Employment Rights Bill
Kate Dearden ExcerptsMonday 15th December 2025
(4 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 15 December 2025 - large print - (15 Dec 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 120N to Commons amendment 120G and their amendments 120P to 120S to Commons amendment 120H.
I am returning for the fourth time to the consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Rights Bill. The Bill will bring employment rights legislation into the 21st century, extending the protections that many British companies already offer their staff to all. I cannot hide my frustration that, once again, we have been blocked from getting this Bill on to the statute book by the other place.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Which British company offers unlimited compensation for unfair dismissal? What message does this measure send to companies that can locate well-paid staff anywhere in the world?
Kate Dearden
I will allow the right hon. Gentleman to listen to the reflections further on in my speech. I am not sure he entirely grasps the compensation cap proposal and our intentions.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
What message does it send to the British public when 33 hereditary peers defeat the Government by 24 votes on a manifesto promise? Some of the wealthiest are blocking measures on sick pay for some of the lowest earners, which will miss the April deadline. Should we not get on—go through the night if we have to—and get this Bill passed?
Kate Dearden
We are absolutely determined to get this legislation through, and I urge colleagues in the other place to pass this Bill for the reasons my right hon. Friend outlines: 1.3 million people will be entitled to statutory sick pay from as soon as April. That is significant, and it is why it is so important to get the legislation on to the statute books.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My colleagues in the other place all expressed concern about open-ended, unlimited compensation. That is a concern not only for them and for colleagues here, but for businesses back home. I know the Minister means well, but for goodness’ sake, this will not work for business.
Kate Dearden
If hon. Members allow me to make some progress, I will get to the background and reasoning for the compensation cap.
Continued delay to the Bill will put implementation at risk, which creates insecurity and uncertainty for workers and employers alike. I hope the other place acknowledges the importance of this and will let the Government deliver the Bill, which is backed by an electoral mandate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said. We have been engaged in ping-pong for far too long, and further delay is in no one’s best interests. I hope the arguments I make today will address the reservations of those Members of the other place who have been engaging in good faith when they have had genuine concerns about the Bill.
As I told the House last week, I convened a series of constructive conversations on the unfair dismissal provisions, which resulted in a workable agreement with trade unions and business representatives and was the subject of Government amendments made last week. I can assure hon. Members, as someone who was in the room during the negotiations, that the agreement between unions and business representatives was made with good will and in good faith by all sides.
As those representatives of the British Chambers of Commerce, the Chartered Institute of Personal and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, Small Business Britain, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Confederation of British Industry said in today’s letter to the Secretary of State, the “outcome” of the
“dialogue…represented a significant step forward which will have a positive impact on growth and opportunities.”
The amendments tabled in the other place undermine that agreement, as the compensatory award cap would not be removed and instead the Government would conduct and publish a review of the impact of the cap. The removal of the cap would then require further primary legislation.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has set out how sensible the conversations have been thus far, but does she agree with me that they have been totally frustrated by colleagues down the corridor, who have no regard for the mandate that was returned to the Government at the last general election, and that we should stand firm and make sure that these rights are not further impeded by the unelected House?
Kate Dearden
That is why our motion today disagrees with the Lords amendments and insists on our amendments from the previous round of ping-pong, which deliver on the agreement made by trade unions and business representative organisations.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I wonder whether the Minister is comfortable with the fact that introducing an uncapped unfair dismissal compensation award will make the UK an international outlier, when many of our international competitors have clear limits. If she is comfortable with that, what assessment has she made of the impact on UK jobs and inward investment to the UK, particularly in business sectors that are internationally mobile?
Kate Dearden
Our proposal would remove the cap of 52 weeks’ gross pay or £118,223. It is important to reflect that, in practice, few awards get anywhere close to the cap. The median average award for unfair dismissal in 2023-24 was £6,746. Employment tribunals will continue to calculate compensatory awards to reflect the losses that employees suffer as a result of being unfairly dismissed.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Has the Minister conducted an impact assessment? If so, how much does she think this change will cost? How many uncapped awards will be made? These are the kinds of big, important decisions that the other place has concerns about, as do Conservative Members. If she has that evidence, she could put this to bed tonight by simply providing it to us so that we can make an informed decision.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my frustration at the sheer misinformation that has been spread about the removal of the cap on compensation. As she rightly says, the median award at the moment is less than £7,000. More importantly than that, only 2% of all employment tribunals ever result in a compensation award for unfair dismissal. Does she agree that the Government have indeed taken into account the concerns of Cross-Bench peers by committing to an assessment, and more importantly does she agree that those employers and the unions together can see what the Opposition do not, which is that this is will be fair to workers and fair to businesses that are fair to their workers?
Kate Dearden
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. We believe that the current compensatory award cap also creates a systemic incentive for unfair dismissal claimants to construct more complex cases, which could take longer for a tribunal to handle. By removing the compensatory award cap for unfair dismissal claims, the incentive may be lessened, potentially making it easier for tribunals to reach a judgment more quickly and decreasing the burdens on the system.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I am not at all surprised that the Minister is having a little bit of a problem with the other place—after all, she is not the first Minister to have been confused as to what was in a manifesto and what was not; the Prime Minister seems to have been confused about the assisted suicide Bill.
May I raise a question about the cap? The problem that many businesses will have is with insurance. Most businesses take some form of insurance for unfair dismissal. Insurance companies work on the basis that they have an understandable level of risk that they are underwriting. If they do not know what that risk is, they will not underwrite it. The challenge here is that by removing the cap, the Minister is changing the level of maximum risk and therefore making it much harder for insurance companies to underwrite it. Has she spoken to insurance companies about the challenges that this poses?
Kate Dearden
I listen to the Conservatives again and again as they come to the Chamber—they have done it again today—and talk down what was a clear manifesto commitment of this Bill.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I am sure the Minister is coming on to this in her speech, but it might be worth reiterating, for the benefit of those on the Opposition Benches, that the best way to avoid having to pay compensation for unfair dismissal is to avoid unfairly dismissing someone in the first place.
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as she always does, and I thank her for it.
To conclude, we are seeking the support of the House so that we can finally secure Royal Assent and move towards implementing our long-overdue reforms to make work pay. Today’s correspondence from business representatives to the Secretary of State states that British business believes that
“now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill.”
I urge Members across the House to reflect on that comment, on our election mandate from last year and on all the work and consideration that has been put into this Bill so far in both Houses. I thank all colleagues for their work, and I commend this motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Kate Dearden
I am grateful to hon. Members across the House for their contributions today and throughout the passage of the Bill. When there is a finding of unfair dismissal at tribunal, it is important that the claimant is fairly compensated for the loss they have suffered. We also believe that the cap on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal incentivises claimants to construct complex cases that allege both unfair dismissal and discrimination so as to access uncapped compensation, as I stated in my introductory remarks—perhaps Conservative Members did not hear that. By removing the compensatory award cap for unfair dismissal claims, that incentive will be lessened.
By removing the cap, the Government will also deter employs from treating the cost of dismissing employees unfairly as part of business as usual, instead ensuring that employees who face significant losses as a result of being unfairly dismissed are fairly compensated. Compensation for unfair dismissal is awarded only where a tribunal finds in favour of the claimant. Claims that do not have merit will not secure any compensatory award with or without a cap.
Lifting the cap will not mean that compensatory awards start from a blank sheet of paper and become impossible to anticipate. Tribunals have well established ways to calculate the compensation that might be awarded for particular types of losses resulting from unfair dismissal. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), for her support. As she referenced, and as Members will have heard in my introductory remarks, we will publish an economic assessment in due course, and I am always available for further discussion.
Conservative Members have opposed this Bill at every stage, and no matter what the issue was today, they would oppose it again. Businesses and unions have shown leadership, and Conservative Members and Parliament should respect their voice. The tripartite agreement was forged through dialogue with those who live the realities of our workplaces every day. That agreement included a package conducted in good faith and with good will, and I thank them for it.
This Government’s aim is clear: to conclude the passage of the Bill so that millions of British workers gain new rights while businesses can prepare for change with certainty. Labour Members send a clear message to the other place to now let the Bill—a Bill that delivers on multiple manifesto commitments and has a clear electoral mandate—pass. Any further delay risks leaving workers without protections and businesses without clarity. We now strive to conclude this process and deliver the change that Britian needs to make work pay. We cannot build a strong economy with people in insecure work. We are strengthening the foundations of our economy and improving living standards. The Bill, and all our work across Government, is the foundation for building an economy that works for everyone.
