debates/debates2025-03-12c conversation_22
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-03-12)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-03-12c conversation_22

Lloyd Hatton:South Dorset is ready to play its part in making Britain a clean energy superpower, but after 14 years of Conservative failure, there are many untapped opportunities on our doorstep. Green investment opportunities such as Portwind, Morwind and a hydrogen storage hub are all coming  down the track, so can the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that the Government will work with the Crown court on these projects, invest in key infrastructure and ensure that South Dorset’s green energy potential is hardwired into our plan for change? \p Keir Starmer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about making Britain a clean energy superpower. We are committing £2.3 billion to support hydrogen projects, and I recognise the huge potential of South Dorset to become home to a storage hub. We are ensuring that public and private investment work together, which is exactly what the Crown Estate Act 2025 does, unlocking significant investment, boosting offshore wind and kickstarting economic growth. \p Andrew Rosindell: As the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned, the Prime Minister will meet today the family of our dear late colleague, Sir David Amess, who was so brutally murdered at his constituency surgery three and a half years ago. I plead with the Prime Minister to reverse the decision to deny the family a public inquiry, despite similar inquiries being held into other tragic instances. Will he please stop this shameful saga and heed the call from the Amess family—a heartbroken family—for a judge-led public inquiry into David’s death and the related failure of the Prevent programme? \p Keir Starmer: May I acknowledge just how heartbroken they are? It is difficult to imagine what they have gone through and what they continue to go through. That is why it is very important that I meet them this afternoon, which I will, to discuss all the questions they want to raise with me. Sir David was a colleague respected and loved across the House. As I say, I absolutely understand how his family must feel about the tragic circumstances in which he died and everything that followed thereafter. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Final question. \p Chris Kane: Tomorrow marks 29 years since 16 children and their teacher were murdered at Dunblane primary school. In recent weeks, my constituents have raised with me the alarming fact that adverts offering handguns for sale are appearing on technology platforms such as Google and YouTube. Does the Prime Minister agree that technology companies have an obligation to all of us to do everything proactively possible to prevent such illegal advertising, and not to rely on a reactive, “We will remove it when it is reported,” approach, which is simply not good enough? \p Keir Starmer: The thoughts, I am sure, of the whole House are with the victims of the Dunblane massacre, 29 years after the tragic event. The Online Safety Act 2023 will require online services to proactively remove such content from their platforms and prevent it appearing there in the first place. Those duties fully take effect from Monday and then we will ensure that all companies meet their obligations. \p Daniel Zeichner: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the sustainable farming incentive.

We stand on the edge of an unprecedented global transition for British farming. From leaving the European Union to the challenges of climate change and geopolitical events, we are asking more of farmers than ever before: to continue to produce the food that feeds the nation and to protect the environment on which our long-term food security depends. We are determined to create the conditions for farm businesses to be profitable and succeed. We are proud to have secured £5 billion for farming over two years: the largest budget for sustainable food production in our country’s history. That is £1.8 billion for customers already in agreements, £1 billion for farmers now in SFI agreements and a further £150 million for farmers in the SFI pilot.

Labour has got that money out of the door and into farmers’ pockets. We have invested it to bring thousands more farmers into environmental land management schemes, which were vastly underspent by the previous Government, to make a record number of capital items available for the coming year to help farmers carry out actions under the SFI and countryside stewardship, with £600 million available for productivity, animal health and welfare innovation, and other measures to support agricultural productivity, as well as 50 landscape recovery projects across the country. We have responded directly to calls from the sector to roll out a new higher-tier scheme, and to increase payment rates so that higher-level stewardship agreement holders—many of them upland farmers—are fairly rewarded for their work.

More than half of all farmers are now in schemes, with 37,000 live SFI agreements and 50,000 farmers in ELM agreements. Under the SFI, 800,000 hectares of arable land are being farmed without insecticides, 300,000 hectares of low-input grassland are managed sustainably, and 75,000 km of hedgerows are being protected and restored, which is a huge success for nature. I thank all farmers involved and reassure them that all existing SFI agreements will be honoured.

Farmers will continue to be paid under the terms of their agreement for its duration. If they entered into a three-year SFI agreement earlier this year, they will be paid until 2028. If they submitted an SFI application but this has not yet started, that will also be honoured. All farmers who took part in the SFI pilot will be able to apply for an agreement.

With the high uptake of the scheme, however, the fact is that it is now fully subscribed. This Government inherited SFI with no spending cap, despite a finite farming budget, and that cannot continue. We will continue to support farmers to transition to more sustainable farming models including through the thousands of existing SFI agreements over the coming years and a revamped SFI offer. But this is an opportunity to improve how we do that under a fair and just farming transition, which supports farms to be profitable businesses in their own right through fairer supply chains, better regulation and greater market access, and directs public funding in a fair and orderly way towards the priorities  that we have set out on food, farming and nature. We will be strategic in how we design our schemes, and responsible within the available budget. This is about using public money in a way that supports food production, restores nature and respects farmers as the business people they are.

SFI can and must work better for all farms and for nature, and I will set out the details of the revised SFI offer following the spending review, including when it will open for applications. We will work closely with the sector to design an improved scheme so that they can tell us what works best for their businesses. We will also put in place strong budgetary controls so that SFI is affordable to the public purse. The revised offer will align with our land use framework to better target SFI actions fairly and effectively, focusing on helping less productive land contribute to our priorities for food, farming and nature.

The underlying problem facing the sector, however, is that farmers do not make enough money. The Government are changing that. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh but businesses do need to make money; they might need to know that. We announced a new set of policies at the National Farmers Union conference last month aimed at improving farm profitability, securing our food security, and protecting nature. Through our farming road map, we are creating the conditions for farmers to run profitable businesses that can withstand future challenges.

This decision is about investing in long-term stability. It is about a future where farmers are supported to run profitable businesses, and where public money is used in a better way to better restore nature and to secure long-term food security. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Victoria Atkins: I thank the Minister for an advance copy of his statement, which I am going to pull apart in a moment. I thank you as well, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question that forced the Minister to the Dispatch Box, because the Government sneaked this statement out last night, presumably hoping nobody would notice; but, guess what, the countryside has noticed, because the question we are all asking ourselves is: what have this Government got against farmers and the countryside?

They sneaked out this announcement that they were halting the sustainable farming incentive scheme immediately. The scheme replaced the EU’s common agricultural policy scheme when we left the EU. We set up this scheme with our Brexit freedoms to establish a farming policy that works for farmers, the environment and food production, yet Labour pulled the plug without warning last night.

The SFI scheme is popular with farmers, but the Minister does not have to take my word for it. To quote one:

“The…schemes have the potential to be the most progressive and environmentally responsible schemes of their kind anywhere in the world.”

Those are the words of the former president of the Country Land and Business Association, and father of the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire  (Henry Tufnell), who I am sure will agree with his father’s analysis. Why, then, would this city-dwelling Government stop such a successful scheme? In the words of the CLA president, Victoria Vyvyan:

“Of all the betrayals so far, this is the most cruel. It actively harms nature. It actively harms the environment. And, with war once again raging in Europe, to actively harm our food production is reckless beyond belief.”

Does the Minister think she is wrong?

The Secretary of State, by the way, is missing in action. This is a significant statement, yet he is sending out his junior Minister to take the heat. Perhaps it is because the Secretary of State did not want me to remind him of his own words in November, when he said that farmers

“feel ignored, alienated and disrespected”.

I do hope the Minister will tell us how that is going.

This Government’s farming policy can be summarised in three sentences. First, they will halt any farming and environmental scheme on which farmers rely without warning or consultation, using criteria they have never before defined. Secondly, the state will seize their farmland at will through the compulsory purchase orders that were announced yesterday in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Thirdly, if families have managed to cling on to their farms despite all that, then Labour will tax them for dying. However, I am delighted to hear that the Minister for farming himself can see that farmers do not make enough money—I hope he will be changing the family farm tax.

It all adds up to nothing less than an outright assault on the countryside. As a proud rural MP—someone who actually likes the countryside—I am already being contacted by constituents and farmers across the United Kingdom who have had the door slammed in their face with no notice, asking how they are meant to diversify, make a living and protect our countryside.

The Prime Minister has said he understood the significance of losing a farm, acknowledging that it “can’t come back”, and warned against “constantly moving the goalposts” for the agricultural sector, yet that is exactly what his Government are doing. The statement issued by the Government last night was a masterclass in Orwellian doublespeak. It says that the SFI scheme has “reached completion”. What criteria have they used? They have not set those criteria out before. The Government’s own website stated that up to six weeks’ notice would be given for the withdrawal of SFI. Why was that disregarded last night? Does the Minister recognise that, in doing so, this Government have betrayed the trust of the farming community yet again? How many farmers does his Department believe will now be caught out without an SFI agreement during the transition period of at least a year? Just as with the family farm tax, Labour has got its figures wrong.

The CLA has asked me to ask the Minister some questions. What are his Government’s ambitions for the two thirds of farmers in England who are not currently in environmental schemes? How much have the vast cuts to payments under the basic payment scheme saved his Department, and where has that money gone? How  will the Secretary of State support upland farmers who were intending to move on to the sustainable farming incentive scheme?

Then, of course, there are the legal problems cause by last night’s announcement. How will the Government meet their legally binding environmental targets, given that they rely so heavily on the SFI scheme? I do hope that the Minister will be able to give us a good, clear legal analysis on the impact of the changes to SFI on internal market competition law between England and other devolved authorities.

Any words that the Minister uses about food security are meaningless in the face of this policy, particularly as we all know that this Government have been delaying consideration and grants of these applications since the general election. The figures that the Minister is using are wrong and the theory behind this policy is very questionable, yet the Government would have us all believe that he understands farming and the impact that this measure will have on farmers. Farmers are in despair.

My message to farmers is clear: we have got your back; we will help you, so please hang on in there for the next four years; we will axe the family farm tax; and we will sort out this shocking mess of SFI, to help build a bright future for British farming with British farmers. \p Daniel Zeichner: Well, really! I had hoped that the shadow Secretary of State would understand how the schemes that her own Government created actually work. Let me explain the problem that we inherited—there are some on the shadow Front Bench who, I think, understand this better than her. This time last year, these schemes were undersubscribed; they are now oversubscribed. It is not a complicated thing to say that, when the budget is spent, a responsible Government responds to that. The budget is spent. [Interruption.] The budget has been spent and what we are doing in a sensible, serious way—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should actually be celebrating the fact that so many farmers are now taking up these schemes. I am confident that we will be able to sort out the mess that we have inherited. Basically, if you set up schemes without proper budgetary controls, you end up in this kind of position. We have had to take the hard decisions that the previous Government ducked. \p Jayne Kirkham: Can the Minister confirm that environmental land management scheme agreements will remain in place under this Labour Government, including SFI, and that there will be a new and better targeted SFI on offer as soon as possible, with details to follow in the spending review? \p Daniel Zeichner: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She makes absolutely the right point. We should be reassuring people out there that farmers who are in schemes are absolutely safe and are carrying on as before, but the basic point is that when a scheme is full, it is full. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Tim Farron: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The closure of the SFI from 6 o’clock last night came without warning or consultation, and it constitutes the breaking of the Government’s word to farmers. Farmers  are already losing their basic payment this year, but they are now excluded from the very scheme designed to replace that. Has the Minister not broken his word to farmers and to all who care about nature? Will he clarify how much money he will save from the BPS cuts this year and say that it is not true that SFI is overspent? Is it not true that when the BPS cut is taken into account, more than £400 million of the £2.5 billion farming budget will remain unspent? A bigger budget is pointless if we do not spend it. This money was supposed to reward farmers for nature restoration and sustainable food production. Does this not damage both?

There are 6,100 new entrants to SFI this year, yet only a mere 40 of them are hill farms. Because of the failure of the Conservatives in the previous Administration, the big landowners and the corporates are already comfortably inside the tent, but the farmers who are outside and now locked out without warning are Britain’s poorest farmers in beautiful places, such as mine in the lakes and the dales. As the Tories oversaw a 41% drop in hill farm incomes in just five years, is this not a bitter and unbearable blow for our upland farmers?

This betrayal will outrage everyone who cares for our environment, our upland nature and landscapes and it will outrage everyone who cares about food security and it will outrage everyone who cares about our tourism economy. It will also outrage everyone who clings to that old-fashioned expectation that Governments should keep their word. On Monday, the Secretary of State came to my beautiful constituency to pose for pictures by Windermere. I wonder whether he might come back tomorrow and face up to the farmers who steward the stunning landscapes around our beautiful lakes, and who he has abandoned so shamefully. Will he reopen SFI and honour his promises, or turn his back on the very people who feed us? \p Daniel Zeichner: Again, I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman’s comments. He is a thoughtful person, and he and I have debated these issues many times. I am sorry that he did not welcome the uplift in higher level stewardship payments, which he and many others have been asking to see for a long, long time and which will benefit upland farmers. I take him back to the many discussions that we have had about the importance of getting the farm budget out to farmers. That is what has happened. The full budget is actually being spent and that should be celebrated. \p Alex Sobel: The fruit and vegetable aid scheme is an important lifeline for our producers. Collaboration between producers has meant that we have had a huge increase in our tonnage of various fruit and vegetables. Given that the scheme finishes on 31 December 2025, what plans do we have to support further collaboration between fruit and vegetable producers in 2026 and beyond? \p Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend asks an important question. This is, of course, an EU legacy scheme, and we are considering the best way of taking that forward in the future, but we are absolutely committed to supporting and working with the horticultural sector. \p Nusrat Ghani: We have around 35 minutes remaining. Questions must be short and the Minister’s response must be on point and tight. I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: Will the Minister leave for a moment the hallowed cloisters of Cambridge and accept my invitation to take a rural ride through Lincolnshire, the breadbasket of England, to meet my farmers? Does he agree that sustainable farming is the key to food security, and therefore will he take up with his colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero why they are covering 15% of Lincolnshire with solar farms in addition to taking away this grant? \p Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I am always happy to visit Lincolnshire; I have done it on a number of occasions. But on the question of how we allocate our land, it is important that we ensure that the new land use framework works effectively, as that is the most rational way of making those decisions. \p Julie Minns: It is extremely welcome that, under this Government, more money is being spent on schemes and that more farmers are in schemes than was the case under the previous Government. However, there are smaller farms, such as those in my constituency in north Cumbria, that would not have had their plans as far advanced as their larger neighbours and their consultants. Can the Minister outline what support will be available to those small farms going forward? \p Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend touches on the critical point. The schemes that we inherited had no way of prioritising properly; it was a first-come, first-served scheme. Therefore, the kind of farmers she describes were disadvantaged. We have had to work with a scheme that we inherited. I was very clear when I took over that we would not immediately overturn the existing system; we wanted to give people confidence about the future. However, when we come to redesign the scheme, we can design it better to address the issues that she has raised. \p Alistair Carmichael: I note the Minister’s complaint that he inherited an uncapped budget. Can he tell the House whether that was something that he just noticed on Monday, which meant that he had to close the scheme without warning on Tuesday? On 14 January, the director general from his Department in charge of food biosecurity and trade told my Select Committee:

“I do not think we can expect that every single farm will be viable but if we are talking about 92%, 93% having the opportunity of productivity improvement, that is what we are aiming for.”

In other words, the Government’s aim is to lose 7% to 8% of our farms. What will that figure be after today’s announcements? \p Daniel Zeichner: I am always grateful to receive questions from the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Those figures on future farm viability go all the way back to the Agriculture Act 2020, when a serious attempt was made to assess future farm viability. That is why the Secretary of State and I are so determined to address those problems around farm viability. Farmers will not be supported forever by the public purse—we know that—so it is very important that we address the whole range of issues, but I am very happy to have a further conversation with him. \p Sam Rushworth: I am sure that the Minister shares my wish to see a bit more humility from Conservative Members, given their failure to get the agricultural budget out of the door. [Interruption.] I would ask the Minister—if I could hear myself think—to ensure that every penny in SFI arrangements will be paid to farmers, and also that those who have already applied and who are eligible for the scheme will have their applications taken forward. \p Daniel Zeichner: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I very much enjoyed visiting his constituency and talking to farmers there about these issues. I can absolutely give him that commitment. \p Wendy Morton: How does the Minister expect those who have farming businesses to plan for the future when he sneaks an announcement out like his Department did last night, despite a message on his website saying that they would give six weeks’ notice of any closure? What does the Minister have against our farmers and food producers? \p Daniel Zeichner: The only thing I have anything against is the previous Government, who set up the scheme in the first place. They set it up in a way that meant that SFI ’22 and SFI ’23 were closed in exactly the same way. SFI ’24 is only different in one sense, in that it is now oversubscribed rather than undersubscribed. As a consequence, it would not have been possible to give notice because it would have led to a further spike in applications. \p Alex Mayer: As the Minister has just alluded to, the scheme is called SFI ’24. Might there be a clue in the title that makes this less surprising than people are saying, given that it is now 2025? \p Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She makes a sensible point, which is that we saw a succession of schemes announced by the previous Government. I want to get to a scheme that will work for the long term. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the way the scheme was set up by the previous Government meant that it was first come, first served. \p Mike Wood: The overnight withdrawal of the funding is yet another blow to many of my farmers in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire. The Minister still has not answered the question as to why he has broken his word, which was clearly set out on the Government website, to give at least six weeks’ notice, nor the one asked by the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), which was that if the reason for doing so was because the budget had become exhausted, when that first came to the Minister’s attention. Was it really yesterday afternoon? \p Daniel Zeichner: It first came to my attention five years ago during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020, when I warned that exactly that would happen. If we move from a basic payments system, where everyone has an entitlement, to a system that is based on bidding, that is what happens. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have woken up five years ago. \p Cat Smith: I thank the Minister for coming to the House to make a statement. However, I woke up this morning to many emails in my inbox from farmers across Lancaster and Wyre. I invite the Minister to join me, because I am going to accept the invitation from my constituent Cath to visit her farm. Her SFI application was ready to go as she was coming out of the countryside stewardship agreement. She has therefore been left in limbo. Will the Minister join me in meeting farmers across Lancaster and Wyre? \p Daniel Zeichner: As I have said to many hon. Members, I am always happy to try and meet farmers whenever I can, and I will add my hon. Friend to my list. I absolutely understand her point, but there was a fundamental problem with the schemes as designed, which we inherited. We need to do better in future. That is what we will do as we redesign them. \p Andrew George: What assurance can the Minister give farmers in my constituency? A site of special scientific interest has recently been designated in the Penwith area, which is supported by a recent designation of landscape recovery. We now seem to be in a position where there will be no support for that at all. How will my farmers adjust to the new regime, and what assurance can the Minister give them that the funding will be in place to support their actions in the SSSI? \p Daniel Zeichner: There is some complexity in that question that I might need to address directly with the hon. Gentleman. Landscape recovery is absolutely not affected, so it depends on the exact nature of the application. \p Markus Campbell-Savours: Can the Minister confirm more about the timetable for SFI ’25 to provide some reassurance to my farmers in Penrith and Solway that we will deliver? Will he also explain a little more about how we can ensure that more of my hill farmers get into the SFI scheme, which the last Government failed to deliver on? \p Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend’s question is important. We will work with farmers and organisations to redesign the schemes, and that addresses that very question. That will take place over the summer this year, and once we have had those conversations we will be able to announce exact timings. My hon. Friend is right to raise the point that there has been no fair allocation of resources; it has just been done on a first come, first served basis. \p Charlie Dewhirst: The Minister’s statement says,

“This decision is about investing in long-term stability.”

First, we had the body blow of the family farm tax, the reduction in BPS and the pulling of capital grants, and now we have the cancellation of SFI. How is any farming business expected to invest in the long term? \p Daniel Zeichner: The hon. Gentleman is a sensible person and I have had many discussions with him over the years. When he says “pulling”, what he means is that the budget was completed. It is exactly the same in this case. I think it is important that Conservative Members understand that we cannot spend the same money  twice. They lived in a world of cakeism; we do not. Once the money is spent, we have to move to a new set of schemes when the money is available. \p Andrew Pakes: I thank the Minister for bringing the statement to the House and for showing such honesty about the challenges in the scheme. May I urge him not to take any lectures from the Conservative party, which oversaw chaos in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and a £300 million underspend? That is a shameful record. Will the Minister assure the House that he will outline details to ensure that future schemes get the money out the door and into farmers’ pockets and stop the waste and bureaucracy that we saw under the previous Government in DEFRA? \p Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid I was genuinely dismayed, but perhaps not entirely surprised, by what I found when I came into the Department. We have spent the last six or seven months trying to get control of the situation because if we have a scheme that is not capped or managed, or has no budgetary control, there is a problem. The figure of £5 billion overall is the biggest amount for farming that we have had. We will make sure the money gets out to farmers. \p Sarah Dyke: Coming at a time of record low confidence in farming, many farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton will feel that the sudden closure of the SFI scheme will bring them closer to closing their farm gates for the very last time, and at a time when food security is at an all-time low. What communications will go to affected farming businesses and what support will DEFRA give to those who are dealing with vulnerable farmers at the sharp end? \p Daniel Zeichner: I do not agree with some of the hon. Lady’s question, because the food security report published at the end of last year did not bear out her analysis. The Rural Payments Agency has written to farmers today setting out exactly the situation to give people reassurance. \p Perran Moon: Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the Minister surprised that the Conservative party is now crying crocodile tears when it failed to get £350 million of SFI out and into farmers’ hands and failed to stop speculative acquisition of farmland by tax dodgers? \p Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid that, as on so many other issues, we have to clear up the mess that we inherited. That will take time. We are setting out a clear path to the future that, I hope, over time people will come to support. \p Simon Hoare: I do not know how to break this to the Minister: I do not know if he realises this, but when the thousands of farmers come to Westminster, they do not come to thank him or the Secretary of State. Yesterday, we had the sustainable farming incentive announcement. Today, there is an announcement that there is to be no extension to the fruit and vegetables aid scheme, as was mentioned by  the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). That, of course, follows the family farm tax.

The Minister’s announcement today speaks very ill of the financial management of his Department. I make no apologies for repeating the questions asked by my right hon. and hon. Friends. When did the Minister know that he was hitting his budget ceiling? When had he set that as a criterion? What discussions has he had with the Treasury to increase the budget? Why was he deliberately, I presume, misleading farmers by pledging a six-week notice period, when it was not even six seconds? \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Just before the Minister responds, the hon. Member knows that he cannot use the term “deliberately misleading”. I ask him to withdraw that statement. \p Simon Hoare: Inadvertently misleading. \p Daniel Zeichner: I will take the hon. Gentleman back to the origins of this debate. When we moved from basic payments to these schemes, there was always going to be a point when the budget was spent. \p Simon Hoare: When did he know? \p Daniel Zeichner: We have known it for five years. \p Terry Jermy: Having spent several weeks and months encouraging farmers to access the scheme, naturally I am disappointed with the closure and hope that there will be a replacement in short order. However, is the fact that so many farmers in my constituency were not accessing the scheme not evidence that the Conservative party failed farmers over many years? \p Daniel Zeichner: Many farmers are now in these schemes and are benefiting from them. We are also getting the environmental benefits that the whole transition away from basic payments to the environmental land management schemes was designed to achieve. Let me give some credit to the Opposition—they set this train in motion, but what they did not do was set up the schemes in a way that could properly be managed. That is what we are now doing. \p Ellie Chowns: Yesterday, the Government shamefully pulled the rug out from underneath thousands of farmers by cancelling the SFI with zero notice, despite saying that they would give six weeks’ notice, and without putting in place anything to support farmers in future. This morning, my inbox was full of emails from despairing farmers who were on the point of submitting an application, had no way of planning for this and now are utterly left in the lurch. How does the Minister expect the UK to make the vital transition to nature-friendly farming and boosting UK food production if this is how he treats farmers? \p Daniel Zeichner: I am astonished by the hon. Lady’s contribution. She should be celebrating the fact that so many farmers are now farming in an environmentally sensitive way. I invite her to help us ensure that these  schemes work better in future. This is actually a cause for celebration of the benefits of the environmental land management schemes. \p Chris Hinchliff: I have also been contacted by concerned and impacted farmers in North East Hertfordshire. Will the Minister assure me that, for the remainder of this Parliament, the revamped SFI that he alluded to will allow farmers to plan seasons ahead, as they need to? \p Daniel Zeichner: Clearly, over the past five years we have all known that this transition was happening. There was always going to be a point in the transition from basic payments to environmental land management schemes where it would be down to people applying for these schemes. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. I encourage farmers to apply early to these schemes. It was a first come, first served scheme before. In future, we will try to ensure that there is a better allocation process, but that is the system we inherited. \p Adam Dance: One of the key messages from farmers at the that forum that I held in my constituency was that they have lost trust in this Government and in investing in sustainable farming. Does the Minister recognise that ending SFI with no warning has only worsened the loss of trust? What plans do the Government have to restore Yeovil farmers’ confidence in this Government? \p Daniel Zeichner: I hear the hon. Gentleman, but the fact that we have so many people in agreements, and so much land being farmed within them, shows that many people in this country have absolute confidence in what we are doing. \p Greg Smith: How on earth does the Minister correlate his statement that he wants to work with the sector with the Government last night giving just 30 minutes’ notice to the NFU—the sector—of this shameful cut to the SFI budget? What does that say about DEFRA’s previous commitment to transparency, co-operation and co-design? \p Daniel Zeichner: This process has been going on for five years now. Perhaps the hon. Member should have looked a bit more closely at what was about to happen. \p Carla Lockhart: Trust between farmers and this Government is well and truly broken. Farmers feel betrayed and let down, and many are at breaking point. The closure of the SFI is a bitter and, I believe, calculated blow on top of the family farm tax grab. It will be the final straw for many British farmers—the people who feed us. How can the Minister justify sending over £500 million to farms in Africa, Asia and South America, while stripping support for our home-grown farmers? \p Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, but I point out to her that this scheme relates to England. The different devolved Governments have different schemes. She asked about international aid. The key thing for us is to ensure that we support our farmers here, which is why we are spending a record £5 billion on farming over the next two years. \p Martin Vickers: The one thing in the Minister’s statement that farmers in my constituency would agree with is that they are not making enough money. When, as I hope, the Minister takes up the invitation from the Father of the House to visit Lincolnshire, will he meet my farmers face to face and explain to them exactly what his Government are doing to increase their profitability? \p Daniel Zeichner: The hon. Gentleman and I have had many exchanges across the Chamber over the years. I would be very happy to speak to his farmers and to talk to him about the important work that we are doing on supply chain fairness. \p Helen Morgan: Farmers in North Shropshire are really keen to improve the environment and farm in a friendly way, but they are also running businesses and they need to plan. There are farmers in my constituency who were hoping to apply for grants to raise the water table in peat soil areas, but had not yet applied because those grants were not yet open. Now, the opportunity is gone. What will the Minister do to enable farmers to plan, and what will the replacement scheme look like? \p Daniel Zeichner: The hon. Lady raises an important point. SFI is only one part of the set of Department’s schemes to work with farmers on nature restoration. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), has told me that £300 million is available for peat restoration, so other schemes are available. \p Luke Evans: No notice and the scheme immediately closed. The Minister says it is full. When did he know that? Why did he not tell the farmers that it was going to happen? \p Daniel Zeichner: I think there is still a misunderstanding about how these schemes work. If there is a first come, first served scheme and people have known for weeks and weeks—months—that it would be full at some point, there comes a time when we have to make a decision. If the Department is working within its budgets properly, it can hardly say a week or two before that suddenly it will close, because there will be a spike in applications. It is like a run on a bank. Basically, when the scheme is finished, it is finished. \p Roz Savage: Nature, food, farming and farmers are the foundation of British life in every sense. This change is deeply regrettable. Can the Minister assure the House that every support will be given to farmers to adapt to these changes and to give them help with the technology that they do not have? They are already on their knees. Will the necessary support be given to stop them from buckling under the load of these successive changes? \p Daniel Zeichner: I hear the hon. Lady, but I repeat that we have 50,000 farmers in ELM agreements. The majority of farmers are already working with us to make that change to environmentally friendly farming. It was never clear how many farmers overall would make the transition into the new schemes. Obviously, it  is not a matter of compulsion. We invite people to apply, and they were invited last year. When the new scheme comes along, I will invite people to apply. \p Andrew Snowden: The Minister is ducking and dodging questions like a Poundland Alastair Campbell. He started out with, “We knew five years ago,” but that very quickly it turned to “just weeks ago”. He said that this is “cause for celebration”. I do not think that any of my farmers will be celebrating this. Will he come and say these things directly to my farmers’ faces and see the response that he gets? Does he really want to be a Minister that much that he is willing to say such ridiculous things? He can find money for lots of other projects. He should come to Fylde and speak to the farmers. \p Daniel Zeichner: I was going to say that I was grateful for the hon. Member’s question, but I am not sure that I am. I invite him to come and talk to people who are engaged in nature-friendly farming, who benefit from these schemes and who are undertaking the transition, for which I give the previous Government credit for starting. We wanted to move away from the common agricultural policy to a new system. That is what we are doing. The schemes were not designed well enough, and we are now addressing that. \p Vikki Slade: I was contacted by members of the Great Big Dorset Hedge initiative three weeks ago, who told me that capital grants under SFI had already been frozen. Can the Minister confirm when the decision to close was actually made, whether applications submitted will be granted and how long applicants will have to wait? As farmers are already obliged to improve hedges with more than 10% gaps under their agreements, how will they access funding to do so to enable their existing funding to be maintained? \p Daniel Zeichner: The hon. Lady raises an important set of points. We now have 75,000 km of hedgerow within these schemes. The basic point is that we have a fixed budget and, just as with the capital grants, when they are spent, they are spent. Another set of grants will be available, and I invite her constituents to apply at that point. We cannot get away from the fact that there is not an endless supply of money. We have to work within the budgets. \p Julian Lewis: I understand the Minister’s point that it has been known all along that at some point the fixed budget would be exhausted. A simple question for him: on which day were Ministers first informed that that budget had been exhausted? \p Daniel Zeichner: We made the decision yesterday because we reached that point. \p Caroline Voaden: It is beginning to feel a little like a game of Top Trumps in who can cause the most financial unpredictability to farmers, be it through the botched ELMS roll-out or the cancellation of this scheme at a moment’s notice. Half of Britain’s fruit and veg farmers expect to go out of business. The Minister says that he will support farmers to be profitable through fairer supply chains, but will he explain what that will look like? \p Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that very big question. I point her to the fair dealing powers in the Agriculture Act 2020, some of which have already been brought forward in the dairy sector, and we will be working on the pig sector soon. Basically, sector by sector, we are trying to sort out the improvements that are needed to get fairness throughout the supply chain. That is a big, difficult and complicated question, but it is essential for the future. \p Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The announcement was sneaked out with no notice last night. If the Minister knows anything about farming, he will know that it takes months, if not years, to plan. Farmers had no notice of this. Will he tell us what will replace the SFI, when he will consult, and when it is likely to come into operation? \p Daniel Zeichner: Over the next few months, through the spending review, we will review how we can improve the scheme to avoid the very point that the hon. Gentleman has just made, and I will report back to the House later in the summer. \p Ben Maguire: I met young farmers at Duchy College in North Cornwall last week, and it was clear that confidence in the farming sector is at an all-time low, with many looking for alternative careers. In the light of the Government’s hammer blow to SFI payments, on top of the family farm tax, how does the Minister plan to incentivise young people to get into farming, now that they face huge tax bills upon inheriting their family farms and will no longer be incentivised to undertake environmental stewardship and sustainable farming? \p Daniel Zeichner: I completely disagree with the premise of the question, as the hon. Gentleman will probably realise. He is right to say that we need generational change in farming, and there are a number of ways in which that can happen— \p Ben Maguire: It is not funny. \p Daniel Zeichner: I am not laughing. This is a very serious point. I am genuinely concerned about the future of the farming sector if we do not get generational change. We will look closely at how we can do that. The £5 billion budget that we secured was a very good first step for stability. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: Farmers in Chichester are exhausted by the ever-changing schemes and the time it takes to apply for them. Imagine their surprise when they found out that the SFI scheme had been closed, not with no notice—I think that is unfair—but with the NFU given 30 minutes’ notice, as opposed to the six weeks that it was promised. At a time when BPS schemes are being significantly reduced, what communication and support will be provided to the family farms that have missed out on this round of SFI funding? \p Daniel Zeichner: It should have been clear to people for a long, long time that this transition was coming. It was the move away from a system based on entitlements for every farmer through the basic payment scheme to  a system that relied on people applying to what was essentially a fixed budget. I agree with the hon. Lady  and many other Members that the way the system was set up did not allow for proper prioritisation or fairness in allocation. That is what we would like to change in future, but it is the system that we inherited, and I am afraid that that is where we are at the moment. The House should remember that the majority are already in schemes, and to those who have not yet come forward, I gently say for the future that the advice in these kinds of schemes is that it is better to apply early rather than to wait. \p Steffan Aquarone: The sudden completion of the SFI scheme will be a worry for many farmers and local people. I am also very concerned by reports that the NFU was given only 30 minutes’ notice on such a huge change. To give my local farmers the confidence that they need, can the Minister assure them that DEFRA will learn lessons from the poor communication and lack of clarity that have plagued this and past initiatives? \p Daniel Zeichner: Let me repeat the point: this is not about communication. If we suddenly say that a scheme with a fixed amount of money in it will close in two or three weeks, we would get a surge in applications and have to close it the same day. That is a flaw in the way the scheme was originally designed, and we want to do better in future. \p Danny Chambers: International events have pushed national security right up the agenda, and I am sure that we have cross-party acknowledgment that food security is a vital part of national security. Given the changing geopolitical situation, has an impact assessment been undertaken on changes to and stressors for farming budgets and cash flow, such as the removal of SFI, and their effect on food security? \p Daniel Zeichner: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I refer him to the food security report. There has been no change to the amount of money available. The £5 billion budget is there; this is a discussion about who gets it. \p John Milne: Will the Minister explain to farmers in Horsham why he did not feel any need to consult any farming stakeholders in advance of this announcement? \p Daniel Zeichner: Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the point that I made earlier. If we started a consultation on a first come, first served scheme, everybody would apply that day and we would have to shut it at that point. That is a flaw in the way the scheme was designed. \p Jim Shannon: The Minister is much liked in this Chamber, as we all know. However, it is disappointing to hear that new applications for the sustainable farming incentive have been paused in England. It is understandable that that is seen as a betrayal by so many farmers. Agricultural support is different in Northern Ireland, but the funding comes none the less from central Government. Will the Minister assure me that funding for Northern Ireland farmers, which comes from here, will not be reduced or falter as a result of today’s announcement, and that steps will be taken to protect our agriculture industry and our farmers, who are the backbone of our economy? \p Daniel Zeichner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, and I suspect that we shall renew our acquaintance in Westminster Hall this afternoon. I can assure him that this announcement will make no difference to the funding arrangements for Northern Ireland. \p Victoria Atkins: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), has been asked repeatedly why no notice was given to farmers of the closure of the SFI scheme. He has given a range of answers, including that “people have known for weeks and weeks—months”. He even stretched it to five years ago. This is important, not least because business decisions are having to be made on the fly today, but also because there may be legal consequences to the answer that the Minister has given. How can we encourage the Minister to correct the record and state the fact that no notice was given to farmers? \p Nusrat Ghani: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of Ministers’ statements in the House, but she has put her point of order on the record. I do not believe that the Minister wishes to respond— \p Daniel Zeichner: indicated dissent. \p Nusrat Ghani: Then I will end that there. \p Marie Tidball: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to correct the record and make a declaration of interests. In my excitement while making my first intervention during proceedings on the Employment  Rights Bill yesterday, I did not point Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests or mention my proud membership of the Community, GMB and Unison unions. I would like to ensure that that is on the record as well as in the register. \p Nusrat Ghani: I thank the hon. Member for advance notice of her point of order. I know that she has been diligent in seeking advice on how and when to declare an interest. That is now on the record. \p John Hayes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 21 May 2024, the former Defence Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), published records of blood and urine tests relating to nuclear test veterans. He said at that time that there were 150. It has now become clear from the correspondence of a court case brought by the British nuclear test veterans that there are 370 documents mentioning blood and urine. That includes 265 that were previously unseen and unreleased. That raises the possibility, as you will appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Atomic Weapons Establishment misled Ministers about the number of records, and that, inadvertently and entirely innocently, the Minister brought the wrong information to this House. I seek your guidance on how the Government can correct the record and publish those extra records. The nuclear test veterans deserve nothing less. \p Nusrat Ghani: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of ministerial statements in the House, but he has put his point on the record and no doubt those on the Treasury Bench are taking note and listening. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Liam Conlon: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the potential merits of disregarding payments received under the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme operated by the government of Ireland for the purposes of taxation, means-tested social security payments and social care capital limits; and for connected purposes.

