Employment Rights Bill

Sarah Edwards Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

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

I welcome the Bill’s return to the House and the opportunity to consider the amendments made in the other place. I also welcome the new Secretary of State to his place and thank him for his kind words. I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to her ministerial position—undoubtedly the best job in Government—and wish her every success in that role. I know that she will be a champion for workers and that she will be committed to introducing the “make work pay” agenda in full, as we promised in our manifesto.

I am speaking a few rows back from where I had expected to be today. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned getting a short-notice cancellation payment—I am afraid that has not winged its way to me yet. However, I am delighted to be speaking in any capacity, because this Bill really is what a Labour Government should be delivering on. I was able, alongside my right hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), to take the new deal for working people—a policy programme carefully developed in opposition—and turn it into legislation that was laid before the House within 100 days of taking office, as we promised we would. While I started my ministerial role as I ended it—fired with enthusiasm—my hopes for the meaningful change that the Bill can deliver remain undimmed.

That we are here entering the Bill’s final stages is testament to the hard work and dedication of those who developed the policy programme both in opposition and in government. I place on record my thanks to those in the Department for Business and Trade who helped shape those manifesto commitments into the Bill. I also pay tribute to Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, who did a sterling job of guiding the legislation through the other place amid intense scrutiny and opposition, which of course we will talk about.

I will not go through every Lords amendment; I will just pick out a few of those I consider to be most damaging and undermining of the intentions that we set out in our manifesto about how we will rebalance the workplace to make it work for ordinary people. First, Lords amendment 1 completely undermines the principle, set out in our manifesto, of banning exploitative zero-hours contracts. The amendment would water down the commitment we gave to provide workers with an offer of a guaranteed-hours contract to a right to request guaranteed hours.

There has long been a misunderstanding—perhaps a wilful misunderstanding—of how the policy operates. It does not prevent those who want to remain on zero-hours contracts from continuing to do so, and neither does it prevent employers from hiring seasonal workers. It simply provides the opportunity for those who want certainty about the hours they work, week to week and month to month, to have guaranteed hours. We understand that not everyone will take advantage of that, but it might just be a lifeline for those who struggle to balance fixed costs such as bills, housing and childcare by taking out the stress of the potential variations that we see so often in zero-hours contracts at the moment. This is a very good thing for the Government to be doing, because one of the key principles in the Bill is the need to restore security and dignity at work, which would be damaged by the amendment.

I understand that the noble Lords argued that the wording of the amendment would prevent employers from rejecting guaranteed-hours requests. It is presented as a reasonable compromise that achieves the same outcome, maintaining workers’ rights to guaranteed hours while removing the employer’s requirement to make offers. I disagree with that analysis. It shifts the right from one that is passively applied to one that has to be actively invoked by workers. This means that an individual would have to know their rights and have the confidence to approach their employer in order to benefit from them.

As the Secretary of State said, those working on zero-hours contracts are some of the least empowered workers in this country, their contracts are inherently precarious, and those working on them are more likely to be younger, working part time and in low-paid sectors. There are plenty of examples out there of how the allocation of hours has been used by management as a tool of control and, in some cases, a tool of abuse. The Bill already sets out a number of anti-avoidance measures, because we know that that massive power imbalance has to be addressed, and this amendment would fatally undermine all that good work.

I have similar concerns about Lords amendments 6 and 7, which seek to impose 48 hours as a reasonable notice period. If passed, these amendments would remove any chance for workers or employers to make representations in a consultation process, and instead force an arbitrary cut-off of 48 hours. Throughout my time as a Minister, we were committed to consulting widely on changes and incorporating the feedback we received into our approach. I remember the Conservatives complaining during the original passage of the Bill that we were not consulting enough, yet now they lend their support to amendments that would chop that consultation off entirely.

That said, I must welcome the comments from Opposition Front Benchers in the other place, who indicated that they supported the principle of compensation for cancelled or curtailed shifts. I note that Lord Hunt of Wirral said:

“We are fully in agreement that workers deserve reasonable notice of shifts. That is a fair and modern expectation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 2025; Vol. 847, c. 1612.]

Quite how that fits with the Tory pledge to scrap the entire Bill, I do not know. Of course, it is to be expected, as night follows day, that they will object to measures that improve the rights of working people, but that would mean scrapping things that I thought even they supported, including ending non-disclosure agreements for victims of sexual harassment, a new right for bereavement leave for those who have suffered a pregnancy loss, and finally an end to fire and rehire, which they did so much to condemn while in government but did nothing of substance to deal with. That is the Conservative position on this, and it is something that the British people will completely and wholeheartedly reject.