Question put.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the dangers posed by unsafe e-bike batteries; 170 e-bike fires were recorded in 2024, mostly in London. Product safety laws require that businesses supply only safe consumer products, including e-bike batteries. Last year, my Department introduced new statutory guidelines to strengthen battery safety. The regulators enforce the rules; since 2022, the Office for Product Safety and Standards has published 24 recalls and 65 safety reports for unsafe e-bike batteries and related products. The new Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 enables Government to update the law to respond to new technologies and high-risk products.
Dame Meg Hillier
I welcome that response and the fact that the Government are leaning into this issue, because it is causing a great deal of risk. One of the challenges is that in order to upgrade bikes and extend their range, people often buy these batteries from non-regulated suppliers, and those are the dangerous ones. Will the Minister look further into how the Department could work with the rest of Government to try to regulate illegal sales?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend knows how vital consumer safety is for e-bike users and advocates passionately for their regulation, and I would be happy to work with her further on this. The Office for Product Safety and Standards has powers to remove unsafe products from the UK market and has taken action to prevent those dangerous models of UPP brand e-bike batteries from being sold. As I mentioned, the Department last year introduced new statutory guidelines. I would be happy to work with my hon. Friend and across Government on this important issue for her constituents.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Will the Minister consider introducing minimum design and safety standards for e-bike batteries to reduce the risk of overcharging, overheating and short-circuiting?
Kate Dearden
Our product safety laws do require products supplied in the UK to be safe, whether they are sold online or on the high street. As I have mentioned, our Product Regulation and Metrology Act, which received Royal Assent earlier this year, gives us powers to update product safety laws where necessary to adapt to those new technologies and emerging product risks.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I thank my hon. Friend for her continued hard work in this area. From April 2026, subject to parliamentary approval, statutory paternity pay will increase from £187.18 to £194.32 per week. The Employment Rights Bill will make paternity leave a day one right, extending eligibility to 32,000 more fathers and partners and ensuring that parents who move jobs to increase their pay will not lose their entitlement to paternity leave. The parental leave and pay review, launched on 1 July, will examine current and future parental leave entitlements, including paternity leave and pay.
Maya Ellis
I thank the Minister for how seriously she is taking this issue when, according to the latest analysis by the Dad Shift, 90% of paternity leave is claimed by fathers in the top half of earners, with almost a third of those being in London and the south-east. Anna Whitehouse and George Gabriel, who I will meet later today, are among a huge cacophony of voices in this country that are crying out for us to recognise the need for inclusive policies that put the voices of all parents at the heart of our growth, health and wellbeing strategies. Can the Minister confirm that this Labour Government will finally put them there?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend and those she mentions for their unwavering commitment to supporting parents—I was delighted to meet the Dad Shift recently. We are committed to improving the lives of working families. Alongside expanding access to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave, benefiting over 1 million more parents, we are strengthening flexible working rights and bolstering protections for new and expectant mothers. But more needs to be done. This year, we launched the parental leave and pay review to explore how the system can better support working families and reflect modern work and childcare realities. I look forward to working with her and hearing further from her constituents about the impact those changes could have for working people, especially those on lower incomes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for that helpful response. Many low-income workers often cannot afford unpaid or low-paid leave, so fathers feel obliged to return to work to receive full pay. What steps can the Government take to increase statutory paternity pay to match the reasonable proportion of wages across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Kate Dearden
The hon. Member will have heard my reference to a review. It will consider all forms of parental leave and pay, alongside current and future parental leave entitlements. I urge him to get involved in that process, and look forward to hearing from him as part of it.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
For too long, fans have been at the mercy of greedy touts charging rip-off prices on the ticket resale market. That is why the Government have announced plans to make it illegal to resell a live events ticket for a profit. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned for that over the years, for which I thank him. There will be tough penalties for non-compliance: resale platforms will face fines of up to 10% of their global turnover. That will protect genuine fans while preserving fair resale, saving fans an estimated £112 million each year.
Nick Smith
The Government’s action on ticket reselling is the first substantive effort to tackle those who leech off the music sector. Previously, as one loophole closed, another would often open. There have been warnings, however, that ticket reselling could continue through social media and messaging apps. How will the Government monitor that to protect fans so that they can see the artists who bring joy into all our lives?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that, and appreciate his work on and commitment to this matter. Our approach will require all platforms that facilitate the resale of tickets—including social media platforms—to ensure that the price cap is adhered to on their sites. If platforms fail to uphold the cap, our enforcers will be able to issue tough penalties of up to 10% of global turnover. We believe that that will act as a strong deterrent. We will carefully monitor the impact of the measures once they have been implemented, and we will not hesitate to take further action to protect fans if required.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Hospitality businesses, including those in Glastonbury and Somerton, are vital to our communities and city centres. We have introduced permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with a rateable value under £500,000, worth nearly £900 million annually and benefiting over 750,000 properties. The new relief rates are permanent, giving businesses that certainty and stability, and there will be no caps—all qualifying properties will benefit. We have also introduced a £1.5 million hospitality support scheme to co-fund projects aligned with Department for Business and Trade and Hospitality Sector Council priorities.
Sarah Dyke
Earlier this week I met children from Ilchester community primary school. Maeve, who is in year 6, told me her No. 1 concern is the pressure on local businesses. Glastonbury and Somerton has many wonderful hotels and restaurants, like the Hollies in Bower Hinton, but many will face an average rates increase of 76% from April without transitional support. What action is the Minister taking to prevent a crisis in the hospitality sector and ensure that businesses like the Hollies can thrive?
Kate Dearden
We absolutely recognise the significant contribution made by hospitality businesses to economic growth and social life in the UK, including the hon. Member’s constituency. With the temporary pandemic business rates relief coming to an end and the first independent revaluation since the pandemic taking effect next April, we are putting in place a £4 billion support package, so that most properties seeing increases will see them capped at 15% or less next year, or £800 for the smallest. We inherited support schemes that the previous Government had put in place with no funding for them to continue. I thank her for raising this matter today and am happy to discuss it further.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
We recognise that pubs are the beating heart of our communities, especially in seaside towns like Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. They bring people together and support local jobs. That is why we have delivered on our promise to permanently cut business rates for hospitality, retail and leisure businesses, which includes pubs. Additionally, the Chancellor announced a new national licensing policy framework, setting out a vision for a proportionate licensing system, and we are investing £440,000 to help pubs diversify and support rural communities.
Alison Griffiths
Mr Speaker,
“The Chancellor’s disastrous budget was the most bitter attack on the pub industry for years.”
Those are not my words, but those of Iain Brown, who runs the William Hardwicke pub in Bognor Regis. Charlie Cockaday, landlord of the Fox Inn in Felpham, told me that due to increases in business rates, the minimum wage and alcohol duty, he will have to put 22p on the cost of a pint just to break even. Can the Minister tell Iain and Charlie, who are fighting just to keep their pubs alive, what on earth they are supposed to do?
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Member for raising her concerns on behalf of her constituents and businesses. We do recognise the ongoing pressures and are acting. Last night I met lots of colleagues from across the industry, and I want to make sure that we continue to talk with the sector and with pubs to understand the questions they face. The main transitional support for ratepayers losing RHL relief is through our supporting small business scheme, which also helps those losing small business rates relief or the rural rate relief at the revaluation. We are supporting pubs and continue to work with them and support the sector. I thank her for raising that.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is incredibly depressing that the Minister does not appear to recognise the seriousness of the situation for pubs in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and, indeed, across the country, with around eight closing every week. Pubs already face huge costs and hiked taxes—there really are no more pips to squeak. It can be no surprise that, since the Chancellor’s Budget, some landlords, already emotionally drained from a difficult year, do not have the stomach to check their new business rates liability until after Christmas. If the Minister truly values our pubs, will she take meaningful action, rather than just tell us that business rates are going down when they are actually going up?
Kate Dearden
As I said, we do recognise the ongoing pressures and are acting through targeted support for the sector. Without our support, pubs would face a 45% increase in the total bills they pay next year. We have got that down to just 4%. The majority will have their bills capped at £800, 5% or 15% next year. In addition, we have established the licensing taskforce to cut red tape and remove growth barriers. I am committed to working with the sector.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising those issues. I am more than happy to meet representatives from the hospitality sector and industries across the country to understand their questions and the challenges they face. We are committed to supporting them as a vital sector for our economy, our local communities, and this country, and we want them to thrive.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement with me and the Department. I pay tribute to Ceri and Frances for their incredible campaigns and work raising awareness in memory of their son, Hugh. I am happy to plan for Hugh’s law to have a separate chapter in the consultation and to work with my hon. Friend its development. The consultation should provide the opportunity to highlight the specific circumstances in which parents find themselves.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting Halifax and the brilliant pubs in my constituency that I have been delighted to work with since I was elected last year. I will continue to work with and listen to them. He highlights the difference in the agenda and priorities of our parties: we can provide businesses in our brilliant hospitality sector, especially our pubs, with support. He has heard from the Dispatch Box about my determination and commitment to work closely with the hospitality sector on the transitional rate relief and to provide the support that they need.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Earlier this year, 150,000 workers across the north-east benefited from the increase in the national minimum wage, with another increase due in April as a result of the Budget. However, it is important that these increases are actually applied, so the Minister set out what steps she is taking to ensure that employers comply?