Philomena Lee was 18 years old when she became pregnant in 1952 and was sent to the Sean Ross Abbey mother and baby home in Roscrea, County Tipperary, in Ireland. There Philomena gave birth to her son Anthony, and there they both lived until Anthony reached the age of three and Philomena was cruelly forced to give him up for adoption. Anthony was sold to a couple in the United States. Philomena would never see him again. Almost 60 years on, Philomena’s story reached a global audience when it was made into the Oscar-nominated film “Philomena”, starring Dame Judi Dench and Steve Coogan. The film chronicled the time Philomena spent in Sean Ross Abbey and her painstaking search for her long-lost son decades later, with the help of author Martin Sixsmith.

I wish Philomena’s story was an isolated one. Sadly, it is not. Philomena is one of tens of thousands of women and their infant children who spent time in mother and baby homes across Ireland for the perceived sin of becoming pregnant outside of marriage. The women were regularly used as unpaid labour, and infant mortality was alarmingly high. They experienced harsh conditions, mistreatment and abuse, both physical and psychological. In certain homes, women were routinely separated from their children, with some being adopted against the wishes or even without the knowledge of their mothers, as happened to Philomena Lee and her son Anthony.

As a direct result of the abuse and trauma they experienced, many mother and baby home survivors moved to England. In some cases, they came here because they thought that disappearing from their home country was the only way to protect their family’s reputations, and so for decades thousands of survivors lived in secrecy and shame, including here in Britain. It was not until 2021 that they finally received an apology from the then Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, for what he described as a

“profound generational wrong visited upon Irish mothers and their children”.

That was followed by the mother and baby institutions payment scheme, which opened to applications last March. The scheme represents a measure of accountability for what happened, recognising the lifelong impact that time spent in those institutions will have had. The impact will be felt in all corners of a survivor’s life, from earning potential and financial security to physical and mental health and wellbeing.

Ultimately, the scheme aims to acknowledge the suffering and improve the circumstances of former residents of mother and baby homes, which is why it is wrong that up to 13,000 survivors living here in Britain today risk  losing their benefits if they accept this compensation. Under our current rules, any money accepted through this payment scheme would be considered savings and could see them lose means-tested benefits and financial support for social care. For some, it is deterring them from making any application at all. It is one of the reasons that only 5% of survivors in Britain have applied so far.

For others, having received a compensation offer, they are now having to weigh up whether it is worth accepting the money, or whether to do so would sink them into a worse financial situation overall. Among them is a survivor from the north of England who has shared her story with me. This woman, who experienced harrowing abuse over several years, applied to the payment scheme in September last year and received an offer soon after. She told me:

“When I first heard about the payment scheme, I thought that it was marvellous and I was excited. I couldn’t take it in—I had never had money at any point in my life. I was going to use this money to visit a half-brother in America—he had been born less than 16 miles away, but I did not know that him or his brother and sister existed until we did some family tracing. It would have been lovely to meet him, but I do not feel that I can use the money for this as my benefits would be affected.”

The whole point of the payment scheme was to recognise the suffering that survivors experienced while resident, but for many it has become an additional burden, a process that has forced them to revisit their most traumatic experiences, seemingly to no avail.

Fortunately, there is a solution and it is a relatively simple one. The introduction of an indefinite capital disregard, which my Bill proposes, would remove any risk to an applicant’s benefits. There is strong precedent for such a disregard; the same arrangements have been applied to similar special compensation schemes in the recent past, including those introduced for the victims of the 7/7 London bombings and for payments made under the Windrush compensation scheme.

I want to pay tribute to some of the many incredible organisations in Britain that continue to support mother and baby home survivors. They include: Rosa and the team at Irish in Britain; Séan and the team at the London Irish Centre in Camden; the Irish Cultural Centre in Hammersmith; the Fréa network supporting the Irish community in Leeds, Manchester, Merseyside and beyond; Coventry Irish Society; Luton Irish Forum; Irish Network Stevenage; and many more.

I would also like to pay tribute to the mother and baby home survivors here in Britain, in Ireland and elsewhere, who summoned the courage to share their personal experiences and to recount their most traumatic years in the name of justice. Their bravery not only secured the apology from the Irish Government and subsequently brought about the payment scheme, but perhaps more importantly contributed enormously to the hard and crucial work of dismantling the stigma and secrecy that has long been associated with time spent in mother and baby homes. That, of course, includes Philomena Lee, whose own story brought this injustice to a global audience. I am delighted that Philomena’s daughter Jane and her grandson Joshua are here in the Gallery with us today.

Ireland’s mother and baby homes were cruel institutions. Over seven decades, tens of thousands of Irish women were sent there for the perceived sin of becoming pregnant  outside of marriage. They were subjected to the most horrific mistreatment and abuse, physical and psychological. Women were used as unpaid labour. They had their children forcibly adopted, sometimes overseas, never to be seen again. The women and children fortunate enough to leave the institutions often came here to Britain. They came here to escape the stigma and shame and build a new life, and there are more than 13,000 survivors living here today.

Last year, the Irish Government opened a long-awaited compensation scheme for those survivors. It is a small but important mark of accountability and redress for what happened to them, but thousands of survivors in Britain today cannot access this compensation without being penalised for it. If they access it, they lose any means-tested benefits or financial support for social care. Just as we did for the Windrush families, we must now change the law to ensure that compensation payments for victims and survivors are ringfenced. This Bill, Philomena’s law, named after the inspirational and courageous Philomena Lee, will achieve that. I am proud to bring it to the House today, and I hope in the months ahead we will see a change in the law so that we can deliver justice for survivors and show them the kindness and respect they have so often been denied in life.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Liam Conlon, Claire Hanna, Colum Eastwood, Deirdre Costigan, Lola McEvoy, Damien Egan, Uma Kumaran, Sarah Coombes, Helena Dollimore, Florence Eshalomi, Rachel Hopkins and Tom Rutland present the Bill.

Liam Conlon accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March, and to be printed (Bill 198). \p UNKNOWN: Further consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Relevant documents: Third Report of the Business and Trade Committee, Make Work Pay: Employment Rights Bill, HC 370; Second Report of the Women and Equalities Committee, Equality at work: Miscarriage and bereavement leave, HC 335.] \p UNKNOWN: “Schedule (Trade union recognition) amends Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (collective bargaining: recognition).”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause would introduce NS2.

Brought up, and read the First time. \p Justin Madders: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. \p Nusrat Ghani: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 40—Political funds: requirement to pass political resolution.

Government new clause 41—Industrial action ballots: support thresholds.

Government new clause 42—Notice of industrial action ballot and sample voting paper for employers.

Government new clause 43—Period after which industrial action ballot ceases to be effective.

Government new clause 44—Power to give notice of underpayment.

Government new clause 45—Calculation of the required sum.

Government new clause 46—Period to which notice of underpayment may relate.

Government new clause 47—Notices of underpayment: further provision.

Government new clause 48—Penalties for underpayment.

Government new clause 49—Further provision about penalties.

Government new clause 50—Suspension of penalty where criminal proceedings have been brought etc.

Government new clause 51—Appeals against notices of underpayment.

Government new clause 52—Withdrawal of notice of underpayment.

Government new clause 53—Replacement notice of underpayment.

Government new clause 54—Effect of replacement notice of underpayment.

Government new clause 55—Enforcement of requirement to pay sums due to individuals.

Government new clause 56—Enforcement of requirement to pay penalty.

Government new clause 57—Power to bring proceedings in employment tribunal.

Government new clause 58—Power to provide legal assistance.

Government new clause 59—Recovery of costs of legal assistance.

Government new clause 60—Power to recover costs of enforcement.

New clause 8—Prison officers: inducements to withhold services—

“In section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (Inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline)—

(a) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (a);

(b) omit subsection (1A);

(c) omit subsection (7).”

This new clause would repeal provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that prohibit inducing a prison officer to take (or continue to take) any industrial action.

New clause 9—Inducement of prison officers: exempted persons—

“After section 127A of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline), insert—

“Section 127B: Prison officers and trade unions: exempted persons

Section 127 (inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline) does not apply to—

(a) Any listed trade union representing prison officers, or

(b) any person acting on behalf of a listed trade union representing prison officers.””

This new clause would repeal, with respect to trade unions representing prison officers, provisions that prohibit the inducement of industrial action or indiscipline by a prison officer.

New clause 19—Right to be accompanied—

“(1) Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3), after paragraph (b) insert—

“(ba) person who has been reasonably certified in writing by a Professional Body as having experience of, or as having received training in, acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary or grievance hearings, or”

(3) After subsection (7) insert—

“(8) In this section, “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (9).

(9) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.””

This new clause would expand the right to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings.

New clause 28—Enforcement against companies subject to insolvency or voluntary liquidation—

“(1) A Labour Market Enforcement Strategy under section 81 must include—

(a) the Secretary of State’s assessment of—

(i) the scale and nature of non-compliance with employment tribunal awards due to insolvency or voluntary liquidation during the period of three years ending immediately before the strategy period;

(ii) the scale and nature of such non-compliance involving phoenixing during the same period; and

(iii) the likely scale and nature of such non-compliance during the strategy period;

(b) a proposal for the strategy period setting out how enforcement functions of the Secretary of State are to be exercised in relation to such non-compliance.

(2) An annual report under section 82 must include―

(a) an assessment of the effect of the applicable strategy on the scale and nature of non-compliance with employment tribunal awards, including non-compliance due to insolvency or voluntary liquidation, and

(b) an assessment of the effect of the applicable strategy on the scale and nature of non-compliance involving phoenixing.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “phoenixing” means the practice of dissolving or otherwise closing a business and establishing a new one with a similar purpose, with the effect of avoiding the enforcement of employment tribunal awards or other debts.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to include, in the Labour Market Enforcement Strategy and annual reports under this Bill, information about non-compliance with employment tribunal awards by, and enforcement against, companies ordered to pay such awards that have been subject to insolvency or voluntary liquidation, including in instances in which the directors go on to set up a similar company to avoid enforcement.

New clause 29—Trade union representatives: right not to suffer career detriment—

“(1) In Part V of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Protection from suffering detriment in employment), after section 47(1A), insert—

“(1B) This section applies where the detriment in question relates to matters of internal promotion or progression.”

(2) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended in accordance with subsections (3) to (6).

(3) In the italic title before section 137, after “Access to employment”, add “and career progression”.

(4) After section 138, insert—

“138A Career progression

(1) An employer must ensure that any employee undertaking trade union representative duties does not experience detriment in matters of internal career progression as a result of the employee’s trade union activities.

(2) Where an employee who is a trade union representative has not been appointed to a more senior role, in circumstances in which the employee met the minimum criteria for the role and demonstrated that criteria through the application, the employer must provide a written statement.

(3) The written statement under subsection (2) must include evidence to demonstrate that the decision not to appoint the employee was not affected by the employee’s trade union activities.

138B Career progression: support for trade union representatives

An employer must have in place a policy to support the career progression of employees who are trade union representatives. The policy must set out―

(a) how the employees will be supported in matters of internal progression and promotion; and

(b) how the employer will consider trade union experience in assessing applications for more senior roles.””

(5) In section 140(1), after “section 138” insert “or 138A”.

(6) In section 142(1), after “section 138” insert “or 138A”.””

This new clause would enhance protections to trade union representatives, extending them to cover detriment in matters of career progression, and would require employers to demonstrate that they have not denied promotion to trade union representatives as a result of their trade union activities. It would also require employers to have a policy in place to support the career progression of employees who are trade union representatives.

New clause 31—Removal of secondary action provisions—

“In the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, omit section 224 (secondary action).”

New clause 64—Duties of trade unions—

“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 219 (protection from certain tort liabilities), after subsection (4) insert—

“(5) But subsection (4) does not have effect in relation to any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute which relates wholly or mainly to proposals by an employer to vary terms and conditions of employment of two or more employees accompanied by the threat (explicit or implied) of dismissal if that variation is not agreed.””

New clause 65—Personal Liability for breach of tribunal orders—

“(1) Where, in relation to a body corporate—

(a) a financial order made by an employment tribunal or agreed by the claimant and the body corporate; or

-(b) an order of reinstatement or re-engagement made by an employment tribunal or agreed by the claimant and the body corporate

has not been fulfilled by the date specified in the order or agreement, without reasonable excuse, and that failure is proved—

(a) to have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer of the body, or

(b) to be attributable to any neglect on the part of such an officer,

that officer shall be personally liable to reimburse the claimant in whose favour the order had been made or agreed.

(2) An officer found liable for reimbursement under subsection (1) may be disqualified as a director or prevented from becoming a director.”

New clause 66—Public sector contracting: trade union recognition—

“(1) The Procurement Act 2023 is amended as follows.

(2) In Part (2) (principles and objectives), after section 14A insert—

“14B Obligations of contractors to recognise trade unions

(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that any contract entered into by a—

(a) government department;

(b) executive agency of government;

(c) non departmental public body; or

(d) non Ministerial department,

is compliant with the requirements set out in subsection (2).

(2) A contract under subsection (1) must─

(a) recognise an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining, and

(b) take steps to ensure that any sub-contractor to the contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract recognises an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “recognises”, “independent trade union” and “collective bargaining” have the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

(4) An independent trade union may make a complaint against a contracting authority, which is a party to a public contract, that it or a contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract is in breach of the term in subsection (2).

(5) The complaint may be made to the Central Arbitration Committee.

(6) If the Central Arbitration Committee finds the complaint to be well founded, it shall grant a declaration to that effect.

(7) Where the Central Arbitration Committee makes a declaration in accordance with subsection (6), it shall order that the respondent contracting authority shall  take whatever steps appear to the Central Arbitration Committee as necessary to ensure that the contracting authority and every contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract comply with the implied term in subsection (2).

(8) The steps that may be taken under subsection (7) include termination of the contract, which shall not be regarded as a breach of contract by the contracting authority concerned if a principal reason for the termination is compliance with an order of the Central Arbitration Committee under (7).

(9) An appeal lies on a point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal by either party to proceedings brought under subsection (5).””

New clause 67—Sectoral collective bargaining: 80 per cent coverage—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an action plan to achieve, within five years, that the principal terms and conditions of employment of at least 80 percent of workers in the United Kingdom are determined by collective agreement.

(2) The action plan under subsection (1) must be informed by consultation with organisations representing employers and trade unions.”

New clause 68—Sectoral collective bargaining: other sectors—

“(1) Regulations under this Act may include regulations for collective bargaining in other sectors of the economy.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1)—

(a) may only be made following consultation with representatives of workers and employers in those sectors; and

(b) may provide that agreements reached by such collective bargaining shall apply to the workers and employers in the relevant sector save to the extent that a previous or subsequent collective agreement has provided a more favourable term or condition.”

New clause 69—Statement of trade union rights—

“Every employee, worker and self-employed person has the right—

(a) to join an independent trade union of his choice, subject only to its rules;

(b) to take part in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time, subject only to its rules.”

New clause 70—Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces—

“In part 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (trade unions), before Chapter 5A, insert—

“Chapter 5ZA

RIGHT OF TRADE UNIONS TO ACCESS WORKPLACES

70ZA Right of access

(1) A designated official of an independent trade union shall have a right to enter premises occupied by an employer in order to access a workplace or workplaces, subject to the conditions set out below.

(2) An employer shall not—

(a) refuse entry to a designated trade union official seeking to exercise his or her right of access under sub-section (1), or

(b) otherwise obstruct such an official in the exercise of his or her right of access under sub-section (1).

(3) A “designated trade union official” means a person nominated by the trade union to exercise the right of access on its behalf.

70ZB Access purposes

(1) The right of access may be exercised for the access purposes.

(2) The access purposes are to—

(a) meet, represent, recruit or organize workers (whether or not they are members of a trade union); and

(b) facilitate collective bargaining.

70ZC Notice to employer

(1) The right of access may be exercised only after the designated official of an independent trade union has given notice of an intention to do so to the employer whose premises it is proposed to enter for the purposes of access to a workplace or workplaces.

(2) The notice must be—

(a) in writing; and

(b) given at least 24 hours before it is intended to exercise the right of access;

(3) The notice required to be given under subsection (2) shall—

(a) specify the purpose for which entry is sought; and

(b) identify the workers or categories of workers the designated official intends to meet, represent, recruit or organize.

(4) The right of access may be exercised without giving notice where there are exceptional circumstances such as to justify access without prior notice.

(5) Whether circumstances are exceptional shall be determined by having regard to the relevant provisions of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS.

70ZD Access conditions

(1) The right of access is subject to the following conditions.

(2) The right of access may be exercised—

(a) only at a reasonable time, and

(b) subject to reasonable conditions imposed by the employer.

(3) What is reasonable for the purposes of subsection (2) shall be determined by having regard to the relevant provisions of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS.

70ZE Dwellings

(1) The right of access does not apply to any part of premises which are used exclusively as a dwelling.

(2) Where sub-section (1) applies and only where sub-section (1) applies, the employer shall provide a reasonable, suitable, and alternative venue to enable the right of access to be exercised.

(3) What is reasonable and suitable for the purposes of subsection (2) shall be determined by having regard to the relevant provisions of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS.

70ZF Enforcement of right of access

(1) Where an employer refuses or obstructs access contrary to section 70ZA, a complaint may be made to the CAC by the trade union of which the designated official is a representative.

(2) Where the CAC finds the complaint to be well-founded it shall make a declaration to that effect and may make an order requiring the employer to comply with section 70ZA, subject to such conditions as the CAC may determine.

(3) If the CAC makes a declaration under subsection (2) the trade union may, within the period of three months beginning with the date on which the declaration is made, make an application to the Employment Appeal Tribunal for a penalty notice to be issued.

(4) Where such an application is made, the Employment Appeal Tribunal shall issue a written penalty notice to the employer requiring the employer to pay a penalty to the trade union in respect of each refusal or obstruction of access unless satisfied, on hearing representations from the employer, that the refusal or obstruction of access resulted from a reason beyond the employer’s control or that the employer has some other reasonable excuse.

(5) If the CAC makes an order under subsection (2) the order shall be recorded in the High Court and on being recorded may be enforced as if it were an order of the High Court.

70ZG Penalty notice

(1) A penalty notice issued under section 70ZF(4) shall specify—

(a) the amount of the penalty which is payable;

(b) the date before which the penalty must be paid; and

(c) the failure and period to which the penalty relates.

(2) A penalty set by the Employment Appeal Tribunal under section 70ZF(4) may not exceed a prescribed amount.

(3) Matters to be taken into account by the Employment Appeal Tribunal when setting the amount of the penalty shall include—

(a) the gravity of each refusal or obstruction of access;

(b) the period of time over which each refusal or obstruction of access occurred;

(c) the number of occasions on which each refusal or obstruction of access occurred;

(d) the reason for each refusal or obstruction of access;

(e) the number of workers affected by each refusal or obstruction of access; and

(f) the number of workers employed by the undertaking.

(4) The Employment Appeal Tribunal shall also take into account any previous refusal or obstruction of access to a designated official of the independent trade union to which the application relates.

(5) If the specified date in a penalty notice for payment of the penalty has passed and—

(a) the period during which an appeal may be made has expired without an appeal having been made; or

(b) such an appeal has been made and determined, the trade union may recover from the employer, as a civil debt due to it, any amount payable under the penalty notice which remains outstanding.

(6) The making of an appeal suspends the effect of a penalty notice pending the outcome of the appeal.

70ZH Other provisions relating to trade union access

(1) Sections 70ZA-70ZG are in addition and without prejudice to any other provisions relating to trade union access to workers.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt, the latter include but are not confined to—

(a) Section 188(5A) of this Act

(b) Sections 198A and 198B of this Act;

(c) Schedule A1, paragraphs 26 and 118 of this Act;

(d) ACAS Code of Practice on time off for trade union duties and activities issued under section 199 of this Act, for the time being in force; and

(e) Any collective agreement which makes more favourable provision.””

New clause 82—Fair Work Agency: review of resourcing—

(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the resources available to the Fair Work Agency.

(2) The review must be published and laid before Parliament within six months of this section coming into force.”

This new clause asks the Secretary of State to review the resources available to the Fair Work Agency to ensure that enforcement of provisions in the Act are effective.

New clause 88—Rules as to political fund—

(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) of section 84 (Contributions to political fund from members of the union), after subsection (1), insert—

“(1A) An opt-in notice under subsection (1) must include the member of the trade union’s consent to annual renewal of the contribution to the political fund (a “renewal opt-in”).

(1B) The renewal opt-in must be sent by the member of the trade union─ (a) within six months of the initial opt-in and every six months thereafter, or (b) each time payment is due, at least 28 days before payment is taken, whichever is longer.

(1C) If the member of the trade union does not provide a renewal opt-in, the trade union must provide a date by which the member must notify the trade union of their consent to continued contribution towards the political fund, which must be no earlier than 28 days before the next payment to the political fund is due.

(1D) If the member has not—

(a)opted into an arrangement under subsection (1A) or (1B), or

(b) given notification of their consent to continued contributions by the date specified under subsection (1C),

their payments to the political fund must cease before the renewal date.””

This new clause will ensure that trade union members are asked whether they wish their contribution to the political fund to renew automatically and would require that, if the member does not wish to renew their contribution, the union must provide a date by which the member has to confirm they wish to continue to contribute.

New clause 89—Certification Officer: growth duty—

“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 254 (The Certification Officer), after subsection (2), insert—

“(2A) In discharging the functions of the Certification Office, the Certification Officer must, so far as reasonably possible, act in such a way as to advance the following objectives—

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

(b) economic growth of the United Kingdom in the medium to long term.””

This new clause would require the Certification Officer to advance the objectives of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.

New clause 90—Regulations under Part 4—

“When making regulations under Part 4 of this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives—

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

(b) the economic growth of the United Kingdom in the medium to long term.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State, when making regulations under Part 4 of the Bill, to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.

New clause 98—Pressure to impose union recognition requirement—

“In the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, omit section 225 (Pressure to impose union recognition requirement).”

This new clause would remove section 225 from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 on pressure to impose union recognition requirement.

New clause 99—Electronic balloting—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a statutory instrument containing an order under section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004.

(2) That order must specify that—

(a) permissible means may, in the case of any description of ballot or election, include (or consist of) electronic voting; and

(b) any ballot or election including (or consisting of) electronic voting must be conducted pursuant to section 230 (Conduct of ballot) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

(3) The Secretary of State must not make an order under this section until a consultation with the Trades Union Congress and the Certification Officer has been conducted.

(4) An order under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make an order for electronic voting in a ballot or election pursuant to section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004 within six months of the passing of this Act, and following consultation with the TUC.

New clause 100—Notice to employers of industrial action: amendment—

“In section 234A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, omit subsections (3) to (9) and insert—-

“(3) For the purposes of this section a relevant notice is one in writing which—

(a) identifies—

(i) the day or the first of the days on which, at the time of the service of the relevant notice, the union proposes to call industrial action; and

(ii) the categories of employee the union intends to call on to take industrial action; and

(b) must be provided to the employer as early as practicable after the ballot result is known and the decision to take industrial action in furtherance of it has been taken.

(4) If the industrial action relates to an event which has already taken place, no relevant notice shall be required.””

This new clause replaces the provisions in section 234A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to define a relevant notice for industrial action, when one must be provided and when one is not required.

New clause 103—Public sector contracting: trade union recognition—

“(1) The Procurement Act 2023 is amended as follows.

(2) In Part (2) (principles and objectives), after section 14A insert—

“14B Obligations of contractors to recognise trade unions

(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that any contract entered into after the coming into force of this Act by a—

(a) government department;

(b) executive agency of government;

(c) non departmental public body; or

(d) non Ministerial department,

is compliant with the requirements set out in subsection (2).

(2) A contract under subsection (1) must require the contractor to such a contracting authority to—

(a) recognise an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining, and

(b) take steps to ensure that any sub-contractor to the contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract recognises an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “recognises”, “independent trade union” and “collective bargaining” have the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

(4) An independent trade union may make a complaint against a contracting authority, which is a party to a public contract, that it or a contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract is in breach of the term in subsection (2).

(5) The complaint may be made to the Central Arbitration Committee.

(6) If the Central Arbitration Committee finds the complaint to be well founded, it shall grant a declaration to that effect.

(7) Where the Central Arbitration Committee makes a declaration in accordance with subsection (6), it shall order that the respondent contracting authority shall take whatever steps appear to the Central Arbitration Committee as necessary to ensure that the contracting authority and every contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract comply with the implied term in subsection (2).

(8) The steps that may be taken under subsection (7) include termination of the contract, which shall not be regarded as a breach of contract by the contracting authority concerned if a principal reason for the termination is compliance with an order of the Central Arbitration Committee under subsection (7).

(9) An appeal lies on a point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal by either party to proceedings brought under subsection (5).””

This new clause is designed to ensure that all public contractors comply with the duty to recognise a trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining and that such contractors take steps to ensure that any sub-contractors do the same. The terms “contracting authority” and “public contract” are defined in section 2 and 3 of the Procurement Act.

New clause 106—Collective bargaining—

“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 209, after “industrial relations” insert—

“and in particular to encourage the extension of collective bargaining and the development and, where necessary, reform of collective bargaining machinery.””

This would add duties around collective bargaining to the general duty of ACAS.

New clause 107—Whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract—

“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) For section 179, substitute—

“179 Whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract

(1) A collective agreement shall be conclusively presumed to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract unless the agreement—

(a) is in writing, and

(b) contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties do not intend that the agreement shall be a legally enforceable contract.

(2) A collective agreement which satisfies those conditions shall be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract.

(3) If a collective agreement is in writing and contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties intend that one or more parts of the agreement specified in that provision, but not the whole of the agreement, shall not be a legally enforceable contract, then—

(a) the specified part or parts shall be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract, and

(b) the remainder of the agreement shall be conclusively presumed to have been intended by the parties to be such a contract.

(4) A part of a collective agreement which by virtue of subsection (3)(a) is not a legally enforceable contract may be referred to for the purpose of interpreting a part of the agreement which is such a contract.””

