most.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

I thank the Minister for that reassurance. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 19

Consultation on trade union legislation

“(1) The Secretary of State must initiate a consultation on—

(a) the operation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; and

(b) the effects on that operation of provisions contained in Part 4 of this Act.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament, no sooner than eighteen weeks after the initiation referred to in subsection (1), a report on—

(a) the outcome of that consultation, and

(b) the Government’s proposals for changes to the legislation referred to in subsection (1).”—(Greg Smith.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to undertake a consultation on the operation of trade union legislation, and see also Amendment 116.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 116, in clause 118, page 104, line 34, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(2) No provision of Part 4 of this Act may be brought into force in accordance with subsection (3) until the report referred to in section [Consultation on trade union legislation] has been published.”

This amendment removes provisions to bring much of Part 4 of the Bill into force two months after the passing of the Act and makes commencement of Part 4 conditional upon the publication of a report arising from consultation carried out in accordance with NC19.

[Greg Smith]

This is probably one of the meatier amendments that the official Opposition has tabled—[Interruption.] As bits of the Palace fall down around us, it may be symbolic of the Bill. [Interruption.] I am glad I missed whatever the quip back on that was.

New clause 19 and amendment 116 would require the Secretary of State to consult on the operation of trade union legislation. We have heard a lot during this Committee about the need to consult, but we are missing the crucial bit about consulting on the actual operation of the trade union legislation.

New clause 19 would require the Secretary of State to consult precisely on the operation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the effects of provisions in part 4 of the Bill on that operation. The second limb of new clause 19 is for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament the outcome of that consultation and the Government’s proposals for changes to the legislation. We would like to ensure that part 4 cannot come into force until that has been done.

Why are new clause 19 and amendment 116 needed? We have seen pages of Government amendments tabled in Committee because the Bill was introduced to the House before it was ready and before the Government had done the necessary policy work to determine what should be in it—all in a rush to meet the arbitrary 100-day deadline rashly proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister. It is not often that I agree with the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, but there were reports before the election that even she thought that was an unrealistic deadline, and events have proven her correct. It may embarrass the Minister or make him a little awkward every time I raise this point, but that will not stop me from stating the facts.

Part 4 of the Bill is an enormous expansion of the power of trade unions. These measures have not been consulted on and will have an enormous impact on not just businesses, but the efficiency of private and public sector employers, with all the associated costs. There is a strange doublespeak between the Government’s stated aims for the Bill and its likely consequences. The Government’s impact assessment says:

“The objectives of the Bill are to…Improve industrial relations and reducing the number of days lost to strike action by allowing working people to organise collectively through trade unions and improving the legislative framework in which they operate.”

How can the Government believe that the Bill will reduce the days lost to strike action when part 4 specifically takes measures to make strike action easier? For example, it makes it easier for unions to be recognised by removing the requirement for a union to demonstrate that the proposed bargaining unit is 10% of its membership on application to the Central Arbitration Committee and replaces it with references to the “required percentage test”, which will surely make strike action more likely. Part 4 also requires the Central Arbitration Committee to declare a trade union as recognised for collective bargaining purposes where the result of the ballot shows that a majority of those voting were in favour of union recognition. The additional requirement for the union to have at least 40% support in the bargaining unit has been deleted. That is why this consultation needs to be laid before part 4 can come into force.

We then come to the changes to ballot thresholds, which seem specifically designed to make it more, not less, likely that more days will be lost to industrial action.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Surely not.

[Greg Smith]

From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Bill removes the requirement for at least 50% of trade union members entitled to vote to do so for an industrial action ballot to be valid. It also removes the requirement for trade unions in important public services to obtain the support of at least 40% of members entitled to vote in the ballot for industrial action to be successful and replaces that with a simple majority of those voting, with no requirements for any level of turnout. Can the Minister explain how that will make industrial action less likely?

Surely making it easier for trade unions to gain a mandate for strike action by removing sensible thresholds imposed by the previous Conservative Government will make strike action more likely, which is contrary to the Government’s stated aims for the Bill. That is why it is so important for the consultation in new clause 19 to be laid before the House. That contradiction between the Government’s stated intentions for part 4 and the result of the Bill, which is likely to be the opposite, is the first reason we believe the Government need to enact a proper consultation to prove that the Bill will work, which they should have done before introducing the Bill in the first place.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Greg Smith]

I would be delighted to give way. The Government Back Benchers have been so quiet today. It would be wonderful to hear from the hon. Gentleman.

[Laurence Turner]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz; I am glad to make the shadow Minister so happy and to see the smile on his face. I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the GMB and Unite trade unions.

I have two points about the new clause. First, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act was a monumental undertaking; as the name implies, it consolidated all previous industrial relations legislation. One of the effects of the new clause would be to cast a pall of doubt over every measure in that legislation, including measures that I am sure the hon. Gentleman supports, including the building blocks of our industrial relations system, such as the immunity of trade unions from tort claims when they act in pursuit of legitimate industrial action. That has underpinned our system since 1906.

Secondly, the 1992 Act is an enormous piece of legislation—some three times the length of the Bill—but the hon. Gentleman’s new clause allows only three months for the exercise. Would the exercise not therefore be unduly onerous to undertake or, in practice, perfunctory? It will have the effect only of delaying a number of very important measures, including some that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed in Committee.

[The Chair]

May I just say that interventions should be short, not speech length?

[Greg Smith]

Government Members have been quiet all day, Ms Vaz, and the hon. Gentleman has got that off his chest. On the timeframe, if he wants the consultation to take longer, we are open to negotiation; we would certainly be pleased to have a longer timeframe for this important consultation.

The hon. Gentleman is right about the size of the 1992 Act; it was a monumental undertaking. Of course, there are many things in it that my party supports: we were in government—or just about; we had a majority of something like 21—in that Parliament. The question is, how is it working out in practice, some decades on? Are the laws that were consolidated on our statute book in 1992 fully relevant in 2025, and how are they working? Until we can answer that rather tricky exam question, it is important that we do not make the leaps forward contained in the Bill that we have debated over the past few weeks.

The next reason why a consultation is necessary before part 4 is commenced is the burden on employers, which is laced throughout part 4. Leaving aside the likely burden and cost of additional days of strike action, I want to ask for the Minister’s assessment of the burden that the measures will place on employers. The requirement on an employer to provide an employee with a written statement of the worker’s rights to join a trade union means more red tape, as do the trade unions’ rights of access to workplaces. There is also the requirement to provide a response notice and the fact that trade unions can request access to workplaces for the extremely wide purposes of meeting, representing, recruiting or organising workers, whether or not they are members of a trade union, or facilitating collective bargaining.

How much time will those take out of employees’ working days? The employer will not be compensated for that, but will have to bear the cost. How burdensome will it be for an employer to defend at tribunal the reasons for not granting access, and can the system even cope with that? Reversing the effect of section 8 of the Trade Union Act 2016 will reduce the notice that a trade union must give the employer of industrial action after it has secured a ballot mandate and before any such action is taken from 14 to seven days.

Can the Minister explain how any of the above measures will enable employers to increase productivity, reduce costs or reduce red tape? Perhaps they are just another set of anti-growth measures from this Government, in contrast to their stated foundational mission of growth. Is it a first step, or a milestone? It is hard to keep track of the labels. Growth is important, and the measures that I have just mentioned from part 4 make that harder. That is why the consultation for which the new clause calls is so important.

We come to the third reason that a consultation is necessary. The Government have not done any evidence-based work—at least not publicly—on how effectively existing trade union legislation, in particular the balanced approach we introduced with the Trade Union Act 2016, is working and on how the proposals in part 4 of the Bill would change that. That basic level of due diligence is needed before part 4 can be commenced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

The shadow Minister seeks through the new clause and amendment to relitigate a number of the issues we debated last week, and he will not be surprised to hear that I will pick up on just one or two of his comments. He said that the 100-day deadline was unrealistic, but it was not, because we achieved it. All involved made a fantastic effort to ensure that we had a Bill published within that 100-day deadline. There have been some minor technical amendments to the Bill as we have moved along, and there are important issues of principle that we continue to engage and consult on.

As the shadow Minister said, the new clause would require a consultation on the operation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as amended by part 4 of the Bill. I was not entirely clear whether he was referring just to the amendments to the 1992 Act by virtue of part 4 of this Bill or to the entire Act; in any event, there is some overlap between the two. We are pretty clear that the intention behind the new clause is to delay the Bill as much as possible. It would impinge on our desire and our manifesto commitment to improve workers’ rights and the ability of workers to have a meaningful voice through collective bargaining to secure pay and conditions.

The shadow Minister will be aware that the Government have already undertaken a number of consultations, with four over the Christmas period, including one on modernising the framework for industrial relations, which would cover many of the provisions of the 1992 Act. As we move forward, get the Bill through Parliament and lay secondary legislation, there will be ongoing consultations and discussions about the provisions in the Bill, the application of codes of practice, and some of the matters that have been left for regulation. I do not believe that there is criticism about the level of consultation. We have engaged extensively with all stakeholders on a number of matters, and we will continue to do that almost weekly.

The shadow Minister challenged me about how we can push the Bill forward, without there being questions as to whether it would lead to increased industrial action. The evidence we have is that legislation introduced by the Conservative Government led to increased industrial action in the last two years, and saw the highest levels of industrial action in decades. That shows that not putting industrial relations on a sensible footing and a collegiate basis is detrimental to them. The impact assessment for the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 made it clear it would worsen industrial relations, and so it proved.

The shadow Minister talked about the burden and the red tape. A number of measures in the Bill will actually reduce burdens on employers’ organisations and trade unions in terms of notification and reporting requirements. He also challenged us on what the impact of some of this stuff will be. We can never say for sure that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 will have any impact, because it has never been used. One of the fundamental weaknesses with that legislation was that it was so unworkable and so damaging to industrial relations that no one ever thought it was a sensible idea to implement it. There were also powers in the Trade Union Act 2016 that were never used. Where powers were used—for example, on facility time and the requirement to report that in the public sector—the figures at the start of the period for reporting were exactly the same as they were at the end. So there was a lot of hot air and posturing in that previous legislation, and it was not conducive to good industrial relations. We are more than happy to see the back of it, but of course we will continue to consult and engage with all stakeholders as we move forward on implementing our clear manifesto commitments. On that note, I would oppose these proposals.

[Greg Smith]

It is a shame that the Minister has taken that attitude towards proper consultation before commencement of part 4. We still think it should happen, but we will, in good faith, give the Minister time to reflect ahead of Report. For now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 21

Right to switch off in relation to trade union representatives

“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).