Kate Dearden
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that her constituents see that increase in the hourly rate of the minimum wage and national living wage. That is in stark contrast to the Leader of the Opposition, who has said that the minimum wage should not go any higher. Our commitment further demonstrates that this Government are on the side of the working people. We will run a campaign to help employers understand their responsibilities and to ensure that workers across the country know what they are entitled to. There is a real opportunity with our fair work agency, and I would be delighted to work with her closely on that.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Seasonal Work
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
It is a pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the Government.
Let me start by saying that I will take absolutely no lessons on running the economy after what the Conservatives did during 14 years in government. Given that there have been so many references to songs and music today, I want to suggest a song that Conservative Members might want to reflect on. It is an Elton John classic: “Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word”.
I noticed yesterday that the Conservatives produced a Christmas video in which they claimed that Santa’s elves were seasonal workers—you couldn’t make it up! May I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), on his somewhat alarming AI skills? I would gently point out that if the Opposition’s reference point for the modern economy is Father Christmas’s workshop, that does explain a lot; although, frankly, I am not surprised. On Monday, the shadow Secretary of State repeatedly quoted figures on the supposed cost of the Employment Rights Bill from the Growth Commission. However, that commission boasts a Ms Elizabeth Truss as an adviser, so he will forgive me if I take any of his economic advice with a large pinch of salt.
Let me be clear. We on the Government Benches do not believe in pitting employers and employees against each other. No one wants a business to succeed more than the workers who rely on it for their livelihood. This Government will not indulge in the scaremongering so beloved by the Conservatives, and I will take this opportunity to clarify some of their misleading claims. But first, I want to acknowledge how difficult the past few years have been for small businesses, particularly in the hospitality, retail and leisure sectors. These sectors were disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, by a botched Brexit, and by a cost of living crisis that has robbed the British people of their disposable income.
Kate Dearden
I will carry on and make some progress.
Let me respond to the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). As many hon. Members reflected on this point, I will clarify that we are not seeking to return to or rejoin the customs union; we are focusing on trade deals with countries such as the US and India. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) demonstrated that so clearly in relation to our trade agreement with the US, which guaranteed thousands of jobs under Jaguar Land Rover. I will come to the point made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park about the youth guarantee later in my speech and respond to her reflections.
First and foremost, I pay tribute to all those running and working in small businesses, especially in such important sectors as hospitality and retail. I know from my own experience and my family’s experience just how hard that is. My first job was in a café in the hospitality sector; it was where I developed through my first opportunities. I became a manager there, and I absolutely loved my job. It was a really important aspect of our community, including for local people’s livelihoods.
My dad worked in the printworks growing up, and he was made redundant by his bosses under the watch of the Tory Government. I worked with my mum and dad, and took the opportunity that the hospitality sector provided to them. It gave my dad the opportunity to set up a small business and run a café successfully for 14 years, and our family are so proud of that. He gave an opportunity to more young people in the community I grew up in, and the business was a really important aspect of our lives. I now have so many excellent businesses in my Halifax constituency, which I am proud to champion at the Dispatch Box and in government. That is why this Government were elected: to provide economic growth that will raise living standards and support vital sectors across our economy.
As the Minister for Employment Rights, I should say that this Government were also elected on a promise to make work pay. The UK’s employment laws are mostly a product of the 20th century. They have not kept pace with how businesses now employ people, nor with how people experience working life today. The world of work has fundamentally changed in recent years; it is no longer the norm for employees to stay in one company or even a single sector for their whole career. New technology continues to rapidly transform how we work, where we work and when we work, and the rise of the gig economy has changed the certainty and stability that employment used to provide. The Employment Rights Bill takes steps to fulfil our commitment to bring employment rights into the 21st century.
Lots of hon. Members have spoken passionately about the Bill and its importance to them, as well as the experience that they bring to this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) spoke powerfully about his personal experience of working in hospitality and about how he stands up for his constituents in the sector. He demonstrated the importance of the Bill in providing job predictability and security as a baseline.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) spoke about the fair pay agreement and her experience standing up for care workers in her constituency and across the country, as well as about the importance of statutory sick pay for thousands more people across this country and the importance of the fair work agency. It is essential that we get this Bill on to the statute book and ensure that people can see the benefits it will bring to them, particularly through setting up the enforcement powers of the fair work agency. My hon. Friend also mentioned overseas recruitment. What matters in UK employment law and enforcement is where the worker is based; if they are based in the UK, then in general they have access to UK employment law, and enforcement agencies can and do take action no matter where the employer is based. I would be happy to talk to her if she has any further questions about the set-up of the fair work agency.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) for her support. She made a passionate and to-the-point case for the importance of the Bill, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury. I agree with every word that they and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) said about the importance of this legislation to working people and to brilliant businesses across the country.
The Employment Rights Bill will strengthen workers’ rights and lead to growth. Many British businesses already offer their employees benefits and protections that far exceed what is in the legislation. The Bill will encourage those seeking employment, including young people looking for their first job, giving them security that they will be treated fairly by their employer. As we have said, we are not springing these changes on businesses; we are working very closely with them as we implement these changes gradually over a number of years. We will be consulting and working with them closely.
Lots of Opposition Members mentioned zero-hours contracts. Many people in the UK value the option to work flexibly, but some employers have taken advantage of that flexibility. We are determined to tackle the issue of one-sided flexibility, which can leave people unclear about when they will next get paid work and how much time they need to keep available for work. Of course, some businesses—including those in the hospitality, retail, agriculture and tourism sectors—experience fluctuating demand across the year. There are ways for businesses to plan their work that gives their workers a degree of security, which is why flexibility is already built into the Bill to address issues of seasonal demand. There are several ways in which an employer could approach this issue while complying with the new right to guaranteed hours, depending on their circumstances.
The right to guaranteed hours does not force companies to make seasonal workers permanent, nor does it force them to give unnecessary hours to employees; it gives workers the right to choose certainty and stability in their contracts where they want it, and helps them to budget and plan for their lives. I recently visited a brilliant business in Manchester and heard from one of its employees about the difference that guaranteed hours made to him and his work, allowing him to plan his bills and family finances and giving him stability in his livelihood. Having guaranteed hours was absolutely vital to him; it changed his life, and this legislation will change the lives of many other people across the country who are looking for that certainty and stability.
Graham Stuart
Would the Minister like to apologise to the more than 280,000 people who are not in work now, compared with the level of unemployment last year, and could she spell out how a business that, for example, provides catering at summer festivals and then ceases to have any festivals to service can guarantee hours to a workforce it does not need any more?
Kate Dearden
I have heard lots of Conservative Members reflect on unemployment. What they fail to mention is that the average unemployment rate over their 14 years in government was 5.4%, which is substantially higher than the current unemployment rate. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from Monday’s debate, we have committed to consult on seasonal work. We will work with businesses, trade unions and all other stakeholders to get the legislation right—I will continue to listen and to work with them on the details. It is so important that we pass the Employment Rights Bill, so that we can consult and stick to our road map for implementing it. Many working people and businesses across this country want that certainty; they want us to crack on.
I will try to make some progress, as we are pressed for time. Several hon. Members—including the hon. Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) and for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage)—raised the subject of business rates reform, as did the shadow Secretary of State. This Government are determined to remove barriers to investment, helping our businesses to succeed, our high streets to thrive and our economy to grow. We are introducing permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000 from April next year. This will give long-term certainty and support to the high street, in marked contrast to the previous form of relief, which created a yearly cliff edge and had to end entirely in April next year. We know that this tax cut must be sustainably funded, which is why from April next year, we are applying a higher rate to the most valuable properties—those with rateable values of £500,000 and above. Let me be clear: those properties represent less than 1% of all properties, but they include the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by online giants.
Some Members have spoken about the raising of employer national insurance contributions in last year’s Budget. I have already mentioned the state of the finances we inherited from the Conservative party. That meant that we had to take difficult decisions to get the nation back on track, and one of the toughest decisions was to raise the rate of employer national insurance contributions, but we are protecting the smallest businesses from these changes, including many of those in the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors. These difficult but necessary steps will protect our public finances and ensure that we can to continue to fund our essential services, such as the NHS and social care, and to invest in the economy.