Lords amendment 23 relates to unfair dismissal, which is something I know rather a lot about. It seeks to impose a six-month qualifying period for unfair dismissal rights rather than day one rights, which everyone on the Labour Benches has campaigned for. This is another brazen attempt by the other place to remove a clear manifesto commitment. I and other Labour Members were elected on a mandate to introduce basic rights, including unfair dismissal rights, from day one. How can we allow people who essentially have a job for life to prevent millions of people in this country from getting basic employment protections on day one? It is fundamentally wrong that workers can currently be treated so disposably, and that they can be dismissed arbitrarily with no legal recourse for two years. This is about fairness. A worker deserves to be treated with dignity, fairness and respect, no matter how long they have worked for an employer.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for the work that he has done and that the Department continues to do on this. One of the interesting things about this provision is that, in 2013, the Conservatives changed the period from 12 months to 24 months. They increased the amount of time that people were in an insecure position in the workplace. It is essential that we support working families and working people, so does he agree that this is absolutely the right step forward?

[Justin Madders]

I certainly do. In my conversations with employers, I did not come across any who were prepared to defend the status quo of a two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal, because they recognise that is an awfully long time to be in employment without any protection at all.

The Government are sensitive to concerns about hiring, however, and we have included provisions in the Bill to establish a statutory probationary period during which an employee’s performance and suitability can be established, and a lighter-touch dismissal procedure will apply during that time. This will mean that, to coin a phrase, if a new hire is not working out, an employer will be able to follow a lighter-touch procedure to dismiss them fairly. But crucially, there will still have to be a process; there cannot be an arbitrary dismissal without explanation, as happens far too often now.

We know that recruiting someone is an expensive and time-consuming business, if it is done properly, so why would we not expect the same care and attention to be put into determining whether someone had a future in the business at all? This country, to our shame, has one of the least regulated approaches to dismissal protection in the OECD, leaving an estimated 9 million workers vulnerable to dismissals without protections. How can someone plan their life, make financial commitments and so forth if they can be sacked at the drop of a hat? We believe that this must change. People deserve greater security and dignity at work, and they deserve to be treated fairly, not just as disposable commodities.

This Bill strikes the right balance, and although much of the detail is to be determined by consultation and regulations—I will come back to that later—it sends an important message that we will not accept the race to the bottom any more and that dignity and security at work start from day one. That is the lodestone of what a Labour Government should be about.

I am delighted that the Bill is on track to become law in a matter of weeks. It is a landmark piece of legislation that will end the race to the bottom and provide the biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation. We on the Labour side have long been clear that it will benefit everyone across the country. It will be good for workers and it will be good for businesses.

Passing this Bill is not, of course, the end of the matter. There is so much more that needs to be done outside the Bill, particularly on finally ending the industrial-scale exploitation that is bogus self-employment. We cannot have a Bill that massively increases protections for millions of people at work but fails to address the growing scandal of a deliberate manipulation of the law to deny people the same basic protections. Over the coming years, there will be a range of secondary legislation, codes of practice and guidance issued to implement the Bill’s provisions. I wish the new Minister every success in working through and navigating the 80 or so statutory instruments that will be needed to ensure that the Bill is implemented in full and that we stick to the road map that was published earlier in the summer. I welcome the Secretary of State’s comment that the road map remains in place in full.

However, given the volume and complexity of all this—the details of the consultations, the scope of the regulations, the language in the codes of practice and even the commencement dates—it goes without saying that there are plenty of opportunities for those who do not want to see workers’ rights improved in this country to chip away at the strong baseline that the Bill represents, and of course it is far easier to do that in some stuffy Committee Room away from the main Chamber. I do not think that is the Minister’s intention, but I am not sure that everyone shares our enthusiasm for improving the rights of millions of working people, so we will all be looking at this closely and encouraging the Minister to keep to our manifesto commitments that we all believe so strongly in.

On that point, I know how enthusiastic Labour Members are about the Bill, and how enthusiastic many of the people we represent are about it, so let us see that enthusiasm replicated across the whole of Government. What better way to demonstrate that we are still the party of working people, and what better way to show that democratic politics can still make a difference than by championing the many ways that this Bill will improve people’s lives? From the shop worker on a zero-hours contract who for the first time will have a right to guaranteed hours, to the social care assistant whose voice will finally be heard through a national negotiating body, to the warehouse operative who will be able to have a trade union collectively bargain on their behalf, this Bill can be the antidote to the politics of division and despair. Let us not be timid in our backing of improved employment rights. Let us not apologise for at last restoring balance to the workplace. Let us be confident, and committed to all the good things the Bill can achieve, and let us shout them from the rooftops.