This new clause replaces Section 179 on whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

New clause 108—Industrial action: workers’ rights—

“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 219, insert—

“219A Right to strike

Every worker shall have the right to take industrial action, whether or not in breach of any contract, subject to the provisions of this Part.”

(3) Omit section 223 (Action taken because of dismissal for taking unofficial action).”

This new clause would establish a clearer right to strike and remove provisions from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that make strike action unlawful on the grounds that it turns out (retrospectively) that the action the worker took was unofficial.

New clause 109—Industrial action and ballots—

“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit—

(a) section 224 (Secondary action)

(b) 225 (Pressure to impose union recognition requirement)

(c) 226A (Notice of ballot and sample voting paper for employers)

(d) 228 (Separate workplace ballots), and

(e) 228A (Separate workplaces: single and aggregate ballots).

(3) In section 234 (Period after which ballot ceases to be effective), omit subsections (1) to (5) and substitute:

“(1) Industrial action that is regarded as having the support of a ballot shall cease to be so regarded when─

(a) the dispute which gave rise to it ceases, or

(b) the union has taken no steps to pursue the dispute for a period of six months.”

(4) In subsection (1) of section 244, (Meaning of “trade dispute" in Part V)—

(a) omit “a dispute between workers and their employer” and substitute “a dispute between workers and one or more employers”.

(b) omit “which relates wholly or mainly to” and substitute “connected with”.

(5) In subsection (5) of section 244, omit “a worker employed by that employer” and substitute “a worker employed by an employer”.”

This new clause would remove provisions that ban all forms of secondary action; make changes to the definition of “trade dispute”; enable industrial action to be taken to achieve recognition for collective bargaining; remove obligation on a TU to provide a ballot paper to the employer; give TUs more freedom to choose which constituencies they will ballot; and remove an obligation on the union in a long running dispute to re-run the ballot every six months.

New clause 110—Review into the impact on small businesses—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a review on the impact of Part 4 (Trade Unions and Industrial Action, etc) of this Act on small and medium-sized enterprises.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must have regard to—

(a) administrative costs;

(b) legal costs; and

(c) tax changes affecting small and medium-sized enterprises taking effect from the 2025-26 financial year.

(3) For the purposes of this section, small and medium-sized enterprises are businesses employing 250 or fewer employees.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a review on the impact of Part 4 of this Bill, on Trade Unions and Industrial Action, on SMEs within 3 months of the passage of this Act.

New clause 111—Legal aid in employment tribunals—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the options for expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the impact employers' compliance with measures contained within this Act; and

(b) the impact on employees’ personal finances.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals within 3 months of the passage of this Act.

New clause 112—Review of single enforcement body—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a review on the impact of a single enforcement body as provided for under Part 5.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must assess the impact of the single enforcement body with the impact between 2019 and 2025 of the following four enforcement bodies—

(a) Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA)

(b) Employment Agencies Standards Inspectorate (EAS)

(c) His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC)

(d) Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

(3) The review under subsection (1) must have regard to—

(a) business compliance costs

(b) Employers’ compliance with employment law

(c) the number of employees seeking support in relation to employment disputes.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of a single enforcement body compared with separate enforcement bodies within 3 months of the passage of this Act.

Amendment 270, page 61, line 14 leave out clause 50.

New clause 70 is intended to replace clause 50.

Government amendments 162 to 164.

Amendment 282, clause 50, page 61, line 31, after “workplace” insert, or

“(b) the right to use to any digital communications tools used by workers in the workplace.”

This amendment aims to ensure that access for unions to workplaces includes digital means of communication with workers.

Government amendments 165 to 185.

Amendment 271, clause 51, page 69, line 18, at end insert—

“(2A) In paragraph 22 (collective bargaining:  recognition)—

(a) leave out sub-paragraph (1)(b) and insert—

“the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf’.”

(b) leave out subparagraphs (3), (4) and (5).

(2B) In paragraph 25 (collective bargaining:  recognition)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (3)(a) leave out “20 working days” and substitute “10 working days”, and

(b) leave out sub-paragraph (3)(b).

(c) after sub-paragraph (4)(a) insert “(aa) by secure electronic voting,”

(d) in sub-paragraph (4)(c) leave out “and b” and substitute “to (c)”

(e) after sub-paragraph (4)(c) insert—

“(d) only amongst those who are employed in the proposed bargaining unit and were so employed at the time the application was made”.

(2C) In paragraph 26 after sub-paragraph (4) insert—

“(3A) In the event that the union (or unions) consider that such access has been unreasonably refused, it (or they) may apply to the CAC for a declaration and order that access be granted and in the event that such a declaration or order is made and the union (or unions) consider that such a declaration or order has been breached it (or they) may apply to the High Court for relief.”

(2D) In paragraph 26 after sub-paragraph (4B) insert—

“(4BA) The sixth duty is to refrain from any act or omission, direct or indirect, likely to encourage a union member or members to resign from union membership or likely to discourage a person from joining a union or any particular union.

(4BB) It shall be unlawful to compel a worker or workers by threat of detriment or dismissal to attend any meeting in which the employer, its servants or agents expresses the view directly or indirectly that—

(a) membership of a union or any union; or

(b) recognition for the purposes of collective bargaining of a union or any union by the employer,

is undesirable.”

(2E) In paragraph 27B(2) leave out “must be made on or before the first working day after” and substitute “must be made within 20 working days after”.

(2F) In paragraph 29 (collective bargaining: recognition) leave out sub-paragraph (3)(b).

(2G) In paragraph 35(1) leave out “a collective agreement under which a union (or unions) are recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining” and substitute “a collective agreement under which an independent union (or independent unions) are recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining”.

(2H) In paragraph 35(1) after “in the rules” insert “‘in relation to all pay, hours and holidays”.

(2I) In paragraph 39(2)(a) leave out “years” and substitute “months”.

(2J) In paragraph 40(2)(a) leave out “years” and substitute “months”.

(2K) In paragraph 41(2)(a) leave out “years” and substitute “months”.

This amendment makes changes to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 regarding union recognition and balloting.

Amendment 291, page 71, line 1, leave out clause 52.

Amendment 292, clause 52, page 71, line 6, at end insert—

“(2A) In subsection (1) of section 82 (Rules as to political fund), after paragraph (d) insert—

“(e) that trade union members who have not opted out of the political fund must signal, in writing, their agreement to continue contributing to the fund at the end of a period of 12 months after last opting into the fund, and

(f) that trade union members must be given an annual notice about their right to opt out of the political fund.

(1B) A notice under subsection (1)(f) must include a form that enables the member to opt out of the fund.””

This amendment would require trade unions to notify their members every year of their right to opt out of the political fund, and to obtain an annual opt-in to the political fund from their members.

Government amendments 186 to 191.

Amendment 293, page 73, line 6, leave out clause 54.

Amendment 294, page 74, line 14, leave out clause 55.

Amendment 296, clause 55, page 75, line 3, after “employee”, insert—

“, and

(c) in relation to a public sector employer, the performance condition is met.

(3A) The performance condition is met if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the public sector employer is meeting any performance standards set out in a relevant enactment.”

This amendment prevents facility time for equality representatives from being provided unless the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory targets for performance.

Amendment 295, page 78, line 5, leave out clause 56.

Amendment 299, page 78, line 30, leave out clause 58.

Government amendments 192 to 199.

Amendment 315, page 79, line 28, leave out clause 60.

This amendment would leave out Clause 60 on electronic balloting for industrial action. NC99 is intended to replace clause 60.

Government amendments 200 to 201.

Amendment 297, clause 61, page 80, line 6, leave out “seventh” and insert “fourteenth”.

This amendment would increase, from seven to 14 days, the notice period that trade unions are required to adhere to when notifying employers that they plan to take industrial action.

Government amendment 202.

Amendment 348, page 80, line 9, at end insert—

“(3) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is also amended as follows.

(4) In section 231 (Information as to result of ballot), omit from “shall” to after “told” and insert—

“display, reasonably prominently on its website, on a webpage reasonably easy to find and which is freely accessible to the general public—”

(5) Omit section 231A.”

This amendment would change the requirements for notification about the results of a union ballot.

Amendment 346, clause 62, page 80, line 19, at end insert—

“(3) In section 220 (Peaceful picketing)—

(a) in subsection (1), after “attend”, insert “a place of work”;

(b) omit subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b); and

(c) omit subsections (2) to (4).”

This amendment, along with amendment 348, would remove the restriction confining pickets to a worker’s place of work.

Amendment 300, clause 63, page 83, line 9, at end insert—

“236E Actions short of a strike: exemption

(1) The right of a worker not to be subjected to detriment under section 236A does not apply in cases where the worker is involved in one or more of the following activities—

(a) intimidation at picket lines;

(b) protests organised by trade unions in furtherance of a dispute—

(i) at the premises of a company;

(ii) at the private residences of senior managers; or

(iii) at the premises of other organisations that are connected with the dispute;

(c) harassment or bullying of non-striking workers, or those who are covering for striking workers;

(d) victimisation or harassment of senior managers; or

(e) action aimed at damaging property or disrupting business contingency planning.

(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that the circumstances under subsection (1), in which the right of a worker not to be subjected to detriment do not apply, are set out in a code of practice.”

This amendment would disapply the right not to suffer detriment as a result of industrial action in certain circumstances.

Government amendments 203 to 226 and 236 to 239.

Government new schedule 2—Trade union recognition.

Government amendments 247, 249, 251 to 261.

New clause 77—Employment Law: Scotland Act—

“(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows—

(2) In Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, omit section H1 (Employment and industrial relations).”

This new clause would remove matters related to employment from the list of the reserved matters that remain the responsibility of the UK Parliament alone and would enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate on those matters. \p Justin Madders: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare my membership and financial interests in trade unions, as I have done throughout the passage of the Bill.

I thank Members from both sides of the House for their contributions to yesterday’s debate. I look forward to another good debate today as we work together to ensure that the Bill works in practice for workers and businesses of all sizes across the whole country. Similarly to yesterday, I will use my opening remarks to explain to the House the amendments put forward by the Government in parts 4 and 5 of the Bill.

The Government are moving a number of amendments that represent a significant step forward in modernising our industrial framework. Amendments to clause 50 will strengthen the provisions of trade union access rights. They will ensure that the framework functions effectively and delivers on our commitment to modernise working practices. They will streamline access provisions by allowing a single Central Arbitration Committee member to make a fast-track decision on whether access should take place. In making a decision about whether it is a single person or a panel that will consider the application, the CAC will be required to have regard to the complexity of the case, as well as whether the  proposed terms of the agreement are model terms. Various criteria will be prescribed in secondary legislation following consultation.

The amendments will also clarify that supporting a worker is a legitimate purpose for access, and they will provide a power to bring forward secondary legislation to make further provision as to how the CAC is to determine the level of penalty fines for non-compliance with access agreements. They will expand access rights, enabling access agreements to cover communicating with workers in ways that do not involve entering premises—for example, connecting digitally using technology—therefore modernising our antiquated industrial relations framework.

New clause 39, new schedule 2 and associated amendments insert new provisions into the Bill, replacing clause 51, and will address unfair practices and access arrangements in the recognition and derecognition process. The amendments will extend the application of unfair practice protections to the point at which the CAC accepts an application for recognition or derecognition, and will ensure that employers cannot increase the size of the bargaining unit for the purposes of the recognition application after the application is made. That will end the deliberate gaming of the system that we have seen in recent years.

The amendments will also delete the second test for determining an unfair practice complaint, which currently requires the CAC to consider how an alleged unfair practice may have affected workers’ votes in the recognition, or derecognition, ballots. They will extend the time limit in which unfair practices can be reported after the ballot closes to five working days. They will ensure that an employer cannot recognise a non-independent trade union after receiving a request for voluntary recognition from an independent trade union as a means of thwarting the independent trade union’s subsequent application to the CAC for statutory recognition.

We will bring forward and formalise the process for agreeing access arrangements between the employer and the union during the recognition and derecognition process. These amendments will streamline the recognition process, reduce opportunities for unfair practices to occur, and ensure that unions that seek recognition have a fair and transparent statutory route to enable them to do so.

Today’s amendments on industrial action rules will reduce the costly, complex and bureaucratic requirements on unions in relation to industrial action and ballot notices, while ensuring that employers have the necessary notice and information to prepare for industrial action. New clause 42 will simplify notice to employers of industrial action ballots and industrial action, reducing the chance of spurious challenge and making the information required more proportionate. New clause 43 will extend industrial action mandates from six to 12 months, reducing the need for repeated ballots. Amendments to clause 61 will mean that the notice period for industrial action will be set at 10 days, giving businesses time to prepare and safeguarding workers’ rights. Amendments to clause 58 will mean that the 50% ballot turnout threshold repeal will be subject to commencement on a date to be set in secondary legislation.

Turning to political fund ballots, new clause 40 and associated amendments remove the requirement for unions to hold a ballot every 10 years on maintaining a  political fund. Instead, unions will provide reminders about members’ right to opt out every 10 years, ensuring transparency without imposing costly and time-consuming ballots.

The Bill will bring together the various agencies and enforcement bodies that enforce employment rights in the new Fair Work Agency, so that where employers are not doing what is right, a simplified and strengthened enforcement system will protect workers and ensure justice in the workplace. The Fair Work Agency needs the right tools to do the job. A series of amendments form a package that will give the Fair Work Agency the tools that it needs to hold all employers to account more effectively. That is fair for workers and businesses.

The Government are moving amendments to introduce new powers that are key to the Fair Work Agency’s core enforcement role. New clauses 44 to 56 create a civil penalty regime. Under the regime, enforcement officers will be able to issue notices of underpayment, and impose a penalty on employers who have underpaid individuals, in breach of statutory pay rights that are within the remit of the Fair Work Agency. As a result, the agency may be able to help workers get the money they are owed more quickly than if they had to go through an employment tribunal. Where proceedings before the tribunal are necessary, we want the Fair Work Agency to be able to support individuals and ensure that the tribunal’s time is used as effectively as possible. New clause 57 does that by enabling the agency to bring proceedings before the employment tribunal if individuals are unwilling or unable to. Under clause 58, the agency can also offer advice and assistance to individuals bringing employment-related cases before the courts or tribunals.

The Government are also moving amendments to upgrade the powers that the Fair Work Agency will need to tackle labour abuse effectively. The Bill Committee heard from stakeholders, including Eleanor Lyons, the UK Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, about bad practices in the social care sector. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority is prevented from investigating many cases because they do not meet the modern slavery threshold. The Fraud Act 2006 covers situations that amount to labour abuse but fall short of being modern slavery. Today we are bringing forward two amendments that will deliver the Government’s commitment to give the Fair Work Agency the strong powers that it needs to tackle labour exploitation. We will enable Fair Work Agency enforcement officers to use their powers to investigate such cases, helping the agency to protect the most vulnerable in the workforce. We will also give enforcement officers the ability to issue special warnings following arrests. In practice, that means telling suspects that if they refuse to answer questions about certain items or their whereabouts, that could be used against them in court. \p Liam Byrne: Only 21 employers have been prosecuted for national minimum wage violations since 2007. The measures that the Minister is bringing forward will improve enforcement. He touched on the Modern Slavery Act 2015, but he did not address the points made in the debate yesterday. Will he use this opportunity to say more about the Government’s intention to update the Modern Slavery Act? \p Justin Madders: I am grateful for the Chair of the Select Committee’s intervention. We accept that there are gaps between the modern slavery network enforcement processes and current employment rights enforcement. We are working with the Home Office and the GLAA to improve that. These are things we can continue to work on as we develop the scope and remit of the Fair Work Agency.

As well as reforming and strengthening the powers, the Government are moving amendments to expand the remit of the Fair Work Agency to ensure effective enforcement of statutory sick pay and holiday pay. Today’s amendments will bring Northern Ireland SSP legislation into the scope of the Fair Work Agency, and will introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the Northern Ireland Executive before bringing any further devolved legislation in scope. Further amendments will bring within the agency’s scope the duty in the working time regulations for employers to retain records relating to holiday pay and annual leave for six years. It is the Government’s intention for the Fair Work Agency to take on enforcement of new protections relating to zero-hours contracts. That is subject to a consultation on the detail, and to the outcome of the spending review.

New clause 60 gives the Fair Work Agency the power to recover the cost of taking enforcement action from businesses that are found to be non-compliant with the law. That is in recognition of the “polluter pays” principle. It is similar to how other regulators operate, such as the Health and Safety Executive. We will consider carefully and discuss the matter with businesses as appropriate before exercising that power, but it is an important principle that where there is wrong, the person in the wrong makes some contribution towards the cost to the taxpayers of enforcing the law.

To sum up—I know many people are eager to speak in the debate—the Bill will ensure that workplace rights are fit for a modern economy, empower working people and contribute to economic growth. I urge hon. Members to support the Bill and the amendments that we are moving today, which show that we are pro-business, pro-worker, pro-family and pro-growth. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Greg Smith: Ahead of getting into the detail of the many amendments before us, which the Minister rattled through in just 10 minutes, let me say that overnight we learned that the Government are moving the responsibilities of one quango to another. They are moving the responsibilities of the Payment Systems Regulator to the Financial Conduct Authority, putting one quango into another. Conveniently, they already share a building. The Prime Minister has hailed that as “the latest step” in the Government’s attempt to “kick-start economic growth”, though the amendments we are discussing do the very opposite.

The Chancellor said:

“The regulatory system has become burdensome to the point of choking off innovation, investment and growth”,

but that is precisely what the Bill does. I do not know how the Government can say that with a straight face  when, as we stand here today, blocking regulatory burdens cost every business in the land—small, medium or large—£5 billion. \p Wendy Morton: In the Chamber yesterday, it was quite clear that the Minister and his team did not fully understand the definition of a small business. I am sure that my hon. Friend the shadow Minister does understand it. Does he agree that that is fundamental to understanding why the balance of this legislation is wrong? \p Greg Smith: My right hon. Friend makes a superb point, as she always does. Every single small business that I have talked to in my constituency is very concerned about the measures in this— \p Justin Madders: On that point, will the shadow Minister give way? \p Greg Smith: I will if, 24 hours on, he can name a small business that supports the Bill. \p Justin Madders: I am asking the shadow Minister to give way, but the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) could have intervened on me during my speech. One of the reasons why there is so much confusion about the definition of a small business is that the shadow Minister moved an amendment in Committee that said that a small business

“means an organisation or person employing 500 or fewer employees”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 3 December 2024; c. 177.]

So if there is any confusion, it is on the Conservative Benches. \p Greg Smith: Twenty-four hours later, the Minister still cannot name a small business that supports the Bill. That shows how out of their depth this trade union Government are when it comes to supporting businesses in this land. In the words of the Chancellor, this Bill is

“choking off innovation, investment and growth.”

To pretend otherwise would be taking the public for fools.

On new clauses 89 and 90, almost everything this Government have done is contradictory to the objective of growth, if that remains their objective this week. Whether it is the national insurance jobs tax, the changes to business rates or this Bill, everything they do seemingly goes against growing the economy. It is little surprise that, under Labour, the economy is flatlining.

The Prime Minister said earlier this year that everything the Government do will be subject to a “growth test”. However, the details of that test have been sparse, at best—so sparse, in fact, that people may well think it does not exist. \p Mike Martin: Could the shadow Minister describe Liz Truss’s growth test? \p Greg Smith: Well, cut red tape for a start. We see from Lib Dem Members that “The Orange Book” tradition of the Liberal Democrats is well and truly dead; they now position themselves firmly to the left of the Labour party.

There is no greater evidence that the growth test does not exist than the Bill, because if such a test did exist, this Bill would fall at the first hurdle, but today I come with good news: I have two amendments that the Government can back this afternoon to help them to grow the economy. Those amendments are, of course, new clause 89 and new clause 90.

New clause 89 would require the certification officer to advance the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy, and new clause 90 would require the Secretary of State, who is again not in his place, to have regard to international competitiveness when passing regulations under part 4 of the Bill concerning the trade unions. The Government have been asking regulators for ideas to boost growth—it is a contradiction in terms to ask the regulator to boost growth—but we are happy to help them with their quest. The Government should be able to support these amendments. If they cannot, it shows that they are not serious about economic growth and, more tellingly, that they do not intend to use the powers in part 4 of the Bill to achieve growth or international economic competitiveness, because they do not intend to exercise them in a way that is compatible with those objectives.

New clause 88 on trade union political funds will, I am sure, get the Government a little bit hot under the collar. This is a “Labour party first, country second” Government. Nowhere is that clearer than in the changes that the Government are making to the political fund through the Bill. Let us be in no doubt that the changes have one simple purpose: to bolster the coffers of the Labour party.

Clause 52 will mean that members of trade unions will automatically contribute to their trade union’s political fund without being asked about it first. Members will have to opt out, rather than opt in, as they do at present. [Interruption.] Did someone want to try to defend that? No? Okay. If trade union subscriptions are to be used for party political campaigning, it should be a conscious decision of the trade union member to endorse such campaigning. \p Ashley Fox: The shadow Minister may recall that in Committee, every single Labour member of the Committee declared sponsorship by the trade union movement. Does he agree with me that this clause is simply payback for the trade union movement, after its financial support for the Labour party? \p Greg Smith: My hon. Friend served assiduously on the Committee, raising many good points, including the one that he just made, which I absolutely agree with. The public will be asking serious questions about this. \p Gareth Snell: rose— \p Greg Smith: If the hon. Gentleman wants to try to defend that, I will give him the opportunity. \p Gareth Snell: I am happy to declare my interest as a member of three trade unions, but I got less from them than the shadow Minister got from a small business—I think his declaration is £12,500. Does he feel the need to declare that, given that he is now making a case against legislation that would impact that company? \p Greg Smith: I am making a point about the trade union movement, which I have never been a part of, and certainly never received any money from. I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to look at all my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. \p Gareth Snell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Nusrat Ghani: Is it really a point of order? \p Gareth Snell: We can find out, Madam Deputy Speaker; I believe it is. Can you advise whether Conservative Members who received money from businesses affected by this legislation should make a declaration in the same way that we trade unionists do? \p Nusrat Ghani: This is going to end up in a back and forth on things that are not a matter for the Chair. Declarations are the responsibility of individual Members to make appropriately through the right processes. \p Greg Smith: For the avoidance of all doubt and in all transparency, I declare all my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for all to look at. They are all there for anybody to see. \p Julian Lewis: This argument about opting in and opting out of trade union levies goes back to at least the 1970s—probably beyond—when I remember arguing about it as an undergraduate. If there are to be levies that people have to opt out of, a defensible case can be made for them provided that the process of opting out is easy and advertised to every member. Does my hon. Friend know whether the Government propose to institute mechanisms to make it known to every member how easily they can opt out? \p Greg Smith: My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. If we look at the detail of this Bill, it is very clear and obvious that the Government are trying to make it as difficult as possible for people to opt out of the trade union political fund. That is the very point of them changing this legislation. \p Sarah Russell: Will the shadow Minister give way? \p Greg Smith: I will make a bit of progress, then I will come to the hon. Lady.

An opt-in is the default under consumer protection law and information law. Combined with the 10-year reminder change, it is highly likely that many trade union members will not be aware that their subscriptions are being used in this way or that they are eligible to save money on their trade union fees by not being a member of the political fund. Despite all the talk of supporting working people, it is clear that that concern simply does not apply when working people’s money is being taken to fund the Labour party and other political causes. We have tabled amendment 291 because we believe fundamentally that people should consent explicitly to what is, in effect, a subscription trap. Amendment 291 would simply maintain the status quo; it is the right thing to do. \p Sarah Russell: I draw attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of Community and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many times such a ballot has actually resulted in the closure of a political fund? I think he will find that the answer is none. \p Greg Smith: The hon. Lady is putting up a smoke-and-mirrors argument to try to cover the fact that the Government are changing the status quo from an opt-in system to an opt-out system. To me, it is just straightforward common sense that people would expect to have to opt in rather than, in this particularly egregious case, being casually reminded every 10 years that they could save a bit of money by opting out of a cause that they perhaps did not even agree with in the first place.

In fact, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), pledged to end auto-renewal subscriptions. When the Conservatives were in government, we passed the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which contained two significant proposals on subscription contracts that are notable here. One of those was reminder notices. Businesses need to provide notices to consumers to remind them that their subscription contract will renew and payment will be due unless the consumer cancels. The second proposal was to allow consumers to be able to exit a subscription contract in a straightforward, cost-effective and timely way. Businesses need to ensure that the process for terminating is not unduly onerous and that consumers can signal their intent to end the contract through a single communication.

The Labour party, which was then in opposition, supported those aims—in fact, the Bill did not go far enough for Labour at the time. On Report, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) tabled new clause 29, which the Labour party voted to add to the Bill. The new clause had a two-pronged approach. It required traders to ask consumers whether they wished to opt into subscriptions renewing automatically either

“after a period of six months and every six months thereafter, or…if the period between the consumer being charged for the first and second time is longer than six months, each time payment is due.”

The second aim of the new clause, which the Labour party used to support, would have required that if the consumer did not opt into the arrangement described, the trader had to

“provide a date by which the consumer must notify the trader of the consumer’s intention to renew the contract, which must be no earlier than 28 days before the renewal date.”

If the consumer did not provide a notification, the subscription contract could not renew.

Where am I going with this? [Interruption.] Government Members are chuntering too early, because there has been a considerable shift in the Labour party’s policy position on subscription traps. It seems to believe that consumers should be given every possible opportunity to cancel subscription contracts with businesses, but that it should be as hard as possible to cancel a subscription to the trade union political fund. Under amendment 292 and new clause 88, trade union members would have the same rights, pushed for by Labour, as other individuals with a subscription.

New schedule 2 could be used to give sweeping powers to Labour’s trade union paymasters, as the Secretary of State could reduce the threshold for trade union recognition to as little as 2% of the workforce. Trade unions could easily be imposed on workplaces across the country, with small employers being particularly vulnerable. In a workplace of 200 workers, fewer than five of them would be required for workplace recognition. Paired with the other measures in this Bill, that will strike fear into business owners across Britain, who could now be forced to deal with all-powerful trade unions as part of Labour’s return to the 1970s. The way in which Labour has gone about this is just another example of the shoddy nature of this Bill and of Labour’s approach  to workplace regulations. The Attorney General has  said that

“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values I have already outlined,”—

I am quoting him—

“but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.”

On facility time, amendments 293 and 295 would remove clause 54, “Facilities provided to trade union officials and learning representatives”, and clause 55, “Facilities for equality representatives”. They would remove the requirement to provide reasonable time off for facility time, the creation of facility time for equality representatives and clauses that will reduce transparency requirements over facility time, respectively. Together with amendment 296, they would prevent facility time for equality representatives from being provided unless the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory targets for performance. Trade union facility time already costs the Government nearly £100 million a year. Under the last Labour Government, the civil service spent 0.26% of its annual pay bill on facility time, compared with 0.04% in the private sector. Under the last Conservative Government, in 2022-23, the average for the civil service was 0.05%.

Labour councils are still the worst culprit. The transparency data collected by the Government in ’22-23 shows that Transport for London under the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has 881 full-time equivalent union officials on the books, costing £8 million a year. Bankrupt, Labour-run Birmingham city council has 30 full-time equivalent union officials on its central books,  costing £1.2 million—no wonder that it went bankrupt. Furthermore, the council had 12 full-time equivalents in its maintained schools, costing £583,000.

Clauses 54 and 55 will increase that cost by giving more time off to public sector union officials at the taxpayer’s expense. That is not right when the Chancellor is asking Ministers to make cuts to their Departments across the board. Public services will be worse and the taxpayer will be expected to contribute more.

Furthermore, the Bill extends the right to facility time to equality representatives, who will now be allowed paid time off work to carry out activities for the purposes of

“promoting the value of equality in the workplace…arranging learning or training on matters relating to equality in the workplace…providing information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace…consulting with the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace”

and

“obtaining and analysing information relating to equality in the workplace”.

Those are all noble goals, but that should not be done at the taxpayer’s expense. \p Ashley Fox: Does the shadow Minister agree that the only jobs that will be created by these Bills are for people employed by trade unions? \p Nusrat Ghani: Before Mr Smith responds to that intervention, I must add that we have just shy of 40 people hoping to contribute to this debate, and I want to get them all in. \p Greg Smith: As ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take your advice and will speed up. [Interruption.] The Minister urges me to carry on, but of course I would not ignore your advice—never say never again.

I make no comment on the value that those activities will add to public sector employers and their productivity. What I will say is that we have already seen this Government being happy to hand over large pay increases to trade unions with no guarantee of anything in return. That is why we have tabled amendments 293, 295 and 296, in an attempt to ensure that the taxpayer gets something out of this latest concession to the trade unions.

On amendment 297, trade unions can create significant disruption in the economy, whether by stopping work from taking place or preventing people from getting to work, school, hospital appointments or many other activities. We must strike a fair balance between the ability of trade unions to strike and the public whom we all serve.

Our amendment 297 will mean that vital public services such as the NHS can better plan and prepare for strikes. It simply seeks to keep the status quo of two weeks’ notice. Without adequate warning, constituents of Members from across the House are more likely to miss hospital appointments, not be able to travel to see loved ones or get to work, or suffer greater disruption when schools close due to strikes. That is part of the reason why, in the consultation on thresholds, 58% of those who responded supported retaining the 14-day period as it currently is, with 7% preferring a longer period. Two thirds of respondents therefore wanted the period to stay the same or be longer. Labour promised that it would work with business on this Bill, but its response to that consultation is just another example of the Government having their fingers in their ears and simply not listening. The reduction to 10 days is against the wishes of business and will do harm to all our constituents. That is why we have tabled amendment 297 to retain the notice period of 14 days.

On amendment 299, strikes should only take place when there is a clear mandate for them, but clause 58 will mean that strikes can happen with low thresholds by removing the 50% turnout requirement and the 40% support requirement. Combined with Government amendments to extend the mandate for strikes from six months to 12 months, this Bill allows unions to unleash waves of low-support, rolling strikes. Those costs will come on top of the national insurance jobs tax and changes to business rates—mistakes that the Government are already making—making it more difficult to run a business. That is why we have tabled amendment 299, which will remove clause 58.

There is much in this Bill to speak to, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will not test your patience or the patience of the House further by going into those things. I look forward to a thorough debate that will further point out—not least through Conservative Members’ contributions—why the amendments to this Bill that the Government have tabled this afternoon will harm our economy, destroy jobs, and just give more power to the trade unions. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Jerome Mayhew: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Nusrat Ghani: Is it pertinent to the actual debate? \p Jerome Mayhew: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. As we all know, Members are required to draw attention to any potential conflicts of interest prior to speaking, in order to avoid any impression of, among other things, paid advocacy. Given that clause 52 will lead directly to increased payment of money from unions to Labour Members of Parliament, I ask for guidance on the proper declaration of interests. Most Labour Members due to speak this afternoon have received thousands of pounds from the unions—totted up, I make it £283,974.86. In addition to a general reference to their entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in this instance, where there is a direct link, should they not also set out the actual amount of money they have received? \p Nusrat Ghani: Obviously, further clarity on this issue is required, as it was raised earlier. It is the responsibility of individual Members to ensure that they declare their interests properly. The procedure for raising a complaint of this sort is by writing to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The guide to the rules sets out the rules relating to the declaration of interests in debates. This is not otherwise a matter for the Chair. I hope that brings some further clarity to the issue.

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee. \p Liam Byrne: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will start with my declaration of interests, as a former member of the Confederation of British Industry and a current member of the trade union Unison.