Moving swiftly on, many Members have mentioned the visitor levy. Our mission is to kick-start economic growth and to devolve fiscal powers, and the levy is critical to that. Introducing a visitor levy provides mayors with a new lever that they can use to raise funds for reinvestment locally. We launched a consultation at the Budget so that the public, businesses and local government can shape the design of the power to introduce the levy that will be devolved to local leaders. They will decide how to introduce the levy and how it will be used to drive growth in their region. That is a historic step for English devolution.
I will reflect on some of the comments of the hon. Members for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), and for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool). I do not share their lack of enthusiasm for continued investment in this country under this Government.
Dr Luke Evans
The Minister’s amendment to the motion refers to
“a comprehensive vision for productivity and success”
for small businesses. It is incredibly similar to the amendment that the Government tabled in the high streets debate, but interestingly, what has gone is a reference to a 25% cut in administrative burden. The Minister raised the issue, but did not comment on whether the Government are committed to that 25% cut. Where does that figure come from, and why has it disappeared from this amendment, when it was in a previous one?
Kate Dearden
The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), mentioned in his opening remarks all the steps that we are taking to reduce those burdens, and all the policies that we are introducing to back our small businesses across the country. On the point that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth made on investment, just last month J.P. Morgan announced its £3 billion tower. That is one of the largest financial services investments in recent years. Scottish Power has announced a £24 billion clean energy investment, which will create 2,000 jobs up to 2028. We are proud of that investment.
I will finish on the subject of the youth guarantee. Many Members have stressed the importance of employment for young people. There are more 18 to 24-year-olds in employment than a year ago. The Tories left the NEET rate rising and saw a colossal rise of almost a quarter of a million in young people out of work. We are determined to turn that around. NEET numbers are still too high, and lots of Members have rightly reflected on that. We want to give young people a brighter future, and that will be the impact of our youth guarantee. Our measures supporting young people to earn and learn are backed up by the evidence on what works. There is a national crisis of opportunity, and we are taking action in response —through the youth guarantee, the growth and skills levy, and, more widely, by interrogating the root causes of the issues, with the support of Alan Milburn.
To summarise, this Labour Government are on the side of working people and our brilliant businesses. We have boosted pay for millions of the lowest earners, and we are putting money back into people’s pockets. We are making work pay again in a way that suits the 21st century, and that will create security and opportunity for everyone, no matter their background. Most of all, we have a commitment to a core British value: those who work should be rewarded. As we put it in Yorkshire, this is about a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. We are getting on with the job. We are focused on fixing the long-term damage to our economy, and setting Britain on the path to renewal. That is why I call on the House to support our amendment.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Employment Rights Bill
Kate Dearden ExcerptsMonday 8th December 2025
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 8 December 2025 - large print - (8 Dec 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 1B but proposes amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of that amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 23 and 106 to 120, does not insist on its amendments 120C, 120D and 120E, and proposes amendments (a) to (f) to the Bill in lieu of Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 23 and 106 to 120.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 48B but proposes amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of that amendment.
That this House does not insist on its amendment 72C in lieu of Lords amendments 61 and 72, but disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 72D to 72H in lieu and proposes further amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of the Lords amendments.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 62, but does not insist on its amendment 62C in lieu and proposes further amendment (a) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment.
Kate Dearden
I am pleased to return to the Employment Rights Bill for the consideration of Lords amendments for a third time.
The Government’s plan to make work pay, on which we were elected and in which we committed to deliver the Employment Rights Bill, will bring employment rights legislation into the 21st century, extending the protections that many British companies already offer to their staff to all. By doing so, we will endeavour to end the unfair market competition in which some firms seek to beat their competitors not by better quality or increased value, but by cutting the pay and conditions of their workforce. That is why this Bill is truly pro-business and pro-worker, pro-growth and pro-competition, and contributes to the creation of a fair and flexible labour market.
This Bill is a win-win for employers, employees and a more competitive British economy. By delivering this change together, we will back businesses that do the right thing while giving hard-working people the job security and opportunities that they deserve. That is why we must press ahead with delivery. Too many workers are waiting too long to feel the benefits of these reforms, and too many businesses face the uncertainty of when this Bill will become law and want clarity on its implementation. The Government are seeking the support of this House so that we can secure Royal Assent and finally be able to move towards implementing change.
First, I will speak to the Government amendments in lieu, which relate to unfair dismissal. In late November, I convened a series of constructive conversations between trade unions and business representatives, and I am extremely grateful for the positive and productive contribution of both sides of industry to that dialogue. It is a testimony to their leadership, and I thank them for it.
I am pleased to report that we have come to a workable agreement with trade unions and business representatives on the unfair dismissal provisions. The Government’s amendments in lieu will reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from 24 months to six months, while maintaining existing day one protections against discrimination and automatically unfair grounds for dismissal. The implementation road map sets out that the changes related to unfair dismissal will come into force in 2027. That is the timeline that businesses have been working towards.
It is also important to limit the time that employees must wait for their rights to be strengthened while implementing changes in a way that is manageable for business. That is why I am pleased to tell the House that the six-month qualifying period for unfair dismissal protections will be brought in from 1 January 2027.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has done a remarkable job with this Employment Rights Bill. However, it would be remiss of me not to ask her a question. The new deal for working people stipulated quite clearly that employment rights from day one were sacrosanct, then a manifesto pledge in 2024 said categorically to the British people that we would have day one rights for working people. Why has that changed?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend will know that this Bill is extremely close to my heart, as it is close to the hearts of many Members in the Chamber today. It is something I have worked on for many years alongside trade union colleagues and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). Achieving the best possible deal for working people is the reason I am in this job, and it is why I wanted to ensure that trade unions were consulted at every step of the way, along with the excellent business leaders who are crucial to delivering the growth our country desperately needs. Our amendments in lieu will deliver on our promises for working people up and down this country, while ensuring that the Bill is not stuck in parliamentary limbo for another year.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for the work she has personally done on the Bill. I think we would all agree that it has been stuck in limbo for some time, and we very much want to get it through. I met representatives of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers last week—not people at the top of the ladder, but the shop stewards who are literally on the shop floor. They are really keen for the Bill to get through as soon as possible and they feel that these measures provide the right compromise. Does the Minister agree?
Kate Dearden
We reached this agreement with the unions in the room, and no one knows better than them what their members need. This is a significant step forward to put the Bill into practice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Under Lords amendment 1, the duty would be shifted to the employee to request guaranteed hours, as opposed to it being down to the employer to offer hours. That means that the employee can request hours, and then the employer can cancel them at the last minute. Can the Minister reassure me that provision will be made to protect workers, ensuring that if they are given hours, they are compensated in the right way?
Kate Dearden
I will speak to zero-hours contracts later in my contribution. This is about rebalancing power —giving workers access to guaranteed hours if they need and want them.
Let me return to the unfair dismissal protections that we will bring in from 1 January 2027. Our intention is to adopt a commencement approach that would extend protections immediately from that date to employees who already have six months’ service or more. For example, under this proposal, someone employed from today will gain protection against unfair dismissal on 1 January 2027. That is almost a full year earlier than under the current law. Other employees will gain protection once they reach six months’ service; for example, someone who starts work on 1 November 2026 will qualify for protection from unfair dismissal on 1 May 2027—International Workers’ Day—which is 20 months earlier than under the current law. This approach was taken in 1999, when the qualifying period was reduced from two years to one. This approach will prevent a two-tier system, in which some people would remain on a two-year qualifying period while newly hired employees were subject to a six-month qualifying period.
The commencement of the unfair dismissal provisions will be set out in commencement regulations, as is standard practice. I am happy to commit to making those regulations early next year, implementing our commitment to commencement on 1 January 2027. This change will benefit millions of working people, who will gain greater security at work, and it will offer businesses and employers the flexibility to ensure new hires can do the job, get the skills to match, contribute to business success, and build a stable and secure working life.
To further strengthen these protections, the Government amendments will also ensure that the unfair dismissal qualifying period can only be varied by a future Government through primary legislation, and will remove the compensation cap. I know that some businesses have expressed concern about the agreement to lift the compensation cap; I can tell the House that we want to remove the scope for employment tribunal cases to be more complex and convoluted than they need to be. We need a tribunal system that works for employees and employers alike—one that is not gummed up by process and unnecessary delay nor bedevilled by bogus claims. Our aim is to make the tribunal system work more effectively and efficiently for all, so that those judged to have been unfairly dismissed get the compensation they deserve, the system works to resolve cases more speedily and unfounded claims are dismissed more urgently.