(2) After section 69 (right to terminate membership of trade union), insert—

‘Right to switch off in relation to trade union representatives

69A Right to switch off in relation to trade union representatives

In every contract of membership of a trade union, whether made before or after the coming into force of this section, a term conferring a right on the member to refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact (or attempted contact) by a trade union representative outside their working hours shall be implied.’.” —(Greg Smith.)

This new clause confers a right to switch off on trade union members in relation to contact from trade union representatives.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 120, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—

“(3A) But if the provisions of section [Right to switch off in relation to trade union representatives] have not been fully brought into force before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, that section (so far as not already in force) comes into force at the end of that period.”

This amendment is consequential on NC21 and provides that the provision must have effect within a year of the passing of this Act.

[Greg Smith]

I rise to speak to new clause 21 and amendment 20, standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends. The new clause would confer a right on trade union members to switch off from contact by their union representatives. Amendment 120 provides that new clause 21 must have effect within one year of the passing of this Act.

We know that the Government would like to give employees the legal entitlement to disconnect from work-related communications during non-working hours, to ensure a healthier work-life balance. My understanding, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation, is that this would apply to all forms of communication, including emails, phone calls and instant messaging. That is a burdensome requirement for employers. To ensure that they are complying with the eventual law, they are likely to need to establish clear boundaries for out-of-hours communication to protect employees’ rights and avoid legal risks. In other words, they need another policy and then to enforce it.

I accept that I am speculating a little, because we do not know whether the Government will impose a code of practice or legislation and exactly what that would contain, but I have made an educated guess, allowing for the Government’s pronouncements so far. We think that any requirement placed on employers that restricts the contact that can be made with their employees should also apply to trade unions. Surely, it is damaging for employees’ mental health to be contacted by their trade union reps around the clock. We have adopted our own definition of the right to switch off, in the absence of any clear definition yet from the Government. It amounts to this:

“In every contract of membership of a trade union, whether made before or after the coming into force of this section, a term conferring a right on the member to refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact (or attempted contact) by a trade union representative outside their working hours shall be implied.”

It is only fair to secure a balance between the requirements on employers and trade unions to respect mental health and wellbeing, and to allow employees and trade union members alike to secure a healthy work-life balance.

[Laurence Turner]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Smith]

I had not sat down, so I will be generous.

[Laurence Turner]

I am very grateful. Having listened to what the hon. Gentleman has had to say, I am still unclear what problem in the real world he is seeking to solve. From experience of working in trade unions, it is clear that the new clause would block a trade union member who was negotiating to save a company or reach an agreement, say over a weekend, from checking communications during that time. Someone might also be a delegate to a conference, and there may be serious safeguarding concerns about their behaviour. In that circumstance, it is for the trade union to take them out of that environment. The hon. Gentleman is making a didactic point, but does he accept that there would be very perverse consequences if the new clause were implemented?

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the points he makes could equally be applied to employers needing, in those special circumstances, to make contact with an employee or a representative of an employee, but the Government are not making those exemptions on that side of the fence. They would seem—we are yet to hear from the Minister, but what the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield has said is indicative—to be resisting those same provisions applying to trade unions. It seems to be a bit of a double standard, and it is one that the amendment and the new clause seek to address. There cannot be one rule for employers and another rule for the trade unions. It is a matter of fairness that we are proposing the new clause and the amendment, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.

[Justin Madders]

The first thing to say is that it is pretty obvious that the shadow Minister has never been a member of a trade union.

[Greg Smith]

Just so that I can formally get it on the record, I can assure the Minister that I have never been a member of a trade union.

[Justin Madders]

I am sorry to say this, but the shadow Minister seemed almost proud of that fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I am deeply hurt that the Minister will not take our new clause seriously. It is part of debate in this place, and our job as the Opposition, to test the boundaries of Government legislation. The new clause has exposed a double standard within the Labour Government’s approach to working practices, in that they seek to exempt trade unions but not employers. I invite the Minister to reflect on that point in the coming weeks, before we get to Report. Perhaps we can debate it on Report, when he has had more time to consider it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 22

Assessment of the costs of establishing a single labour market enforcement body

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the costs of establishing a single labour market enforcement body.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must be published no earlier than a year and no later than 18 months after the passing of this Act.”—(Greg Smith.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the costs of establishing a single labour market enforcement body and to report its findings to Parliament.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith]

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

I rise to speak to new clause 22, although from the mutterings of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater, I am sure all Government Members will now have their phones on display, just in case they ring. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the costs of establishing a single labour market enforcement body or, as we now refer to it, the fair work agency. The report must be published no earlier than a year, and no later than 18 months, after the Bill becomes an Act.

We tabled the new clause because we want to understand the cost-benefit analysis the Government have undertaken in relation to establishing the labour market enforcement body. Will the Minister inform the Committee about that work? Specifically, whenever there is a reorganisation of the responsibilities between the Government and non-departmental public bodies, there are always logistical difficulties to manage, such as the transfer of staff and so on.

The Government’s own impact assessment of the establishment of the fair work agency is fairly damning:

“Limited evidence and an incomplete design of the operational and organisational structure of the FWA mean that it has not been possible to quantity the impact of benefits arising from its introduction nor the majority of associated costs. Where costs have been calculated they are limited to the one-off costs faced by businesses in order to familiarise themselves with changes to the enforcement system. We estimate that these costs would be £33m.”

That is not my estimate, but the estimate in the Government’s own impact assessment. In other words, our new clause is needed. The Government have not been able to assess the costs of bringing together enforcement in this way and whether it represents value for money.

As for the cost to business, the impact assessment is, again, not exactly glowing:

“It is unclear what the total impact on business will be as a result of the creation of the FWA, this uncertainty is due to:…The operational and organisational design of the FWA not being finalised…Uncertain evidence on the number of employers and employees in scope of changes to labour market enforcement…Undetermined behavioural responses by both employers and employees as a result of the creation of the FWA.”

On the direct cost to businesses, it says:

“Businesses will face one off familiarisation costs due to the introduction of the FWA. We estimate that the costs of these changes would be £33m. Additionally, businesses who are subject to investigation will face costs even if they are later found to be compliant with relevant regulation. It is not possible to state the total number of affected businesses, but we estimate that an investigation would cost each investigated business £770.”

That is not an inconsiderable sum just for the investigation, before anything else is found, particularly for our small and medium-sized enterprises.

All of that shows that the Government’s policy thinking is at such an early stage that it is difficult to make any reliable judgments about it. We may all agree that the fair work agency is a nice idea in principle, but the Government are introducing it, and it is their job to make sure they can demonstrate that it will work in practice and provide a better deal for taxpayers, employers and workers than they are getting now. At the moment, the jury is straightforwardly still out.

There are several strands to this issue. For example, on the enforcement system for labour market legislation, the impact assessment states that

“the Bill could increase the volume of cases in the ‘individual enforcement’…system by around 15%, albeit this would be offset to some degree by the implementation of the Fair Work Agency (FWA). The exact impact on the enforcement system is difficult to predict because the number of cases that enter the system each year fluctuates, and it will ultimately depend on behavioural factors like employers’ willingness and ability to comply with regulation, and employees’ willingness to bring forward a dispute.”

In other words, the Government are really not sure about the impact that the Bill will have on the number of enforcement claims being brought to tribunal and the ability of the tribunal system to cope.

For all those reasons, we have tabled new clause 22, which would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the costs of establishing a single labour market enforcement body. Given the level of detail available so far, that would seem to be a reasonable and moderate requirement to enable Parliament to scrutinise the new agency and the value for money that it provides. It might even enable the Government to provide the House with a good news story. The only reason to resist the new clause would be if the Government thought that the new agency was not going to be such good news after all.

[Justin Madders]

Let me start by explaining once again why we believe the fair work agency is so important.

As we know, the current landscape for employment rights is, as was actually recognised by the previous Government, fragmented and in need of reform. I believe there is widespread agreement about that. As a Committee, we heard evidence from Margaret Beels, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, that the current fragmentation creates a barrier to providing effective sector-wide enforcement. She noted that bringing powers together in the fair work agency would allow for better information sharing and a more flexible and adaptive approach to enforcement, enabling resources to be directed where they are most needed.

Other witnesses agreed with that assessment; indeed, I recall that a huge range of witnesses at the evidence sessions spoke in favour of a single enforcement body. The CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the British Retail Consortium, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, the Food and Drink Federation, the Co-operative or Co-op, the Women’s Budget Group and the Work Foundation all spoke in favour of a single enforcement body.

The shadow Minister mentioned the impact assessment, but the Bill was in fact green-rated by the Regulatory Policy Committee. There is a commitment to keep the performance and cost of the fair work agency under review. There will be a review three years after implementation of the agency. As would be expected, merging different structures together is a complex task, so costings are still being developed at this stage. Nevertheless, securing value for money is clearly a key consideration in that process.

The shadow Minister made an interesting point about behavioural change. Clearly, such change is very difficult to model in, but we hope that by establishing the fair work agency we will send a very clear signal that we expect employers to comply with the law, that the best standards should be adhered to, and that the race to the bottom should end. As a result of all that, we will see far better employment practices across the country.

The fair work agency will be part of the Department for Business and Trade, so its costs will be in the Department’s accounts, which Parliament can scrutinise in the normal way. Once the agency is fully established, it will produce its own accounts as part of its reports, and those accounts will be consolidated into the Department’s annual accounts, which, of course, will also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

Consequently, I do not believe that new clause 22 would add anything to the multiple channels that are already available for parliamentarians to establish and identify the costs and benefits of the agency.

[Greg Smith]

I heard what the Minister said. The cost is important because it is ultimately both cost to the taxpayer and cost to our businesses which create all the wealth in the first place, which then gets taxed and pays for our public services. I invite the Minister to reflect on that, going forward. It is absolutely vital that the Government understand what things will cost before we make them happen, whether that is a Labour, Conservative or coalition Government—or whatever it might be. Once more, in a developing theme with the earlier new clauses that we proposed, I invite the Minister to reflect on that point ahead of Report, and we certainly intend to return to that on a future occasion, but for now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 24

Impact assessment: sections 1 to 6

“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of—

(a) the impact of those sections on the operation of employment tribunals, and

(b) the ability of employment tribunals to manage any increase in applications resulting from those sections.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay the review made under subsection (1) and the Government’s response to the review before Parliament.”—(Greg Smith.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact on the employment tribunals of the Bill’s provisions on zero hours workers.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 25—Impact assessment: sections 19 to 22 and Schedule 2—

“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of—

(a) the impact of section 19 to 22 and Schedule 2 on the operation of employment tribunals, and

(b) the ability of employment tribunals to manage any increase in applications resulting from those provisions.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay the review made under subsection (1) and the Government’s response to the review before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact on the employment tribunals of the Bill’s provisions on dismissal.