I will try to introduce a few points of consensus to the debate. I am old enough to remember when Conservative Members such as the former Member for Harlow were writing pamphlets for think-tanks such as Demos with titles like “Stop the union-bashing; why conservatives should embrace the trade union movement”. Of course, that was an echo of something that Harold Macmillan famously used to say in the 1950s: “We used to think that we could not have a modern industrial society without trade unions. I still think that.”

I think we would all benefit from a little acknowledgment that industrial relations in this country have not been in a good place. In 2023 more days were lost to strikes than at any point in the past 30 years, and the Office for National Statistics calculated at the back end of 2022 that 2.5 million days had been lost to strike action. That is not a record that any one of us in this House should  be proud of. It is incumbent on all of us to modernise industrial relations in this country, so that we are not divided in the workplace in this way.

As such, I welcome the measures in this Bill. I hope that the Minister will seize the moment—not only the fact that we have the Bill, but the advent of an industrial strategy that will introduce governance arrangements that get businesses and unions around the table to talk about economic growth in our country. That is a big opportunity; it is a big moment in which we can bring our country together around a modern industrial strategy. I hope that once the Minister has got this Bill done and has had a little bit of a rest—maybe gone on holiday for a bit—he will think about how the Government will then publish a modern industrial strategy for the future, backed by the restoration of some of the data that we used to have in this country, such as the workplace employee survey. We had that until about 2012, when it was stopped. We need to be more thoughtful about harmony in the workplace, because that is in the interests of the constituents we serve. \p Gregory Stafford: The right hon. Member used the term “modernising industrial relations”, which sounds a little like a euphemism. Taking him at his word, however, is he not therefore surprised that the pay rises that have been given to doctors, train drivers and a number of other unions since this Government came in have not been accompanied by any requirement for increased productivity? If we are to have modernised industrial relations, surely the increased pay that unions want should be combined with the productivity gains that this country needs. \p Liam Byrne: The hon. Member will no doubt have heard the remarks made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the weekend. I suspect that the hon. Member, like every Member of this House, will see some pretty radical steps taken in the comprehensive spending review to improve the efficiency of the civil service. Of course, the civil service grew very significantly in the years after covid, and now it has to be reinvented for new times. I am confident that those productivity gains will come.

My second point was to draw the House’s attention to some of the evidence taken by our Select Committee. That evidence is contained in our report, which I commend to all hon. Members. What struck me about the evidence we heard from the most productive firms in the country, such as Jaguar Land Rover, Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems, was that those are world-beating companies—some of the most productive companies in our country—and what characterises the workplace arrangements of all of those companies is that they have very long-standing, robust and deep partnerships with good trade unions. Those trade unions help make decisions, help de-conflict things and help businesses thrive and succeed. That is why stronger collective rights are important.

We also took evidence from companies where, I am afraid to say, there was not that harmony, such as Amazon. It has had to call ambulances to its warehouses 1,400 times in just five years. We on the Committee received whistleblower evidence from workers who were literally having to urinate into bottles because they did not dare take time out from their tasks to go to the  bathroom and back. We heard all kinds of whistleblower complaints about injuries being sustained, and pay is rising much more slowly than sales.

When we had executives from that company in front of us, they could not—or would not—tell the Committee why strike action had been taken by workers in their firm. If a company executive cannot explain to a Select Committee of this House why so many of their workers are on strike, that is not a story of harmony or a recipe for success. That is why the measures that the Minister has brought forward in this Bill to improve the opportunities for trade unions to organise—in a way that was recommended by the former Member for Harlow, actually—are a good thing.

The Minister has gone some way in recognising recommendations made by our Committee, such as improving the window in which complaints can be heard beyond 24 hours, bringing in template access agreements and strengthening the role of the Central Arbitration Committee in dispute resolution. There is just one further step that I suggest, which is the subject of amendment 282. We suggest that access rights for trade unions should include digital access rights, because in the modern workplace, of which Amazon is a case in point, there simply is not an opportunity for workers to get information about the opportunities to join a trade union and make a fair choice one way or the other in the way that there could be in the modern economy.

My final point is about enforcement. The first factory Act passed by this House was the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802. It was celebrated in parliamentary history as an Act that failed because there was no enforcement attached to it. Enforcement of this Bill is essential if it is to succeed, but labour market enforcement today is much too weak. Just 21 employers have been prosecuted for minimum wage enforcement since 2007, despite the fact that we all know that abuses of this sort are taking place in our constituencies.

Spending on labour market enforcement has been flat since 2014, and we are well off the International Labour Organisation target of one labour market inspector for every 10,000 workers. New clause 82 in my name would require the Secretary of State to set out a road map for reaching that ILO target, for ensuring there is greater use of penalties where appropriate, and for much stronger partnerships between the Home Office, the police and the Fair Work Agency. We cannot have a situation in this country where the best of British firms are being undercut by the worst labour market practice.

In conclusion, I welcome this Bill. Some of the amendments that have been tabled would improve it, but ultimately we have to remember that if we want to create a genuinely pro-business, pro-worker economy, the measures in this Bill are long overdue. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Daisy Cooper: I rise to speak to parts 4 and 5 of the Bill, and specifically to new clause 19, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), and new clauses 110, 111 and 112, which stand in my name. I wish to put on record my thanks to my two Liberal Democrat colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay and for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson), for their work in the Public Bill Committee, alongside many other Members of the House.

Overall, throughout its passage, we Liberal Democrats have indicated our support for many aspects of the Employment Rights Bill, such as those we debated yesterday, including boosting statutory sick pay, strengthening parental pay and leave, and giving people on zero-hours and low-hours contracts more certainty. However, a lot of crucial detail has been left to secondary legislation, to lots of new Government amendments and to continuing consultations, which makes it impossible to explicitly endorse the Bill as a whole at this stage. Even with 264 amendments in Committee and 457 Government amendments on Report, major issues are still yet to be determined, especially in part 4. Even after all those amendments, the Government say that they intend to

“consult further on modernising the trade union landscape following Royal Assent”

of this Bill, including on admissibility requirements, a code of practice and secondary legislation. It is therefore clear that part 4, which we are debating today, is still far from finalised.

We Liberal Democrats believe that employee participation in the workplace is vital, but we also believe that it should go hand in hand with wider employee ownership. That is so important for diffusing economic power, promoting enterprise, increasing job satisfaction, improving service to customers and getting long-term economic stability and growth. The Government’s proposals on trade unions are aimed at strengthening employee rights in what can often be a combative and confrontational working environment, and we Liberal Democrats see this Bill as a missed opportunity to improve employee engagement and ownership to provide collaborative working environments and long-term growth, whether by reforming company purpose rules or putting a duty on employers to encourage employee ownership in large listed companies. However, given what we have before us, we have tabled a few amendments.

First, new clause 19 is about the right to be accompanied, and it does what it says on the tin. It would expand the right for staff to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings. That is a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy, and I hope it is not too controversial, as it simply rectifies an anomaly. The current law allows only trade union representatives or colleagues to accompany an employee, and that leaves many without proper support. Some sectors, such as the medical profession, already allow accompaniment by non-union companions, yet that is not reflected in law. Our targeted amendment would fix that anomaly, and I urge the Government to accept it.

New clause 110 simply requests that the Government conduct a review on the impact on small business. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have expressed concern about the cumulative impact of all the Government’s work in this area and the impact it will have on small businesses in particular. Just the other day, the Federation of Small Businesses told me that it spends thousands and thousands of hours giving advice to small businesses on employment matters, and these new obligations will create a huge amount of extra law for them to understand, interpret and apply.

Small businesses do not have the same resources as big business. They often have no legal department, no compliance team and perhaps no human resources specialist. Because small businesses are often rooted in  their community, they are conscious of their reputation. They know their employees and they want to get things right. That means it will take extra time, effort and cost for them to navigate and comply with this part of the Bill, and that is before we get to everything else that the Government are seeking to introduce.

Small businesses are telling me that, taking the measures of the employment Bill together with the changes to national insurance and business rates and everything else, they feel overwhelmed. All that new clause 110 does is ask the Government to conduct an impact assessment. We know that small businesses are passionate about their employees. Small businesses are often the ones to give people their first job. They are often the companies that give people a second chance. They provide part-time, flexible working and opportunities to return to work, so I encourage the Government to look at the impact of part 4 on small businesses.

New clause 111 is about introducing legal aid in employment tribunals. When legal aid was first introduced, the intention was for it to become the NHS of the justice system, but we know that today legal aid is far from that. Our amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on options for expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals. We already know that many employees cannot afford legal representation, and that creates an imbalance of power when facing well-resourced employers. The amendment simply asks the Government to look at the options that might be available in that regard.

New clause 112 asks for a review of the single enforcement body. We Liberal Democrats positively support the Government’s efforts to create a single point of contact, rather than four. A similar measure was in our manifesto, where we called for a powerful new worker protection enforcement authority. As a matter of good practice, when putting different organisations together, it is important to make sure that no gaps are created in that protection. The review we ask for is not just a formality, but an important safeguard to ensure that employment rights enforcement is effective, fair and fit for purpose.

There is much in the Bill that we Liberal Democrats welcome, but there are many parts of it that we simply cannot support because it is not yet clear what the Government’s intentions are. We urge the Government, in the strongest possible terms, to look at the impact on small business, as it is an area about which we are deeply concerned. \p Ian Lavery: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, following the speech from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). I have to remind him that trade unionists are the bedrock of our communities. They are the producers of the wealth in this country. They are taxpayers, and they are ordinary, hard-working people. They should not be described as, basically, the dirt on the shoes of other people. The shadow Minister could hardly hide his disdain for ordinary working people; he could not hold himself back from opposing everything in the Bill.

I begin by declaring my interest as a proud trade union member—a member of the National Union of Mineworkers and Unite the union, and an honorary  member of the Prison Officers Association—and as the chair of the trade union group of Labour MPs.

It is a pleasure to speak about a piece of legislation that turns the tide on decades of anti-trade union laws—laws that have restricted the power of workers and seen the wealth of those at the top grow exponentially. On a personal note, let me say that it is fitting that the Bill should be before the House this week. Last Wednesday marked 40 years since I—along with my father, who has sadly passed on, my brothers and thousands of my colleagues—marched back to work at the end of the miners’ strike. The fact that, although bruised and battered, I am still here today speaking about the Bill proves that while the party of vulture capital may have won a victory in 1985, they did not win the war. This is a good Bill, but it could have been a lot better. Through further time, further discussion and further legislation, it will prove to be a great Bill, and I believe that the new clauses and amendments that I have tabled would strengthen and enhance it.

Workers in the UK have never, ever had the right to strike, but since 1906 their unions have had protection against common-law liability, subject to the meeting of statutory conditions. New clause 108 would establish a positive right to strike, bringing the UK into line with most of the democratic world. It would also remove provisions that make strike action unlawful if it turns out, retrospectively, that the action the workers took was unofficial. That is important, because workers currently have to take it in good faith that the union has managed to navigate the bureaucracy of taking action, and that unscrupulous bosses cannot summarily dismiss them if it has not.

New clause 109 is wide-ranging. The UK’s ban on secondary action is almost unique in the world, condemned on every occasion when the International Labour Organisation has considered the position since 1989. When P&O Ferries flouted its legal obligations by not consulting over mass dismissals and by dismissing people unfairly, the unions were unable to react by calling on dock workers, lorry drivers and workers in other industries on the dockside to boycott the vessels in dispute. That was outrageous: we need to bring back solidarity action. I want to support people in industrial disputes, and new clause 109 would put situations like that right by ending the ban on secondary action. It would remove the need to provide a ballot paper to the employer, remove the obligation on unions in long-running disputes to rerun the ballot every six months, and enable industrial action to achieve recognition for collective bargaining.

Amendments 347 and 348 would change the requirements for notification about the results of a union ballot, meaning that they could be displayed online with easy access for the public. Amendments 345 and 346 would remove the restriction confining pickets to the worker’s workplace. The reason secondary picketing was banned in the first place was the fact that it was a tool that benefited workers and advanced their cause. Solidarity action should be an important part of seeking the resolution of disputes.

The Bill brings measures that aim to end discrimination and place equality at the heart of the workplace. It gives key workers in social care and school support more say in pay and conditions through their unions. It brings  measures to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts, gives protection against unfair dismissal from day one, and extends sick pay rights. It repeals minimum service level laws and the majority of the reactionary Trade Union Act 2016, provides greater rights for workers to organise collectively through their trade unions, and reduces bureaucracy affecting trade unions during industrial action processes.

The howls of derision from Opposition Members show that the Labour Government are doing the right thing. This is a good Bill that should mark the start of a process. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has done a fantastic job, understands that we are all just trying to strengthen the Bill through our amendments. While we accept those howls of derision from the Conservatives, it is worth reminding the House, and indeed the country, that the turquoise Trumpian Tories in Reform have also opposed the Bill at every step of the way. Perhaps it is because, as a company—for that is what they are—they want to ensure that their workers, such as the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), are limited in how they can address workplace bullying by the owner; or perhaps it is because, while they masquerade as a party for the ordinary men and women of this country, in reality they are simply a Margaret Thatcher tribute act with a sprinkle of bigotry, determined to advance her destructive agenda at all costs, regardless of its impact on working people across our country. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. More than 30 Members wish to speak. I do not want to set a time limit, but if Members can police themselves and keep their speeches to just shy of eight minutes, everyone will definitely get in. \p Charlie Dewhirst: I wish to develop some of the detailed and eloquent arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), and to speak in particular about the amendments relating to part 4 of the Bill and the trade union movement.

Before he leaves, let me thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) for his very measured comments. I enjoyed his referral back to the industrial relations of the 1950s, although I should point out that we have moved on a little since then; I will say more about that shortly. I also thought that he simplified the Opposition’s position. We are not here to bash the unions. We support a progressive, modern trade union movement in which the balance is struck correctly between employer and employees. Unions should not and do not run businesses, but they are an important part of our industrial relations landscape.

There can be little doubt that this is, unfortunately, a Bill drafted by the few to the detriment of the many, and the numerous provisions that will largely abolish the Trade Union Act 2016 threaten to drag the country back to the dark days of the 1970s. The very enjoyable speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) perhaps illustrates that return to the 1970s. I am pleased to see a number of his friends from the rebellious left on the Government Benches, and I look forward to hearing their comments in due course.

The Trade Union Act 2016 was brought in by the last Conservative Government to reflect the modern British economy and workplace. It moved the trade union movement into the 21st century and ensures that hard-working people are not disrupted by little-supported strike action. \p Sarah Russell: In my constituency of Congleton, we have been blighted by approximately seven years of strike action by Northern. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the key to modern industrial relations is to have good industrial relations, not to pull apart Bills that make things better? \p Charlie Dewhirst: I think the best solution would be proper privatisation of our railways, including nationalised services like Northern, which is constantly on strike. I would use Hull Trains, which serves a lot of constituents in my area and is very rarely, if at all, on strike, as an example of an excellent, private open-access firm. Rail franchises that have been nationalised have a far greater problem with strike action than those that have not.

I wish to go back briefly to the ’70s—the height of the trade union movement. The number of trade union members peaked in 1979, at around 14 million. Since then, the number has declined considerably to around 6 million, the majority of whom are in the public sector. It is often for good reason that people in the public sector are members of a union, but it means that the landscape has changed. We have moved away from being a society and an economy of heavy industry and large manufacturing, and of towns that may have been built on one or two industries, or one or two factories, where everybody in that area was largely employed, either directly or indirectly, in those places. That was where the trade union movement was required, where it was strong and where it was needed.

The modern workplace is very different. We are now largely a services-based economy, and the relationship between employer and employee is much more modern and much more flexible. We have heard about the need for the traditional trade union movement, and about a return to secondary action, flying pickets and so forth. Clearly, there is no place at all for that in the UK now. \p Jerome Mayhew: The hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) suggested that we should have a return to secondary action. What is my hon. Friend’s view? \p Charlie Dewhirst: I do not want to speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), but he made his views very clear. I am sure that we will hear more in that tone as we go through the afternoon.

It is really important that the Bill does not take us back to a place where growth is stifled. The Government talk about the importance of growth but, taken together, this Bill and the Budget will cause us a very severe problem, because there is very little point in having extra trade union representation if unemployment is going through the roof. Those who are unemployed will not be represented.

My big fear is that, overall, this Bill is an act of economic sabotage. It protects the dinosaurs from extinction, it damages the UK economy and it ensures only that trade union donations continue to flow into the Labour party. \p Katrina Murray: My membership of Unison, and of the national executive of Unison prior to my election, is well documented. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

What people on this side of the House probably do not know is that I am also an associate member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the professional body for the people profession, and I have spent over 20 years as a manager and an employer. I have therefore spent most of my career working with people, managing people and employing people. I have ensured that staffing levels are maintained on the hours that people are contracted and available to work, and I have managed their flexibility without having to resort to bank or agency staff every week. However, as a trade union rep, I have prepared for and worked on consultative ballots, statutory industrial action ballots and—oh yeah—political fund ballots. I have done the hard yards: I have walked the wards at 3 o’clock in the morning to speak to the night shift, and I have gone out to remote workplaces to engage with people. But I have also met management to agree on what essential levels of service are.

I pay tribute to all of those who have worked on this Bill to get it to the place where it is today, and I welcome its coming back to the House. I believe in fair work; a relationship between the employer and the worker that is based on equality; a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work; and the right of an individual to withdraw their labour should workers collectively vote to do so. We discussed yesterday what a healthy employment relationship looks like, and it is about more than just pay. It is about how people are treated at work, and it is about ensuring that work pays and that people have not only a job but guaranteed hours, if that is what they want. If someone wants to work full time, they should not have to work two or maybe three contracts with the same employer to make up those hours, or to work the same excess hours every week for months and months—until they want to take an annual leave day, when they lose their entitlement to that.

Today’s amendments focus on two main aspects of the Bill: the rights of trade unions to organise in a way that we recognise in the 21st century, and how this vital piece of legislation is enforced. As we have been reminded, the world of work has changed fundamentally in the last 20 years, and so has the world of trade unions. I listened very carefully, and with great respect, to the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), who spoke of the combative and adversarial nature of trade unions, but that is not the world that I recognise. \p Daisy Cooper: I am grateful to the hon. Member for addressing some of my concerns, and I look forward to hearing what she says. Just to be clear, I was talking about what can be a combative working environment for employees and employers, and I said there was a missed opportunity to create more collaborative environments. I was not necessarily accusing the trade unions, but working environments can be combative. \p Katrina Murray: Thank you very much for your intervention. I have 20 years’ experience of working in a partnership arrangement, and staff-side trade unions   have been the agreed and recognised bodies for staff in the NHS. It is natural to sit down together and say, “These are our issues. How do we resolve them?” It is a lot more financially advantageous if we do not end up in a situation that is adversarial.

Electronic balloting has long been common practice, but not for statutory trade union ballots. This is not just about public votes on “Strictly Come Dancing” or “I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here!” I noticed that the Conservative leadership election in 2024 made great use of electronic balloting. It is absolutely time for trade union ballots to be brought into line with society, so I welcome the measures in the Bill to widen the methods of voting in industrial action ballots.

While I am on the subject of balloting, let me also say that I support the extension of the period of time before a re-ballot takes place to extend the mandate for strike action. The ultimate aim of any form of industrial action is for disputes to be resolved by all of the parties involved, ideally before any action is taken, before labour is withdrawn, before individuals lose their money and before the public are affected. The role of the Government should be to ensure that intransigent parties get round the table and talk in order to resolve any issues. Conservative Members have reminded us that when faced with that opportunity, they did exactly the opposite. They introduced the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, a piece of legislation that is so useless that it has stopped precisely zero strikes. It was used precisely zero times and is rightly being repealed as part of this legislation.

What Conservative Members do not recognise is that trade unions and trade union members do not take action lightly. I do wonder what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), was thinking, because he has obviously never talked to trade union members. People know their rights, they want to belong to things and they want to be involved. People collectively make such decisions, and they individually make decisions about their subscriptions—and by golly they know, because they have told me. These provisions have not been brought in with businesses kicking and screaming. Most businesses that work well with people know exactly what is going on.

In the interests of time, let me say that I completely endorse this Bill and every aspect of its enforcement. Everybody knows somebody who is being exploited at work. The Bill will prevent that happening. It is time to rebalance the employment relationship. \p Nusrat Ghani: Miss Murray, you used the term “you”. If it makes it easier, you can speak focused on the Chair, and that way you will not make such a mistake. Saying “thank you” means thanking me, and it gets very complicated for Hansard, so it is best not to do that. Just focus on the Chair, and that will help.

I need to make a correction. I should draw Members’ attention to a printing error in Government new clause 52 as it appears in the printed version of today’s amendment paper. The closing words at the end of subsection (1) should read:

“the Secretary of State may withdraw it by giving a notice of withdrawal to the person.”

A corrected version of the amendment paper is available online. \p Jerome Mayhew: This is a chaotic mess of a Bill, cobbled together in 100 days to satisfy a press release. We have the unedifying spectacle of an amendment paper that is 274 pages long, as the Government try to correct their many mistakes.

The main thing that I want to address in my short speech is the idea that Labour is beholden to the unions. That is often suggested, but let us just look at the facts, because we need to put this to bed. Between 2019 and 2024, Labour received only £31,314,589 from the unions, and in this Parliament more than 200 Labour MPs have been paid directly by the unions. The Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade have collectively received about £120,000 from unions. What are the unions paying for? Whatever it is, they have been handsomely repaid in the drafting of this Bill. To make it easier for Labour Members, who were all here to hear my point of order, perhaps they could put their hands up if they have not received any cash from the unions—oh dear, oh dear!

Clause 52 suggests that there should be a requirement to contribute to political funds when people join a union. It changes the rules on how union members should donate and how they should contribute political funds to the Labour party. Clause 52(2) changes subscriptions from an opt-in to an opt-out. That raises the question: why do we need this clause? What is the problem that the Labour party is trying to fix? Is £31 million just not enough? This clause encourages unions, when signing up members, to take advantage of their distraction, because members will not be focused on that and they will fall into what is in effect a subscription trap.

In other circumstances, the Labour party does not think that subscription traps are a very good idea. In fact, the Government sent out a press release on 18 November 2024 entitled, “New measures unveiled to crack down on subscription traps”. That sounds good so far. It says:

“Consultation launched on measures to crack down on ‘subscription traps’ and better protect shoppers…Unwanted subscriptions cost families £14 per month per subscription and £1.6 billion a year in total”.

It goes on:

“New proposals to crack down on subscription traps have been unveiled today…‘Subscription traps’ are instances where consumers are frequently misled into signing up for a subscription…It comes as new figures reveal consumers are spending billions of pounds each year on unwanted subscriptions due to unclear terms and conditions and complicated cancellation routes.”

The Business Secretary says:

“Our mission is to put more money back into people’s pockets and improve living standards across this country, tackling subscription traps that rip people’s earnings away is an important part of that.”

Clause 52 flies in the face of that press release. \p Sarah Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a massive difference between major corporations wanting to take money out of people’s bank accounts every month and trade unions wanting to represent people as effectively as possible in the workplace? \p Jerome Mayhew: I do not accept that difference. Taking advantage of people’s inattention, as this clause expressly sets out to do, is taking advantage of people for financial gain. The difference is that the people who gain in this instance are Labour Members. That begs the question: why have they drafted this clause and why, shamingly, will they vote for it later? \p Becky Gittins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Jerome Mayhew: I will in a moment.

Here we have it: a clause of direct financial interest to Labour Members. We have so far had two speakers who have both received very significant sums from the unions, to which they did not directly refer. The first was the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), who has received £20,000 from the unions, according to his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The second is the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), who has received £14,000 directly from the unions. This is germane to this debate. \p Laurence Turner: As has been said already in this debate, trade union donations have been declared, but donations from employers who have a direct private interest in particular sectors that we have debated in this place have not been declared. If any of the hon. Member’s colleagues have not drawn attention to such an interest, will he encourage them to do so? Does he agree with us on the Labour Benches that they were wrong not to make such a declaration? \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. There were two points of order on declarations earlier, and I think I made the situation quite clear. I just wish to let Mr Mayhew know that, if he is referring to Members directly with any form of criticism, he is meant to give them prior warning, so he should be mindful of that for what comes next in his speech. \p Jerome Mayhew: The intervention from the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) is a classic distraction technique. This Bill addresses the unions and union membership, and clause 52 moves money from unsuspecting union joiners directly to the Labour party. There is no other explanation for the clause. \p Becky Gittins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Gareth Snell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Jerome Mayhew: I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I will make some progress. \p Becky Gittins: The hon. Member is working incredibly hard to try to make a case for vested interests in relation to this Bill. Those vested interests are in the working people of this country. Nevertheless, I appreciate his efforts, and he certainly has earned his afternoon snack today. This precedes my time in this Chamber, and my hon. Friends may be able to help me, but was he as vociferous during the pandemic—a time of national crisis—when close relationships with senior Government figures secured contracts that produced no personal protective equipment when the country was in such desperate need? \p Jerome Mayhew: I did not follow that, so I will just have to move on. \p Louie French: The hon. Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins) has just made a point suggesting that working people are not impacted by the behaviours of trade unions, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is the working people of this country who are hammered the most when Labour Members’ paymasters, the trade unions, go on strike? \p Jerome Mayhew: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I cannot add any more to that. He has hit the nail on the head.

I support amendment 291, in the name of the Opposition, which would remove clause 52. At the moment, this is a circular Bill of self-interest: Labour Members get money from the unions, the Bill increases union powers and that clause increases the amount of money from the unions. The clause is brazen and shaming, and it should be removed. \p Johanna Baxter: I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my proud trade union membership—I am a member of the Communication Workers Union and the GMB. For too long, working families in Paisley and Renfrewshire South have been let down by outdated employment laws unfit for a modern economy, leaving too many workers trapped in insecure, low-paid jobs. When the Conservatives crashed the economy, who bore the brunt? Not them. People in insecure, low-paid roles were left to bear the brunt of their economic incompetence.

Everyone watching this debate will remember, on the previous Government’s watch, the dread of opening their bills and mortgage statements, and seeing just how much their costs had skyrocketed. They will remember being at the supermarket check-out and being forced to put essentials back on the shelf because they cost much more than they did the week before. Some parents will remember sitting at the dinner table and watching their children eat while they went without. For too long, too many people in our communities have gone to work not to build a better future, but simply to scrape by. They worked very hard for the poverty they then experienced.

As a former trade union negotiator, I spent more than 20 years of my working life standing up for people in low-paid jobs. As a former head of local government for UNISON Scotland, I was proud to represent the bin collectors, the carers and the school support workers, all of whom are the bedrock and the backbone of our local communities, and on whom we relied so much during the covid pandemic. When their bills went up, they turned to their trade unions, asking us to negotiate for nothing more than a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work. Yet under laws introduced by the previous Government, fighting for those workers too often felt like fighting with one arm tied behind our back, within a legal framework that allowed bad businesses to ignore trade unions and the voice of workers; allowed businesses to flood a bargaining group to prevent trade union recognition and weaken workers’ voices; and allowed employers to impose minimum service levels—an attack on workers’ rights that did nothing to address the reasons why our public services were struggling.

Let me be clear: Labour Members have no problem with businesses. The problem is that the previous Government allowed exploitation to thrive. Most businesses want to do right by their workers. They know that fair pay and good conditions lead to happier workers and a more productive economy. They know that treating workers fairly is not a burden, but a benefit. That is why the Bill is so important. It fixes these issues. It expands statutory sick pay to help people improve their health and wellbeing and get back to work. It improves industrial relations and will give workers stronger protections with regard to their holiday pay. It introduces a new Fair Work Agency to enforce those new rights, because, frankly, there is no point in having those rights unless they can be enforced.

What the Conservative party just does not get is that being pro-worker is being pro-business and pro-growth. When they introduced burdensome red tape on trade unions, they introduced burdensome red tape on businesses and their ability to engage in the bargaining and negotiation process that settles disputes quickly. Negotiation with trade unions means fewer disputes, fewer days lost to industrial action, and greater economic stability.

At the general election, Labour pledged to make the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation, restoring dignity to work and putting more money in families’ pockets. Today, we take another step towards delivering that promise. I want us to be more ambitious—we on the Labour Benches are always ambitious—and draw the Minister’s attention to the potential issue in the Bill regarding the lower earnings limit for statutory sick pay. I hope that can be resolved when the Bill goes to the other place.

I finish with a quote from Paisley’s own Robert Tannahill:

“Through summer and winter so dreary

I cheerily toil’d on the farm,

Nor ever once dream’d growing weary,

For love gave my labour its charm.”

Good work is good for people. It provides dignity. Work should provide security, not uncertainty. It should be a source of pride, not precarity. It should be a means of building a good life; it should not just allow people to scrape by. That is what the Bill stands for, and what this Labour Government stand for and will fight for, and I am proud to support it. \p Saqib Bhatti: I would like to address the hon. Lady’s point that being pro-worker is pro-business. We Conservative Members believe that. The only problem is that this legislation is not pro-worker or pro-business. It will drive up unemployment and the regulation of businesses. The workers whom she purports to represent and support are exactly the people who will suffer as a result of this legislation. We Conservative Members absolutely get that.

I will talk in favour of amendments on the political fund, new clause 88 and amendments 291 and 299, and will refer to access to the workplace. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, not least because I worked in a small family business and retain an interest in the family business. Also, before being elected, I was president of the Greater Birmingham chamber of commerce, one of the largest and oldest chambers of commerce in the country and the world, representing thousands of small businesses.

Let us be in no doubt: this is a terrible piece of legislation. It is a love letter from the Labour Government to trade unions, and it will lead to a trail of socialist carnage and destruction that will leave the country reeling for many, many years to come. It harms business, undermines employment, will drive up unemployment and will do nothing to increase growth or investment in the United Kingdom, the purported aims of the Government. In fact, the Government’s original impact assessment, when the Bill was first introduced, talked about the cost to business being about £4.5 billion, reaching almost £5 billion. We are yet to see the impact of the new amendments—a further move to a more socialist version of the Bill—and their cost to businesses.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), who is a friend and neighbour, talked about the modern workplace. I agree that the workplace has changed since the 1950s and even the 1970s, but the Bill will take the workplace back to the 1970s. It fails to achieve a balance between working people and businesses, and a relationship between trade unions and businesses. In fact, it goes way, way down the line in favouring trade unions, and it makes it much harder for people to run businesses. When I was president of the chamber of commerce, I was perfectly fine with trade unions and having good relationships with them. I had friends who joined trade unions, even though they were not in a unionised workplace. I encouraged it. They needed representation, and I thought it was a good thing to do. I have no problem with trade union relationships in the modern workplace, but a balance must be achieved.