As we review the tribunal system, in the spirit of partnership, we will work with businesses and trade unions to create a tribunal process that is fairer and faster. No committed employee should lack the protection they deserve, nor should any reasonable employer fear the consequences of an unsubstantiated claim. For several other employment rights, the amount of compensation that can be awarded by a tribunal is limited by cross-referring to the unfair dismissal cap, so our amendments will ensure that these consequential issues can be considered and dealt with effectively through secondary legislation.
We know that security of work is critical for working families, and we are also acutely aware of the challenges businesses face. That is why we are committed to open and constructive dialogue with all stakeholders. If these changes are to create the conditions for lasting, fair and flexible labour laws, dialogue and co-operation must be our watchwords. I hope the other place can attach similar importance to that co-operation, and that it will let this Bill—the product of a general election mandate and the good will of both business and trade unions—proceed to Royal Assent. These discussions and the workable compromise highlight the importance of participation, and I urge those listening to today’s debate to engage with the consultations set out in the implementation road map.
I will now speak to the Government amendments in lieu that relate to zero-hours contracts and the right to guaranteed hours. We have tabled amendments that will create a statutory duty to consult on the length of the initial reference period and the length and timings of subsequent reference periods before exercising the relevant powers. These amendments will ensure that vital stakeholders can have the opportunity to contribute before the lengths of the reference periods are determined by regulations that work for worker and employer alike. By delivering this change with the input of stakeholders, we will provide a fair and balanced approach.
Let me turn to the Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 48B, which relate to seasonal work. In order to help address fluctuating demand, the Bill allows guaranteed hours offers to take the form of limited-term contracts where reasonable. The Government have tabled amendments that place a statutory duty on the Government to consult before making any regulations to specify what counts as a temporary need. This means that before any such regulations are introduced, employers, trade unions, and other parts of civil society with an interest in seasonal work, will be fully consulted.
I will now address the issue of political funds and the related Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 72D to 72H. The Government remain committed to the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016. That includes reinstating the long-standing practice that existed for 70 years before that Act, whereby new union members are automatically included as contributors to a political fund unless they choose to opt out. This will return us to arrangements that worked well for decades, removing bureaucratic red tape on trade unions that works against their core role of negotiation and dispute resolution in the interests of working people. We have heard the concerns about how opt-out notices would take effect, and we believe our amendments will refine that process.
Under the pre-2016 legislation, an opt-out notice could only take effect on 1 January of the year after it was given. Under the Government’s amendment, opt-out notices will now take effect on either 1 January of the following year or on a day specified or determined by the rules of the union, whichever comes first. We are aware that in practice, prior to 2016, unions generally gave effect to opt-out notices before the subsequent 1 January date anyway; amendment (a) in lieu affirms that flexibility in the legislation. We have also tabled amendment (b) in lieu, which places a statutory duty on the Government to issue guidance within three months of the clause coming into effect. That guidance will set out the kind of provision that unions should include in their rules about the timing of giving effect to opt-out notices.
Finally, I will address the issue of industrial action ballot thresholds and related Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 62. As I have said, this Government want to end disputes and conflict in the labour market; we also want more trade union members to have a say in decisions about escalating disputes where they arise. We will repeal the 50% threshold and—as we have previously stated—align this with the establishment of non-postal balloting, including e-balloting, so that decisions about industrial action keep pace with the communication channels of modern life.
Our amendment (a) in lieu cements that intention by requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to any effects of the introduction of non-postal balloting, including e-balloting, on the proportion of those entitled to vote in industrial action ballots who actually do so. In having regard to the effects of e-balloting, the Government will monitor and assess the practical impact of non-postal balloting on rates of participation in industrial action ballots, so that we will be confident that modernising the means of balloting increases member participation. In addition, we have tabled amendment (b) in lieu, which will place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to lay a statement before Parliament that demonstrates how the Government have had regard to non-postal balloting before making regulations to repeal the 50% threshold.
I urge hon. Members to support the Government motions before the House today, including our amendments in lieu. Together, they form a package that strengthens workplace rights, reflects the value we place on fair and flexible labour markets, and demonstrates the Government’s willingness to listen to concerns and act on them. We place a premium on dialogue and compromise as key components in modern labour relations; we want to consign the narrow, partisan, party political prejudice of previous decades to the dustbin of history, and build instead a modern industrial relations framework that values partnership, dialogue, flexibility and fairness for all sides. Our amendments in lieu fully reflect that approach, and in that light, I commend them to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sarah Olney
I would agree, but my point is that this last-minute change has been sprung on us and the business groups that engaged in good faith with the Government on these measures. This is a last-minute change that we and the business groups were not expecting, and that is why we will not be supporting it.
Kate Dearden
With respect, I was in the room as part of the negotiations with business representatives and trade unions, and I thank them again for the constructive dialogue and leadership that they showed throughout the numerous days of conversation. I can confirm that the compensation cap was discussed and agreed in the room, so I ask the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to reflect on her comments. I was in the room; with due respect, she was not. That is a true reflection of what was discussed and agreed.
Sarah Olney
I take the Minister’s comments. What I would say is that we were not expecting to see this measure in the motion, and that is why we will not support it.
Turning to zero-hours contracts, Liberal Democrats strongly believe in giving all workers security over their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many struggle with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. However, we have repeatedly reminded the Government that adaptability in shift patterns is often hugely valuable, for example to those balancing caring responsibilities or their studies alongside work. It is therefore important to strike a balance that ensures workers can have both security and flexibility.
Since the Bill’s introduction, many small businesses have highlighted that having to offer employees fixed-hours contracts on a rolling basis could impose significant costs and administrative burdens on their limited resources, compounding other challenges, such as the increase in employer national insurance contributions, charging national insurance on salary sacrifice schemes and the fallout from the previous Government’s damaging Brexit deal. While we advocated for what we think would have been a fairer and less onerous system based on giving workers a right to request fixed hours, the Liberal Democrats are pleased that the Government have at least moved in the right direction through amendment (b). Requiring the Secretary of State to consult businesses and relevant stakeholders on the length of the initial guaranteed hours reference period will at least give affected businesses and workers a stronger voice in designing the new system.
Andy McDonald
No, I will carry on.
This debate has been muddied by talk of probation. We never proposed abolishing probation periods—they are proper and necessary—but no system should allow dismissal without cause for blatantly unfair reasons. At present, workers can still be dismissed without cause nearly two years into a job. Under this compromise, they can be dismissed almost half a year in, when they might have a mortgage to pay and a family to support. This climbdown casts doubt on the Government’s resolve and determination to deliver all the elements of the new deal for working people in full.
Worse still, emboldened opponents of the workers’ rights reforms will return for more. They will undoubtedly attempt to weaken the Bill through secondary legislation. Major businesses are already signalling that they will use consultations to soften, delay or carve out core protections. Their language of “burdens”, “balance” and “flexibility” is not commentary, but a co-ordinated push to reshape the settlement.
I say to my colleagues on the Government Front Bench that they should be bold and take heart. The thing that was missing from this Bill was the status of workers’ rights reforms. If we were to take courage in our hands and deal with that issue, we would resolve matters by collecting uncollected tax and national insurance to the tune of £10 billion per annum, as well as giving people security in employment. Think about the lack of a pull factor for people to go into the black economy.
If this legislation is to deliver a new deal for working people, this House must ensure that the back door is not opened to dismantling it. I urge Ministers, even now, to reconsider, because they are making a profound mistake.
Kate Dearden
I only have a few minutes, so I will try to respond as quickly as I can to comments from colleagues across the House. I thank everybody for their reflections today.
To respond to the shadow Minister, I do not recognise the figures he mentions, and I urge hon. Members to reflect carefully on the figures that he mentioned in the debate. I would have thought that he had learned the terrible lessons from his former boss, Liz Truss, and I know my constituents are still paying the price for the impacts of her mini-Budget. He is now quoting the Growth Commission, which has Liz Truss as an adviser. I will leave it at that.
The Tories had 14 years to adapt to the way the world of work has changed, but they did nothing to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts and barely acknowledged the existence of the gig economy. They saw the impacts of covid on our key workers and the limits of statutory sick pay, and decided to do nothing. The world of work has changed an enormous amount in the last 20 years, and the Conservative party seems to be telling us that the system is working as intended, but I say that it is not. I say it needs change, and it needs this Bill.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her leadership, and for all her work on the Bill and on our wider package for working people. I know she is keen to see the time that employees must wait for fair rights to be shortened, and we share her desire for employees to benefit as soon as possible from this Bill, which is why it is so important that we get it on to the statute book and implemented as soon as possible. I thank her for her remarks and reflections today.