This Bill is Labour at its best. It shows us what can be done when the broadest experiences and the voices of our movement are harnessed together to deliver change. I am proud that I played my part in that, and I will do all I can to ensure that we deliver on the promises we made to the British people to truly make sure that work pays.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Sarah Edwards Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Well, thank you, Mr Speaker—no pressure. [Interruption.] I will put some of my papers down.

May I start by praising the Business Secretary and his team for the way in which they have introduced the legislation? I add to that my praise for trade unions, local management and Members of Parliament of both main parties—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who, being a Minister, is not speaking in the debate. I joined him on a 2023 visit to Scunthorpe, where the very concerns about Jingye that we have heard today were shared with us by local management and trade unions alike. It is no surprise that those concerns have come to pass.

The last Government were warned, and they chose not to take the action needed. Ministers in the last Government told me that steel needed by the Navy and by those across our economy could not be made at Scunthorpe, or at other steel plants. Interestingly, the local management and the trade unions told me that they could make whatever their customers asked them to make by adjusting production. Again, it is a pity that the last Government did not listen, or we might be in a rather different place now. During the last Parliament, we were the only country in the G20 where production of primary steel, and steel overall, was falling. If the blast furnaces were allowed to close, we would be the only country in the G20 without any primary steelmaking capacity, which underlines why today’s legislation is so important.

The steel at Scunthorpe is of strategic national importance. Some 95% of our rail tracks are made at Scunthorpe, and the steelworks there carry out automotive, construction and defence production, all of which are critically important to this country. In addition to what is made now, there are opportunities in energy transition and defence. Some 25 million tonnes of steel will be required over the next 25 years in the offshore wind sector alone, so there are great opportunities if we can secure the future of Scunthorpe.

At the Liaison Committee last Tuesday, the Prime Minister mentioned that the grid connection plan for the Scunthorpe site is only due in 2034. Our electricity prices are 46% above the average for International Energy Agency states. The Government have to address the challenges of slow grid connections and uncompetitive industrial energy prices if they are to enable the modernisation of industry as a whole, and steel in particular.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

The Business and Trade Committee, of which I am a member, has heard evidence about the importance of the steel industry, and about the need for primary steelmaking to be retained as a key pillar of UK industrial sovereignty. We have heard that blast furnaces still play a critical role in strategic and high-grade steel production. Does my hon. Friend agree that our economic security is intrinsically linked with our onshore industrial capabilities, and that our Government’s focus on both construction and defence in these uncertain times means that this Bill is very welcome news?

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend makes extremely well the point that our economic security and our national security are two sides of the same coin. I am pleased to hear about the work being done by the Business and Trade Committee; in his excellent speech, the Committee’s Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), mentioned the Sub-Committee that has been set up.

I want to talk about Port Talbot, because the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee visited it two weeks ago. There will be a delay of several years between the closure last year of the blast furnaces there, and the opening of the new electric arc furnace, which is a massive cause for concern in south Wales and beyond. The excellent financial support provided by this Government, and Tata’s willingness to engage, are a good example of industry and Government being partners, and an indication that the industrial strategy that the Government plan to bring forward is already being effective.

The Bill gives the Government the opportunity to secure steelmaking in this country. I congratulate the Secretary of State and his colleagues on their decisive action. Workers and the nation as a whole are grateful for the work of this Government, who are doing absolutely the right thing.

Department for Business and Trade

Sarah Edwards Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I am pleased to share the Committee’s priorities for this Parliament, and the way in which the evidence that we have gathered has shaped our work plan. I recently hosted a roundtable in Tamworth with local businesses and, given our close relationship with West Midlands combined authority, I also invited our mayor, Richard Parker, to discuss his plans for skills development across the region. One of the main themes that emerged from our discussion was the difficulty that businesses experienced in finding the right workers.

With the transition to a greener, more digital economy, businesses need a skilled workforce. The Minister’s recent announcement about making apprenticeships shorter, more agile and tailored to business needs responded directly to what we have heard across the country. In Tamworth, I spoke to representatives of Kier Group and Simpson Strong-Tie to explore how we could encourage young people, especially women, to consider the construction sector. With clearer pathways, we can ensure that the skills needed to support economic growth and deliver the housing and infrastructure that our country needs are in place.