A comment was made about economic units. Economic units are the businesses that create economic growth. Of course workers are really important. My employees were really important to me, because my business could not run without them. The majority of business owners recognise that. Conservative Members recognise that there is a symbiotic relationship between the people who run businesses and the employees who work in them. Those individuals running businesses are drivers of economic change. They are innovators who come up with the ideas. They are the risk takers who turn a profit, which pays the taxes that fund our public services. Unfortunately, the Bill does not recognise any of that. In fact, businesses are anxious and are worried about what it is introducing. \p Perran Moon: No, they are not. \p Saqib Bhatti: They are absolutely are. The Deputy Prime Minister, when challenged to name a business that supported the Bill, could not do so. [Interruption.] I am sure the hon. Member will have an opportunity to speak on the matter in his own way. \p Joe Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is also badly drafted? Even if Members support the content, it is a badly drafted Bill that was brought before the House far too quickly. Such a huge Bill of this nature should have had time. It is hardly surprising that the Government are tabling so many amendments, because they are still writing it. \p Saqib Bhatti: I could not have made the point better. The number of amendments, and the cost and regulatory burden being placed on businesses, large, medium and small, have worried many businesses, not just in my constituency but across the country. This will do immense harm, and it will take a long time to fix the mess that has been created. \p Lincoln Jopp: There are 24 Members sitting on the Government Benches. Would my hon. Friend like to issue an open invitation to them to name a single small business that has been in touch to say that it supports this legislation? \p Saqib Bhatti: I am more than happy to extend that invitation. Madam Deputy Speaker may get annoyed with me if I take 24 interventions, although I do not see anyone jumping to their feet, so we will take that for what it is.

There is also anxiety about the clauses on access to the workplace. The Government have now gone further and talked about digital access. This is a huge burden to put on small businesses, and it is shameful of the Government wilfully and blindly to ignore their concerns. Labour Members will have to answer many questions from businesses in their communities. Those same businesses contribute to the Treasury coffers and pay for the public services that Labour Members champion. This will be really important, and the burden will of course increase.

Before—and after—the election, and during the passage of this legislation, Labour has said time and again that it was listening to businesses. Clearly that is not the case. Businesses continue to feel that they have been led up the garden path by this damaging Labour Government. \p Johanna Baxter: We in Labour have listened to business. Ann Francke of the Chartered Management Institute has gone on record as saying:

“The Employment Rights Bill represents a significant step forward in improving conditions for the UK’s workforce.” \p Saqib Bhatti: The hon. Lady should speak to the Deputy Prime Minister, who failed to name a single supportive business when challenged to do so.

In the short time I have left, I will make a couple of quick points. Labour Members keep saying that the Bill will lead to fewer strikes. It will not; it makes it easier to strike. In fact, the Transport Secretary today said that strikes will be necessary in the areas covered by her portfolio. The Bill will make it easier to strike, not harder. [Interruption.] Labour Members are exercised; I am sure that they will get a chance to comment. The country is at risk of being turned into a 1970s-style striking country. This Bill should be a wake-up call for all working people and businesses that will be undermined. As we have heard from Members from across the House, only the Conservatives will stand up for businesses.

I have questions for all Labour Members. People ask what this Labour Government stand for. They undermine businesses and working people, so that is a legitimate question. I fail to see who, other than trade unions, the Labour party now stands for. When people asked what we Conservatives stand for, Margaret Thatcher had a very good answer. She said that the Labour party—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Paisley and  Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who spoke before me, read out a quote; I think I should do so as well. Margaret Thatcher said:

“The Labour Party believes in turning workers against owners; we believe in turning workers into owners.” \p Antonia Bance: I proudly draw attention to my membership of the Unite union and my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I thank my friends at the GMB and ASLEF for their support of my election campaign.

I am in this place to stand up for working people, and that is what I will do. The best protection anyone can have at work is the support of their workmates, organised together in a union, and bargaining with management, sitting down with them as equals at the table, and making sure that the business grows and thrives, and that everyone takes home a fair wage. This Bill and the Government amendments will make it easier for working people to choose their union, be represented by their union, and get all the benefits of being in a recognised union, so that we have an economy where better terms and conditions at work go hand in hand with the growth that we need. Let us be clear: this Bill supports growth. It could add £13 billion to the economy through improvements to employee wellbeing, reduced stress, improved national minimum wage compliance, reduced workplace conflict, and increased labour market participation. That is the type of growth that we want. \p Joe Robertson: I invite the hon. Lady to acknowledge the £5 billion cost to businesses that the Government’s own analysis says will be caused by the Bill. \p Antonia Bance: I do acknowledge that, every single of which will go into the pocket of a working person in improved rights and higher wages, alongside £13 billion of increased productivity, reduced stress, better employee wellbeing and reduced conflict in the workplace.

On the amendments, I will start with access to workplaces, which are the key to getting more workers into unions. I strongly welcome provisions to give unions the right to access workplaces for meeting, representing, organising, recruiting and collective bargaining. I am glad the Government amended the rules to ensure they cover digital as well as physical access, and I am glad to see the Central Arbitration Committee oversight and penalties when employers do not comply, as is sometimes the case.

Once a union has established membership in a workplace, it will want to seek recognition. Most employers do not have to be forced to recognise a union—it is just what they do as a responsible employer—but where employers refuse, statutory recognition can be triggered. Until now that process has been absolutely mad and totally dysfunctional, and the cards are stacked against the working people and their union at every turn.

The worst example of this in recent years is at BHX4 in Coventry where a company dedicated to keeping unions out of its warehouses brought its US-style industrial relations to the UK, and took on its own workers who wanted no more and no less than for management to have to sit down and negotiate with their union, the GMB. Amazon is a £27 billion company in the UK yet  its sales are growing three times higher than its frontline workers’ wages and it has had 1,400 ambulance call-outs in just five years. BHX4 in Coventry is not a safe workplace, with fulfilment centre workers getting injured, being asked to pick up too much, to load from the back of vehicles on their own, and to lift heavy weights above their heads. Those workers at that Amazon plant were forced to take 37 days of industrial action over poverty pay. At the Select Committee, the company’s badly briefed, evasive executives could not bring themselves to acknowledge that.

Recognising the GMB is a modest request, something 1,000 companies would have accepted without question, but not Amazon. At the Select Committee, the GMB organiser, Amanda Gearing, told us that Amazon flooded the bargaining unit; there were 1,400 workers when the GMB first sought statutory recognition but, strangely, just 27 days after that application went in the number went up to 2,749. Amanda told us how Amazon delayed the access agreement— 52 days to agree access to the workplace, a chance for the company to swamp the workers with anti-union propaganda. All the screens in the warehouse and the app used for work allocation were anti-union, threatening to close the site if workers unionised. When the access scheme was finally agreed, the GMB got a tiny number of screens and one 45-minute session with each worker, while Amazon had five one-hour sessions and screens everywhere. It induced GMB members to leave the union and in every way impeded access.

I pay tribute to the GMB leaders at Amazon in Coventry: Ceferina Floresca, Garfield Hylton, Paramanathan Pradeep and Mohammednur Mohammed—heroes, all of them. Standing up to huge intimidation and under huge pressure, they ran a brilliant campaign, but the deck was stacked against them, and they lost the ballot by a heartbreaking 29 votes. The GMB’s general secretary, my friend Gary Smith, is clear: if the legislation we are debating today had been in place, the GMB members at Amazon would have won their fight. \p John Cooper: The hon. Lady is a fearsome campaigner on the Business and Trade Committee. She talks about intimidation and paints a lovely picture of unions working actively for their workers, but how can we square that with the version of intimidation that the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) seems to be referring to with the return of flying pickets? \p Nusrat Ghani: Before the hon. Lady responds, she will no doubt realise that she is close to eight minutes. I know she will want to speak for a little while, but not too much longer. \p Antonia Bance: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my fellow member of the Business and Trade Committee for his intervention. As he will have seen from the amendment paper, the Government are not proposing the return of secondary picketing.

New schedule 2 will give unions greater protection from unfair practices during a recognition process and make winning it more likely. I wish that Ministers had gone the whole hog and deleted the three-year lockout; perhaps there will be an opportunity to take that forward.

In conclusion, as a whole, this package of modern industrial relations will lead to more sitting roundtables sorting out issues, fewer picket lines, fewer strikes, more productive relationships, more long-termism across our industrial base, better jobs, higher wages, higher skills and higher productivity. That is why the changes in this Bill to both collective rights and individual rights are so crucial, and so opposed by the Tories and the absent Reform party. This is the type of growth that my party stands for—the type of growth where proceeds are shared by all. It is time to make work pay. \p Lincoln Jopp: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). She is such a compelling advocate that I am tempted to go on strike myself. I do sense a certain amount of antipathy between the two sides of the House, so, before I come on to make a fair point in support of amendment 292, I want to prepare the ground by doing two things.

First, I want to try to convince Labour Members that they missed an opportunity, because I am, at heart, a rabble-rousing potential motivator of people. When, about three Christmases ago, the ambulance drivers went on strike, it irked me that the soldiers who were going to stand in for them at no notice would have their Christmas ruined, so I started a campaign to try to get them an additional £20 for every day they stood in for the ambulance drivers. This plan was—the Chancellor would have loved this—net positive to the Treasury. Of course, the departments that employ the ambulance drivers and the arm’s length bodies do not pay them on strike days, and the pay differential between them and the £20 bung to the soldiers meant that the Government still saved money. I managed to get The Sun on board and get a letter into the paper, and did a bit of television. \p Sarah Russell: Is the hon. Gentleman not ashamed that, under his Government, hard-working ambulance drivers felt they had to go on strike? \p Lincoln Jopp: I think the hon. Lady has slightly missed the point of what I was saying. Reading the body language of Members on the Government Benches, I think they all wanted to hear how this story ended up.

It did help that the then Secretary of State for Defence was a friend of mine, with whom I served in the Scots Guards. We did get the £20 bung for all the service personnel who stood in—regardless of the fact, interestingly, that all the generals, air marshals and admirals were against it, as were all the officials. There you go—I very much have the same values at heart.

Secondly, to win over the other side of the House to the very fair point I will come on to make, let me pay tribute to the remark of the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), in respect of union membership, that he wanted people to

“make a fair choice one way or the other”.

I note that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) also referred to fair work. I want to come back to that theme of fairness in addressing amendment 292.

The Bill is, to put it politely, something of a cat’s cradle of clauses, so I will briefly remind the House that the Bill seeks to place on employers an obligation to give their workers a written statement that they have the  right to join a union, and, if they do join, to contribute to the political fund. Amendment 292 would simply inject a bit of balance into the legislation by requiring trade unions to notify their members annually that they have a right to opt out of the political fund and to obtain an annual opt-in from their members.

This all puts me in mind of November 1988, when Mrs Thatcher was about to visit Poland. At Prime Minister’s questions, just prior to her going, an Opposition Member stood up and asked whether she would raise with Lech Wałęsa the right to join a trade union. There may be some Members present who were there—I will not be so ungallant as to ask. A roar went up from the Labour Benches, and the redoubtable Mrs Thatcher replied that she would raise with the Poles the right to join a trade union, but that she would also raise the right not to be a member.

The Bill seeks to whack the pendulum pretty hard in favour of union power; our amendment would bring it back into balance somewhat. We all know someone, after all, who has fallen prey to one of those charity muggers who stop people in the street and try to sign them up to whichever charity they are being paid by that day. I have known people who have done that job, and it is not an easy one. Similarly, any Member of this House who stood in a precinct and tried to sell their political brand and get people to sign up will attest to that completely. Sometimes, the charity collectors are successful, and the all-important direct debit details are extracted. In fact, I remember hearing a number of Labour Members railing against this practice in the previous Parliament.

Amendment 292 would remind workers that they still have an off-ramp, if they want one—they still have agency, and they still have freedom of choice. We have heard Member after Member stand up over the past two days of debate and declare—in some cases sheepishly, in some cases more proudly—the money they receive from the trade unions. This is only right and proper. The public can make up their own minds as to whether this money has coloured the judgment of Labour Members, or whether it is simply support from an organisation that shares their values. But to turn down amendment 292 would, in my view, be a dreadful look. This is a totally measured, balancing amendment and, if Labour Members vote against it, the public would be right to conclude that the Government are being motivated not by a sense of equality, fairness and justice, but instead by something else. I urge hon. Members to vote for amendment 292 and to give power to the people. \p Andy McDonald: It is a pleasure to be called to speak for a second time on Report. I proudly refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Unite the union.

Much has been said about trade unions and strike action, as if the only purpose of a trade union is to get workers out on strike. It is a mischaracterisation of unions, as was so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). It is also a mischaracterisation of corporate Britain to think that everyone is exploitative and abusive. The majority of companies in our country adhere to environmental, social and governance principles, and they make that commitment; they want to demonstrate   that they are responsible people. They want that for their investors and for long-term sustained investment, so we have to draw back on those views and step away from the disdain and the contempt for working people and for trade unions, which is not helpful.

I shall now move on to the substantive issues. On Government amendment 250, I wish to express my support for the strengthening of the role of the Fair Work Agency, enforcing the decisions on pay by the new negotiating body for social care. Adult social care was the sector uppermost in our thinking when considering the concept of fair pay agreements negotiated through sectoral collective bargaining, as expressed in the new deal for working people.

I noted during the Bill’s Committee stage that the TUC General Secretary, Paul Nowak, said:

“Bodies as disparate as the International Monetary Fund and the OECD have talked about the benefits of unions and collective bargaining in modern economies—benefits in terms of improved productivity and business performance, but also benefits for workers in terms of increased pay.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 67, Q63.]

The TUC has said:

“We would like the Bill to include powers to extend Fair Pay Agreements to other sectors.”

I wholeheartedly agree with that, but FPAs of themselves do not remedy the broader need for much greater sectoral collective bargaining.

Unite the union has said that

“we would like to see further measures in the Bill to extend collective bargaining”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 70, Q66.]

The general secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers said

that

“we would like it very straightforward that there is going to be provision—an amendment—for sectoral collective bargaining.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 66, Q62.]

To ensure that the Government can establish new negotiating bodies supporting fair pay agreements elsewhere in the economy, I have tabled new clause 68.

A good starting point for the Government to demonstrate the benefits of sectoral collective bargaining would be in the civil service, and I hope that the plans to modernise the civil service will end the inefficient situation of hundreds of separate pay bargaining units and negotiations each year.

I wish now to consider private sector contracting. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor are among those who have committed to the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation, and I look forward to the national procurement policy setting that out. In the meantime, we have seen picket lines at Government Departments for months, as G4S, ISS and OCS Security fail to meet with representatives of the Public and Commercial Services Union to resolve pay and conditions disputes.

Under my new clause 66, the Secretary of State would have a duty to ensure that any Government Department contract, or similar public contract, recognises an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining. I hope the Government will be addressing this issue outwith the Bill in the near future.

With regard to the right of access, a number of new Government amendments clarify the process relating to access, including the right to communicate with workers, including digital communication. But I remain concerned that the process creates a complicated framework that risks employers slowing the process, rather than providing for effective union access, and that the proposed model of financial penalties does not provide any remedy for the union.

I remain of the opinion that unions should always have a simple right of access to their members. My new clause 70 sets out how an

“official of an independent trade union shall have a right to enter premises, meet, represent, recruit or organise workers and facilitate collective bargaining”.

I am clear that such access requires prior notification in writing, setting out the purpose of a meeting and which employees would join such a meeting. I fear the process set out may not work effectively and I hope the Government will be open to further simplification in the future.

On recognition, I note that the Government’s new schedule 2 updates the original clause 51, with additional and welcome provisions on union recognition processes, including preventing an employer inflating the bargaining unit with transferred employees à la Amazon, where workers ascribed to that bargaining unit had no connection with it whatsoever. This was to prevent employers reaching a recognition agreement with a non-independent union to prevent recognition with an independent one.

The Government have been absolutely right to close off the sweetheart deal arrangements. More can be done regarding recognition, however, which is why I have tabled amendment 271, which seeks to reduce the need for a ballot and ensure that the Central Arbitration Committee grants automatic recognition in certain circumstances, or a simple majority of those voting in other circumstances.

I have also sought to lengthen the period for making a complaint about unfair practice in connection with the ballot from one to 20 working days—I know the Government have shifted that from one to five, but that is as many unions and the TUC have set out—and to remove the three-year barrier to a union that has lost an application for recognition, replacing three years with three months. It is unjust, particularly given the anti-union measures deployed, that the GMB cannot quickly pursue a recognition process at Amazon’s Coventry warehouse, where the union lost, as we previously heard, by just 29 votes. It is unjust that they should be pushed out for such a long period, and I hope the Government will remain alive to the need to update that.

In conclusion, I am pleased to have been afforded the opportunity to speak for a second time on Report. We have, in this Employment Rights Bill, a momentous uplift in workers’ rights and protections, which addresses the balance that has swung far too far in the opposite direction. However, the appetite remains for yet further improvements. I commend the Government for their work in bringing forward the legislation, which I wholeheartedly support. I look forward to working together further on the journey to delivering well-paid, secure and unionised employment. \p Chris Law: Although I have broadly welcomed the Bill as it has progressed through the House, I have caveated that by stating that the  Labour Government should be bolder and must go further in future for the rights and protections to become entrenched rather than rolled back. Indeed, on Second Reading I quoted the Scottish Trades Union Congress general Secretary, Roz Foyer, who summarised the Bill by saying:

“the Employment Rights Bill isn’t the terminus. It’s the first stop. This can be the foundations on which we can build.”

I agree. \p Antonia Bance: The hon. Member may not have had a chance to look at the Government website and encounter the document entitled “Next Steps to Make Work Pay”, which sets out a programme of continuing work to improve rights at work and parental leave and the review of employment status to come. I am sure he will be glad to hear that. \p Chris Law: No, I have not had the chance to look at the Government website, but I thank the hon. Member for raising that. As I have broadly said, I support the Bill, but there are reasons why I am contributing to the debate, not least because of a lack of devolution to the Scottish Parliament, which I will come to shortly.

On Second Reading, the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and local Government, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), made it explicitly clear that the foundations will not be built upon in the long term, as a future Conservative Government would simply repeal protections. He declared that

“many of the measures will be brought in through secondary legislation, therefore making it easier for a future Government to reverse some of the catastrophic changes.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 58.]

Employment rights for workers in Scotland cannot be dependent on the merry-go-round of Westminster politics. They have seen their rights attacked and diminished by years of Conservative Governments, and where the Bill reverses some of the worst excesses of those Governments’ policies, that must be protected and strengthened in the long term. Westminster cannot guarantee that for the people in Scotland, so I have tabled new clause 77, which would amend the Scotland Act 1998 to devolve employment and industrial relations to the Scottish Parliament.

Back in 2014, all Unionist parties, including the Labour party, promised maximum devolution for Scotland, as displayed on the front page of a national newspaper days before the independence referendum, in which Scotland voted no. This Labour Government have failed to devolve a single power to Holyrood since coming to power in July—not a single one—despite the Scottish Parliament voting for employment rights to be devolved.

In November, the STUC called on the UK Government to

“end the excuses and devolve powers over taxation, migration and, importantly, employment law from Westminster to Holyrood.”

Moreover, Scottish Labour’s 2021 election manifesto stated:

“We support further devolution of powers to Holyrood including borrowing and employment rights”.

Here is a question for Scottish Labour MPs: will they respect the wishes of the Scottish Parliament? \p Antonia Bance: indicated dissent. \p Chris Law: The hon. Member shakes her head, but I am speaking to Scottish Labour MPs. \p Antonia Bance: I care about the people of Scotland. \p Chris Law: I care about the people of Scotland and what they say. Will Scottish Labour MPs listen to trade unions and deliver on the promises made by their party by supporting the new clause, or will they continue to follow instructions handed to them from No. 10? Silence. I thought so. They are too scared to stand up for the people of Scotland. \p Johanna Baxter: The hon. Gentleman says that he is a big supporter of workers’ rights. Would he like to comment on the fact that for every year of the last nine years that I was lead negotiator for local government workers in Scotland, they had to have consultative ballots for industrial action just to get a decent pay rise out of the Scottish Government? Does that really mean standing up for workers in Scotland? \p Chris Law: I thought I was asking a question of the Scottish Labour MPs, only to be asked another question. The hon. Lady will be well aware that the Scottish Government have worked collectively with both unions and other bodies to ensure that the living wage in Scotland is higher than in any other part of the UK. I remind her that it was Scottish Labour in November 2023 that voted with the SNP for employment rights to be evolved through the Scottish Parliament.

Throughout its existence, when powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, decisions are taken in the interests of the people of Scotland and outcomes improve: publicly owned rail and water, higher per-head education and health spend, free prescriptions, free tuition, a more humane welfare system and a progressive taxation system. Fair work practices are being delivered already by the SNP Scottish Government, such as supporting collective bargaining, achieving real living wage employer status and closing the gender pay gap faster than anywhere in the rest of the UK. \p Katrina Murray: Does the hon. Member agree that it is an absolute failure of collective bargaining for the Scottish Government to have walked away from the commitments they made in a deal with health service unions two years ago on the reduction of the working week? They are failing to go through with reducing the working week by half an hour as of 1 April 2025. \p Chris Law: I listened to the hon. Member with interest, but I suggest that she has that debate in the Scottish Parliament. After all, we are talking about the devolution of powers here in the UK Parliament.

A framework for collective bargaining in the adult care sector has been developed by the Scottish care unions—Unison, the GMB and Unite—along with the Scottish Government and care providers, with a Scottish social care joint council proposed. The Scottish care unions have intimated that the constitution, composition, remit and function of the Scottish social care joint council is preferable and should assume the role of the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body for England. Scotland already has a 10-year history of joint commitments to   fair work, whereas England is only embarking on that journey. Furthermore, there is a need to extend sectoral bargaining to all sectors of the economy, not just adult social care.

Measures such as creating a single status of worker for all but the genuinely self-employed, strengthening protections for those with unfair contracts and increasing the minimum wage to at least the national living wage, and then in line with inflation, are all missing from the Bill. The SNP Scottish Government would support those measures if employment law were devolved, and they would be delivered if this Government respected the votes of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Labour manifesto.

Just as the Bill should be the first stop rather than the terminus, devolution is a process, not an event. Not only has devolution moved at a glacial pace, but we live in the world’s most asymmetrical political union, where each nation has differing devolved powers. Why is it that employment law is devolved in Northern Ireland but not in Scotland? I want to see employment rights strengthened continually rather than in a cycle of piecemeal progress when Labour is in power, only to be reversed when the Tories next get their turn. The gains for workers’ rights in the Bill must therefore be protected. That is why the SNP remains committed to advocating for, at a minimum, the urgent devolution of employment powers. That is the best way, short of independence, of protecting workers’ rights in Scotland. \p Baggy Shanker: I, too, refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have been a proud member of Unite the Union for over 35 years, although many Members may find that hard to believe given my youthful looks. \p James Frith: A member since you were five years old! \p Baggy Shanker: Absolutely.

I welcome the measures in the Bill, which I know will make a real difference to the lives of working people and their families in Derby and across the UK. I will focus on how the Bill will, through Government amendment 163, transform employee access to trade unions, empowering more employees to act as a collective so that they can secure better pay and conditions. When I speak to business leaders in small and large employers, they all say that their biggest asset is their people. The Conservatives can harp on about trade unions as much as they want, but in practice the best solution is for employers to work with employees and trade union reps to create the best working conditions for businesses and individuals to succeed.

I know about the importance of union membership from first-hand experience. When I left school at the age of 16 and began work as an engineering apprentice, I joined the union on day two. I knew how important that would be in supporting me and my colleagues at work. Much later on, when campaigning to save Alstom in Derby last year, I saw how hard Unite and other trade unions fought to secure jobs at the Litchurch Lane facility. They stood up for working people in our local community when it mattered most.

However, employees cannot access the benefits that union membership can bring if they do not know about the support offered by trade unions in the first place. \p Christopher Vince: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his youthful appearance. Does he agree that, just as businesses are about the employees, trade unions are about their memberships and giving individual members their rights? \p Baggy Shanker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about individual members coming together to do what is right for themselves, for their trade unions, and for the companies and businesses that they work for.

I welcome the Bill’s introduction of a right of access for unions to meet with workers. Government amendment 163 expands union access agreements, so that unions can communicate with workers digitally as well as by entering the workplace. I urge meaningful implementation of those digital access rights to enable direct conversations between unions and workers, as would take place during in-person meetings in the workplace.

When we work together, we get more done. It is important that workers have access to union representatives and know how joining a union can support them in the workplace. I welcome the measures in the Bill to expand that access, which will further strengthen the rights of working people in Derby and beyond. \p Sarah Bool: There are 5,310 businesses registered in my constituency of South Northamptonshire. Of those, 99.6%—or specifically 5,245—are small businesses. This Bill, among many of the Government’s policies, is a calamity for those small businesses. Not only are many of them rural, meaning that they will be affected by the family farm tax and now by the removal of the sustainable farming incentive, but as the chair of the Federation of Small Businesses has said, these small and medium-sized enterprises will struggle to adapt to the 28 major changes that the Bill makes to employment law.

First, it was the Government’s jobs tax, then it was their cuts to rate relief for hospitality businesses, and now they are smothering SMEs with red tape. Analysis published by the Department for Business and Trade says that this will impose a cost on businesses in the low billions of pounds per year, but that is not money that many of my small businesses can afford right now. This is why the Opposition have called for small businesses to be exempt from the parts of the Bill that would heap unsustainable costs on them.

Why do the Government seem to hate small businesses so much? Perhaps it is because the majority of the Cabinet have spent their careers in the public sector and have zero understanding of what life is like for the many entrepreneurs with SMEs across the UK, including in my constituency. We learned this week that, for the first time since records began in 2012, the number of companies registered at Companies House has fallen. Growth forecasts have been downgraded and the number of vacancies has declined. All this is a result of the choices the Government have made and continue to make in this Bill.

With all of this, the UK risks becoming a globally uncompetitive economy, particularly when other countries such as the United States are slashing regulation and unleashing their businesses to grow their economies. The Opposition have tabled new clause 90 for exactly this reason. It would ensure that when the Secretary of State makes regulations under part 4 of the Bill, he has to have regard to growth in the medium to long term. I join the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), in calling on the Government to support new clauses 89 and 90 to ensure that growth happens. Our economy is already struggling under the weight of Labour’s tax rises. Why are the Government opposing our efforts to ensure that they consider how burdensome regulation might impact on businesses? \p Graham Stuart: A lot of people outside this place might feel that the answer to that question is that the trade unions have funded Labour Members—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), who is talking from a sedentary position, received more than £27,000 from two unions in the latest year of declarations and did not think it appropriate in this debate even to mention that number, which may well have influenced his thinking and led to the dire outcomes that my hon. Friend is explaining to the House. \p Sarah Bool: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I think all Labour Members must reflect on this because we need the public to understand truly why this legislation is going through.

That the Government have seen fit to table 87 of their own amendments at this stage alone is indicative of how uneasy they must feel about the Bill. We are even told by the media that the Treasury has warned the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State about the consequences for the economy of enacting these laws, yet they seem to have seen fit to plough them through anyway. As per usual, Labour is paying lip service to growth while sticking true to form with their socialist ideology. I was not born in the 1970s but it appears that I am going to live through the equivalent in the years ahead, as Labour plays Abba’s 1976 hit “Money, Money, Money” for its trade union paymasters. \p Zarah Sultana: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud trade unionist and a member of Unite the union. I have been supported from across the labour movement with the cleanest money in politics, which I do not think Conservative Members can say about themselves.

For over a year, Swedish Tesla workers have been on strike demanding the basic right to collective bargaining. Their struggle has inspired solidarity across industries. Postal workers, painters, electricians, cleaners and dock workers have all launched secondary action in support. Denmark’s largest trade union, 3F Transport, has also joined the fight, preventing Danish dock workers and drivers from handling Tesla shipments bound for Sweden. This level of solidarity is possible because Swedish trade unions are not shackled by restrictive laws designed to suppress collective action. Unlike here in the UK, the legislative landscape in Sweden does not act against the  interests of organised labour. Almost 90% of Swedish workers are covered by collective agreements, and their labour laws ensure that workers have the right to negotiate and defend their conditions without undue interference.

As a result, Swedish trade unions are more than a match for billionaires like Elon Musk. When Tesla refused to sign a collective agreement, it was not just Tesla workers who fought back—the entire trade union movement did. That is what real industrial democracy looks like, and it is a powerful reminder of what British workers have been denied for too long by some of the most draconian anti-union legislation in the western world.

While I welcome the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and much of the Trade Union Act 2016, the fact remains that many of the worst Thatcher-era anti-union laws are still in place. One of the most damaging is section 224 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which makes secondary action unlawful. That ban on sympathy strikes isolates workers, weakens their bargaining power and prolongs disputes—all to the benefit of exploitative employers. That is why I have tabled new clause 31 to repeal that restriction and return power to working people.

Secondary action built the trade union movement as we know it. It helped us secure the very rights that we all benefit from today. But in an era of outsourcing and subcontracting, the ban is even more harmful than it was three decades ago. Under current legislation, two workers performing the same job in the same workplace cannot take industrial action together if one is directly employed and the other is outsourced. Employers exploit that loophole to divide workers. They shift responsibility through complex corporate structures, like what we are seeing at Coventry University in my constituency, and undermine union action by transferring work or hiving off companies. Workers are even prevented from taking action against parent companies and suppliers during disputes.

In many ways, secondary action is more essential than ever in the fight for fair pay and conditions. Most European nations, including Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands, allow secondary action in some form. Even those with restrictions, such as Germany, France and Spain, stop short of imposing an outright ban. Labour’s new deal for working people committed to repealing anti-union laws and ensuring that the UK’s industrial action laws comply with international obligations, including those under the International Labour Organisation and the European social charter. Yet, as it stands, the Bill fails to deliver on that promise.

International bodies have repeatedly condemned the UK’s ban on secondary action. The European Committee of Social Rights and the ILO criticised the UK for that restriction most recently in 2023 after the P&O Ferries scandal, when 800 crew members were sacked via video call and replaced with agency workers. P&O knew that it could get away with its disgraceful actions because the law prevents other workers from striking in solidarity.

I also support a number of amendments, including those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), such as new clause 61, which would define employment status in law to end bogus self-employment. That is long  overdue. For too long, employers have exploited gaps in employment law to deny workers basic rights. Today, in our country, black and Asian workers are disproportionately trapped in precarious, low-paid jobs on bogus self-employment contracts and denied statutory sick pay, holiday pay and protection from unfair dismissal. This two-tier system must end.

Every single worker deserves dignity and respect in the workplace, and by strengthening the Bill with these amendments, we would be taking a step forward towards rebuilding the power of the working class. I urge Members across the House to stand on the right side of history and with the workers who keep this country running. \p Gregory Stafford: I rise to speak again on the second day of Report stage to raise serious concerns about the role of the Bill in facilitating unprecedented and dangerous access for trade unions and the destruction of business, especially small businesses. I am glad the Minister is in his seat because yesterday he was challenged to name a small business that supported the Bill, and 24 hours later he still cannot. That is due not to the assiduity of the Minister, who I am sure is very assiduous, but to the simple fact that no small business supports the Bill. \p Andy MacNae: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Gregory Stafford: I have hardly started. There cannot possibly be anything that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene on me for just yet, but I will come to him. \p Andy McDonald: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Gregory Stafford: I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.