Amendment 128, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—

“(3A) But the provisions of sections 1 to 6 of this Act may not be brought into force before the review conducted under section [impact assessment: sections 1 to 6] has been laid before Parliament.”

This amendment, paired with NC24, would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact of the provisions on zero hours workers before those clauses can be commenced.

Amendment 129, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—

“(3A) But the provisions of sections 19 to 22 and Schedule 2 of this Act may not be brought into force before the review conducted under section [impact assessment: sections 19 to 22 and Schedule 2] has been laid before Parliament.”

This amendment, paired with NC25, would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact of the provisions on dismissal before these clauses can be commenced.

[Greg Smith]

This is quite a meaty grouping of proposals so, once more, I will get through my comments as quickly as I can. Amendment 128 paired with new clause 24 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact of the provisions on zero-hours workers before these clauses can be commenced. The Government’s impact assessment suggests that the provisions in the Bill on the right to guaranteed hours will cost businesses around £160 million a year in administration needed for compliance—that is something, but not much, in terms of business costs. The Government also say:

“The extent to which the policy will provide a net positive impact for total welfare will depend on (i) how well targeted the policy is at those facing detriment whilst retaining flexibility for those that value it, and (ii) the extent that wellbeing impacts of the policy feed through to productivity improvements for employers. As such, at this stage of policy development we deem the net impact on society as uncertain.”

In terms of the impact on employment tribunals, the Government estimate a “slight increase” of:

“300 additional ET1 claims and 55 additional cases which require judicial time”.

The justification for that assessment is:

“The changes to Zero-Hour Contracts are expected to impact 2.4 million workers. The assessed impact of right to regular contract on the enforcement system is based on the frequency of cases within the jurisdictions of Part time worker regulations and written statement of terms and conditions. These jurisdictions represented 2.5% of all complaints to ETs in 22/23 and therefore an additional 2.4 million workers with the right to make a claim is expected to lead to a slight increase in cases.”

I would like to question some of the assumptions underlying the Government’s analysis. What analysis has been undertaken of the increased likelihood of claims, now that the Bill is giving employees both more enforceable rights and a longer period of up to six months to make a claim? Given the importance to employers of claims brought to tribunal being quickly resolved, I would appreciate further reassurance from the Minister on that point. That is also why we have tabled new clause 24, because we wish to make sure—given the uncertainty about the costs and benefits of the provisions on guaranteed hours because, as the Department acknowledges, much is being left to regulations—that the Government are confident the tribunal system can cope before the legal changes are commenced.

Amendment 129 paired with new clause 25 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact of the provisions on unfair dismissal before these clauses can be commenced. The Government admitted that they do not have robust data on the incidence of dismissal for those with under two years of employment. In other words, we do not know whether there is even the problem with unfair dismissal that the Bill seeks to solve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I thank the shadow Minister for moving the new clause, and for tabling new clause 25 and amendments 128 and 129. In new clause 24 and amendment 128 he seeks, first, to insert into the Bill a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact on employment tribunals of the Bill’s zero-hours measures in clauses 1 to 6; and secondly, to provide that those measures cannot be commenced until that review has been conducted and laid before Parliament.

The Government have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments. Our analysis included illustrative analysis of the impact on employment tribunal cases, which we intend to refine over time by working closely with the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, ACAS and wider stakeholders. The quantifiable impact of the measures on zero-hours contracts is estimated to be an annual increase of about 1,000 additional cases for employment tribunals per year. That assessment was published at Second Reading and was based on the best available evidence for the potential impact on business, workers and the wider economy.

We will also publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill reaches Royal Assent, in line with the requirements of the better regulation framework. That will account for ways in which the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament in such a way as to change significantly the impacts of the policy on employment tribunals. That impact assessment will then be published alongside the enacted legislation. I therefore reassure the shadow Minister that there is no need for the Government to be required to bring new impact assessments before Parliament, as we intend to publish further analysis alongside future consultations, ahead of secondary legislation, in accordance with the better regulation requirements.

The shadow Minister also seeks to insert new clause 25, which would include an assessment of the impact on employment tribunals of changes to protections against some kinds of dismissal in the Bill. Amendment 129 then seeks, again, to delay commencement of those changes until the review has been laid before Parliament. As I said, we have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments, which were published at Second Reading and based on the best available evidence for the potential impact. Our analysis includes illustrative assessment of the impact on employment tribunal cases, which we intend to refine over time by working closely with the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, ACAS and wider stakeholders.

The shadow Minister mentioned the concerns about unfair dismissal, especially for those on the margins of employment. Such concerns are, of course, one reason why a statutory probationary period has been proposed. He also mentioned the experience of the statutory dismissal and grievance procedures in the early 2000s. I assure him, having lived through that, that we do not wish to repeat those mistakes. We will look to ensure as much clarity and certainty as possible in the legislation before it is enacted.

We will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill reaches Royal Assent, in line with the requirements of the better regulation framework. That will account, in those areas, for any ways in which the Bill has been amended in Parliament that change significantly the policy impact on the enforcement system. That will be published alongside the enacted legislation. I therefore assure the Committee that there is no need for the Bill to require the Government to undertake further assessment of the impact on tribunals before commencement, because we will do that as we go along.

Impacts will be considered, and I am also looking at ways to ensure that the tribunals system is able to deal with any additional claims that may arise as a result of the Bill, and how it can work more efficiently with the significant backlogs that it already has. As the Committee will appreciate, that is within the purview of the Ministry of Justice, but clearly it is something that we intend to work closely with it on. I therefore invite the shadow Minister to withdraw his new clauses and amendments.

[Greg Smith]

I hear what the Minister says. I am grateful for his comments about his desire not to repeat the mistakes of the early 2000s. I still think that the new clauses and amendments that we tabled would be important for business and for employees. We will seek to return to them on Report, as with the other new clauses. For the time being, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 31

Sections 1 to 6: impact assessment

“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the expected impact of sections 1 to 6 on—

(a) the hospitality sector,

(b) the retail sector, and

(c) the health and social care sector.”—(Greg Smith.)

This new clause requires the Government to publish an impact assessment on the impact of sections 1-6.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 153, in clause 118, page 104, line 33, at end insert—

“(ba) section [sections 1 to 6: impact assessment];”

This amendment is consequential on NC31.

Amendment 154, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—

“(3A) No provision of the following sections of this Act may be brought into force in accordance with subsection (3) until the Government has published the impact assessment specified in section [sections 1 to 6: impact assessment]—

(a) section 1 (Right to guaranteed hours);

(b) section 2 (Shifts: rights to reasonable notice);

(c) section 3 (Right to payment for cancelled, moved and curtailed shifts);

(d) section 4 (Amendments relating to sections 1 to 3);

(e) section 5 (Repeal of Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023);

(f) section 6 (Exclusivity terms in zero hours arrangements).”

This amendment is consequential on NC31 and requires the Government to publish an impact assessment on the impact of sections 1-6 on the hospitality, retail, and health and social care sectors.

[Greg Smith]

Amendment 154, which is consequential on new clause 31, would require the Government to publish an impact assessment on the impact of clauses 1 to 6 on the hospitality, retail and health and social care sectors. The Government’s impact assessment states that zero-hours contracts are most frequently used in the hospitality, retail and health and social care sectors, which is why new clause 31 would require the Government to conduct an impact assessment to understand how well those sectors are able to cope with the provisions before they come into force. In the social care sector, given the workforce challenges that we all know about, that is particularly acute, especially if the provisions are also extended to agency workers, as it is not clear how that would be workable.

The impact assessment provided by the Government is for the guaranteed hours provisions across the economy as a whole, but we know that the impact will be more severe in particular sectors. The Government estimate that the administrative costs of facilitating the right to guaranteed hours will be around £160 million. Since healthcare and education are large employers of zero-hours contracts and agency workers, some of the impact will fall on His Majesty’s Treasury. Has that been accounted for in the departmental headroom left after the Chancellor’s disastrous 2024 Budget?

On the provision of reasonable notice of shifts, the Government estimate that business behaviour will change so that fewer shifts are cancelled, but the value of unavoidable cancellations could still be as high as £120 million a year, although that will depend on the detail of the policy further down the line. That is a fairly cavalier attitude to take towards business costs, particularly, as we discussed earlier, given the requirements of some shift work in the sectors mentioned in new clause 31.

Our new clause therefore attempts to encourage the Government to do the job properly and set out the costs to hospitality, retail and health and care sectors from clause 1 on the right to guaranteed hours; clause 2 on rights to reasonable notice for shifts; clause 3 on the right to payment for cancelled, moved and curtailed shifts; clause 4 on amendments relating to sections 1 to 3; clause 5 on the repeal of the Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023; and clause 6 on exclusivity terms in zero-hours arrangements. Given that so much of this policy is still to be determined by regulations, we do not think it unreasonable that this assessment should take place before the relevant clauses of the Bill can be commenced.

[Justin Madders]

As the shadow Minister has identified, his new clause 31 seeks to require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact on specific sectors of the economy of the Bill’s provisions on zero-hours workers in clauses 1 to 6, and to lay the assessment before Parliament within six months of the passage of the Bill. Amendments 153 and 154 seek to ensure that the proposed new impact assessment requirement comes into force on the day that the Bill is passed, and that the provisions in clauses 1 to 6 cannot be commenced until the impact assessment has been published.

I point out to the shadow Minister that we produced a set of impact assessments at Second Reading, which included analysis of the best available evidence on the specific sectors that he referred to. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the impacts of these policies on workers, businesses and the economy are considered, and that the analysis considers those potential impacts. We will refine our analysis of the impact over time, working closely with businesses, trade unions, academics and think-tanks, and continue to engage with the relevant sectors and Government Departments on these issues. We will publish enactment impact assessments in line with the requirements of the better regulation framework, which will account for ways in which the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament so as to change the impacts of the policy on businesses significantly. These will be published alongside the enacted legislation.

In addition, we are committed to consulting with businesses and workers ahead of setting out secondary legislation, which will be necessary to implement the provisions, and we will work with the sectors listed in the proposed new clause as part of that. We will publish further analysis alongside those consultations to meet our better regulation requirements. There is no need for the new clause—there will be many opportunities for further analysis and refinement before the commencement of the regulations—and I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw it.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I do not fully share his view of the world but, as he rightly says and similarly to the previous new clauses that we have proposed, we can come back to this on Report. For the time being, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)

Draft Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2024 Draft Unique Identifiers (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

I will start with the Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2024. I am pleased to see that the Government are continuing this legislation, which was first proposed in May 2024 by the previous Government. The legislation will assist Companies House to identify individuals, improve efficiency, and reduce fraud.