The Government amendments in lieu are a result of dialogue and compromise. Business and unions have preferred to go the extra mile to find solutions, rather than insisting on their own positions and disregarding all other perspectives. I thank my colleagues for their reflections, and I am pleased that we have been able to provide a workable agreement with trade unions and business representatives on the unfair dismissal provisions.
Kate Dearden
I have two minutes left, so I need to proceed.
I have talked in detail about our intentions behind this legislation. I know that my hon. Friends’ suggestions are well intentioned, but I stress that, as a package, our amendments reflect the agreement reached between business representatives and trade unions in a collaborative and constructive process. We want to bring this Bill to a conclusion so that it benefits millions of British workers, who will benefit from the new rights that it will deliver from April next year. We are extending statutory sick pay and parental leave and setting up the fair work agency, so that it has the enforcement rights that it needs and businesses can start preparing for implementation with certainty.
I thank again all Members for their contributions today. Sadly, despite the persuasive arguments from my colleagues, I know that some Members from across the House will continue to oppose better rights for working people. However, after 14 years of the Conservatives letting workers’ rights rot, the economy stagnate and living standards fall, I am proud to be showing what Labour in power looks like: the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation; a relentless focus on growing our economy and making working people better off; and rising living standards in every corner of the country. Whereas Reform—its Members are not here— and the Conservatives show themselves to be two sides of the same anti-worker, anti-growth coin, Labour is fixing the foundations of our economy.
The Government are making work pay again in a way that suits the 21st century. This Bill restores the rights that have been lost in a manner that is fit for the future. It will create security and opportunity for everyone, no matter their background. It is of paramount importance that we get this Bill on to the statute book, so that it can start delivering for businesses and workers as soon as possible. I urge all Members on both sides of the House to carefully consider the amendments we have proposed, and I hope they feel able to support our position.
Package Travel Regulations
Kate Dearden Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The current Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 set out a series of requirements for organisers of package holidays and linked travel arrangements. They also provide bespoke protections for travellers.
The Government recently consulted on targeted changes to the regulations. The aim was to optimise the regulations to support growth in the UK’s vibrant package holiday sector, while retaining the vital consumer protections they provide.
We were pleased to receive strong engagement across a rich variety of stakeholders. These included approved bodies, consumer groups, airlines, members of the leisure and hospitality sector, accommodation providers, lawyers and many more. Thank you to all those who took the time to respond and engage with us throughout the call for evidence, the consultation, and the many stakeholder engagement sessions.
Providers of package holidays are rightly proud of their industry and what they offer. From our own assessment and extensive industry and stakeholder engagement, it is clear that the confidence currently felt in the package travel sector is underpinned by the protections offered by the regulations. Knowing that, if things go wrong, they will be properly looked after by their tour operator is a strong driving factor as to why consumers continue to choose to book package holidays.
Having carefully considered responses, and following extensive engagement with stakeholders, the Government intend to bring forward legislation to make the following key changes to the regulations.
Linked travel arrangements
There are two key changes to LTAs:
absorbing LTA type A into the definition of a “package”: this would provide full package protections when consumers make a booking in circumstances similar to current type As, effectively extending consumer rights while simplifying business compliance; and
removing LTA type B entirely: the Government plan to eliminate type B arrangements (where a trader facilitates booking of a second service from another trader within 24 hours). These arrangements provide minimal consumer protection and are easily circumvented. Eliminating this category would support domestic sector growth, allowing small businesses like B&Bs to refer customers to local activity providers without triggering the regulations.
Regulation 29
The Government are also proposing to modify regulation 29, which deals with redress for third parties. The key changes include:
establishing a 14-day period for refund of cancelled services
clarifying that the regulations confer a statutory right to redress in specified circumstances , and not merely a right to seek redress.
These changes aim to help package travel organisers recover costs from suppliers more effectively, enhancing business resilience and ensuring the costs of consumer protection are distributed more equitably.
We will also consider how best to treat other issues that were highlighted in the consultation responses and that were not able to be addressed through legislation.
The Government will legislate to implement these reforms by June 2026 under the provisions of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023.
The consultation response is now live and can be accessed at: www.gov.uk.
[HCWS1120]
Employment Rights Bill
Kate Dearden Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The Government convened a series of constructive conversations between trade unions and business representatives. On the basis of the outcome of these discussions, the Government will now move forward on the issue of unfair dismissal protections in the Employment Rights Bill to ensure it can reach Royal Assent and keep to the Government’s published delivery timeline.
This will mean delivering day one rights to sick pay and paternity leave in April 2026 as well as launching the fair work agency. Reforms to benefit millions of working people, including some of the lowest paid workers, would otherwise be significantly delayed if the Bill does not reach Royal Assent in line with our delivery timetable. Businesses too need time to prepare for what are a series of significant changes.
The discussions concluded that reducing the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from 24 months to 6 months—whilst maintaining existing day one protection against discrimination and automatically unfair grounds for dismissal—is a workable package. It will benefit millions of working people who will gain new rights and offer business and employers much needed clarity. To further strengthen these protections, the Government have committed to ensure that the unfair dismissal qualifying period can only be varied by primary legislation and that the compensation cap will be lifted.
As a result of these constructive conversations, we have agreed a way forward with trade unions and business representatives who agree that the Bill should progress to Royal Assent as soon as possible. We will table the necessary amendments to deliver the Bill. Furthermore, the Government have reiterated their commitment to full, fair and transparent consultation on the detail and application of the secondary legislation as they move to implement the Bill. This will enable the Government to deliver the necessary consultations and implementation in line with their timetable and manifesto commitments to make work pay.
We will not build a robust and growing economy through employment insecurity. Instead, we are building an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers, and fair reward for hard work. Once implemented, these important and popular reforms will give long overdue new rights to working people, including:
Ending exploitative zero-hours contracts that leave some workers unable to plan their working lives or manage their family finances, saving them up to £600 in lost income from the hidden costs of insecure work;
Establishing bereavement leave as a day one entitlement and extending it to those who lose a pregnancy before 24 weeks, giving the hundreds of thousands of families affected each year the recognition and protections they deserve;
Supporting working parents to juggle the competing demands of work and raising children, including the 32,000 fathers and partners per year who are not entitled to paternity leave and the 1.5 million parents who are not allowed to take unpaid parental leave;
Helping more working mothers stay in their jobs, including the 4,000 women who are unfairly sacked each year when returning from maternity leave;
Guaranteeing workers get paid when they have to take time off because of illness and expanding statutory sick pay to up to 1.3 million of the most vulnerable workers in society who currently earn below the lower earnings limit;
Reinstating the school support staff negotiating body to improve pay and conditions for up to 800,000 school support staff in England;
Providing for the establishment of a fair pay agreements process in the adult social care sector in England and social care sectors in Scotland and Wales; and
Creating a single point of contact for advice and help for businesses and employees—the fair work agency—to ensure better understanding of people’s rights at work, ensure best practice for implementing employment law, and tackle the unfair competition that some bad employers use to beat their competitors.
The Government were pleased to facilitate these discussions and to set an example of the benefits of working together, and remain committed to continue engaging with trade unions, business and employers to make working lives better, support businesses and, vitally, deliver economic growth and good job creation. The Government are particularly aware of the need to support small businesses in the effective adoption of these changes. Constructive dialogue and full consultation with business, employers and unions will continue beyond the passage of the Bill.
[HCWS1115]
Ticketing Consultation and Call for Evidence: Government Response
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The UK has a world-leading live events sector. Our major sporting and cultural events not only are key to our social fabric, but support economic growth right across the country. For too long, however, access to live events has been undermined by ticket touts who exploit fans and extract value unfairly from the live events sector. Seeing your favourite artist or performer should not be a rip-off, and the hard-earned cash that fans pay to attend events should flow back into supporting growth and jobs in the sector, not line the pockets of touts. At the same time, we have seen that new practices across the ticketing market, such as dynamic pricing, are presenting further challenges for fans when buying tickets for the events they love.
This Government are committed to putting fans first, ensuring that they are protected from harmful practices on the ticket resale market. Today, we are setting out our plans to deliver for fans and the live events industry, by publishing the Government responses to the consultation on the resale of live events tickets and a call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector, which we ran earlier this year. This is another milestone in delivering on our commitment to grow our world-leading creative industries, as part of the Government’s new industrial strategy, boosting investment in the sector from £17 billion to £31 billion by 2035.