Yesterday, we heard that Labour clearly does not understand business, and today we get to what it really does understand: how it can support its trade union paymasters. Government Members have given us a masterclass in how to support trade unions. Opposition Members have mentioned the 1970s. When I heard Government Members speaking, especially the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), John Williams’s score from “Jurassic Park” soared in my mind. But instead of Jeff Goldblum being savaged by the dinosaurs, the dinosaurs that walk among us today will be savaging our economy. We know that because the growing influence of the unions, especially under the Bill, impose a heavy burden on corporations, stifling their ability to operate efficiently. As new businesses struggle to adapt to the new regulations, which the Government’s very own impact assessment predicts will cost £5 billion to implement, industry leaders have publicly shared their fears— \p Andy McDonald: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had directions from the Chair on this matter, and I ask for your guidance. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) has just been immensely critical of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), who has a history of standing up to defend his industry, and who had the courage to go on strike for 12 months. Was he given notice that he would be named in this debate in that way? \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Member, but he will be aware that that was not a point of order. As the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) has spoken in the debate, it is perfectly in order to refer to the comments that he made. \p Gregory Stafford: I return to what industry leaders are saying. They have shared their fear about

“union influence slowing down decision making and hindering flexibility”,

making it harder for companies to remain competitive in global markets. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s survey found that 79% of organisations expect measures in the Employment Rights Bill to increase employment costs, placing further strain on companies that are having to grapple with increases to national insurance contributions and the rising national minimum wage. It is also likely that the measures will lead to

“more strikes, more disruptions, and ultimately less productivity.” \p Antonia Bance: The hon. Member has referred a number of times to yesterday’s proceedings. I am sad that he was not able to join us in the Division Lobby in voting against the amendments and in favour of the Bill, given that 73% of his constituents in Farnham and Bordon support statutory sick pay for all workers from day one, and 67% of his constituents support banning zero-hours contracts. \p Gregory Stafford: I am sorry that I am such a disappointment to the hon. Lady, but maybe she will get over it.

The Bill is a roll-back of the most important changes that we made when we were in government. It is no surprise that trade unions have warmly embraced the legislation, over 200 amendments having been hastily shoehorned in to satisfy those who line the Government’s pockets. Perhaps it is purely coincidental that their wishes have been granted, although one might wonder if the £5.6 million in donations the Labour party has received since July has something to do with it. \p Graham Stuart: Despite her proud membership of trade unions, the last Labour Member to be called to speak, the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), did not mention the more than £9,000 that she received just in the last year, any more than the Labour Member who spoke before her, the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), mentioned the £24,000 plus that he received. If Labour Members were truly proud of the way that they have been bought and paid for by the trade unions, perhaps they would be open about how much they have received. \p Gregory Stafford: My right hon. Friend makes a key point. The change since yesterday has been interesting. Yesterday, Labour Members were clear about declaring that they were members of trade unions, but only today have they suddenly realised that they should be declaring the amount of money that they are receiving directly.

We heard yesterday from the shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), that the legislation will allow unions to bypass current rules, such as the rules on opting out of political donations. It must be fantastic news to the  Labour party that it will now receive donations from workers by default, while businesses will face reduced notice periods for strikes, leading to even more disruption and economic damage. It is clear to me, and to the hundreds of businesses that have pulled their support for this Government, that this is not about protecting employment rights, but about consolidating union power.

Let us briefly look at some of the amendments. Amendment 292 would require trade unions to notify their members every year of their right to opt out of the political fund, and to obtain an annual opt-in. That change would ensure that unions do not continue to fill Labour’s piggybank, and do not lock workers into automatic donations unless they actively opt out, which is as much a memory test as an admin task. Unamended, clause 52 is not about transparency, but about keeping the money flowing to the political party with the most to gain.

Likewise, there are new clauses and amendments that would have introduced transparency about the facilities provided to trade union officials, learning representatives and equality representatives. Clauses 54 and 56 are designed to reduce transparency and accountability for union spending, allowing union officials to continue to benefit from facility time without proper scrutiny. \p Gavin Williamson: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Gregory Stafford: I will, for the last time. \p Gavin Williamson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an interesting contrast in the Government’s approach? They are quite happy to put extra burdens, responsibilities and work on businesses of all sizes, yet when it comes to any element of transparency or giving members of trade unions a real choice and understanding of where their money is going, they refuse to do that. \p Gregory Stafford: The disparity—I will put it no stronger than that—that my right hon. Friend mentions is stark. Anybody watching these proceedings outside this House will absolutely agree that the Government want to put extra burdens and regulations on business, but when it comes to the trade unions, transparency goes out the window. Why is that happening? The answer is simple and clear: unions have significant influence over this Government. While the Deputy Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues are pushing for these changes, they do not even do what the measures state. Key figures including the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary are all guilty of hiring under terms that are odds with the new regulations. Why would they introduce such a Bill when they themselves do not comply with it?

Just like the more than 200 Labour MPs who have taken union donations, the Deputy Prime Minister has her own interests to consider. In her opening remarks yesterday, she proudly disclosed her union membership while conveniently admitting to the £13,000 in union donations that she has taken. It is clear that union influence is driving this legislation and most likely writing the speeches of Labour Members. The Government claim to be

“pro-growth, pro-business and pro-worker”—[Official Report, 21 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 46.] \p Baggy Shanker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Gregory Stafford: I will not, because I have only a minute to go.

Perhaps it is time that the Government started listening to the real industry experts—those with practical experience in the sector—not just the trade unions or those within the confines of Whitehall. The Conservatives have tabled key amendments to support growth, in new clauses 89 and 90; international competitive duty, in new clause 87; and a limit on trade union influence on our business-driven economy.

We need to ensure that the Government’s policies do not burden our businesses, stifle innovation or lead to long-term economic harm. This Bill is not just poorly thought-out, but a direct threat to the very fabric of our economy, and we must challenge it before it causes irreparable damage and crushes our already crippled economy. \p Allison Gardner: I declare that I am a proud member of Unison, and I refer the House to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I rise to speak in support of this groundbreaking Employment Rights Bill, which will deliver pro-business and pro-worker reforms. It will establish day one rights, such as rights to parental and bereavement leave for millions of workers, and, crucially, will put more money into people’s pockets—people who have had to endure low pay, job insecurity and a cost of living crisis created by 14 years of Tory rule. By strengthening protections for the lowest-paid workers and preventing exploitative employment practices, the Bill will give our working people the solid foundations on which to build a better quality of life.

I will very briefly comment on a couple of topics debated yesterday, which are of personal relevance and relevant to my constituency. [Interruption.] No? I will skip it; I did not think I would get away with that. This Bill will give a voice to working people by tackling  the exclusion of independent unions from workplaces. If anyone has experienced a management of change process—I once did, almost three weeks into joining a new job, which was not fun—or workplace bullying, they will know the value of having a union backing them. Unions are fab. I personally thank Unison, including the incredible Trudie, for supporting me in my workplace.

I have seen the impact on those who have experienced issues such as workplace bullying when they have not had the backing of a union, or a union in their workplace, and the stress and pressures on them were immense. Indeed, they ended up with the choice of either putting up with it, leaving—we then have worker turnover—or going off sick. I have known people to go off sick for quite a period of time, which is of course comes at great cost to the company.

When a person joins a union, I have seen the difference that backing and advocacy makes to them, and the voice it gives them. I have experienced that as a normal person who once had a proper job, who was not a union activist but felt the value of unions—I make that comment as an observer. The work that unions do with management for the workers, to provide a workplace that is productive and secure, benefits companies as well. It is not in the interests of unions for businesses to fail; everyone wants a productive working environment.

It would be remiss of me, however, to not acknowledge the concerns that many small business owners have raised with me in recent months. They have been worried about this Bill, and I am grateful to many businesses that have reached out, including 1882 and Crossroads Care. I also want to thank Rachel Laver of the Chamber of Commerce for her excellent engagement, and for giving a voice to local businesses—I have engaged with them regularly. Their concerns are noted, but I also note comments like that from Claire Costello, chief people and inclusion officer at the Co-op:

“It’s our belief that treating employees well—a key objective of this Bill—will promote productivity and generate the economic growth this country needs.”

That comment has been echoed to me by local businesses.

My businesses in Stoke-on-Trent South have my word that I will support them and their workers, and so will this Labour Government, by delivering improved productivity and growth. I am sad that the Conservative party, which has tabled blocking amendments, does not want to support the working people of this country. This Bill’s comprehensive set of impact assessments show that the Bill will have a positive impact on growth, with vital measures such as those on sick pay boosting productivity and growth. Protecting the super-rich and relying on the myth of trickle-down economics have failed. It is time for trickle-up economics, and empowering the working people of this country. \p Alison Griffiths: As has been said many times yesterday and today, this Bill is deeply flawed. The Government have ignored the serious concerns raised by business leaders and independent economists. The Federation of Small Businesses has warned that these rushed changes will lead to job losses and deter employers from hiring. The Institute of Directors found that 57% of business leaders will be less likely to hire because of the additional red tape imposed by the Bill, and incredibly, the Government’s own impact assessments fail to account for the Bill’s real economic consequences, simply dismissing them as too hard to calculate. Our new clause 90 would ensure that any regulations made under part 4 of the Bill must consider economic growth and international competitiveness, yet Labour has refused to accept even that common-sense measure, proving that its approach is anti-growth at its core.

Prioritising the interests of trade unions over economic stability makes it harder for businesses to hire, grow and compete. It is no surprise that trade unions have declared victory, as the Government have effectively handed them a blank cheque at the expense of businesses and workers alike. Our amendments seek to restore fairness and balance. Amendment 292 would require trade unions to notify their members annually of their right to opt out of political fund contributions, ensuring basic transparency and fairness. Labour has hypocritically opposed this measure, despite previously supporting similar provisions—during the passage of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, it called automatic renewals a “subscription trap”. It seems that Labour only cares about consumer choice when it does not impact on its own funding.

The Government claim that removing this requirement is about cutting red tape for unions, while adding lots of other red tape. In reality, the change strips away individual  choice and accountability. As several of my hon. Friends have said, trade unions donated over £31 million to the Labour party between 2019 and 2024. Workers should have the right to make an informed choice each year about whether they want to contribute to political causes, rather than being automatically signed up without clear consent. Labour Members’ refusal to support the amendment reveals their true priority: protecting their own financial interests, rather than standing up for transparency and workers’ rights.

Equally troubling is the expansion of trade union access to workplaces, including digital access, under new clauses 163 to 181. Despite 59% of consultation respondents asking for more information or outright opposing the provision, the Government are pressing ahead regardless. These changes hand unions unchecked power, allowing them to disrupt businesses without adequate safeguards.

This Bill is not a modernisation of employment rights; it is a gift to the trade unions at the expense of economic growth, job creation and business confidence. The Government have failed to strike the right balance, and we will continue to oppose this legislation. \p Graham Stuart: The impact assessment states that these measures could have a £5 billion impact, in addition to the £25 billion impact of the national insurance contribution changes. Does my hon. Friend agree that what the impact assessment is missing is how much union funding the measures will drive directly to the Labour party as a result? We ought to know how many hundreds of thousands or millions extra will come to the Labour party and to Labour Members to make them support this growth-killing set of measures. \p Alison Griffiths: It is a fascinating question, and we wait to hear the answers from Government Members. \p Graham Stuart: The Minister will tell us, we hope. \p Alison Griffiths: Indeed, perhaps the Minister will give us the answer. \p Gregor Poynton: It is a pleasure to speak on this vital Bill as it passes its remaining stages. I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud member of the GMB and Community trade unions. I am particularly pleased to speak in today’s debate, because at one of my regular coffee mornings on Saturday, a constituent of mine, Phil, told me that I needed to be doing more to promote the benefits of this legislation. I am not sure that making a speech in the House of Commons meets Phil’s expectation of promotion, but that conversation showed me how important this legislation will be for working people in the Livingston constituency.

The Government have rightly tabled amendments to the Bill to ensure that we deliver reforms that are both pro-business and pro-worker. Although Conservative Members have tried to make much of the number of Government amendments, we remember that they are still the party of “Eff business”. With their opposition to the Bill, they show that they are “Eff workers”, too.

What the amendments in fact demonstrate is the commitment of the Minister and the Government to listening and consulting with a huge range of stakeholders on these issues, delivering the largest upgrade in workers’ rights in many decades, but in a way that does right by businesses and good employers, ensuring that they have the conditions and environment they need to encourage investment and create jobs.

This Bill will support the Government’s critical  mission for growth by increasing productivity and putting  money back in people’s pockets. It will deliver real-life improvements. \p Gavin Williamson: Can the hon. Gentleman set out five ways that the Bill will improve productivity for businesses? \p Gregor Poynton: I will certainly come on to that, but one way is that the Bill will improve employment relations in workforces. In the past 14 years, we have seen strike after strike because of the Conservatives’ approach to industrial relations. This change will improve productivity.

The Bill will deliver real-life improvements that will be felt across Britain. Key amendments that strengthen protections for the lowest-paid workers will ensure that all workers are treated with the decency they deserve. I welcome the vital steps that the Bill takes to extend protection, from exploitative zero-hours contracts, to protecting the voice of working people and strengthening statutory sick pay.

As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I have been able to scrutinise large businesses that choose to have zero-hours contracts in place. In one evidence session, I heard from a company representative who revealed that employees can have their shift changed at 24 hours’ notice, but not receive a single penny in compensation. The Bill is vital in addressing the challenges of financial planning faced by families who are dependent on zero-hours contracts. More than 1 million people on such contracts will benefit from the guaranteed hours policy. Crucially, the Bill will ensure that Governments work with businesses, and will support employers who endeavour to comply with the law. With the Government amendments, it will also expand and strengthen the powers of the fair work agency to bring civil proceedings against non-compliant employers at employment tribunals and to issue civil penalties, such as fines, to employers who breach pay-related rights and underpay their staff. \p Graham Stuart: Given that the measures we are debating will give so much more power to the trade unions, why has the hon. Gentleman not felt it incumbent on him to declare the thousands of pounds that he has received from trade unions in the last year? \p Gregor Poynton: I thank the right hon. Member for highlighting that, because I am proud of the money that I receive from unions. I am also proud of the fact that entrepreneurs and business people donate to my campaign as well. The right hon. Member neglected to mention that when he brought the subject up. Because I am both pro-business and pro-worker, I want to see growth in the economy. I am proud to receive donations from employers and people who have created wealth in this country, and I am also proud to receive donations from trade union members in my constituency. \p Daisy Cooper: Is the hon. Member surprised, as I am, that there is so much support on these Benches for caps on political donations and greater transparency about them? \p Gregor Poynton: We have mentioned that, of course, and it is certainly the case. I would love to see more transparency from the Conservative party.

It is right and proper that we reward the good businesses that contribute to good employment and sustainable growth, and it is right and proper that we take action against rogue employers that do not. With this Bill, the Government are also calling it quits on the Tories’ scorched-earth approach to industrial relations, which led to the worst strikes chaos in decades. A new partnership of co-operation between trade unions, employers and Government will ensure that we benefit from more co-operation and less disruption.

North of the border, the Bill signals the largest upgrade of workers’ rights in Scotland for a decade. It marks an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts and fire and rehire practices. It will establish day one rights to paternity, parental and bereavement leave for millions of workers. However, it will also be beneficial for employers in Scotland, helping to keep people in work and reduce recruitment costs by increasing staff retention and levelling the playing field on enforcement. It is both pro-worker and pro-business.

Members of the Scottish National party—including the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law) today —have been calling for the devolution of employment law for many years, but at no point have they explained how, beyond the banning of zero-hours contracts, those powers would be used to improve workers’ terms and conditions, to increase productivity and to accelerate economic growth. Moreover, it might be nice if the SNP practised what it preached. During the Rutherglen by-election in 2023, it chose to use zero-hours contracts to employ people to deliver leaflets. In government, the same party has chosen to include zero-hour contracts in their definition of positive destinations for school leavers. Financial insecurity, anxiety and stress do not sound like my idea of a positive destination.

The SNP says that it wants to transform Scotland’s economy for the better—to boost wages and productivity and grow key sectors—but the fact is that Scotland has a higher rate of zero-hour contracts among people in employment than any other UK nation. How are people supposed to plan financially and improve their quality of life when they wake up on a Monday morning to find out via text message whether this week they will have eight shifts, two shifts, or no shifts at all?

The reality is that the Scottish Government already have the powers to introduce changes to many workers’ terms and conditions through public procurement, but they choose not to do so. They would always rather blame someone else, and further constitutional grievance, than use the extensive powers that they have to improve the lives of ordinary Scots. That is why the Bill is of such paramount importance. Across the UK, acute benefits will be delivered to the people who need them the most, and in Scotland the Bill will right the wrongs of the SNP’s laissez-faire approach to regulating zero-hour contracts.

The tenure of this Labour Government is still measured in months and not years, but this Bill is yet another example of their delivering the new direction that the workers, businesses and people of Scotland and the wider United Kingdom deserve. \p Louie French: As any sensible people would know, changes to business regulations need to strike a careful balance to not deter both business investment and job creation, but I am afraid that this Bill gets the balance wrong. Labour’s weakening of a variety of trade union laws, particularly on the threshold for industrial action, is a recipe for disaster for both the public and businesses, particularly SMEs.

As a London MP, I have heard this fairytale from those on the Labour Benches before, because London has too often been paralysed by strikes under Mayor Sadiq Khan. Infamously, the London Mayor promised our city “zero days of strikes” in 2016, but he has comprehensively broken that promise. In Sadiq Khan’s first two terms, there were more than 135 strikes, which is almost four times more than the number of strikes under his predecessor —a record that Mayor Khan labelled a “disgrace”. If 35 strikes are a disgrace, the 135 under Mayor Khan represent a catastrophic failure. My fear is that this Bill and the Labour Government’s amendments will make strikes even more common in London. \p Jayne Kirkham: Does the hon. Member recall how many strikes there were under the last Conservative Government? \p Louie French: As we have seen already—this is what I was talking about—the fairytale says that if we improve industrial relations and give trade unions all the money they want, suddenly there will not be any strikes. But what has happened in practice since the Labour Government came in? Trade unions have been given all the money, and they are still threatening to go on strike.

This Bill really does read like a militant trade union wish list. Strike mandates have doubled from six to 12 months, allowing trade unions to impose rolling strikes for a whole year without balloting their members. Turnout requirements have been abolished so that a minority can call strikes, and the Government have removed the requirement for 50% of members to vote and 40% to support industrial action. The Bill reduces the notice for strikes by four days and gives employers less information, making strikes even more damaging to businesses and disruptive to people’s lives. It also allows unreasonable paid facility time for trade unions, making the taxpayer and companies pay out even more for trade union representatives at the same time that the Labour Government are raising everyone’s taxes and cutting public services. \p Gareth Snell: I guess that the hon. Gentleman has never been a member of a trade union or participated in an industrial ballot. Members choose to go on strike once the ballot has finished; no one forces them to go on strike. When members give up a day’s pay to go on strike, they do so because they are fighting for improvements to their terms and conditions. He is making out as though they are somehow compelled to strike. When members turn out for a strike, they do so because of their strength of feeling about the conditions they face—nothing more. \p Louie French: I would have some sympathy for that argument if the threshold for the percentage of workers voting for a strike was being maintained, but we are now clearly leaving the door open for a minority of militant trade union members to go on strike and cause  mass disruption. I will be honest and say that I have never been a member of a trade union, but my experience of trade union bosses is that they live a life that I could never dream of as a working-class man, to be quite frank. As a working-class person from a working-class background, I learnt at a very young age that trade unions and the Labour party stopped representing working-class people many years ago, and this Government are proving it yet again. \p Becky Gittins: Given the hon. Gentleman’s comments about a small number of militant trade unionists taking industrial action if this Bill becomes law, it is worth noting that over the last 10 years, a small and militant group of Conservative party members have managed to choose successive Prime Ministers with fewer requirements than those applied to members of trade unions when they vote to take industrial action in their workplaces. Does he think that is fair? \p Louie French: I thank the hon. Lady for her rather odd intervention. It has nothing to do with this Bill, but if more people had a chance to vote on issues such as who should be the Prime Minister today, I suspect that they would come to a completely different answer from the one they came to last July, because this Labour Government have broken every single promise that they made at the election. I cannot wait for the public to have the opportunity to vote out this shocking Labour Government, so I am all for people having more chance to do so.

As I and other Conservative Members have said already, this Bill was written by the trade unions and for the trade unions. Why are the Government granting this wish list to the trade unions? The simple answer is that the Labour party will benefit from these proposals. As I was taught as a young man, “Follow the money.” [Interruption.] Yes, I did not follow it by coming into this place. Over the past five years, the Labour party has received more than £31 million in political donations from the unions. This Bill will remove the requirement for trade union members to opt in to those contributions; instead, they will have to opt out, which means more will unknowingly contribute to political causes that they do not support. The Government’s amendment will mean that trade unions no longer need to renew their political resolutions every 10 years, and ultimately this will make it even easier for trade unions to divert cash to political causes, including the Labour party.

In short, this Bill means more strikes more often and more money for the Labour party, and strikes will be grinding business to a halt, shutting down public services and closing public transport systems again. \p Daisy Cooper: As I noted in my speech, there are problems with the Bill. The hon. Member has mentioned the problems on public transport. Does he recall that in 2022 the train unions and the train operating companies actually resolved their dispute, and does he regret that the Transport Minister at the time intervened to block that agreement to resolve the strikes? \p Louie French: My experience as an MP is great frustration, particularly in outer London, about train companies constantly going on strike, with a very small minority   of train drivers going on strike. What we saw from this Government was a load of money going straight to those same unions, without the productivity changes that we would like to see, and no adaptation in the system. My personal opinion on some of these proposals is that it is increasingly likely that automation and a loss of jobs will be direct consequences of the rigid trade union laws being forced on to more businesses. I suspect that the only thing that will rise in this Parliament is unemployment.

These strikes are costly, disruptive and damaging to Britain. They ought to be a last resort, but this Government’s proposals will take us back to the 1970s—before I was born—when strikes were a political tool for division, damage and disruption. This is yet more evidence that Labour is not on the side of working people or of serious economic growth, as its own impact assessment—even partial—tells us. Londoners will not thank this Government if this results in yet more disruptive and longer rolling strikes that grind our city down even further than Mayor Khan has. Working people will not thank this Government for empowering their trade unions to bring our country to a standstill, especially as we pick up the Bill as they fill their pockets. \p James Frith: I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests— \p Graham Stuart: How much? \p James Frith: If the right hon. Member listens, he will hear.

From my entry, Members will see that I am a proud member of the GMB and that my donations include those from entrepreneurs and businesspeople alike who are collectively sick of the 14 years of the Conservative Government. I will take no lessons from that party, given its record over those 14 years, and none of the speeches by Conservative Members have defended any achievements that were made in 14 years relating to this Bill or anything to do with our economy. That is the party of “Eff business”, of a striking NHS, of 60% furlough settlements for Manchester workers, of cash for covid contracts, of inflation highs, of Liz Truss, of the mini-Budget disaster, of zero growth, of the collapse of infrastructure, of public spending power disappearing, and of the state of our roads and of our prospects. It is for this reason that my entry includes a combination of GMB membership, given the members and the workers that we represent, and of the entrepreneurs who wanted rid of that lot over there. \p Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p James Frith: I will make some progress. The right hon. Gentleman has said plenty already, and he came in only halfway through the debate.

I am proud to stand on the Labour side of the House as someone who has founded a business, run businesses for others and run my own business. Fifteen years ago, I made a commitment to be the voice of experience for good small businesses in the proud Labour movement that we now have in government, not least to challenge the claim of the Conservatives that they alone represent business interests. I am proudly pro-business and pro-worker, just as this Government are. Fixing the foundations of our economy means fixing the foundations of our  employment. Just as the Government are strengthening our economic base, they are now laying down stronger employment foundations.

Running a business is hard work. It requires an initial leap of faith, the courage to embrace risk, the ability to adjust, the resilience to overcome failure and the perseverance to celebrate success. The role of government is to improve life and living for everyone in this country. The role of good employment is exactly the same. Small businesses are at the heart of this effort. That is why  the Government are right to focus on skills, value for money with public spending, opening up public sector commissioning to SMEs and challenger companies, and, crucially, the Bill making employment a more positive, rewarding experience. Insecure work leads to insecure living, and neither will improve life in Britain. We should highlight and support those employers who are already leading the way. Much of this legislation simply catches up to their high standards.

The weight of responsibility that comes with creating somebody else’s payslip cannot be overstated. It is humbling, sometimes worrying and never easy. It requires teamwork and the skills of others, but also leadership—sometimes lonely leadership. It means shouldering risk and sharing rewards. That is why the Government’s ambition for growth is the right one. The focus must be on net growth, locking in certainty for those in work by upholding rights for the many, while fostering new opportunities to expand our economy.

I want to salute those businesses and entrepreneurs for whom much of this legislation emphasises the good practices they already uphold. In Bury, businesses such as the Lamppost Café, where—a declaration of interest, Madam Deputy Speaker—my daughter works part time, Life Store in Ramsbottom, Wax and Beans record and coffee shop in Bury, Bloom, Avoira, MSL Solution Providers, Ernill’s Bakery, Wallwork Aerospace Heat Treatment, and Hargreaves. These businesses, often family run, are the backbone of Bury, and so they build the backbone of Britain; rooted in their communities; providing stability, pride and good honest work for an honest day’s pay. Many stand ready to do more to grow, invest and create more opportunities. \p Graham Stuart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Could he tell us which of that fine list of businesses have said that they support the Bill? \p James Frith: I have had conversations with the vast majority of them. They support the general emphasis—[Interruption.] Actually, if the right hon. Gentleman has been listening, he will know that the argument I am making is that on much of the proposed legislation—giving rights on day one, being fair minded, making work pay—they are already doing that. The point I am making—[Interruption.] I have just named several. The most recent conversation I had was with MSL Solution Providers. Its challenges and arguments are around R&D tax credits, an argument I will make in due course. But the Conservatives’ claim of being the voice of small business and entrepreneurship is misguided, misrepresented and, frankly, out of date.

Once we have laid the new employment foundations, we must support them in building their businesses further. In particular, for some that means ensuring that AI enhances and expands prospects and prosperity in the employment market and the wider economy.

Lastly, I am proud to highlight my support for extending bereavement leave to those who experience a miscarriage—a compassionate and essential measure that I proudly support alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen).

The Bill is not just about a legislative process; it is about our values. It is about recognising that a thriving economy and a fair society must go hand in hand with tackling our inequalities. It is about ensuring that whether employer or employee, the foundation on which our employment is built ensures strength for all. \p John Cooper: I rise as a former member of a trade union, and the harsh lessons I learned then are what concern me about this Bill. As a low-paid journalist on a local paper, I had hoped that the union would go in to bat for me. Instead, it was more interested in Cuban socialism and collective bargaining, more concerned about traducing Mrs Thatcher’s legacy than the tribulations of a junior reporter, more interested in funding the Labour party than supporting me and my newsroom colleagues. That is why I am backing amendments such as amendment 292, which seeks to defuse what has been called a subscription trap, where inertia is used to allow political donations taken from members to tick up year in, year out. Is this the clean money of which the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) spoke?

In the Business and Trade Committee we have heard that good relations are possible between employers and trade unions. Of course they are—not all union reps are agitators, any more than all bosses are grasping exploiters of the workers. But stripping out existing protections, as this Bill does, risks tilting the law too far in favour of the unions, making strikes more frequent and more damaging thanks to, for example, lower notice periods.

We know that the unions are already restive; just ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, unable to attend an event with, ironically, the Scottish Confederation of British Industry in his own office because he would not cross a picket line, and he has had to cancel at least one other event as the pickets strike on. If a Cabinet Minister is already at the unions’ mercy, what chance do the general public have?

We have heard about positive trade union benefits, but it is not all sunlit uplands. One rail union refuses to let bosses use email for rotas, insisting on fax machines— I imagine I am one of the few Members who remembers those. Another left passengers inconvenienced when it ordered members not to use a footbridge as it had a skim of snow on it no thicker than the icing on a cake. They must be licking their lips at clauses that remove previous thresholds for strike action such as the 50% turnout requirement and the 40% support requirement. I think the public will support amendments that would keep existing benchmarks as modest guardrails, not to crack down on unions but to limit the damage that hotheads might inflict.

This skimpy Bill, cobbled together with indecent haste to meet Labour’s “first 100 days” deadline, bears all the hallmarks of a thank you note from Labour to its union backers. If it passes, the unions are going to party like it’s 1979. However, Labour Members pocketing supposedly pristine union donations should have a care, because that 1979 winter of discontent saw the public lose patience with a Labour Prime Minister captured by the unions. History does not repeat precisely, but this does look awfully familiar. \p Sarah Russell: This afternoon I want to talk about a point that I think many of us across the House would agree on: employment rights are quite useless without any sort of enforcement mechanism. I should first mention that I am a member of the Community union and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and I refer everyone to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

On enforcement, I am very pleased with clause 122 increasing the time for bringing employment tribunal claims from three to six months. It is a result of extensive campaigning by Pregnant Then Screwed and other organisations including the National AIDS Trust. They were very aware on behalf of their members of something I used to see regularly as a solicitor: a lot of people who have been very badly treated in their employment are so traumatised that they cannot come forward and make their claims within the three-month time limit. In addition, that reduces the potential time available for negotiation between former employees and their former employers, which is not in the best interests of either employees or employers. It is therefore really good news for both parties that we will have this increase in the amount of time available to bring those claims.

The other measure that I am particularly delighted about in the Bill is the creation of the Fair Work Agency. We absolutely need there to be accountability for employers that are not paying the national minimum wage. They are few and far between, and those that are not doing paying it need to be properly monitored and subject to enforcement, in order to create a fair playing field for all companies. I am sure that Opposition Members would completely agree that the national minimum wage is a fundamental part of our society and that everyone should be paying it.

The other matter I want to draw attention to is the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body. In my constituency, significant numbers of people need adult social care, and having a stable workforce is important in delivering that.

Lastly, I want to speak about the attitudes towards trade unions that we have heard from Opposition Members today. When I worked as a solicitor advising trade union members some time ago, it was clear to me both that people really needed the advice they were getting via their trade unions, and that the trade unions would not continue to back their member with that advice if they did not have a claim with a reasonable prospect of success. That meant that disputes could be settled, which is in the best interests of both the employer and employee. \p Alison Griffiths: I think the hon. Lady possibly misrepresents the intent of Opposition Members. We are not anti-trade union; we are anti the drafting of this Bill. I think it is important to make a clear distinction between the two. \p Sarah Russell: I thank the hon. Lady for her point, but I think it is a very difficult distinction to make: that they are pro-trade union but anti things that make it easier for trade unions to effectively represent workers.

To return to my point, access to trade unions means access to good-quality advice, quicker resolution of disputes and a reduction in unrepresented litigants in person, which, in my experience, can make life genuinely  difficult for well-meaning employers. Every single thing in this Bill will be good for workers, but it will also be good for employers, and I will be very pleased to vote for it later today. \p Jayne Kirkham: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare my Unison membership, although I am also an ex-solicitor. I am going to address the Government amendments relating to enforcement, rather than trade union rights.

We have a large demand for social care in Cornwall, as is the case in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell). Our population tends to an older demographic and, with many people leaving friends and family to retire to Cornwall, the availability of care is very important. Our social care system is close to breaking point due to the combination of years of underfunding and a fragmented privatised system. Skilled care workers are chronically underpaid for what they do, often at minimum wage, and we struggle to get and retain care workers.

The Bill contains many provisions that will help: strengthened sick pay; parental leave; protection from unfair dismissal from day one; improved family-friendly rights and flexible working; measures to tackle zero-hours contracts, including for agency workers and workers at umbrella companies, as well as for direct employees; and strengthened redundancy rights. The Bill also specifically gives social care workers respect and recognition through a fair pay agreement, and reinstates the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. It will be a game changer for those low-paid workers—mostly women—who work in care and schools. \p Daisy Cooper: The hon. Lady will be aware that there is a debate on the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill next week, where we will debate whether health and social care providers should be excluded from national insurance contributions. Would she care to comment on whether Labour Members will support that amendment made in the House of Lords? \p Jayne Kirkham: Local government funding will, of course, be increasing to take that into account, and funding for adult social care is rising and will rise further in the next three-year settlement under this Government.