The Companies Act 2006 required individuals who set up, ran or controlled a company to verify their identity. Individuals may verify their identity through the registrar directly or via an authorised corporate service provider, such as an accountant or solicitor. The aim of the identity verification requirements is to prevent individuals from creating a fictitious identity or from fraudulently using another person’s identity to set up and run a company.

However, prior to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, the legal framework required Companies House to accept information from entities and individuals in good faith, with no checks to confirm that someone registered as a director or person with significant control had given their consent or was a real person. This instrument sets out the procedure that must be followed for an individual to have their identity verified or re-verified by either the registrar or an ACSP. For instance, identity verification applications must contain specific information, and this SI confers a power on the registrar to require further types of information and evidence.

The instrument also provides a framework for the suspension and de-authorisation of ACSPs judged by the registrar not to be fit and proper persons, requires ACSPs to keep particular records relating to identity verification checks they complete, and introduces duties for ACSPs to provide updated information to the registrar. The aim is to prevent nefarious agents from acting on behalf of their clients.

Finally, the regulations introduce offences if the ACSP fails to comply with the duty to keep records or provide information to the registrar upon notice. The instrument makes provisions for the allocation and discontinuation of unique identifiers, which will be allocated to all individuals who have had their identity verified and to ACSPs.

I welcome the measures taken by the Government in this SI, which builds on the work of the previous Government. However, given the importance of the legislation, I would like the Minister to provide further clarity on two areas. First, what assessment has he made of how much this measure will reduce administrative costs in Companies House? Secondly, the impact assessment made no mention of the cost for small and medium enterprises, so will the Minister say what assessment he has made in that regard?

I am pleased to see that the Unique Identifiers (Application of Company Law) Regulations 2024 also build on the good work of the previous Government through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. This statutory instrument builds on the Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2024, by extending the provisions to individuals associated with limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships. It will assist Companies House in identifying individuals, improving efficiency, and reducing fraud.

I have two questions for the Minister on this statutory instrument. First, once again, what assessment has he made of how much it will reduce administrative costs in Companies House? Secondly—and different from the first instrument—no impact assessment was carried out for this statutory instrument, but one was conducted for the first instrument, so will the Minister explain that discrepancy?

Employment Rights Bill (Eighteenth sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Justin Madders]

Clause 76 will require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a labour market enforcement strategy every three years, which should give an assessment of levels of non-compliance with labour market legislation, as well as what activity is undertaken to address that. Subsection (4) will require the Secretary of State to consult the fair work agency’s advisory board when preparing or revising the enforcement strategy, to benefit from its expertise. Subsection (5) will require the strategy to be laid before Parliament, allowing parliamentary scrutiny in the usual manner. A labour market enforcement strategy is a critical tool to maintain accountability and focus on enforcing labour market legislation. It can help to tackle workplace exploitation by prioritising enforcement in sectors in which workers are at higher risk.

Clause 77 sets out the requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare and publish an annual report about the enforcement of labour market legislation. Subsection (3) will require the Secretary of State to consult the fair work agency’s advisory board when preparing the annual report, to benefit from its expertise. Subsection (4) will require the annual report to be laid before Parliament, allowing parliamentary scrutiny in the usual manner. Clause 77 will promote accountability by requiring an annual report on the fair work agency’s enforcement actions and will allow Parliament to monitor progress in protecting workers’ rights. It will ensure that employment standards are not just set, but actively maintained across the UK. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. Clauses 76 and 77 are relatively straightforward. Quite rightly, as is standard in similar legislative provisions, they state explicitly that both the strategy, every three years or so, and the annual report, every year, should be laid before Parliament. That is welcome: it is standard and is in no way under question.

If the Minister is agreeable to it, I would like him to confirm that Members of both Houses will be given the chance to question and debate the documents—certainly the strategy, which is an important document on a longer timescale—rather than their just being laid before the House. Although it would be unusual to specify that in the Bill, will he confirm that when the first strategy is published under clause 76 or the first annual report is published under clause 77, his expectation is that Ministers will be willing to make an oral statement so that the House can properly question it and scrutinise the Secretary of State, or whichever Minister draws the short straw and presents it to the House?

When documents are simply laid before the House, sometimes these things get overlooked. Select Committees sometimes have too much work in their programme to squeeze in a scrutiny session around the publication of such documents; sometimes the House of Commons sees only a written statement. It would be sufficient if the Minister confirmed that his desire is to see these documents not simply laid before Parliament, but actively debated, at least through the means of an oral statement.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. On behalf of my residents in Torbay, whether they are employers or workers, a strategy to know how the Government are looking to drive this agenda forward can only be welcomed.

[Justin Madders]

I think there is broad support for these clauses. The shadow Minister requests that I commit to an oral statement, but he will be aware that I am not in control of the business of the House. I hope that we would want to ensure that all Members have the opportunity to ask questions, but he will know that a number of other mechanisms—sorry, I am sounding a bit like the Leader of the House now—are available to Members to ensure that particular matters are debated.

[Greg Smith]

I am enjoying the Minister’s audition to be Leader of the House of Commons, a role that I am certain he would do exceptionally well. As I am sure he well understands, although the business of the House is for the business managers and the Leader of the House to negotiate through the usual channels, all I am really asking of him is an in-principle commitment to offer an oral statement at the Dispatch Box. Whether it gets approved or selected by the usual channels is a different matter. An indication of the intent of the Minister and the Department for Business and Trade to offer an oral statement so that these strategies and annual reports can be scrutinised across the House would be important and welcome.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the shadow Minister for destroying any career prospects that I might have had. I certainly believe that the first publication would be of sufficient magnitude for an oral statement to the House. As a Minister I would certainly want to give such a statement, although whether it happens is outside my gift, as the shadow Minister knows. As we do not know when it will happen, or indeed whether either of us will be in the same role by that point, I can probably say no more. Perhaps I will be doing something else, or nothing at all. Who knows? I certainly think that the first publication of the strategy would warrant an oral statement, but for the reasons that I have outlined, I cannot make a cast-iron promise.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 76 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78

Power to obtain documents or information

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

Government amendments 86 and 90, as the Minister says, will clarify the purposes for which the power conferred by clause 79 to enter premises and inspect documents may be exercised, with a number of conditions. I would be grateful if he clarified whether a warrant will be required to enter business premises and exercise the powers in clause 79. If not, why not? It is a pretty broad power for enforcement officers that they can enter premises for

“the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to determine whether to exercise any enforcement function”.

I would be grateful if the Minister provided some practical examples of what that means. It seems a pretty broad power to be able to go in simply to see whether there is anything to look at; it seems at odds with statutory precedent.

Amendment 88 is a minor drafting correction. I will not rehearse the usual arguments.

[Justin Madders]

The shadow Minister asks about the requirement for a warrant. The Committee will shortly come on to a clause that deals with that point. I believe that the purposes for which the power is to be used are also set out elsewhere in the Bill.

Amendment 86 agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Justin Madders]

Improving the enforcement of workers’ rights is important and depends on access to the right information. Clause 78 introduces a power to obtain documents and information. The power will be conferred on the Secretary of State, but in practice it is a function that Secretary of State will delegate to enforcement officers.

Creating the fair work agency involves bringing together different agencies with different information-gathering powers. Multiple overlapping powers would be confusing and slow down enforcement. The powers of some current enforcement bodies have not kept pace with the times. For example, the employment agency standards inspectorate’s powers are activated only when they enter a premises. That makes no sense in today’s business world where many businesses are operated online and remotely, and documents are stored electronically. It is high time that we brought the legislation into the 21st century.

Clause 78 gives enforcement officers the power to require a person to provide documents and information relevant to an investigation. The person will receive a notice from the officer to provide the relevant documents or information that the officer deems necessary for their purpose. This is a common power for enforcement agencies to have, and it synthesizes and updates the powers that existing enforcement bodies already have.

[Greg Smith]

I broadly accept the Minister’s argument on bringing legislation into the 21st century, and it would be foolish not to acknowledge changes in the way that documents are stored or the fact that certain businesses operate online in a way that they simply did not when the existing legislation was passed. We do not seek to object to that element.

When expanding any power of any enforcement officer under the state, however, there is always a concern to best ensure that the checks and balances that any reasonable person would expect are there. The Bill will undoubtedly become an Act, so I gently ask the Minister how, when these powers are delegated by the current or any future Secretary of State to the enforcement body, the practical application of the use of those powers—particularly those that are a step into the unknown regarding online and electronic document storage—will be assessed and reviewed to check that the right delegations are in place, and that there is no overstretch or unnecessary steps to demand documents that may not be required.

We can all imagine a situation in which, because documents are held in electronic form, some enforcement officers might desire to be over-zealous and ask for far more than they need. I do not see a safeguard to ensure that enforcement officers ask only for things that they categorically and absolutely need within the function of the duties that this or any future Secretary of State delegates to them.

[Steve Darling]

It is important that we hear from the Minister about getting the balance right and supporting people’s rights, while not being too invasive to businesses. I look forward to hearing from him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I will speak first to amendments 87 to 89 and new clause 8, which are necessary because they represent a vital step forward in ensuring effective enforcement while respecting fundamental rights. Clause 79 enables enforcement officers to enter business premises to carry out inspections. This is a fundamental and necessary clause for the fair work agency to operate. A workplace inspectorate that could not inspect workplaces would not be of much use.

Clause 79 as initially drafted excluded dwellings from that power of entry but, as hon. Members will be aware, a significant number of businesses are now run from private dwellings, particularly within the gig economy and online marketplaces. These amendments therefore expand the scope of the power to cover dwellings that are used as business premises, but it is right that we introduce adequate safeguards for this power, because it in effect allows an arm of the state to enter family homes and disrupt private life. Therefore, there will be a requirement for enforcement officers to obtain a warrant from a justice before entering a dwelling.

We believe this approach strikes a balance between ensuring robust enforcement of labour market legislation and modernising the law to include best practice safeguards. Without this amendment, enforcement efforts would be hampered. Many violations occur in business premises that double as private dwellings. By granting access through a warrant-based system, enforcement officers can efficiently investigate breaches without undermining public trust. The proposed safeguards mirror those in other enforcement frameworks, ensuring consistency and fairness.

This amendment is a necessary evolution of enforcement powers. It ensures that enforcement officers can effectively combat labour market abuses wherever they occur, while upholding and protecting the rights of individuals by ensuring that safeguards are in place.

I now move to amendments 91, 94 and 96, new clause 9 and new schedule 1. The fair work agency is all about simplification, replacing multiple, complex approaches to enforcement with a single, simple system that—unlike this amendment grouping—is easy for employers and workers to understand. These amendments do precisely that by introducing a single process for obtaining warrants across the two powers that require them.