Government response to the consultation on the resale of live events tickets
After reviewing the evidence submitted through the consultation process, the Government are announcing that we will introduce the following measures:
A resale price cap which prohibits someone from reselling a ticket for more than the original ticket cost, inclusive of unavoidable fees incurred during the original purchase—saving fans an estimated £37 for each ticket bought on the resale market.
A separate cap on resale service fees, to ensure the price cap cannot be undermined by inflated fees, while providing a sustainable margin for resale platforms.
Resale volume limits which make it unlawful for someone to resell more tickets for an event than they were entitled to purchase.
Strict legal obligations on platforms to ensure compliance with the price cap, applied broadly to all online platforms facilitating resale of live events tickets.
There was broad support among fans, businesses and consumer groups for these measures, which make good on our manifesto commitment to put fans back at the heart of live events and end the scourge of industrial-scale touting. The Government will legislate to implement these measures when parliamentary time allows.
We recognise that robust enforcement is vital, so we will enable enforcement of the new measures via the consumer enforcement regime established by part 3 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which recently came into effect. This regime provides for tough financial penalties of up to 10% of global turnover, and expedited powers for the Competition and Markets Authority to tackle certain consumer law breaches directly.
Government response to call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector
Overall, the responses we received revealed considerable frustration among fans about their experience of buying tickets for live events and suggested that there is scope for live events businesses to improve how they present pricing and other ticket information.
Businesses are already required by law to give fans clear and accurate price information before purchase, free from undue pressure or other manipulative tactics that could influence their decision. These principles are linchpins of consumer law and continue to apply to businesses in the live events sector, as in any other market. Based on current evidence and given that price transparency is already enshrined in consumer law, the Government do not intend to bring forward any new legislative proposals on pricing practices in the live events sector.
However, the ticketing industry must do better to earn the trust of the dedicated fans that sustain the live events sector. The Government expect businesses in the sector to treat the evidence gathered through our call for evidence as an incentive to act. Businesses should also carefully review the CMA’s recent findings on dynamic pricing, published on 20 June 2025, and ensure that their practices align with the guidance that the CMA has published alongside those findings. We welcome the commitment from the Society of Ticket Agents and Retailers to convene the sector to establish best practice on ticketing, including price transparency, and look forward to seeing the outcome of this work.
Meanwhile, the outcome of the CMA’s investigation into Ticketmaster sends a clear signal to all ticketing platforms that fans must have access to clear and timely pricing information with accurate ticket descriptions, especially where different pricing models and queuing systems are in use. Where businesses fall short of what is expected of them under the law, the CMA has powerful enforcement tools to ensure businesses can be penalised and brought into line.
I am placing a copy of the Government response to the consultation and call for evidence in the Library of each House.
[HCWS1077]
Employment Rights Bill: Electronic and Workplace Balloting Consultation
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
This Government’s top priority is to grow the economy and improve living standards. We are clear that you cannot build a strong economy whilst having people in insecure work. For too long employment law has failed to keep pace with fundamental changes to how, when and where we work. This has allowed bad actors to take advantage of loopholes in the current law via exploitative practices, fuelling a race to the bottom, undercutting responsible businesses, and eroding the living standards of working people. We are clear that unfair competition, where a bad employer undercuts a good employer by reducing the terms and conditions of service for their employees, is bad for business, bad for workers and bad for growth. Our plan to make work pay will modernise our employment rights legislation, extending the employment protections already given by the best British companies to millions more workers across the country. Strengthening this underlying framework will help build an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers, and fair reward for hard work.
As set out in our “Implementing the Employment Rights Bill” publication, published on 1 July 2025, we are taking a phased approach to engagement and consultation on these reforms. This will ensure all stakeholders have the time and space to work through the detail of each measure and to help us implement each in the interests of all. Today I am launching a consultation seeking views on a draft code of practice on electronic and workplace balloting. Alongside a programme of direct stakeholder engagement, this consultation will support us in determining how best to put our plans into practice.
At present, almost all statutory trade union ballots must be conducted solely by post. This approach is outdated, limits democratic participation, and no longer aligns with modern voting practices or workplace realities. The Government are committed to modernising the rules for statutory union ballots to bring union participation in line with modern voting practices that political parties and listed companies already use. Therefore, we will be permitting the use of electronic and workplace balloting for statutory union ballots, while retaining the existing option of postal balloting. This will be delivered through secondary legislation and will be designed to ensure the security, accessibility and integrity of the ballot, drawing from established balloting procedures.
The Government will introduce a new statutory code of practice to accompany these changes, setting out how electronic and workplace balloting should operate fairly and lawfully in practice. The code will provide a clear and detailed guidance for unions, employers, workers and independent scrutineers, and will help ensure confidence in ballot outcomes. The Government are consulting on a draft version of this new code of practice. We welcome views from interested parties to ensure the code is clear, balanced and practical for all. This represents the first step of our plans to deliver electronic balloting across a range of statutory union and industrial action ballots.
This consultation will run for 10 weeks and will close on 28 January 2026.
Next steps for consultation
This consultation sets out the next steps in delivering our plans. As trailed in “Implementing the Employment Rights Bill”, further packages of consultations are planned to launch over the winter. These will be central to shaping the practical implementation of this legislation, helping the Government to deliver reforms that are both effective and inclusive. It is in everyone’s interest to get the relationship between employer and employee right. This consultation will help us make work pay for both.
[HCWS1070]
Rogue Builders
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I will do my best, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing this debate on an issue that I know he has campaigned on for a long time, beginning when his party were in government.
I really welcome the debate. I am grateful to the many Members who contributed to it for raising their constituents’ concerns and the horrifying cases that they have been dealing with in their constituencies. They set out the serious impacts that incompetent and rogue tradesmen have had on the homes and the physical and mental health of their constituents, who are sometimes elderly or vulnerable in other ways. I know from my own constituents the misery that can be caused and the toll it can take on people, as well as the time and money it takes to remedy problems. I thank Members again for their hard work, through casework and surgeries, to defend their constituents’ consumer rights.
Consumers have a have a right to expect that work undertaken in their homes will be performed competently and that there will be redress if the work does not meet acceptable standards of quality and safety, and I want to take the opportunity to assure the House that the Government are committed to strengthening the system to ensure that that happens. I will try to align my winding-up speech with the winding-up speech in the main Chamber and move quickly to responses to points that Members raised.
The Government’s aim is to improve the market and to support honest and competent tradespeople and firms, working with the industry and with local authority trading standards. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 sets out the standards that consumers can expect in relation to the supply of goods and services, including building work, and the remedies available to them. Under the Act, traders are required to carry out a service with reasonable care and skill, and within a reasonable time. If those requirements are not met, the consumer can ask for the service to be performed again or for a price reduction. If that is not agreed, consumers can seek redress through the courts. The small claims procedure provides the means to pursue a claim of up to £10,000 at an affordable cost and without a solicitor, and consumers have six years to bring a claim against a trader.
Government bodies are also working with the super-sector working groups under the industry competence steering group, collaborating to improve trade and installer competence and to reduce the incidence of poor work. That process brings together over 1,000 individuals across trade bodies, professional organisations and employers to produce and implement competence frameworks across more than 130 occupations.
The Government are committed to strengthening competent person schemes that cover higher-risk occupations such as electricians and gas engineers. Competent person schemes must ensure that consumers are provided with the appropriate protection for a minimum of six years to remediate work that is non-compliant with the building regulations.
Other protections include the TrustMark scheme, which hon. Members have mentioned. That is the only Government-endorsed quality scheme for domestic construction. It covers trades such as fenestration, roofing, and kitchen and bathroom installation, as well as general building work, and it requires participating firms and tradespeople to demonstrate competence and provide for consumer redress. Government-funded schemes for energy and heat efficiency also require installers to hold relevant certifications and to provide consumers with access to redress.
I know that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest has campaigned for a long time on licensing schemes. Licensing or registration schemes exist in the US, Australia and New Zealand and aim to improve quality, protect consumers from incompetent contractors, and provide consumers with redress for poor-quality work. The hon. Member spoke about that in quite a lot of detail. However, few evaluations have been undertaken of the effectiveness of those schemes. The available evidence suggests that they can deliver some benefits, such as increased quality, but that they can also have detrimental effects, including increasing prices for consumers. There is also no clear evidence that the existence of licensing schemes reduces the incidence of poor-quality work. The schemes are reliant on audits and inspections of work to identify incompetent builders, which is similar to the approach of the TrustMark and competent person schemes in the UK.
There are also questions of how licensing schemes would be funded and administered, the implications for existing schemes in the UK, and the resourcing of the organisations responsible for the schemes. Any proposal to introduce a licensing scheme in the UK would have to be based on an assessment of costs and benefits and would have to address those issues.