To return to my speech, in Cornwall we have seen the rise of care workers coming from other countries to work on sponsorship visa schemes. These workers are often in a financially precarious situation, which increases their dependency. Some have been charged by their employers for induction, travel or training; in some cases, workers receive a salary below the minimum wage to make up the cost of their flights to the UK. \p Matt Rodda: I refer colleagues to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about the situation in her county. Does she agree that this is a national problem that affects all our constituencies? It is certainly the case in Berkshire, and in Reading in particular, that we need better pay for care workers and more understanding about the pressures they face in their very valuable work. \p Jayne Kirkham: I agree with my hon. Friend. This matter affects the entire country. Unison, for example, has a campaign about migrant care workers, so, yes, this is a national issue.

In Cornwall, those care workers are often given the early morning and late evening shifts with no flexibility. Some sit on benches, stranded in Cornish villages that buses do not pass through, waiting from their morning shift to their first evening shift.

Many health and social care workers on sponsorship visas are afraid to raise concerns about their employment and living conditions for fear of losing their employer’s sponsorship. Employers in turn can be aware of that, and some even use it as an explicit threat. That brings me to the enforcement provisions in the Bill. Enforcement of statutory pay and employment rights is poor in the social care sector. Pay enforcement relies on individual workers reporting breaches. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs investigates fewer than 1% of care providers each year. International workers and those from minority ethnic backgrounds are particularly vulnerable. For individual rights to become a reality, a collective voice in the workplace and effective enforcement are key.

The Law Society reports that the backlog in employment tribunal cases stands at 44,000, which is 18% higher than it was in 2023. This backlog needs clearing and investment needs to be made in employment tribunals.

The new Fair Work Agency will have a crucial role to play in reducing the burden on the employment tribunal system by providing a focal point for advice on enforcement under Government amendment 208, in enabling the disclosure of information under Government amendment 212 and in taking on some of those enforcement powers under Government new clauses 57 and 58 on behalf of those workers. Those powers could really help low-paid or migrant workers who do not have access to funds or to union representation to enforce their rights, or who fear dismissal if they take steps in that direction.

Government amendment 249 will allow the Fair Work Agency to investigate and combat fraud and exploitative employers, thereby tackling the kind of modern slavery of international workers in the care industry that we have seen recently.

Government new clause 60 will also give the Fair Work Agency the power to recover the cost of enforcement, which would help with the funding of the system. However, real investment will need to be made into enforcement for the new powers to have teeth, with a timeline, resourcing and fast-track procedure for the new Fair Work Agency. I welcome confirmation of the Government’s commitment in this area. \p Caroline Nokes: May I give Members a brief reminder that we are today talking to the new clauses and amendments on trade unions, industrial action, enforcement of labour market legislation, and miscellaneous and general provisions? \p John Martin McDonnell: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I wish to deal with new clauses 8 and 9, which relate to recognition of the POA’s right to strike. I therefore also declare that I am an honorary life member of the POA. The word “honorary”  means that there is no financial relationship, and I am assured that I would not even get a south-facing cell or an extra pillow.

New clauses 8 and 9 try to restore the fundamental right of prison officers to take industrial action in its various forms. The union has existed for 90 years and, although organised as a trade union, it has never taken any form of industrial action that has endangered the prisoners the officers care for, other staff or the wider community. Through all of its long history, there was an industrial relations climate in which negotiations took place and disputes were resolved.

Then in 1994, the Conservative Government, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, made it a crime to induce any prison officer to take strike action, or even to work to rule. The trade union was told very clearly that that would be a criminal act and any trade union officer organising action, even a work to rule, could be prosecuted. What the Government then did—this was why people became extremely cynical at the time—was to plan increases in the pension age, make extensive salary cuts and cut staff numbers. There was no way the union could fight back in any form to protect its members.

Some hon. Members who were about at the time may recall that, in 2019, the POA faced high six-figure fines in the High Court. When it took action on health and safety grounds by convening meetings of members, it was threatened with legal action and the union leaders were threatened with imprisonment. Ironically, it would have been interesting to ask who would lock them up—but that is another question altogether.

When the police had their right to strike taken away, it was almost like a covenant and they were given very specific commitments around how they would be protected on pay, pensions and conditions of work. That was never offered to the POA and there was never any negotiation like that, where it would at least be given some security in return for the loss of that right. That was never given.

The POA took the Government to the European Court of Human Rights in 2024 and the case was accepted. The Court urged the Government to engage with the union in good faith over what remedies would be available. The then Government refused to engage and the current Government are still not engaging, so one of the reasons for tabling the new clauses is to urge the Government to start engaging with the union around that particular issue.

All the union is asking for is that its members be treated like any other workers and for the Government to engage. The right to strike in Scotland was restored 10 years ago and there has been no strike action since. That has created an industrial relations climate that is conducive to working together—not to entering into conflict but to negotiating problems out. I think that that is a result of both sides knowing that there is the alternative, if necessary, of taking part in industrial action.

As most people know, industrial action in public services is often not a strike; it is usually a work to rule to start off negotiations. I have been a member of a trade union for 50 years; I have been a trade union officer, a lay official and so on. Every union that I have known, where there is any form of industrial action that  in any way involves a public service, always puts in place negotiated arrangements to protect the people that they are serving—that is not just life and limb protection, but often ensures a standard of service that is still acceptable to people. I therefore urge the Minister to get back round the table with the POA.

There was a debate in Committee on this matter, which angered people and angered me. I have gone over the debate. It showed a shameful disrespect for prison officers and an ignorance of the role that they play and the working environment that they work in. There are references to screws and guards and things like that, and about how, somehow, if the right were restored, the union would allow prisoners to run amok and put the whole community at risk. That is never the case—it never has been and never would be. There is a lack of understanding about what those workers put up with. As many hon. Members know, there is overcrowding. Prison officers deal with prisoners with huge mental health issues, drug problems and health problems overall. There are record levels of violence in prisons and prison officers are injured almost daily as a result of assaults.

I have to say that the disrespect demonstrated in the Committee was part and parcel of the demoralisation of even more of our workers in those key roles. I therefore ask the Minister to re-engage, to get back round the negotiating table and to recognise that the issue will not go away. These members want their basic trade union rights back and, if necessary, they will go back before the European Court. I believe they will win and that we will, unnecessarily, go through another period in which the demoralisation of workers continues because of people’s lack of respect for their basic trade union rights. We are suffering real problems in recruitment and retention, so I urge the Government just to take that one step back to the negotiating table with the POA. \p Becky Gittins: I rise in support of Government new clauses 57 and 58. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my proud trade union membership.

I ask the Opposition to consider their comments today in what has proved to be a very ideologically driven debate on their part. I feel somewhat as if I have been transported back in time to a previous reforming Labour Government’s last upgrade to employment rights—the minimum wage debate. This afternoon’s fearmongering about productivity, growth and unemployment is reminiscent of it. We also have seen some crossover in the personnel who were part of the Conservative opposition. The then shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), said that the minimum wage would

“negatively affect…not hundreds of thousands but millions of people.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2017; Vol. 297, c. 526.]

Unless the Opposition have since developed a policy to repeal the national minimum wage—let’s face it, under their current leadership anything is possible—I must tell them that progress is coming. I am talking about work that pays, dignity and job security. I invite   them to get on board with the upgrade to rights at work, rather than spending the coming decades pretending that they were on board in the first place. \p Laurence Turner: My hon. Friend will remember that in 2017, when the Conservatives announced the employment Bill that was never produced, they said that it would represent the biggest upgrade of workers’ rights by any Conservative Government ever. Would she care to speculate on why they set their ambitions so low? \p Becky Gittins: Some comments from Opposition Members today have made it very clear to the public what the Opposition think about people’s rights at work. \p Lee Anderson: The hon. Member is making a passionate and inspiring speech about the national minimum wage. Is she aware that just last year, the leader of the Scottish Labour party admitted that his family business was not paying members of staff the living wage? Does she think that is rank hypocrisy? \p Becky Gittins: I think that everyone should be on board with the national minimum wage and the living wage. I hope that we can encourage all Members of all parties to get on board. I am very pleased to hear that commitment and concern from the Reform party. It is unexpected, but I respect it.

On Second Reading, I welcomed this legislation as a central tenet of this Government’s policy of putting working people at the heart of our economy and making work pay. I am delighted to see the Bill return to the Chamber, and I pay tribute to those who served on the Public Bill Committee. The Bill modernises the UK’s outdated employment laws, bringing in more than 30 much-needed and welcome reforms, including: day one rights of employment, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, abolishing fire and rehire, establishing bereavement leave, increasing protections from sexual harassment, introducing equality menopause action plans, strengthening rights for pregnant workers and establishing the Fair Work Agency.

I am pleased that, during the scrutiny process, the Government have tabled amendments to strengthen protections for low-paid workers, including those relating to statutory sick pay. In real terms, 1 million people on zero-hours contracts will benefit from the guaranteed hours policy. Nine million people who have been with their employer for less than two years will benefit from day-one rights relating to the unfair dismissal policy. Because of the Fair Work Agency, holiday pay rights will be enforced for the very first time.

The measures before us strengthen the Fair Work Agency. New clause 57 will enable it to bring proceedings against a non-compliant employer in an employment tribunal, in place of the worker. New clause 58 enables the provision of legal advice or representation for those who have become a party to civil proceedings related to employment or trade union law.

Although the vast majority of employers across the country, including hundreds in Clwyd East, will certainly obey the law, there are still those that sadly do not. A Citizens Advice report states that higher-paid workers are 50% more likely than lower-paid individuals to bring an employment tribunal claim, despite the fact that lower-paid individuals are more likely to have their rights violated. As Unison points out, leaving the burden of challenging workplace injustice to individual workers  seeking redress at tribunal compounds inequalities of power in the UK labour market.

The Low Pay Commission figures highlight key reasons to implement these important measures. We know, for instance, that 20% of workers were paid less than minimum wage in 2023, and that nearly 1 million workers did not get any holiday pay. The agency will bring together existing state enforcement functions, and will be a single place to which workers and employers can turn for help. I am pleased that the agency will aim to resolve issues upstream by supporting employers that want to comply. I understand from evidence gathered by the Bill Committee that there was considerable support for a single enforcement body in place of what is currently quite a fractured system. On accountability, the Bill requires an annual report on the Fair Work Agency’s enforcement actions, and will allow Parliament to monitor progress in protecting workers’ rights.

I am encouraged to hear that, to produce its strategy, the Fair Work Agency will consult an advisory board made up of trade unions, businesses and independent experts. It is vital that we continue our collaborative approach in developing employment legislation and policy that is pro-business, pro-worker and, ultimately, pro-growth. I welcome the new clauses and the Bill as a whole. It is an important part of the Government’s strategy to move our economy forward, improve work security and ensure greater productivity. \p Douglas McAllister: In speaking in support of the Bill, I declare that I am a Unison member.

The Bill and the Government amendments to it will deliver real-life improvements for working people across my constituency and across Scotland. Key amendments will strengthen protections for the lowest-paid workers in my constituency, extend protections from exploitative zero-hours contracts, boost the voice of working people in the workplace, strengthen statutory sick pay to 80% from the first day of sickness, extend sick pay to 1.3 million of the lowest earners across the country, and provide greater protection from unfair dismissal, with 9 million people benefiting from day one protection. That is the real change that we promised to deliver for real people—public service workers in West Dunbartonshire, such as frontline staff in the service industry, essential utilities, social care, transport or health.

The days of exploitation are now over. The Labour party is doing what we do best and will always do: protecting working people, promoting decent pay and work, and delivering meaningful change for so many. We are putting power in the hands of working people. The Government’s commitment to growing the economy will be built on rebalancing rights at work and raising living standards in every part of this country; the two are interwoven. The Government’s amendments will ensure just that by boosting the enforcement of rights and giving the new Fair Work Agency the power to bring civil proceedings against non-compliant employers that seek to underpay staff. In 2023, one in five workers was paid less than the minimum wage. That will stop. Almost 1 million workers in this country did not receive holiday pay in 2023. That will stop.

The amendments will level the playing field. They include measures on digital access to employment agreements, allowing independent unions to apply for  recognition and stopping the practice of employer lock-out, a 20-working-day window for employers and unions to negotiate access, and a new right for unions to access the workplace, which could be transformative as it gives workers a fair voice to improve their pay and conditions.

It is time to turn the page on the combative and unproductive approach adopted by the previous Government, and it is time to modernise the industrial relations framework. The Bill and the amendments support a much-needed reset of industrial relations across Great Britain. This Government have a clear mandate to deliver real change that working people in my constituency of West Dunbartonshire can see and feel. That change cannot come soon enough. The Employment Rights Bill is the crucial first step on that path. It is the biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation, and I am proud to vote for it and support it today. \p Laurence Turner: I am grateful to be called twice on Report, and as is customary, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of Unite. I am also the chair of the GMB parliamentary group.

I start with comments that I had not planned to make at the beginning of this debate. Much has been heard about registers of interests. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who is in his place, said at the end of the Bill’s Committee, Labour Members have been assiduous in drawing attention to their membership of trade unions and their declarations in registers of interests, but I believe that the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) was the first Conservative Member to draw attention to his own donations without being challenged first. Much of the tone of this debate has focused not on the substance of the Bill, but on ascribed motivations, which I believe has been demeaning to the standards and courtesies expected in this House.

There is much to welcome in the Government amendment. I wish to concentrate my remarks on new clause 40 and new schedule 2. On political fund ballots, the 10-year requirement dates to the Trade Union Act 1984. The requirement does not apply to any political funds that may be maintained by employers’ associations; nor does a successful ballot in any way infringe on a trade union member’s right to withdraw payments from the political fund at any time, so I think we can be confident about that policy’s intention: it was to tie up trade union time and resources, and in that respect it was successful. These ballots are a massive abstraction of resources, which gets in the way of trade unions’ and trade union members’ core business of representing people at work. In 40 years, not one union member has voted to discontinue a political fund.

Trade unions are democratic organisations. If there is discontent in a union over political fund expenditure, any member is entitled to inspect the accounts, and that expenditure can be stopped in whole or in part through existing democratic structures. There is, I think, a contradiction when this House, a representative democratic institution, may seek to instruct other organisations to make decisions by referendum.

To those who have suggested that trade union political expenditure is somehow illegitimate, I would just like to remind Members that trade union political fund expenditure  is not synonymous with party political donations. In fact, many important campaigns that have won cross-party support in this place were made possible only because of trade union political fund expenditure. I draw Members’ attention to one such campaign, which I was proud to be associated with. The Protect the Protectors campaign started with the campaigning work of GMB and Unison members in the ambulance service and resulted in the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. If the measures that have been put forward at different stages in this process were successful in restricting that political fund activity, it would be harder to deliver that legislative change in this place on behalf of working people.

Much has been said in the debate and I do not wish to duplicate it, but I wish to say a few words about the situation at Amazon in Coventry. Much trade union work in the private sector in recent years has been focused on the warehousing and logistics sector, where a focus of trade union activity has been the increasingly intensive workloads, workers’ employment being terminated on the basis of unclear and unaccountable target setting, and high rates of musculoskeletal injuries, which have contributed to a high rate of people being out of work in the wider economy. When the GMB, in response to approaches from its members, initially contacted Amazon to seek voluntary recognition at that site in December 2022, the company reported that there were 1,400 people working at the site. The company refused to engage meaningfully with the union or attend talks at ACAS to resolve the situation. As has been said, in the space of just a few months, the number of people at the site was increased dramatically by 93%. Some of them were temporary workers transferred from other sites. It has been reported that others were new workers on student visas who were worried about the potential implications for their studying and immigration status if union recognition was voted for. As a consequence of that increase, the union could still meet the 10% membership threshold, but could not meet the requirement of 40% of the bargaining group being likely to support recognition.

New schedule 2 remedies that flaw by freezing the bargaining unit from the start of the application. Similarly, the schedule bars the use of unfair practices from the start of that process. That will address a loophole in the statutory code of practice that has been exploited to the full in Coventry. The union described a culture of fear born out of intimidatory tactics and a lack of equality of access, contrary to the principles that this House has already endorsed. The recognition ballot failed, as we have heard, by just 29 votes. I pay tribute to the GMB officers and, above all, the members who led the campaign. They came so close in the face of a concerted union-busting campaign. As one Amazon worker said, “I don’t want Jeff Bezos’s boat; I definitely don’t want his rocket—I just want to live.”

The Opposition argued in Committee that we should not legislate in response to individual cases, but I disagree. Once it has been proven that a system can be exploited, more will follow. Amazon’s actions at Coventry are clearly contrary to the intention of the House of Commons when it established the statutory recognition regime 26 years ago. Freezing the bargaining unit is incredibly important, as is the extension of the code of practice.

I wish that in the time available I could say more about the trade union right of access, which builds upon successful international systems, particularly in Australia where, over the last 20 years, it has become an accepted and constructive part of their industrial relations framework, and has survived and, indeed, been enhanced throughout multiple changes of governing party. The digital right of access included in the amendments is important, particularly for those employers who do not have a traditional physical workplace. It is important that the digital right of access does not become the default when applications are made, and I am sure that Ministers will bear that in mind as the measures are implemented.

To close my remarks in what may be the last debate that Back Benchers can contribute to on this legislation, let me say that part of the reason we come to this place is to provide more freedom, more comfort at times of hardship and more protection against abuse to our constituents. That is as true at work as it is everywhere else. Of course, there will always be other causes, measures and changes that we individually would like to see, but this Bill and the changes and improvements we will make to it tonight are the reason our constituents sent us to this place. It has been said that this legislation represents the biggest advance in workers’ rights in a generation. I think it is perhaps the biggest step forward since the Trade Disputes Act 1906. What we will do tonight is truly historic, and I will be proud to join the Lobby to vote it through. \p Jo White: I refer Members to my declaration of interests, which clearly states my positive relationship with the trade union movement. I am a member of Community and the GMB, and that is where I want to begin my contribution. My father, a proud USDAW member, recruited me to his union the very first day that I had a proper job, aged 16, drawing a real wage with a pay packet and a pay slip. I had stepped into the grown-up world, and joining a union was part of my graduation.

I was brought up to believe that a union has our backs and can help with issues like unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment and bullying. As an MP, when I am approached by a constituent with a problem at work, my first question is, “Are you a member of a trade union?” In Bassetlaw, good companies and organisations like Cargill, Schutz, Cinch Connectors, Cerealto, Autism East Midlands and Bassetlaw hospital have good partnerships with unions like the GMB, and I welcome that.

As a small business woman, I served for 10 years on the national executive of the long ago merged Manufacturing, Science and Finance union. That is where I reinforced my values and belief that a trade union is a force for good in the workplace, where partnership working with the employer serves to increase productivity, pride and shared understanding. Such partnerships mean that many of the key employment measures in the Employment Rights Bill have already been adopted by many major employers, who regard good employee relations as a key element for their competitive success in the markets in which they operate.

When people go to work but have no certainty about the hours that they will work or what their weekly income will be, it is unfair. When they go to work with the fear that they may be sacked tomorrow for no reason, it is unfair. When they are paid below the minimum wage  for a day’s work, it is unfair. And when they are ill and face three days without pay, it is unfair. This Bill is about putting fairness back into work and putting pride into our workplaces. We need to end the zero-hour contracts and the trickery of fire and rehire; deliver day one protections from unfair dismissal; and extend rights to sick pay to 1.3 million people. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: I am also a member of a union, the British Medical Association. I have found that union to be useful to me as it has represented me in the past, so I can see the benefit of unions. I am concerned, however, that the measures that the hon. Lady is talking about in relation to day one sick pay, for example, could make it more difficult for those with disabilities to get a job, particularly with the changes to zero-hours contracts as well. I talked to a local businessmen in my constituency about a gentleman he employs who has a disability, who comes and goes because his disability makes it difficult for him to work for long periods of time, but he says that he simply will not be able to continue to employ him once the legislation comes into force. \p Jo White: That is what good, strong trade union partnership is about: ensuring that a worker has the interventions that they need in order to be able to work. I will be supporting the benefits Bill that we will be introducing in the future because that will ensure that workplaces are open and accessible to people with disabilities. It is important that people have the right to work and the capacity to work when they need to.

The Bill is backed by my constituents, who want to work hard but also want fairness in the workplace. Tonight, I will be voting for strengthening rights at work for millions of British people. We can all stand up and be counted to support our constituents who deserve fairness and justice at work. To the Reform MPs who are no longer in the Chamber, supporting the status quo is a betrayal for millions of British workers. We all have constituents who need better workplace rights and this is our chance to deliver change. \p Andy MacNae: I am a member of Unite the union, but I rise to make my remarks from the perspective of a business owner and employer, in response to comments made by Conservative Members, who have now wandered off, about small and medium-sized businesses. These are personal comments and I will give my personal perspective, but I know many businesses, large and small, that share this point of view.

Before coming to this place, I was running businesses of various shapes and sizes for well over 20 years. I did my MBA at Manchester Business School, I have started and led several businesses, and I have served on the board of many others, so I have been about a bit. Throughout that time, it was always clear in my mind that whatever the business, the critical success factor is always the skills, drive and quality of the people that the business employs or contracts. To succeed, any business must attract the best possible people. That is why I have always felt that the selection and recruitment process was my key role in any organisation that I led. I will always argue that great businesses, by which I mean those with sustained success, will always be good employers.

When I look at the measures in this Bill, all I see are the things that good employers are already doing. We know that support for employees when they have children  pays off in the long term. We know that giving employees job security increases their commitment and productivity. We support our people when they are sick, and we know that taking holidays is vital to maintain performance. We do not unfairly dismiss, whether someone has been with us for one day or for many years. We have rigorous recruitment processes, and we make it clear that employees must show they meet requirements for a job during the probationary period. We pay as well as we can, knowing that employees who feel valued will deliver for our businesses.

Up until now, good employers have always felt the risk of being undercut by unscrupulous and short-term disruptors looking to make a quick buck. This is a real and serious issue—I have experienced it in business, and many other business owners have raised it with me. Businesses doing the right thing should not be disadvantaged, yet weak and outdated employment legislation has left them exposed. This Bill levels the playing field. Good employers can keep on doing what they do, knowing that their competitors can no longer undercut them by, for instance, employing a majority of their staff on zero-hours contracts, not giving holiday pay, firing and rehiring or just underpaying.

This Bill is good for good businesses and good for workers. It is good for growth and for society. It will put more money in people’s pockets and deliver real, tangible benefits for working people, and I am very pleased to support it. \p Sonia Kumar: I draw attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which include my membership of GMB, Unison and the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy.

When I spoke on Second Reading, I welcomed the advancements that this Bill would make on statutory sick pay, maternity and paternity pay and protections around pregnancy, as well as its values of fairness. I support new clauses 44, 47 and 48: it is only right that if someone has done a fair day’s work and a business fails to pay them, the Secretary of State should have the authority to give notice of underpayment. No one in Britain should go home from an honest day’s work out of pocket and worried about paying their bills. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s interventions on imposing financial penalties on businesses that make underpayments.

I believe that poor practice in the workplace should be called out and that those responsible should be held accountable. However, we also need an adequately resourced fair work agency, so I support new clause 82, tabled by the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). The agency should be agile enough to tackle issues upstream by supporting businesses that want to comply with the law, as well as having enough resources to tackle meaningfully non-compliant businesses. On the Business and Trade Committee, we heard from several businesses, some of which were great employers and some of which were unable to justify their malpractice, with evidence of modern-day slavery in their supply chains.

We cannot have companies getting away with poor practice where workers cannot use the toilet, are not entitled to their breaks or fail to get their fair pay. Transparency, accountability and enforcement are key, but we must remember that most businesses do their  best by their workers, and I have witnessed that. Since Second Reading, I have met with business owners in several sectors, from steelworkers and scaffolders to restaurant owners and retail. During my visits and roundtables in my constituency of Dudley, both workers and employers often tell me that they want the same thing: the stability to grow and a fiscally responsible Government who care about them and their future. Stability is not a zero-sum game. Research shows that when businesses look after their employees, they create a more loyal and productive workforce, which in turn strengthens businesses and helps them to grow the economy. In 2023, digital research by Deloitte found that

“fostering trust, opportunities for growth, and employee well-being are the keys to increased workforce retention and satisfaction”.

To reassure businesses, we know that the implementation of this Bill will be in phases. That approach promises to allow step-by-step upskilling of HR professionals and to update employment practices one step at a time; they will not be expected to be employed until 2026. I therefore ask the Minister to provide a road map outlining details of future consultations, with a two-year timeline to help to guide business owners to provide stability for businesses. A road map would undoubtedly help to ease growing pains, allowing small businesses time to plan the necessary administration, upskilling and ability to resource for the fair work agency. Both workers and businesses in Dudley would benefit greatly from that stability, and I wholeheartedly support this Bill. \p Steve Yemm: I rise to support the Bill, and in particular Government new schedule 2.  I must also draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of both the GMB and Unite trade unions. I should also make clear to the House my employment history, both as a chief executive officer and a managing director of companies in the United States, the UK and Israel, and my record as a company founder and employer.

I am very proud of having been a union member since my first day at work, when I joined what was the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs. I can probably add a few years to the membership of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), but it will be a few more years before I catch up with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).

I am also very proud to be supporting this Bill and the Government amendments, so that we can deliver reforms that are rightly pro-business and pro-worker. The Bill will also put more money in people’s pockets and deliver real-life improvements that will be felt by working people. Key amendments that have been tabled will strengthen protections for the lowest-paid workers, extend protections from exploitative zero-hours contracts, and boost the voice of working people in my constituency of Mansfield.

I particularly welcome the Government’s new schedule 2, which will update frameworks for trade unions, reflect modern work practices and rebalance industrial relations. It will ensure that the size of a workplace bargaining unit will be frozen and cannot be increased during the recognition process. A recent example of where this new  schedule would have supported workers occurred at Amazon. When my union, the GMB, first applied for statutory recognition there, Amazon reported that it had 1,400 employees working at the site and refused to have any discussion on trade union recognition. Amazon workers faced a David versus Goliath fight in having to prove that they had at least 40% support in the workplace for union recognition. As amended, the Bill will vastly simplify that process, with the new schedule freezing the bargaining unit at the point of application. We want to be able to bring good practice and good employers to our constituencies. \p Tom Hayes: In 2023, BH Live, a company based in my constituency, was named as not paying 130 workers—130 of the lowest-paid workers in my constituency—the national minimum wage. Ultimately, BH Live did make payments, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong for anybody to be paid less than the national minimum wage, and that through the introduction of the new Fair Work Agency we are going to be able to right wrongs like that? \p Steve Yemm: I absolutely agree; my hon. Friend has spelled out why enforcement is so important.

I would happily speak further in support of so many of the amendments that have been tabled, but I am acutely aware that we are at the end of the debate. \p John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is coming to his exciting peroration, so I just wanted to say that he is absolutely right about the feckless behaviour of corporate businesses that disregard the interests of their workers, and I share his view of trade unions. However, does he recognise that there is a world of difference between the burdens we place on those organisations that can happily deal with them and the effects that some parts of the Bill will have—perhaps unintentionally—on very small businesses? I imagine that the businesses he started were such business, at least at the beginning. This Bill has caused fear among small businesses and microbusinesses. There is a real distinction between those heartless corporates and the hard-working SMEs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine, is there not? \p Steve Yemm: As a small business founder and someone who has grown a business, I recognise the need for balance. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for raising that point. In my concluding remarks, I put on the record how proud I am of my unions, the GMB and Unite, for the work that they have done with this Government to help deliver this groundbreaking legislation. I will therefore be voting with pride to support the Bill in the Lobby later today. \p Justin Madders: We have had another excellent debate. We might have to deal with a few misconceptions, but I am conscious that we need to move on to Third Reading, so I apologise if I do not address every single contribution we have heard today. I will start with the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), and his new clause 82. The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to produce an annual report for employment rights enforcement, as well as an enforcement strategy every three years. Both documents  will be laid before Parliament, allowing for parliamentary scrutiny. We are committed to giving the Fair Work Agency the resources it needs to do its job effectively. I agree with him that the number of prosecutions for minimum wage violations has been pitifully small in recent years. We should never tolerate lawbreakers in the business world. We should ensure that responsible and well-performing businesses are never allowed to be undercut by minimum wage violations.

My right hon. Friend’s amendment 282 would include digital means of communication with workers in unions’ rights of access to workplaces. I appreciate the good intentions behind the amendment, but the Government are already committed to modernising working practices and moving away from a reliance on ad hoc access arrangements. We recognise the importance of providing for a digital right of access, in addition to the physical access for which the Bill already provides. That is why we have amended the Bill to expand access rights, allowing for access agreements to include communication with workers other than by means of physical access to a workplace, such as digital means.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) talked about procurement. His new clause would amend the Procurement Act 2023 to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that any contract entered into by either a Government Department, an executive agency of Government, a non-departmental public body or a non-ministerial department must comply with certain requirements relating to the recognition of trade unions. We recognise that the recognition of trade unions for collective bargaining was an important feature of the previous two-tier code on workforce matters. The Bill contains powers to reinstate and strengthen the code by way of regulations and a statutory code, so I assure the House that the Government are committed to strengthening trade union recognition and collective bargaining rights.

New clause 77, in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law), would result in a change to the Scotland Act 1998 by removing employment law from the list of reserved matters, thereby bringing it within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. While his perseverance on this issue is not unnoticed, it would come as no surprise to him, were he here, that the Government have no intention of devolving employment law to the Scottish Parliament. Previous Scotland Acts have already created one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. When there were considerably more SNP Members here during the last Parliament, there was a ten-minute rule Bill on this very subject, and the SNP could not even get a majority of its own Members to support it, so why on Earth would we support such a measure now? I do not know.

I will turn to the amendments from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on prison officers’ right to strike. I thank him for his persistence and his active engagement on behalf of prison officers. As he said, prison officers are prevented from taking industrial action under current legislation. Their pay is governed by the independent Prison Service pay review body process, which acts as a compensatory mechanism for that restriction. There is limited contingency to deal with industrial action, and during such incidents the reliance is on a narrow pool of operational managers with some potential for very limited support from the  police and Army in limited circumstances. That creates operational risks and is not sustainable for any period of time.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to what he classed as disrespect to prison officers during that debate in Committee. I just put on record that there was certainly no disrespect shown by those on the Government Benches; we value and respect the work that prison officers do. I know that he will continue to pursue this matter, and I suggest that he contacts the Ministry of Justice, which has the remit. I hope it will be able to engage on the matter in future.

Let me now deal with some of the Liberal Democrat new clauses and amendments. The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) spoke about new clause 19, which would give the Secretary of State the power to set out and define in regulations the professional bodies that could represent employees at disciplinary meetings. It is unclear to us where the demand for that would come from, and I would expect it to benefit some businesses that have raised the prospect with successive Governments. What is clear, however, is that expanding the types of organisations that could be involved in representing workers at such meetings could lead to hearings requiring legal representation for both the worker and the employer. That would increase the cost of holding a hearing, would escalate matters, and would potentially decrease the chance of an amicable resolution as both parties became entrenched in dispute. We believe that trade unions are best placed to represent employees in disciplinary and grievance hearings in the workplace, and statutory provisions are already in place to enable them to do that.