The detailed safeguards included in the new schedule reinforce the transparency, legality and proportionality of these powers, which is vital for public trust in enforcement processes. The amendments also improve the clarity and coherence of the Bill, making it easier to implement and understand. Together, these measures strengthen the Bill, ensuring that robust enforcement mechanisms are paired with the necessary protections for individuals and premises, and I commend them to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

This is a bumper grouping—amendments, new clauses and even a new schedule. I will start with new clause 8, which provides that an enforcement officer may not exercise the power conferred by clause 79, to enter a business premises for any enforcement purpose, to enter premises that are a dwelling without first obtaining a warrant. As in previous debates in this Committee about dwellings, the official Opposition agree that obtaining a warrant first should be necessary, so we are fine with that.

New clause 9 makes further provision about warrants under part 5 and enables warrants that authorise people to accompany the enforcement officer executing the warrant. It also provides that entry under warrant is unlawful unless it complies with the provisions in new schedule 1 relating to the execution of warrants, which equally seems sensible. The new clause also provides that those persons who are authorised to accompany the enforcement officer can exercise the same powers that the officer may exercise as a result of the warrant. Off the back of that quite niche point, could the Minister explain who the Government envisage accompanying the enforcement officer under those powers—for example, a warranted police officer? Who does the Minister envisage being part of that process?

New schedule 1 makes further provision about applications for the execution of warrants under part 5. Warrants must be executed within three months of being granted. That is fairly standard, so the Opposition find that to be an uncontentious point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I am pleased that the shadow Minister recognises the need for these safeguards. As for who could accompany an enforcement officer, it would depend on the individual circumstances. It could be a police officer. It might be someone from social services. I had probably best write to the hon. Gentleman to set out in some more detail who that might apply to.

I am afraid that asking how often we expect the powers to be used is rather like asking, “how long is a piece of string?” I would say, though, that some of the recent reports from the labour market enforcement bodies, including even the Low Pay Commission, show that there are actually quite a lot of labour violations in domestic settings—far more than there might have been in the past. That trend may well continue into the future.

I did not quite follow the shadow Minister’s inconsistency point.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister, and I would be happy to follow this matter up in correspondence if we cannot make it clear in Committee. The point I was trying to make was that new schedule 1 makes provision for the execution of warrants under part 5 being granted, which is standard, but as we get into some of the detail, amendments 87 and 89 provide that the power in clause 79 may be exercised to enter any premises, including premises used as a dwelling, whereas new clause 8 provides that in the case of a dwelling, the power is not exercisable without a warrant. It seems to create potential for an extreme legal interpretation, to put those two at odds.

Therefore, if there is a drafting way that the two could be married up, so that it could be made clear that a warrant will always and categorically be required to enter a dwelling, that would be welcome. Perhaps it will be enough for the Minister to simply do so verbally in this Committee.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Certainly that would be my understanding, but I will happily write to him to confirm that.

I now have some more examples of people who might accompany enforcement officers during a visit. I am told that it could be other enforcement officers; IT experts, as data might be stored on computers; or HMRC fraud investigators. As I have suggested, we will write to the hon. Gentleman with a detailed list so he has a better idea of what we are looking at.

Amendment 87 agreed to.

Amendments made: 88, in clause 79, page 83, line 12, at end insert—

“This is subject to section (Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant) (which provides that a warrant is necessary to enter a dwelling).”

This amendment is consequential on NC8.

Amendment 89, in clause 79, page 83, leave out lines 28 and 29.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 87.

Amendment 90, in clause 79, page 83, line 30, leave out from “purpose” to end and insert “means—

(a) the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to determine whether to exercise any enforcement function;

(b) the purpose of determining whether there has been any non-compliance with relevant labour market legislation;

(c) the purpose of ascertaining whether there are documents on the premises which may be required as evidence in proceedings for any non-compliance with relevant labour market legislation;”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment clarifies the purposes for which the power conferred by clause 79 to enter premises and inspect documents, etc may be exercised.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I am sure if we had a Division on that, there would be some interesting comments. It can be difficult to keep up, but your understanding of the current grouping, Sir Christopher, is as mine, which is always an encouraging start.

Turning to clause 79, all the existing employment rights enforcement bodies have powers to enter premises and inspect workplaces to gather information to inform their investigations, but each body’s powers are different and some of them are now very out of date. Clause 79 therefore introduces a single power to enter into any relevant premises to obtain information or documents.

The clause has been drafted with the aim of continuing the current approach to enforcement and compliance, so in general, an officer will agree a time for their visit with the employer in advance and arrange the visit at a reasonable time during business hours. However, it allows an officer to turn up unannounced if they have reasonable grounds to believe that an employer may frustrate entry.

The clause gives power to an officer to inspect or examine any documents on the premises. The officer may also require any person on the premises to produce documents that the officer has grounds to believe are on the premises and are within their control or possession. If the person cannot provide the necessary documents, they will be able to provide them to the officer at a later time and date. An officer can also have access to, and check the operation of, any computer or equipment, as such devices may store information that is necessary for the purposes of an investigation. The clause also allows the officer to seize any documents produced on the premises that may be necessary for the investigation.

To enter a dwelling, as we have discussed, an officer will have to obtain a warrant from a justice. That reasonable safeguard protects the rights of all individuals to family life whilst allowing agents to carry out all the vital work they need to protect the rights of workers.

New clause 49 will restrict the exercise of powers in clauses 78 and 79 in relation to the intelligence services, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that using the powers would not be prejudicial to national security, the prevention and detection of serious crime and the economic wellbeing of the UK. The new clause requires the Secretary of State to issue a certificate of satisfaction before the powers can be exercised. Conditions on the exercise of either power may also be imposed if necessary. Subsection (5) also states that, other than as provided for in the clause,

“nothing in this Part requires any person to…produce”

or disclose any document or information “containing intelligence service information”.

Government amendment 182 is consequential on Government new clause 49. Clause 108, as introduced, sets out that the enforcement provisions in part 5 generally apply to Crown premises and the parliamentary estate. Clause 108(5) enables the Secretary of State to prevent powers of entry from being exercised in relation to Crown premises when that is deemed necessary for national security reasons. Government amendment 182 amends clause 181 to provide textual consistency and to ensure that new clause 49 functions as intended.

The amendments strike a balance to ensure that the fair work agency does not inadvertently act in a way that could be prejudicial to key national interests that the intelligence services work hard to protect, while also enabling those services to be investigated like other employers. This is vital to ensure that there is not a two-tier system of enforcement whereby some workers have less protection than others because of who their employer is.

I turn to Government amendment 181. Clause 101 imposes restrictions on the disclosure of intelligence service information, which is necessary to protect such information. It also defines “intelligence service information” for the purposes of that restriction. However, new clause 49 contains a slightly different definition, so Government amendment 181 amends that in clause 101 so that it is consistent with the definition in new clause 49(6)(c).

Government amendments 177 to 179 are technical amendments that are consequential on Government amendment 181. They make changes to the definition of “appropriate service chief” in clause 101(4). This is necessary as a result of the amendment to the definition of “intelligence service information” in clause 101 that is made by Government amendment 181. These technical amendments insert wording to clarify who the relevant service chief is in relation to information that has been received directly or indirectly from, or in relation to, each of the intelligence services. This addition is intended to capture information that may be obtained or held by third parties that relates to the intelligence services.

The amendments are part of a series of measures that are intended to balance the need to ensure that intelligence service information is protected, enabling the intelligence services to continue to do their important work, while also ensuring that the fair work agency can exercise relevant powers when necessary.

As we have already heard, part 5 of the Bill contains provisions that provide the building blocks that we will use to create the fair work agency. Several measures in the part, including some new clauses and amendments, are intended to specify how investigatory enforcement powers apply in relation to the intelligence services. They contain exemptions that are necessary to balance the protection of national security while ensuring that the fair work agency can still investigate when appropriate.

Clause 101 defines GCHQ and the intelligence services for clarity. If the amendments and new clauses are agreed to, those terms will be used more widely. The amendments are a technical change to ensure that the defined terms are repositioned to clause 112, which defines terms as they apply across part 5.

[Greg Smith]

I cannot remember, Sir Christopher, whether you were in the Chair when the Committee previously discussed exemptions for the intelligence services, but it seems that we now have a different approach to such exemptions in the amendments that the Minister has just spoken to. I guess it is “Never Say Never Again.”

[Justin Madders]

Ah!

[Greg Smith]

There was always going to be a point when we returned to that.

New clause 49 would restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to exercise enforcement powers in relation to people serving in the intelligence services, unless it has been certified that there was no risk to national security. It would also restrict their ability to require others to provide documents or information relating to the work of the intelligence services.

Amendment 181 amends the definition of “intelligence service information” so that it is consistent with new clause 49, and amendments 177 to 179 are consequential to that. Amendment 205 defines GCHQ and intelligence services for the purposes of part 5 of the Bill—all very sensible—and applies the powers in clauses 78 and 79 to the intelligence services. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that the exercise of the power will not be contrary to the public interest, or prejudicial to national security, the prevention or detection of serious crime, or the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom.

I am genuinely grateful to the Minister and the Government that these exemptions for the intelligence services are included in the amendments and new clause—as I said a couple of moments ago, that represents a very sensible route—but I wonder why they seem to have been added as an afterthought. Did nobody in government consider the importance and the sensitivity of documents held within the intelligence services before the Bill was first presented to the House of Commons?

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

The clause is a vital element of the fair work agency’s investigatory powers. It means that enforcement officers can copy documents and require that information is produced in a legible and readable format so that officers can take information away for analysis in slower time. The clause is necessary to ensure thorough inspection of the relevant information and documents for the purpose of the investigation, and it builds on powers that existing bodies have.

Clause 81 allows enforcement officers to retain any documents received under clause 78, or documents seized under clause 79, so that they have time to review documents properly to support their investigations and, if necessary, use those documents as evidence at trial. This reasonable and proportionate power is critical to allow the effective enforcement of employment rights. It is proportionate because if a photograph or a copy can be made of a document, that document is released back to the owner. I hope Members understand why the powers will be necessary so that the fair work agency can pursue its activities effectively.

[Greg Smith]

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not object to the thrust of the clauses, particularly the provision about not retaining a physical document if taking a photograph or making a copy of it is practicable. I do not want anyone to misinterpret what I am saying, but although I recognise the need for enforcement agencies to be able to acquire the evidence and documents they need to conclude their right and proper investigations, the question arises, how long may evidence be held by the enforcement agency, or indeed any part of the British state, particularly in cases in which a physical document has not been retained but a photograph or a copy has been taken of it? Clause 81 is pretty explicit about the retention of physical documents, but it is less clear on how long a copy or a photograph may be held by any arm of the state. I look for reassurance from the Minister that the rules will apply to copies as much as to the original documents seized, taken or willingly given to the enforcement officers.