Hon. Members also mentioned the issue of phoenixing. We are aware of the problem and work is ongoing. In the 2024 autumn Budget, we announced a greater focus between His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Companies House and the Insolvency Service on tackling rogue directors and phoenixing. Key actions include closing loopholes in company registration and dissolution, targeted enforcement to boost compliance, and stronger referrals.
I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for welcoming our New Homes Quality Board and ombudsman. From a consumer protection perspective, the Government are supportive of alternative routes to recourse outside the courts, such as alternative dispute resolution and the ombudsman. Many similar schemes already exist, and the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 strengthened ADR provision. That is also relevant to his comments and reflections on compensation, for which I thank him.
I am very conscious of the time, Ms Furniss, so I will move to my concluding remarks and just thank hon. Members for raising lots of other issues that I do not have time to go through. I will be working closely with other relevant Departments on the wider infrastructure issues that Members have raised on house building.
Sir Julian Lewis
What about the fact that these people, in some cases, are criminals and their actions ought to be subject to the criminal law?
Kate Dearden
I thank the right hon. Member for raising that point. Lots of Members have mentioned the complexity of determining whether something is a criminal offence or a civil matter under the Consumer Rights Act, whether we are looking at a trading standards matter or a criminal act, and demonstrating intent. It is a very complex area and I would be happy to meet individual Members if they want to talk it through with me.
I am sure that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), does not expect me to speculate or comment on the Budget so close to its announcement. I am sure that his party, during its time in government, had lots of opportunities to address this issue. On his remarks on the licensing scheme, I think he can reflect on similar reflections that his Government worked through.
No one should doubt the human impact that rogue and incompetent tradespeople can have. This issue obviously needs to be addressed, and the best way to achieve that is by improving standards of consumer redress. Although there is no clear evidence on how a licensing scheme would do that, we will keep that under review. In the meantime, we will continue to improve standards of competence and consumer redress in the construction sector. I thank hon. Members again for raising cases on behalf of their constituents. I have run through a lot of them in my concluding remarks, but if Members want to talk to me directly about these issues or ask me to raise them with other Departments, I will be more than happy to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of protecting consumers from rogue builders.
Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025
Kate Dearden Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, for my first time leading a debate on a statutory instrument. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 13 October 2025, and I will begin by setting out their background. They concern radio equipment, which today includes a wide range of products, including smartphones and many other smart and connected devices.
The radio equipment directive 2014/53/EU continues to apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework, ensuring that Northern Ireland maintains dual market access to both the UK internal market and the EU single market. In 2021, the European Commission adopted Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30, which supplements the radio equipment directive and applies additional essential requirements to certain categories of radio equipment; that came into force on 1 August this year.
The additional essential requirements apply to certain internet-connected radio equipment, such as connectable consumer electronics and smart devices. Radio equipment must be constructed in a way that protects networks, safeguards users’ personal data and privacy, and prevents fraud. In addition, whether internet connected or not, radio equipment that is covered by the EU toys directive, or that is either a childcare device or a device designed to be worn on the body, must also be constructed so that it protects users’ personal data and privacy.
The radio equipment directive was implemented in UK law by the Radio Equipment Regulations 2017. Those regulations apply to the whole of the UK, but some provisions apply differently to Northern Ireland. The draft regulations amend the 2017 regulations as they apply to Northern Ireland to ensure effective implementation of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30 in Northern Ireland, and to enable its enforcement.
Let me explain in more detail how the draft regulations meet their purpose. The 2017 regulations set out essential requirements for radio equipment before it can be placed on the market. The draft regulations add the additional essential requirements mandated in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30 to the 2017 regulations as they apply to Northern Ireland, thereby enabling the relevant authorities to take steps to enforce the delegated regulation.
Manufacturers will need to carry out the appropriate conformity assessment process. The EU recognises three technical standards that address cyber-security requirements for radio equipment that manufacturers may use to demonstrate compliance, but using those specific standards remains voluntary. The 2017 regulations make it an offence to fail to comply with the essential requirements when supplying radio equipment or placing it on the market.
As the draft regulations add to the essential requirements of the 2017 regulations as they apply to Northern Ireland, they extend the scope of an existing offence. The Northern Ireland Department of Justice has confirmed that it considers such an amendment to the scope of existing offences proportionate, and it does not believe that it will have a detrimental effect on the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland.
I assure members of the Committee that enforcement authorities will continue to take a proportionate approach to compliance and enforcement activities, in accordance with the regulators’ code. In almost all cases, we expect that, by working with and supporting business, compliance will be achieved without legal recourse to the use of criminal penalties.
Many UK businesses supply the EU market as well as the UK market, so they have already taken steps to comply with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30. In discussions with industry stakeholders, including trade associations, my officials have not identified any significant impacts from the draft regulations, as manufacturers and importers in scope of these requirements are generally trading across the UK and the EU, so they will be coming into compliance or have already done so. We therefore expect limited impacts, if any, on the flow of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
In addition, manufacturers of CE-marked EU-compliant radio equipment can continue to place those products on the GB market. As is already the case, consumer products that connect to internet or a network placed on the GB market will continue to need to comply with the existing regime of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022, which came into effect in April 2024.
Manufacturers in Northern Ireland producing qualifying goods in scope of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30 continue to benefit from unfettered access to the rest of the UK internal market, as set out in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. While we expect the impacts to be limited, we will continue to monitor the functioning of the internal market.
Improving cyber-resilience in the UK remains a Government priority, and the Government continue to review the operation of cyber-security regulations applicable in Great Britain. We are looking at further options for securing digital devices, as evidenced by our recent call for views on enterprise-connected devices, and will take into account arrangements in Northern Ireland. The Government also intend to review the operation of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022, with an initial post-implementation review to be conducted in 2026.
We are taking steps to support industry to comply with these new requirements. My officials in the Office for Product Safety and Standards published a factsheet for businesses earlier this year, providing information on how to comply. The OPSS will also provide further guidance for industry for this instrument.
The statutory instrument enables the effective implementation in Northern Ireland of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30, which applies additional essential requirements for manufacturers of certain radio equipment. The instrument amends the UK’s 2017 regulations and will enable the EU delegated regulation to be enforced effectively. Implementation and the effective enforcement ensures our compliance with international law, which facilitates Northern Ireland’s continued unique dual access to both the UK internal market and the EU single market. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister for his warm welcome and kind words; I look forward to working with him. I also thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim for his contribution. As I explained, this instrument ensures effective implementation in Northern Ireland of the Commission delegated regulation that applies additional essential requirements for manufacturers of certain radio equipment. I hope my introductory speech laid out why we are bringing this SI today, the reasons behind it, our intentions and our work with stakeholders and businesses so far, many of whom have already prepared to comply with the new essential requirements, which came into force on 1 August this year.
The shadow Minister asked about the precise percentage. We have worked with the stakeholders and trade associations that have come into compliance. Although I am not able to give a precise percentage today, we will keep him updated, as we are keen to continue discussions with industry stakeholders, including the trade associations. As I mentioned, we have not identified any significant impacts of this instrument, as many businesses have already adapted. Crucially, we expect the impact on the flow of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to be limited. He also mentioned the impact of our work with the US and other competitive markets. Again, we will be happy to discuss that further with him.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim will be aware that we remain committed to implementing the Windsor framework in good faith, and taking forward commitments in a way that best delivers for the people in Northern Ireland. We are keen to work constructively with all stakeholders—the EU, the Northern Ireland Executive, political parties, businesses and civic society in Northern Ireland—to achieve that.
Kate Dearden
The hon. Member spoke for a considerable time, but I will be kind and give way.
Jim Allister
The Minister talks about implementing in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. How can it be in the interests of people to impose laws that they are not consulted about, that they did not make and cannot change? How can that be in anyone’s interest in a democratic society?
Kate Dearden
Regarding this instrument, it is an essential requirement that as products are developed, we ensure that they do not harm networks and that we protect personal data and guard against fraud. As devices become smarter and more connected and embedded in daily life, we have to keep pace with the regulatory framework. That is why this instrument is so important to protect consumers and networks.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim as he makes the case for his constituents. Is the Minister able to set out whether there is practical regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a result of this SI? What is the practical implication for the principal concern the hon. Gentleman raises on behalf of his constituents? Quite often the regulatory alignment remains the same, even if the base legislation for that regulation may derive from different places.
Kate Dearden
There is divergence but little impact in practice, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks. The draft regulations are crucial to ensuring our compliance with international law in relation to Northern Ireland’s continuing dual access. I thank the shadow Minister for his support and would be happy to write further to him about competitive states. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and am pleased to commend this SI to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.