A great example of regional success is Cornerstone Partnership, a social housing developer in Tamworth. With support from the combined authority, it has been able to access finance through loans, demonstrating how devolved powers can direct resources effectively. However, challenges remain for smaller businesses that struggle to access finance from institutions such as the British Business Bank or face barriers when exporting. I should like to hear a little more from the Minister about how businesses will be enabled to access the additional £415 million for the bank.

I also spoke to PI-KEM, a small company in my constituency that started with five employees and now exports globally from its base in Tamworth. In just over a decade, it has increased its workforce to more than 30 employees. Despite that success, it faces long waits for suitable industrial units. Many businesses whose representatives I have spoken to are in a similar situation, unable to find mid-range industrial space to grow into. Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of our economy, constituting 99.8% of all private sector businesses, but they are under immense pressure, especially with rising costs and energy challenges.

The energy crisis has hit businesses hard, especially in sectors such as hospitality. I hear time and again that energy bills are forcing businesses to close. The good news is that, as of December 2024, the Energy Ombudsman can represent businesses with up to 50 employees, expanding its reach beyond just microbusinesses. I am currently working with the ombudsman on behalf of one of the microbusinesses in my constituency, which has faced unfair back-billing practices by its energy supplier.

Our high streets have been affected by business closures, but in Tamworth we have embraced our heritage as a driver of regeneration. Our unique selling point is our history and heritage, and we are using it to bring businesses back to the town. For instance, our grade I listed St. Editha’s church and Tamworth castle can be key drivers of growth. Local businesses have collaborated on events such as the Athelstan 1100 festival, which brought the community together and attracted visitors. With the Government’s £270 million funding for the Arts Everywhere programme, towns such as Tamworth can continue to showcase their heritage, support local businesses and regenerate town centres.

There is much more to discuss, but let me end by saying that whether it is a question of improving access to finance, supporting digital transformation or helping businesses to export, with the right support we can achieve sustained growth, but we must remain agile in the face of an unpredictable global context.

Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

Sarah Edwards Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for being a constant contributor to these debates. He brings real-life experience of these matters, which we very much value and appreciate. I would be very happy to keep up our regular engagement on these issues. He is not shy of informing me of different things that I need to be aware of and I appreciate that engagement.

Of course, the back door into the sub-postmasters account seems to have been a key contributor to this scandal, and Fujitsu seems to have had that back door. We are yet to establish how much of that was Fujitsu doing it unilaterally or whether it was being done on the instruction of the Post Office. The inquiry is there to give us those kinds of answers. The inquiry is committed to concluding by the end of this year and reporting shortly after. At that point, we will know who was responsible for what, and we should then be able to identify who can be made responsible through potential financial contributions, rather than the taxpayer alone having to pick up the tab for this very significant compensation package. I am just as ambitious as my hon. Friend is to make sure that those who are responsible pay for what they have done.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

I, too, pay tribute to the ITV drama— many constituents have written to me about how powerful it was—and to the BBC’s podcast, “The Great Post Office Trial”, which I listened to a couple of years ago. Horizon is accounting software, yet at every turn it seemed that it lacked the very principles of accounting that those who study the fundamentals in accounting recognise. Where were the checks and balances in the system, and why did the governance of the Post Office also lack the same checks and balances? It appears that no reconciliations were done to cross-check the software, and the principles of integrity, objectivity, professional competence and due care were clearly not applied to this critical software in the way that accountants are held to them in the code of ethics. After many years, why are we only now hearing that there was a failed pilot and that that could have averted this disgraceful abuse of power and miscarriage of justice?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I, too, have had many constituents contacting me who are appalled by what they have seen on television. She is right to draw attention to the fact that this was not the first time that this had been publicised. There is Nick Wallis’s book, “The Great Post Office Scandal”, and his podcast, which is well worth listening to. He goes into these matters in even greater depth, and she is right to pay tribute to those broadcasts and publications.

All the questions that the hon. Member asks are valid. When was it established that this was going wrong? Where were the checks and balances? Where was the duty of care? That is what the inquiry is there for. The inquiry was established after the court case and there was vigorous debate in this House about the type of inquiry it should be. It was ultimately settled on that it should be a statutory inquiry because of the greater powers that a statutory inquiry has, so it should be able to get to the bottom of the questions she rightly asks. Once we have got to the bottom of those questions, we can start to identify who was responsible specifically for what and make sure that those people are held to account.