[Steve Darling]

I broadly welcome the way forward proposed in these clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

The clause refers to where provision is made for authorised enforcement officers to exercise relevant powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Those powers are crucial in equipping enforcement officers to effectively investigate labour market offences. The clause forms part of our broader strategy to consolidate fragmented employment and labour practices under one unified fair work agency, including replacing the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority with a strengthened enforcement body.

It is essential that these powers, which are currently exercised by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, are carried over to the fair work agency so that the agency can respond more swiftly and effectively to offences, ensuring that breaches of employment law are met with appropriate and immediate action. The integration will not only preserve the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority’s valuable work, but expand on it, reinforcing the Government’s commitment to protecting workers’ rights across the labour market. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

This is an uncontentious clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 82 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83

Offences relating to gangmasters: power to enter premises with warrant

Amendment made: 91, in clause 83, page 85, line 9, leave out “persons or”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC9.

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 92, in clause 83, page 85, line 10, at end insert—

“(aa) exercise any power conferred by section 79(2) or (4),”.

This amendment would enable an enforcement officer entering premises with a warrant under clause 83 to exercise the same powers to inspect, examine and seize documents as would be exercisable if the officer had entered the premises in reliance on the power conferred by clause 79.

[Justin Madders]

These are minor amendments to ensure that there is consistency between the general power of entry in clause 79 and the power of entry under clause 83. They provide for a consistent approach, which will be easier and simpler to understand. This is a technical change, but one that will ensure that these key powers are easy to interpret and understand.

[Greg Smith]

I heard what the Minister said, and these are indeed relatively minor amendments that do make sense. Amendment 92 enables an enforcement officer entering a premises with a warrant under clause 83 to exercise the same powers to inspect, examine and seize documents as would be exercisable if the officer had entered the premises in reliance on the power conferred by clause 79. Amendments 93 and 95 largely build on that. While we accept the spirit and the letter of the amendments, which all make sense, I cannot pass up yet another opportunity to wonder why they were not in the Bill in the first place.

[Steve Darling]

I welcome the further clarity that the amendments offer.

Amendment 92 agreed to.

Amendments made: 93, in clause 83, page 85, line 11, after “any” insert “other”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 92.

Amendment 94, in clause 83, page 85, line 15, leave out subsection (5).

This amendment is consequential on NS1.

Amendment 95, in clause 83, page 85, line 24, leave out from beginning to “may” in line 26.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 92.

Amendment 96, in clause 83, page 86, line 3, at end insert—

“(10) For further provision about warrants under this section, see section (Warrants) and Schedule (Warrants under Part 5: further provision).”—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC9 and NS1

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Justin Madders]

The clause is an essential measure that empowers enforcement officers to enter premises, including by force if necessary, when investigating unlicensed gang- masters activity under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. It carries over the existing powers of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and brings them together with the other enforcement powers of the fair work agency. It enables officers to gather necessary evidence when there is a reason to suspect illegal labour practices and is a vital step in protecting vulnerable workers from exploitation. It ensures that enforcement officers can conduct thorough investigations to uphold fair labour practices without delay. As at present, enforcement officers will need a warrant to exercise this power.

The clause supports a co-ordinated approach to labour enforcement by integrating the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority into the fair work agency. We are amending the clause as discussed and introducing a new schedule so that the process of applying for and executing a warrant mirrors that in clause 79, to create a single system of enforcement across the employment rights landscape. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

As we made clear in the debate on the amendments to the clause, the official Opposition are broadly content, particularly given the explicit requirement for a warrant to enter premises, that we can support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 83, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84

Power to request LME undertaking

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I will focus most of my comments on clause 87, on the means of giving notice under the provisions of clause 84. I think we can all fully understand what clause 87(1) means by

“(a) delivering it to the person,

(b) leaving it at the person’s proper address,

(c) sending it by post to the person at that address”.

However, there is some potential for confusion—and a need for greater clarity, be that in advice, notes after the Bill becomes an Act or perhaps more formally during the passage of the Bill—regarding what precisely we mean by “electronic means”. Subsection (8) states:

“‘electronic address’ means any number or address used for the purposes of sending or receiving documents or information by electronic means”.

As Members of this House, we all sometimes have constituents who use all manner of extra means to try to get messages through to us, particularly with the growth of different social media channels and direct messaging. Most reasonable people still define “electronic means” as what is now probably the old-hat electronic means: published email addresses and perhaps text messages via mobile phones, WhatsApp and similar messaging platforms. Some businesses have websites that make it quite difficult to contact the business by means other than a website contact form, or perhaps their only published contact details are via social media channels.

Without wanting to get too detailed and specific, I think it would be welcome if the Minister could—this afternoon would be great, but certainly at some point before the Bill becomes an Act—double-check with the Department and his legal advisers whether things such as Instagram direct messages would count as “electronic means” under the clause. It is very easy—I am guilty; I have done it with some messages—to miss a message that does not come via the expected channels, such as published email addresses, postal addresses or whatever it might be. With social media channels—I have certainly found this with Instagram—it is sometimes very easy for legitimate constituent messages to find their way into junk folders, which are far less straightforward than our inboxes.

If the notices may be issued via those slightly less obvious electronic channels, can we have clarity on that? What safeguards will be put in place to get around the chance of a notice going into some sort of electronic trap—a junk folder, spam folder or whatever it might be—so that the enforcement body can have confidence that the notice it has served has reached the intended recipient? I suppose that these days the same point would apply to the postal method of delivering a notice—we all know that postal deliveries are not as frequent as they used to be—so if such notices are not going to be sent via some form of signed-for or special delivery, how can there be confidence that any notice served under clause 87 has reached the business owner or the director against whom enforcement action is being considered? Clarity is key here.

[Steve Darling]

I welcome the points made by the shadow Minister, and wait eagerly to hear from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Clause 88 carries over provisions that are currently in section 18 of the Immigration Act 2016. It gives the appropriate court the power to make a labour market enforcement order following an application by the Secretary of State. Labour market enforcement orders are a critical tool in the existing enforcement of employment rights, and it is vital that this system can continue to operate when enforcement is brought together under the fair work agency.

Clause 89 sets out the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may apply for a labour market enforcement order, and largely follows section 19 of the Immigration Act 2016. The Secretary of State may apply for an order if an employer refuses or fails to enter into a labour market enforcement undertaking, or does not comply with the measures in an undertaking that it has entered into. That is a common-sense approach to enforcement, first allowing businesses to fix problems voluntarily, and ordering them to improve only if that does not work. That is the compliance-first approach we want the fair work agency to take.

Clause 90 replicates section 20 of the Immigration Act 2016. It too grants the power to a court, where a person has been convicted of a labour market offence, to make a labour marker enforcement order. That is a reasonable measure, which protects workers by introducing an additional safeguard in relation to rogue employers. The labour market enforcement order may impose measures in accordance with clause 91 to ensure compliance with relevant legislation. This provision is substantially unchanged from the Immigration Act.

Clause 91 largely replicates section 21 of the Immigration Act 2016. It lays out what measures may be imposed in a labour market enforcement order. It also carries over from the Immigration Act 2016 a power for the Secretary of State to specify such measures in regulations. That is an existing power, and it makes sense to keep it to allow for flexibility in enforcing employment rights legislation. The measures are specifically designed to prevent or reduce the risk of the respondent failing to comply with any requirement imposed by or under relevant legislation, thereby protecting workers.

Clause 92 also carries over provisions from the Immigration Act 2016. It specifies that labour market enforcement orders can be granted only for a maximum period of two years and cannot be imposed on those under the age of 18. It also allows for courts, when making an order, to release individuals from undertakings for the labour market offence concerned, and from any other orders, to avoid individuals being subject to multiple undertakings and orders at the same time.

Clause 93 replicates section 23 of the Immigration Act 2016 and allows courts to vary or discharge labour market enforcement orders. Clause 94 carries over the appeals process for labour market enforcement orders from the Immigration Act 2016. The Bill clearly lays out which higher courts will deal with the appeal and what orders those courts may make, which is unchanged from the current regime. Clause 94 ports over the appeals process for labour market enforcement orders from the Immigration Act 2016. A clear appeals process is a vital and necessary way to enable the effective operation of the undertakings and orders system.

Let me turn to Government amendment 189. Schedule 6 outlines consequential amendments to other existing legislation and ensures consistency with the new provisions introduced by the Bill, which is important because it makes our legislative framework cohesive and functional. The amendment makes an essential technical addition to the Sentencing Act 2020, updating it to include reference to the labour market enforcement orders that a court may impose on someone upon conviction of a labour market offence. The amendment ensures that our statutory framework can function effectively. The labour market enforcement order system is an existing system that works well. I therefore commend amendment 189 and clauses 88 to 94 to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

It is always good to see the Government copying and pasting from a piece of Conservative legislation, with the odd use of the replace function. I will focus my comments largely on Government amendment 189, which makes a consequential amendment to the Sentencing Act 2020 to include labour market enforcement orders in the list of orders that may be made on conviction by a criminal court but that are not dealt with in that Act.

I do not fully understand why the amendment was not included in the Bill on its introduction—it seems a straightforward and should have been in there from the start. But my central question for the Minister is, how does this compare with the current position on enforcement made on conviction by a criminal court? Can the Minister reassure the Committee that this is simply a tidying-up measure that brings existing experience into line with the proposed legislation, or does he envisage the amendment making a material difference?

[Justin Madders]

Let me deal first with the usual concern raised by the shadow Minister about why we have had to table an amendment. He has probably noticed that schedule 6 contains a considerable amount of other legislation. It is not that unexpected that not every piece of legislation affected by the Bill would be covered—that is really what this is about.

The shadow Minister also sought reassurance, and my understanding is that the amendment does not change the current powers of the courts in any meaningful way. If I am incorrect about that, I will of course write to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 88 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 89 to 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95

Evidence of authority

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

As the Minister has said, the clause replicates existing best practice. It is perfectly reasonable that any enforcement officer turning up at any site seeking to engage in enforcement activity—be that under this legislation or in any other field—should have to prove on what authority they are acting. This clause is, therefore, uncontroversial.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 95 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 96

Items subject to legal privilege

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Justin Madders]

The clause provides a safeguard to ensure the protection of any document or information that is subject to legal professional privilege. Such documents or information do not have to be provided in response to any enforcement action by the fair work agency. As Members will know, legal professional privilege is a well-established principle, and refers to a person’s ability to speak freely and frankly with their legal adviser to obtain advice. It is a key principle in the judicial system in this country.

Practically speaking, the clause means that no provisions relating to the enforcement of labour market legislation —those in part 5 of the Bill—can require a person to produce documents or information they are entitled to withhold on grounds of legal professional privilege in High Court proceedings in England and Wales. The same is true of documents or information a person is entitled to withhold in Court of Session proceedings in Scotland.

No provisions in the enforcement clauses can compel someone to disclose information they could choose to withhold on the grounds of confidentiality of communications. The clause defines communications for this purpose as any communication between a professional legal adviser and their client or as any communication made, connected with or for the purposes of legal proceedings. Protecting legal professional privilege helps to protect the administration of justice and the rights of individuals and other legal persons. It is a well-recognised concept that appears in many other pieces of legislation. For example, section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 exempts from disclosure information subject to legal privilege.

The fair work agency will have strong investigatory enforcement powers. Those are proportionate and justified, and it is important that, where investigations do happen, defendants are able to communicate frankly with any legal advisers representing them. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

As the Minister said, the protection of legal privileges is well established in our legal system. It is important, and the clause is the belt and braces of ensuring that it applies to this legislation. In one respect, I could argue that I do not see why it is necessary to write the protection of legal privilege into the Bill, given how entrenched it is in our system. But it never hurts to have that belt-and-braces approach, and the Opposition object in no way, shape or form to the protection of legal privilege.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 96 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97

Privilege against self-incrimination

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Justin Madders]

Clause 97 provides for another standard safeguard in our legal system: protection against self-incrimination in criminal legal proceedings. The fair work agency has investigatory powers that enable the Secretary of State and the enforcement officers they appoint to require the production of documents and information to enable them to fulfil their functions. It is an offence under clause 104 for anyone, without reasonable excuse, to fail to comply with such a requirement.

The clause protects individuals from self-incrimination by providing that any information they are required to provide under clause 78 is not adduced as evidence against them in criminal proceedings. However, the individual can still choose to voluntarily adduce this information as evidence in the proceedings.

The clause disapplies that protection for certain offences. It provides that the protection does not apply where the offences under trial relate to any of the offences listed in subsection (4)—providing false information or documents under clause 103 of the Bill, or breaching other statutory provisions about false statements and statutory declarations. It is vital, in the context of someone providing false information, to ensure that the right evidence is presented to the court. That, in turn, is crucial to enable the court to come to the right decision.

These protections and exemptions help to ensure the effective functioning and the fairness of our legal system. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

It is becoming almost uncomfortable how much we agree on the current set of clauses. However, these protections, particularly those against self-incrimination, come with the correct, proper and, dare I say it, entirely standard exemptions listed, and the Opposition do not object to the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 97 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 98

Disclosure of information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 99 stand part.

[Justin Madders]

On clause 98, regulators and enforcement agencies must be able to work together effectively to share information and pool knowledge. For example, if the fair work agency identifies issues with health and safety in the course of its investigations, it should be able to let the Health and Safety Executive know, and vice versa.

Silo working is bad for workers, bad for businesses and bad for the taxpayer. Clause 98 is about preventing silo working. It authorises the two-way sharing of information between the fair work agency and other bodies. It introduces schedule 5, which lists the public bodies with which information can be shared to enable them to exercise their functions. We have tabled amendments to the schedule to add the Pensions Ombudsman, as well as certain authorities in the devolved nations.

The clause also allows for schedule 5 to be amended by affirmative regulations. That provides the flexibility necessary for the fair work agency to respond to changes in the wider labour market and regulatory landscape. Effective information sharing is crucial for successful enforcement of employment rights across agencies. Without the clause, the fair work agency would be unable to receive and share vital information, undermining its ability to effectively enforce those rights.

Clause 99 ensures that the information sharing authorised in clause 98 is efficient and reflective of best practice. Although it is vital that the fair work agency can share information with other bodies, it is critical that personal information is protected. Information will be able to be shared under clause 98 without breaching any obligation of confidence, or other restriction on the disclosure of information.

Clause 99 ensures that information shared under clause 98 is shared in accordance with the relevant data protection laws and remains subject to relevant prohibitions on disclosure in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. It is crucial to safeguard the ongoing secure handling of information and to ensure that all parties can be confident that that information will be managed in the proper way.

[Greg Smith]

The critical thing in what the Minister just outlined is that any information sharing must happen within the confines of our existing data protection laws. That is absolutely mission critical. Of course, everyone accepts that enforcement agencies must work with other enforcement agencies and that they need to work closely with other Government agencies at times, where there is a compelling need to do so. In that respect, our existing data protection laws will be the necessary safeguard, as well as the explicit recognition of the other agencies that might be conferred with. From that perspective, clauses 98 and 99 are relatively straightforward.

I ask that the Minister to keep a close eye on the Bill as it passes through Parliament, becomes an Act and is enforced, to check on what we commonly call mission creep and to ensure that the powers exercised under these clauses do not, for unnecessary reasons, become too commonplace. For example, some agencies may unnecessarily share a little too information, in a way that is not relevant to an enforcement activity. We can all get behind enforcement activities where proper due process is followed, but there can sometimes be mission creep, which can stretch into realms that a reasonable person would not say was acceptable.

[Mr Bedford]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the phrasing in the clause is perhaps a little too ambiguous and could lead to the mission creep he mentions? If that were to happen, it could result in abuse of power.

[Greg Smith]

My hon. Friend eloquently—probably more eloquently than me—gets across the point I was trying to make. Where the wording of legislation is open to wider interpretation, mission creep is often the unintended consequence. I have no doubt the Minister does not want to see that mission creep and wants safeguards in place. However, to my hon. Friend’s point, it would be good if the Minister explained to the Committee when he sums up—or committed to doing so on Report—what safeguards can be put in place to ensure that mission creep does not happen and that elements of information sharing not relevant to a direct, live enforcement investigation or prosecution are not allowed to be shared, as well as the impingements that that would bring on businesses across our country.

[Justin Madders]

The shadow Minister makes a reasonable point. Of course, this will all be subject to data protection legislation and the safeguards contained therein. It is also the case that, if the Secretary of State wishes to expand the list of bodies with which information is shared, there is a requirement to amend that list by way of affirmation regulation, giving parliamentary oversight.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 98 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Persons to whom information may be disclosed under section 98

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

This is a large grouping again, and I will turn first to Government amendments 97 to 100. Open, two-way information sharing with the regulator is what clause 98 and schedule 5 are all about. These amendments add Scottish health bodies to schedule 5, which will support those bodies in fulfilling their functions. This has been agreed by Scottish Government officials and the bodies themselves.

Amendment 97 also adds the Pensions Ombudsman to schedule 5. Fair work agency inspectors may come across useful pension information that will help the Pensions Ombudsman in its duties, and it is right that they can share that information. The amendments stand to benefit the bodies concerned and the public by allowing the Secretary of State to share information obtained by the fair work agency that is relevant to the functions of those bodies.

Amendments 171 to 174 are about where the fair work agency, in fulfilling its statutory duties, is likely to obtain information that would be beneficial to other statutory bodies. Clause 98(5) gives the Secretary of State the power to disclose certain information to the persons specified in schedule 5. Amendments 171 to 174 add additional public bodies in the devolved nations to schedule 5. Amendment 171 adds the National Crime Agency, amendment 172 adds Social Care Wales, amendment 173 adds the Health and Social Care Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority in Northern Ireland, and amendment 174 adds Welsh Ministers.

The amendments will enable information obtained in connection with the exercise of part 5 enforcement functions to be disclosed to those bodies for the purposes of their functions. The amendments stand to benefit those bodies and the public by allowing the Secretary of State to share information with those bodies that is obtained by the fair work agency and that is relevant to its functions, where the disclosure is relevant to the exercise of those bodies’ own functions. The amendments have all been agreed by the relevant bodies, and on that basis I commend them to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

As the Minister said, this is a relatively substantial grouping of amendments, and he outlined very clearly what they all seek to do. I will merely pose a couple of questions so that we can get into some of the practicalities of the amendments.

What purpose does the Minister envisage for the data that will be shared with pensions, healthcare and social care services? How do the Government intend to use the powers in those settings, and what safeguards will be in place? I think we all understand the need for information sharing with a lot of the organisations he outlined, but it seems strange to include healthcare, social services and —to many extents—pension operators. If he could give the Committee some practical examples of where he feels that is necessary, it would help us to consider the amendments more clearly before coming to a determination.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I will not detain the Committee long. Schedule 5 is the list of bodies with which information can be shared, which obviously now includes the Pensions Ombudsman. As I have indicated, any further bodies would need to be added to the list by affirmative regulations.

[Greg Smith]

We accept the list, but welcome the Minister’s commitment from the previous debate to provide clarity on the organisations on it. We need greater reassurance on those, but for the time being I will certainly not object to the schedule.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 5, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 100

Restriction on disclosure of HMRC information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Justin Madders]

Data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will be crucial for the investigation and enforcement of many different employment rights beyond the national minimum wage, which HMRC is specifically tasked to enforce on behalf of the Secretary of State. However, much of HMRC’s data is understandably confidential, and it is therefore prudent to require an extra level of approval before information shared by HMRC is disclosed further.

The clause restricts the disclosure of that information without authorisation from the commissioners of HMRC. If information is inadvertently shared without approval, section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, on wrongful disclosure, applies. The result could be a fine and/or imprisonment for the individual committing the offence. The clause ensures information-sharing best practice across Government and puts in place an appropriate safeguard around the sharing of HMRC data.

[Greg Smith]

On the face of it, this is a sensible clause with appropriate safeguards around HMRC data. The only note of caution I would throw into the mix when involving HMRC in any investigation is that there are arm’s length bodies and then there are arm’s length bodies, and it is well known that HRMC can often prove very independent, if I may put it that way, when it comes to such investigations. I know—and this is relevant—from other work I do, including as chairman of the loan charge and taxpayer fairness all-party parliamentary group, that there can sometimes be some difficulties and challenges in terms of HMRC’s ability to share data and its willingness to engage in a straightforward conversation, even with other enforcement agencies.

I encourage the Minister, prior to enforcement of this legislation, to work with his colleagues in the Treasury team—his right hon. Friend the Chancellor and, more importantly, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury—to find the most straightforward way of getting an agreement in place with HMRC on these enforcement activities, because there are too many tales of woe from other areas, such as the loan charge, in which I take a particular interest on behalf of a number of constituents and which must be got right. HMRC is a body that many right hon. and hon. Friends have found it difficult to get straightforward answers out of under all sorts of Governments—blue ones, red ones and coalition ones—over recent years. I encourage the Minister to do that due diligence and work to ensure that, metaphorically speaking, all the ducks are in a row.

[Justin Madders]

The shadow Minister raises some fair points. I commend him for the work he does on the loan charge, and that all-party group is important. Certainly, HMRC’s functions in terms of the fair work agency will be focused on national minimum wage enforcement. I do not think that that is an area where we have some of the difficulties the shadow Minister referred to, but of course we will make sure. The intention in the clause is to make sure that appropriate safeguards are indeed in place.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 100 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 101

Restriction on disclosure of intelligence service information

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

When it comes to protecting our intelligence services, it turns out that the Minister is not Dr No after all. [Interruption.] I think we will leave it there. The point that I have made so many times is that it is right to protect and exempt our intelligence services to ensure that they can get on with the work they need to do, with the right level of confidentiality, and that the vital work done to protect our country is at all times protected. Therefore, we welcome the amendments, but, as ever, we ask why it has taken until the Bill is in Committee to work out that position and the vital importance of exemptions for the intelligence services.

Amendment 175 agreed to.

Amendments made: 176, in clause 101, page 95, line 13, leave out “such a person” and insert

“a person serving in an intelligence service”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 175.

Amendment 177, in clause 101, page 95, line 24, after “from” insert “, or relating to,”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.

Amendment 178, in clause 101, page 95, line 27, after “from” insert “, or relating to,”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.

Amendment 179, in clause 101, page 95, line 29, after “from” insert “, or relating to,”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.

Amendment 180, in clause 101, page 95, leave out lines 32 to 36.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 205.

Amendment 181, in clause 101, page 96, line 7, leave out “from” and insert

“directly or indirectly from, or that relates to,”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment amends the definition of “intelligence service information” so that it is consistent with NC49.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Justin Madders]

The clause ensures that intelligence service information is disclosed to the fair work agency only in accordance with intelligence service disclosure arrangements and cannot be shared by the fair work agency without authorisation from the appropriate service chief. In the course of investigating some employment rights abuses—for example, in cases of modern slavery or coercive employment practices—the fair work agency may make use of information provided by the intelligence services or come into possession of information relevant to the intelligence services. That information is likely to be highly sensitive in nature, and specific disclosure arrangements therefore apply.

The clause authorises a person serving in an intelligence service to make disclosures of information to an enforcement authority in accordance with intelligence service disclosure arrangements. It restricts the disclosure of intelligence service information by an enforcing authority without the authorisation of the appropriate service chief for the intelligence service from which the information was obtained. It is right that there are additional protections for this information, not least on national security grounds. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

Yes, absolutely—there is no issue for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition with the protection of our intelligence services.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 101, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 102

Offence of failing to comply with LME order

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 103 and 104 stand part.

Government new clause 50—Providing false information or documents: national security etc defence.

--- Later in debate ---

As we deliver this upgrade to enforcement, we need to ensure that there are safeguards in place to prevent action that might interfere with the work of the intelligence agencies and could be detrimental to national security. That is why we have tabled new clause 50, which provides a defence for individuals to the offence of providing false information in clause 103. The defence applies only where the Secretary of State has issued a certificate stating that they believe it necessary for the person to engage in such conduct for reasons of national security, preventing or detecting serious crime, or maintaining the economic interests of the country. The new clause sets out that such a certificate may be revoked by the Secretary of State at any time. This is a necessary exemption; it maintains the ability of the Secretary of State to carry out their enforcement function, while balancing national security interests.

[Greg Smith]

I will focus the majority of my comments on Government new clause 50. As the Minister has outlined, the new clause provides a defence to the offence in clause 103 of providing false information or documents in response to a requirement imposed by the Secretary of State under part 5 of the Bill. The defence would apply if the Secretary of State certified that the conduct in question was necessary in the interests of national security, or for those other reasons that the Minister outlined.

I think we can all categorically understand the defence of the conduct being necessary in the interests of national security—that is uncontroversial. Likewise, when it is for the purposes of preventing or detecting serious crime—that seems relatively uncontroversial. It is slightly more open to interpretation, but is clearly put forward with good will. Indeed, the prevention and detection of serious crime is something that we all wish to see.

On conduct that is

“in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”,

again, on the face of it, that is something we all want to see; we all want the economic wellbeing of our great country to be protected. So, on the face of it, these measures seem sensible. However, that third defence—the economic wellbeing defence—seems incredibly broad and ill-defined. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide a more detailed explanation of what exactly it means, and how the discretion of the Secretary of State would be circumscribed in deciding what matters genuinely relate to the interests of the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom and what do not.

If we put a bunch of lawyers in a room, they could come up with virtually any reason why something could fall within the interests of the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom. I do not think that anybody—including the Minister, from the perspective of ensuring that his Bill works once it is an Act, or indeed of the national interest of the United Kingdom—would want to see such an ill-defined phrase enabling a legal argument that virtually anything relates to the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom. For example, would a fraction-of-a-per-cent drop in growth be defined as relating to the UK’s economic wellbeing? I do not think that the new clause is sufficiently well defined to give the Minister the powers that I think he is looking for within the confines of this proposed legislation, or indeed to give the outside world the confidence that it needs to understand the full scope of what is going on here.

[Laurence Turner]

I understand the point that the shadow Minister is making, but this phrase seems to be well established in the relevant legislation. It appears in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and other legislation that establishes legal parameters around the security services, and appears to have first been used in this House by Douglas Hurd. I do not know whether the Minister will also respond to this, but does the hon. Member accept that these provisions appear to be carrying forward some well-established and understood legal concepts?

[Greg Smith]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a well-established form of wording, and I do not think there is anything between our positions on national security. However, even if it is well entrenched in previous legislation, leaving “economic wellbeing” so ill-defined presents an open goal to those who would wish to abuse that definition. Indeed, if we had proposed such a broad and ill-defined Opposition amendment, I am sure that Government Members would start to use terms such as “wrecking amendment”, and so on, and to talk about opening up the legislation far too widely.

Although we are not opposed to the spirit and the letter of the bulk of new clause 50, it would be helpful, before this legislation goes any further, if the Minister gave a serious, detailed and clear explanation of what he means by the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom, and a guarantee that this will not be used, potentially through misinterpretation, by those in the legal profession such that what the Minister wishes to achieve through this legislation could fall down and be found wanting.

[Justin Madders]

The first thing to say is that the new clause came at the request of the security services, so it is not a whim on the Department’s part, and it applies specifically to the offence under clause 103 of providing false information. It would be rather rash of me to start talking about situations in which that might apply. I understand the hon. Member’s point about the wider economic test being quite broad, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, that is the established test in legislation. Given that we are talking about a defence to a specific offence under clause 103, I would suggest that the chance of this being frequently used, or indeed misused, is extremely remote, although as I say, it would be improper for me to speculate on the circumstances in which it might be used, given the sensitivities around the proposals.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 102 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 103 and 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 105

Offences by bodies corporate

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

Broadly speaking, the clause is uncontroversial. We accept the need to streamline enforcement activities and put them under one roof, notwithstanding my comments about understanding the costs of putting that enforcement body together.

Since we are debating the Employment Rights Bill, I feel it is incumbent on me to pose a question to the Minister as we talk about the abolition, as opposed to the transfer, of existing bodies with existing employees. The term “abolition” has a clear legal meaning, unlike other language that could have been used with respect to the transfer of powers. Will any of the existing employees who engage in enforcement activity under the bodies being abolished by the clause receive redundancy notices? Are they being put out of work or moved to some other part of Government that is not directly related to this enforcement activity, or will all those employees be directly transferred at the discretion of the Secretary of State and deployed under the new agency?

This is an important test of the Bill. Here we have some of the first employees who will be affected by its new provisions. What will happen to those—no doubt very good—people who are currently working as part of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and the Director of Labour Market Enforcement? Upon the enactment of the Bill, they will be among the very first people in our country to work out what their employment rights are.

[Justin Madders]

I welcome the shadow Minister’s commitment to workers’ rights; it seems that listening to me for several weeks has finally rubbed off on him. At this stage, it would be premature for me to say that we intend for any redundancies to transpire. The clear presumption, as we move forward, is that all existing staff will transfer over under existing legal protections. Clearly, other issues may arise when we get into the operational detail, and I do not think that it would be appropriate to talk about workforce matters in a Bill Committee; that ought to be discussed with the workforce first. As I say, my clear understanding at this stage is that all staff will be transferring over, because we have a job to do to ensure that the labour market is enforced properly, and we need everyone on board to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 109 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 110

Consequential and transitional provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Justin Madders]

The clause introduces schedules 6 and 7, which make consequential amendments and transitional provisions required to deliver this change. Schedule 6 sets out consequential amendments we are making to various Acts of Parliament as a result of these reforms. Part 1 of schedule 6 covers the consequential amendments to existing powers under relevant pieces of labour market legislation. Part 2 of the schedule sets out the changes required to other Acts.

Schedule 7 sets out transitional and savings provisions we need in place to set up the new body. Part 1 of schedule 7 gives powers to the Secretary of State to make transfer schemes to move staff, property, rights and liabilities of the GLAA and DLME to the Secretary of State. Part 2 of schedule 7 provides for other necessary transitional provisions, such as to ensure that smooth sharing of information can continue and to retain provisions that devolved legislation relies on. The clause and the schedules it introduces are necessary to deliver a functioning statute book and to deliver on the policy intention of upgrading enforcement of workers’ rights.

[Greg Smith]

My thoughts on the clause are similar to those I expressed on the last clause we debated. The language of this one is a little clearer, so the Opposition do not object to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 110 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6

Consequential amendments relating to Part 5

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 101, in schedule 6, page 133, line 7, at end insert

“and the italic heading before that section.”

This amendment makes a further consequential amendment to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.

[Justin Madders]

Schedule 6 outlines consequential amendments to other existing legislation. It ensures consistency with the new provisions introduced by the Bill, which is important to make our legislative framework cohesive and functional.

Amendment 101 ensures textual consistency by removing the italic heading before section 13 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. Section 13 is repealed by the Bill. The change is entirely technical, to make sure that all aspects of the legislation are properly aligned and clear for interpretation. Such amendments are common practice when integrating changes into existing legislation and ensure accuracy in our statutory framework. I hope Members will support this uncontroversial and important amendment as it facilitates the clarity and precision of the legislation.

Amendment 102 corrects a small drafting error in schedule 6, and amendment 103 is a consequential change to align with amendment 102. They do not affect the substance of the Bill, but maintain its quality and accuracy.

[Greg Smith]

These are very minor amendments, to which the Opposition do not object.

Amendment 101 agreed to.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)