The hon. Member for St Albans also tabled new clause 111, which relates to legal aid for employment disputes. I am committed to ensuring that workers are able to enforce their employment rights, and we are working closely with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that happens, looking into what further improvements we can make to the way in which ACAS and employment tribunals operate. A key benefit of moving enforcement to the Fair Work Agency is that it will make it easier and quicker for workers to secure justice, without the need for additional legal representation or legal aid. I hope that gives the hon. Lady some reassurance that we are looking seriously at the issue.

New clause 110, also tabled by the hon. Member for St Albans,

“would require the Secretary of State to publish a review on the impact of Part 4 of the Bill…on SMEs within 3 months of the passage of this Act.”

In the impact assessment, the Government have set out our initial plan for monitoring an evaluation of the impacts of the Bill, as well as some secondary legislation. I say this with the greatest respect to the hon. Lady: she has expressed concern about the burden on business, but if we had accepted all her party’s amendments yesterday, that would have added several billion pounds to the costs of businesses. The Liberal Democrats will have to decide, ideally tonight, whether they are in favour of workers’ rights or not.

Let me now deal with some of the amendments from the official Opposition. Amendment 297 seeks to

“increase, from seven to 14 days, the notice period that trade unions are required to adhere to when notifying employers that they plan to take industrial action.”

Our consultation on the creation of a modern framework for industrial relations sought views on what an appropriate notice period would be, recognising that the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016 would reduce the notice period from 14 to seven days. The Government have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by respondents to the consultation who feared that a seven-day notice period would not provide enough time for unions to prepare for industrial action in some important sectors, such as transport, healthcare and education, with possible knock-on impacts on other services. The Government believe that employers should be given enough time to mitigate the most severe effects of industrial action, and acknowledge responses to the consultation arguing that seven days’ notice was insufficient.

Of course, we did have seven days’ notice between 2010 and 2016 under the Tory Government. The Tories’ lack of understanding of the Bill is clear from the number of times we heard that it would take us back to the 1970s, whereas in fact it will take us back to 2015, when an earlier version of the Bill was introduced. The Government’s view is that 10 days provides the appropriate balance in enabling employers to mitigate the impact of industrial action and reduce disruption and the knock-on impacts of strikes, while also respecting the right to strike.

Amendment 291 seeks to remove clause 52, which deals with political funds and which, I think, prompted the most heated debate. It is notable that when it comes to reducing Tory red tape, it is only trade unions that do not receive the same benefits as everyone else. There has, I think, been a fundamental misunderstanding of what a trade union is. It is a member-based, democratic organisation designed to protect those who are part of it. Comparisons with Netflix subscriptions and insurance contracts are bogus, because they are not the same thing at all. Membership of a trade union and a political fund is not a subscription that people sign up to for a fixed period; it is membership of a democratically organised and independent trade union, which they are free to leave at any time. Members have control of the organisation because it is democratically organised, and they can decide as a union whether to have a political fund at all. People cannot email the chief executive of Netflix and demand that it makes a programme starring their favourite actor, but if people are unhappy with a trade union, they have the opportunity to get involved and change it.

It should be noted that in the 40 years that we have had political fund ballots, no union has disaffiliated from the Labour party as a result of that. There has been no closure of political funds, so it is very clear that this is simply red tape. Of course, it is not all about funding the Labour party, because nearly half of all unions that have a political fund are not affiliated with the Labour party. If Conservative Members are not satisfied with that, they should read the Bill that is before them, because the clause that they want to remove—clause 52—sets out in subsection (3) how members can opt out of a political fund. It even sets out the ways they can do so: by post, email or electronic means. Some of the patronising comments we have heard about people being trapped into something that they do not wish to be in does not reflect the reality of the situation or the ability of trade union members to make up their own  minds and exercise their democratic rights. Had any Conservative Members ever been members of a trade union, they would understand that.

The repeated insinuations from Conservative Members that I or any anyone else on the Labour Benches have brought forward this Bill because we have been paid by the trade unions to do so is offensive and wrong in equal measure. They might think money buys you the chance to write the law, but that says far more about their approach to legislation than it does about ours. On the Labour Benches, we do these things because we believe in them. We believe that everyone deserves fair treatment at work, and this Bill delivers that. It is delivering on our values.

In conclusion, the Bill represents a generational shift in protection, a long-overdue reinforcement of workers’ rights in this country, and tangible proof of how a Labour Government can bring meaningful benefit to people’s lives. For many of us, it is fundamental to why we are in the Labour party, so now is not the time to shy away from our efforts. Now is not the time to talk about what might have been; it is the time to be bold, to be loud and to be proud that this Labour Government are delivering by putting fairness, dignity and security back into the workplace.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 337, Noes 98.

Question accordingly agreed to.

New clause 39 read a Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “In section 73 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (passing and effect of political resolution)—

(a) omit subsection (3);

(b) in subsection (4), for “before the end of that period” substitute “a political resolution (“the old resolution”) is in force and”.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause would remove the requirement for a political resolution to be renewed every ten years in order for a trade union to maintain a political fund.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).

(2) In section 226 (requirement of ballot before action by trade union)—

(a) in subsection (2)(a)(iii), for “the required number of persons (see subsections (2A) to (2C))” substitute “the majority voting in the ballot”;

(b) omit subsections (2A) to (2F).

(3) In section 231 (information for members as to result of ballot)—

(a) insert “and” at the end of paragraph (e);

(b) omit paragraph (g) (and the “and” before it).

(4) In consequence of the amendments made by subsection (2), omit section 3 of the Trade Union Act 2016.”—(Justin Madders.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 192 - this new clause contains provision omitted by that amendment and consequential amendments to section 231 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “In section 226A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (notice of ballot and sample voting paper for employers)—

(a) in subsection (2)(c)—

(i) in sub-paragraph (i), for the words from “figures” to “arrived at” substitute “number mentioned in subsection (2B)”;

(ii) in sub-paragraph (ii), for “figures and that explanation” substitute “that number”;

(b) for subsection (2B) substitute—

“(2B) The number is the total number of employees concerned.”;

(c) in subsection (2C)—

(i) in paragraph (b), omit the words from “and the number” to “categories”;

(ii) in paragraph (c), omit the words from “and the number” to “workplaces”;

(d) in subsection (2D), for “figures” substitute “the number”.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause would remove the requirements for a trade union to provide information to an employer ahead of an industrial action ballot as to the number of employees concerned in each category or workplace and to provide an explanation of how the total number of employees concerned was determined by the union.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “In section 234 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (period after which industrial action ballot ceases to be effective), in subsection (1), for the words from “period” to the end substitute “period of 12 months beginning with the date of the ballot”.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause would increase the time period for which an industrial action ballot has effect from 6 months (or up to 9 months by agreement between the employer and trade union) to 12 months (without the possibility of extension).

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that—

(a) on any day (“the relevant day”), a sum in respect of—

(i) one or more periods ending before the relevant day, or

(ii) one or more events occurring before the relevant day,

was due from a person (the “liable party”) to an individual (the “underpaid individual”) under or by virtue of a statutory pay provision (see subsection (7)), and

(b) any period for payment of that sum to be made has ended without the sum having been paid to the underpaid individual,

the Secretary of State may give a notice of underpayment to the liable party.

(2) A notice of underpayment is a notice under this section requiring the liable party to pay the required sum to the underpaid individual before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is given. For the meaning of the “required sum”, see section (Calculation of the required sum).

(3) Subsection (1) is subject to—

(a) subsection (6), and

(b) section (Period to which notice of underpayment may relate) (period to which notice of underpayment may relate).

(4) The Secretary of State may give a notice of underpayment to a person in respect of a sum that was due from the person on the relevant day whether or not the sum remains due at the time of the giving of the notice (see, in particular, section (Penalties for underpayment) (penalties for underpayment)).

(5) But where all or part of that sum has been paid before the giving of the notice, the requirement imposed by the notice is, to that extent, to be treated as met.

(6) The Secretary of State may not give a notice of underpayment in respect of any matter if—

(a) proceedings have been brought about the matter by virtue of section (Power to bring proceedings in employment tribunal) (power to bring proceedings in employment tribunal), and

(b) the proceedings have not been finally determined or discontinued.

(7) In this Part

“statutory pay provision” means a provision of relevant labour market legislation that—

(a) confers a right or entitlement to the payment of any sum to an individual, or

(b) prohibits or restricts the withholding of payment of any sum to an individual.”—(Justin Madders.)

Where an employer has failed to pay a worker an amount due to the worker under a provision of legislation listed in Part 1 of Schedule 5 (for example, the minimum wage or statutory sick pay), the Secretary of State may give the employer a notice of underpayment requiring the employer to pay the amount due.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) For the purposes of section (Power to give notice of underpayment)(2), the “required sum” is whichever is the greater of the following sums—

(a) the sum that was due to the underpaid individual on the relevant day;

(b) in a case where regulations under subsection (2) apply, the sum determined in accordance with the regulations.

This is subject to subsection (4).

(2) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may make provision for determining the sum required to be paid to an individual by a notice of underpayment in a case where the sum due to the individual on any day under or by virtue of a statutory pay provision would have been greater had that sum been determined by reference to the statutory pay provision as it has effect at the time of giving the notice of underpayment.

(3) But regulations under subsection (2) may not make provision in relation to any provision of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (see instead section 17 of that Act).

(4) If the required sum in respect of an underpaid individual would (in the absence of this subsection) be greater than the specified maximum for the statutory pay provision concerned, the required sum in respect of the underpaid individual is the specified maximum.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) “the specified maximum”, in relation to a statutory pay provision, means an amount specified by, or determined in accordance with, regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(6) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause provides for the calculation of the sum that is required to be paid. There is power to provide for the amount owed to be uprated in line with legislative changes occurring after the sum first became due. There is also power to set a cap on the amount that can be required to be paid by a notice of underpayment in respect of a single individual.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) A notice of underpayment may not relate to any sum that became due under or by virtue of a statutory pay provision before the beginning of the claim period.

(2) The “claim period”, in relation to a notice of underpayment, is the period of six years ending with the day on which the notice is given.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to alter the length of the claim period.

(4) Regulations under subsection (3)—

(a) may specify different claim periods in relation to different statutory pay provisions;

(b) may not provide for the claim period in relation to a notice of underpayment to be greater than the period of six years ending with the day on which the notice is given.

(5) Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

(6) A notice of underpayment may relate to sums that became due before the coming into force of this section.

(7) But a notice of underpayment may not relate to any sum that became due before the day on which this Act is passed.

(8) Subsection (7) does not apply to a notice of underpayment so far as it relates to any sum due under section 17 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (entitlement to additional remuneration for failure to pay at least the minimum wage).

(9) See also section (Replacement notice of underpayment)(3) (claim period for replacement notices of underpayment).”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause provides that a notice of underpayment may relate to sums that become due within the period of six years ending with the giving of the notice. There is power to alter the length of this period, but it cannot be more than six years. A notice of underpayment may also relate to sums that become due before the coming into   force of this clause, as otherwise the power to give notices of underpayment would not become exercisable to its full extent until six years after that time.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) Where a notice of underpayment relates to more than one underpaid individual, the notice may identify the individuals by name or by description.

(2) A notice of underpayment must specify, for each underpaid individual to whom it relates—

(a) the relevant day in relation to the individual;

(b) the sum due to the individual on that day and how that sum was calculated;

(c) the period or periods, or event or events, in respect of which it was due;

(d) the statutory pay provision under or by virtue of which it was due;

(e) the fact that any period for payment of that sum to be made ended without the sum having been paid;

(f) the required sum in respect of the individual and (if different from the sum mentioned in paragraph (b)) how that sum was calculated.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause makes provision about the information to be included in a notice of underpayment.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) A notice of underpayment must require the liable party to pay a penalty to the Secretary of State. This is subject to section (Further provision about penalties)(1).

(2) The penalty must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is given.

(3) The amount of the penalty is the total of the amounts for each underpaid individual to whom the notice relates calculated in accordance with subsections (4) and (5) (but see subsection (6)).

(4) The amount for each underpaid individual to whom the notice relates is 200% of the sum specified in the notice of underpayment as the sum due to the individual on the relevant day (see section (Notices of underpayment: further provision)(2)(b)).

(5) But if the amount determined under subsection (4) for any underpaid individual would be more than £20,000, the amount for the individual taken into account in calculating the penalty is to be £20,000.

(6) If a penalty calculated in accordance with subsection (3) would be less than £100, the amount of the penalty is to be £100.

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section—

(a) so as to substitute a different percentage for a percentage for the time being specified in this section;

(b) so as to substitute a different amount for an amount for the time being specified in this section;

(c) so as to specify different percentages or amounts for different purposes.

(8) Regulations under subsection (7) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause provides that a notice of underpayment must also impose a financial penalty on the person given the notice, and sets out how the penalty will be calculated. The maximum penalty in respect of an underpaid individual is £20,000, but a notice of underpayment may relate to more than one such individual.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State may by directions specify circumstances in which a notice of underpayment is not to impose a requirement to pay a penalty.

(2) A direction under subsection (1) may be amended or revoked by a further direction.

(3) A notice of underpayment that imposes a requirement to pay a penalty must—

(a) specify the amount of the penalty,

(b) state how that amount was calculated, and

(c) specify the date by which the penalty must be paid.

(4) In a case where a notice of underpayment imposes a requirement on a person to pay a penalty, if the person, before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the notice is given—

(a) pays (or has paid) the required sum specified in the notice of underpayment, and

(b) pays at least half the penalty,

the person is to be regarded as having paid the penalty.

(5) Any penalty received by the Secretary of State in accordance with section (Penalties for underpayment) is to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause enables the Secretary of State to specify circumstances in which a penalty is not to be imposed. It also enables a person who has paid the sum owed to the underpaid individual, and at least 50% of the penalty, within 14 days of being given the notice to satisfy their liability entirely.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) Subsection (3) applies where—

(a) the Secretary of State is proposing to give a notice of underpayment that imposes a requirement on a person to pay a penalty, and

(b) it appears to the Secretary of State that—

(i) relevant criminal proceedings have been brought, or

(ii) relevant criminal proceedings may be brought.

(2) In this section “relevant criminal proceedings” means proceedings against the person for a labour market offence in respect of any act or omission to which the notice relates (“the relevant conduct”).

(3) The notice of underpayment may contain provision suspending the requirement to pay the penalty until a notice terminating the suspension is given to the person under subsection (4).

(4) The Secretary of State may give the person a notice terminating the suspension (a “penalty activation notice”) if it appears to the Secretary of State—

(a) in a case referred to in subsection (1)(b)(i), that the proceedings have concluded without the person having been convicted of a labour market offence in respect of the relevant conduct, or

(b) in a case referred to in subsection (1)(b)(ii)—

(i) that relevant criminal proceedings will not be brought, or

(ii) that relevant criminal proceedings have concluded without the person having been convicted of a labour market offence in respect of the relevant conduct.

(5) Where a penalty activation notice is given, the requirement to pay the penalty has effect as if the notice of underpayment had been given on the day on which the penalty activation notice was given.

(6) The Secretary of State must give the person a notice withdrawing the requirement to pay the penalty if it appears to the Secretary of State that the person has been convicted of a labour market offence in respect of the relevant conduct.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause enables a penalty imposed by a notice of underpayment to be suspended where the person given the notice is subject to criminal proceedings in respect of the conduct to which the notice relates.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) A person to whom a notice of underpayment is given may appeal to a tribunal against any one or more of the following—

(a) the decision to give the notice;

(b) any requirement imposed by the notice to pay a sum to an individual;

(c) any requirement imposed by the notice to pay a penalty.

(2) An appeal under this section must be made before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is given.

(3) An appeal under subsection (1)(a) may be made only on one or more of the following grounds—

(a) that no sum was due to any individual to whom the notice relates on the specified day under or by virtue of the specified provision;

(b) that, in the case of every sum specified in the notice as due to an individual to whom the notice relates, the sum had been paid before the end of the period mentioned in section (Power to give notice of underpayment)(1)(b);

(c) that, in the case of every sum specified in the notice as due to an individual to whom the notice relates, the sum was one to which a notice may not relate by virtue of subsection (1) or (7) of section (Period to which notice of underpayment may relate) (period to which notice may relate).

(4) An appeal under subsection (1)(b) in relation to an individual may be made only on one or more of the following grounds—

(a) that, on the specified day, no sum was due to the individual under or by virtue of the specified provision;

(b) that, in the case of any sum specified in the notice as due to the individual, the sum had been paid before the end of the period mentioned in section (Power to give notice of underpayment)(1)(b);

(c) that, in the case of any sum specified in the notice as due to the individual, the sum was one to which a notice may not relate by virtue of subsection (1) or (7) of section (Period to which notice of underpayment may relate);

(d) that the amount specified in the notice as the sum required to be paid to the individual is incorrect;

(e) that, in the case of a replacement notice given under section (Replacement notice of underpayment), the notice contravenes subsection (2) of that section.

(5) An appeal under subsection (1)(c) may be made only on one or more of the following grounds—

(a) that the notice was given in circumstances specified in a direction under section (Further provision about penalties)(1);

(b) that the amount of the penalty specified in the notice of underpayment has been incorrectly calculated (whether because the notice is incorrect in some of the particulars which affect that calculation or for some other reason).

(6) Where the tribunal allows an appeal under subsection (1)(a), it must cancel the notice.

(7) Where, in a case where subsection (6) does not apply, the tribunal allows an appeal under subsection (1)(b) or (c)—

(a) the tribunal must rectify the notice, and

(b) the notice of underpayment, as rectified, has effect as if it had been given on the day on which the tribunal makes its determination.

(8) In this section—

“the specified day” , in relation to an individual, means the day specified in accordance with section (Notices of underpayment: further provision)(2)(a) in relation to the individual;

“the specified provision” , in relation to an individual, means the statutory pay provision specified in accordance with section (Notices of underpayment: further provision)(2)(d) in relation to the individual;

“tribunal” means—

(a) an employment tribunal, in relation to England and Wales or Scotland;

(b) an industrial tribunal, in relation to Northern Ireland.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause provides for a right of appeal against a notice of underpayment.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) Where—

(a) a notice of underpayment has been given to a person (and not already withdrawn or cancelled), and

(b) it appears to the Secretary of State that the notice incorrectly includes or omits any requirement or is incorrect in any particular,

the Secretary of State may withdraw it by giving a notice of withdrawal to the person.

(2) Where a notice of underpayment given to a person is withdrawn and no replacement notice of underpayment is given in accordance with section (Replacement notice of underpayment)—

(a) any sum paid by or recovered from the person by way of penalty payable under the notice must be repaid to the person with interest at the appropriate rate running from the date when the sum was paid or recovered;

(b) any appeal against the notice must be dismissed.

(3) In subsection (2)(a) “the appropriate rate” means the rate that, on the date the sum was paid or recovered, was specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838.

(4) Where subsection (2) applies, the notice of withdrawal must indicate the effect of that subsection (but a failure to do so does not make the withdrawal ineffective).”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause enables a notice of underpayment that is incorrect in some way to be withdrawn. If a replacement notice is not given, then any penalty paid by the person must be repaid with interest.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) If the Secretary of State—

(a) gives a notice of withdrawal to a person under section (Withdrawal of notice of underpayment), and

(b) is of the opinion referred to in section (Power to give notice of underpayment)(1) in relation to any individual specified in the notice which is being withdrawn (“the original notice”),

the Secretary of State may at the same time give a fresh notice of underpayment to the person (a “replacement notice”).

(2) The replacement notice may not relate to any individual to whom the original notice did not relate.

(3) The claim period for a replacement notice (see section (Period to which notice of underpayment may relate)(1)) is the period—

(a) beginning with the claim period for the original notice, and

(b) ending with the day on which the replacement notice is given.

Accordingly, the replacement notice may relate to sums that became due after the day on which the original notice was given.

(4) The replacement notice must—

(a) set out the differences between it and the original notice that it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to consider are material, and

(b) explain the effect of section (Effect of replacement notice of underpayment).

(5) Failure to comply with subsection (4) does not make the replacement notice ineffective.

(6) Where a replacement notice is withdrawn under section (Withdrawal of notice of underpayment), no further replacement notice may be given under subsection (1) as a result of the withdrawal.

(7) Nothing in this section affects any power that exists apart from this section to give a notice of underpayment in relation to any underpaid individual.” —(Justin Madders.)

This new clause enables a replacement notice of underpayment to be given where an earlier notice has been withdrawn. The replacement notice cannot relate to any underpaid individual to whom the original notice did not relate, but may relate to sums that have become due since the original notice was given.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) This section applies where a notice of underpayment is withdrawn under section (Withdrawal of notice of underpayment) and a replacement notice is given in accordance with section (Replacement notice of underpayment).

(2) If an appeal has been made under section (Appeals against notices of underpayment) in respect of the original notice and the appeal has not been withdrawn or finally determined before the time when that notice is withdrawn—

(a) that appeal (“the earlier appeal”) has effect after that time as if it had been made in respect of the replacement notice, and

(b) the person given the notice may exercise the right of appeal under that section in respect of the replacement notice only if the earlier appeal is withdrawn.

(3) If a sum was paid by or recovered from the person by way of penalty under the original notice—

(a) an amount equal to that sum (or, if more than one, the total of those sums) is to be treated as having been paid in respect of the penalty imposed by the replacement notice, and

(b) any amount by which that sum (or total) exceeds the amount of the penalty imposed by the replacement notice must be repaid to the person with interest at the appropriate rate running from the date when the sum (or, if more than one, the first of them) was paid or recovered.

(4) In subsection (3)(b) “the appropriate rate” means the rate that, on the date mentioned in that provision, was specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause sets out the effect of a replacement notice of underpayment.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) In a case where it appears to the Secretary of State that the liable party has failed to comply with a requirement in a notice of underpayment to pay a sum to an underpaid individual, the Secretary of State may apply to the court for an order under this section.

(2) An application under this section may be made only if—

(a) the relevant 28-day period has ended, and

(b) the liable party’s appeal rights are exhausted (see subsection (5)).

(3) If, on an application under this section, the court is satisfied that—

(a) the notice was given to the liable party and has not been withdrawn, and

(b) the liable party has failed to comply with a requirement imposed by the notice to pay a sum to an underpaid individual,

the court must order the liable party to pay the sum to the underpaid individual within the period specified in the order.

(4) This section does not affect any right of an underpaid individual to recover any sums owed by the liable party to the individual.

(5) For the purposes of this section, the liable party’s appeal rights are exhausted if—

(a) the relevant 28-day period ended without an appeal being made under section (Appeals against notices of underpayment) in respect of the notice,

(b) any appeal made under that section by the liable party in respect of the notice has been withdrawn, or

(c) any such appeal has been finally determined and the notice has not been cancelled under subsection (6) of that section.

(6) In this section—

“the court” means—

(a) the county court, in relation to England and Wales;

(b) the sheriff, in relation to Scotland;

(c) a county court, in relation to Northern Ireland;

“the relevant 28-day period” means the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice (or, where section (Appeals against notices of underpayment)(7)(b) applies, the rectified notice) is given.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause enables the Secretary of State to apply to a court for an order requiring a person who has not complied with a notice of underpayment to pay the sum required to be paid to the underpaid individual.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) In England and Wales, a penalty is recoverable as if it were payable under an order of the county court.

(2) In Scotland, a penalty may be enforced in the same manner as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland.

(3) In Northern Ireland, a penalty is recoverable as if it were payable under an order of a county court.

(4) Where action is taken under this section for the recovery of a penalty, the penalty—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, is to be treated for the purposes of section 98 of the Courts Act 2003 (register of judgments and orders etc) as if it were a judgment entered in the county court;

(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, is to be treated for the purposes of Article 116 of the Judgments Enforcement (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/226 (N.I. 6)) (register of judgments) as if it were a judgment in respect of which an application has been accepted under Article 22 or 23(1) of that Order.

(5) In this section “penalty” means a penalty payable under a notice of underpayment.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause provides for how the requirement to pay a penalty imposed by a notice of underpayment may be enforced.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) In a case where—

(a) a worker has the right under any enactment to bring proceedings about a matter in an employment tribunal in England and Wales or Scotland, and

(b) it appears to the Secretary of State that the worker is not going to bring proceedings about that matter,

the Secretary of State may, in place of the worker, bring proceedings about the matter in an employment tribunal under the enactment.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to—

(a) any right to bring proceedings about a matter in respect of which a notice of underpayment under section (Power to give notice of underpayment) has been given;

(b) any right arising under or by virtue of the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Act 2014 (anaw 6) or the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949.

(3) Where by virtue of this section the Secretary of State brings proceedings in place of a worker—

(a) the proceedings are to be proceeded with as if they had been brought by the worker, and

(b) for the purposes of dealing with the proceedings, and any proceedings arising out of those proceedings, references to the worker in any enactment are to be read as including a reference to the Secretary of State.

(4) But, despite subsection (3), any power which an employment tribunal dealing with the proceedings would have to make a declaration, decision, award or other order in favour of the worker if the worker had brought the proceedings continues to be exercisable in relation to the worker (not the Secretary of State).

(5) Any appeal arising out of proceedings brought by the Secretary of State in place of a worker by virtue of this section may be brought by the worker as well as by the Secretary of State.

(6) The Secretary of State is not liable to any worker for anything done (or omitted to be done) in, or in connection with, the discharge or purported discharge of the Secretary of State’s functions by virtue of this section.

(7) For the purposes of this section—

(a) any reference to a worker includes—

(i) an individual who is not a worker as defined by section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 but who is a worker for the purposes of Part 4A of that Act (see section 43K(1) of that Act), and

(ii) an individual seeking to be employed by a person as a worker;

(b) any reference to a right to bring proceedings under an enactment is to such a right however expressed, and includes any right to present a complaint or make any other description of claim or application;

(c) any reference to the Secretary of State includes an enforcement officer.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause would enable the Secretary of State, in a case where a worker has the right to bring proceedings about a matter in an employment tribunal, to bring proceedings about that matter in place of the worker. An employment tribunal hearing such proceedings may still make a financial award, etc in the worker’s favour if, for example, the complaint about the matter is well-founded.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State may assist a person who is or may become party to civil proceedings in England and Wales or Scotland relating to employment or trade union law or the law of labour relations.

(2) In giving assistance under this section the Secretary of State may provide or arrange for the provision of—

(a) legal advice;

(b) legal representation;

(c) any other form of assistance.

(3) But the Secretary of State may not provide, or arrange for the provision of, facilities for the settlement of a dispute.

(4) Where proceedings relate or may relate partly to employment or trade union law or the law of labour relations (“employment-related matters”) and partly to other matters—

(a) assistance may be given under this section in respect of any aspect of the proceedings, and

(b) if the proceedings cease to relate to employment-related matters—

(i) assistance may nevertheless continue to be given under this section in respect of the proceedings, but

(ii) the fact that assistance has been given under this section in respect of the proceedings does not require such assistance to continue to be given.

(5) This section does not affect any restriction imposed in respect of representation—

(a) by virtue of an enactment, or

(b) in accordance with the practice of a court or tribunal.

(6) A legislative provision which requires insurance or an indemnity in respect of advice given in connection with a settlement agreement does not apply to advice provided by the Secretary of State under this section.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to provide, or arrange for the provision of, assistance to any person who is or may become party to civil proceedings relating to employment or trade union law or the law of labour relations. Such assistance may include, in particular, legal advice or representation.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) Subsection (2) applies where—

(a) the Secretary of State has assisted a person under section (Power to provide legal assistance) in relation to proceedings, and

(b) the person becomes entitled to some or all of the person’s costs or, in Scotland, expenses in the proceedings (whether as a result of an award or as a result of an agreement).

(2) The Secretary of State’s expenditure in giving the assistance—

(a) is to be charged on sums paid to the person by way of costs or expenses, and

(b) may be enforced as a debt due to the Secretary of State.

(3) A requirement to pay money to the Secretary of State under subsection (2) ranks, in England and Wales, after a requirement imposed by virtue of section 25 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (statutory charge in connection with civil legal aid).

(4) Subsection (2), in its application to Scotland, does not affect the operation of section 17(2A) of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 (requirement in certain cases to pay to the Scottish Legal Aid Board sums recovered under awards of, or agreements as to, expenses).

(5) For the purposes of subsection (2), the Secretary of State’s expenditure is to be calculated in accordance with such provision (if any) as the Secretary of State makes for the purpose by regulations.

(6) Regulations under subsection (5) may, in particular, provide for the apportionment of expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State—

(a) partly for one purpose and partly for another, or

(b) for general purposes.

(7) Regulations under subsection (5) are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”—(Justin Madders.)

Where the Secretary of State has given assistance to a person under NC58, and the person is entitled to be paid costs in the proceedings, this new clause enables the Secretary of State to recover the costs of giving the assistance out of the costs paid to the person.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring a relevant person, or a relevant person of a specified description, to pay a charge as a means of recovering any enforcement costs incurred in relation to the person.

(2) For the purposes of this section—

“enforcement costs” , in relation to a relevant person, means any costs incurred in connection with the exercise of an enforcement function of the Secretary of State in relation to the person;

“relevant person” means a person who has failed to comply with any relevant labour market legislation;

“specified” means specified in the regulations.

(3) Regulations under this section may—

(a) provide that the amount of a charge is—

(i) a fixed amount, or

(ii) an amount calculated by reference to an hourly rate;

(b) provide for the amount of the charge to be determined by the Secretary of State in accordance with the regulations.

(4) The regulations may in particular—

(a) provide that the amount of a charge is to be determined by the Secretary of State in accordance with a scheme made and published by the Secretary of State, and

(b) make provision about such schemes, including the principles governing such schemes.

(5) The provision that may be made by regulations under this section includes, among other things—

(a) provision for charges to be payable only in specified circumstances;

(b) provision about reductions, exemptions and waivers;

(c) provision about how and when charges are to be paid;

(d) provision about the collection or recovery of payments;

(e) provision for the charging of interest on unpaid charges;

(f) provision about the resolution of disputes relating to the payment of charges, including provision for the making of appeals to a court or tribunal.

(6) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.

(7) Sums paid to the Secretary of State under this section are not required to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to recover enforcement costs incurred in relation to a person who has failed to comply with the legislation which the Secretary of State is responsible for enforcing under Part 5. Regulations may require such a person to pay a charge in order to recover those costs. The amount of the charge would be determined in accordance with the regulations, and there is power for the Secretary of State to make and publish a scheme for determining the amount of a charge.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a review on the impact of Part 4 (Trade Unions and Industrial Action, etc) of this Act on small and medium-sized enterprises.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must have regard to—

(a) administrative costs;

(b) legal costs; and

(c) tax changes affecting small and medium-sized enterprises taking effect from the 2025-26 financial year.

(3) For the purposes of this section, small and medium-sized enterprises are businesses employing 250 or fewer employees.”—(Daisy Cooper.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a review on the impact of Part 4 of this Bill, on Trade Unions and Industrial Action, on SMEs within 3 months of the passage of this Act.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 314.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 162, page 61, leave out line 15 and insert—

“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (6).

(2) In Part 1”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 184.

Amendment 163, page 61, line 24, leave out from “for” to “for” in line 25 and insert—

“one or more officials of the union to physically enter a workplace or communicate with workers (or both)”.

This amendment and others to this clause would expand the scope of access agreements so that they can include provision about communication with workers other than by means of physical entry into a workplace (for example, by digital means).

Amendment 164, page 61, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert—

“(4) “Access” means—

(a) physical entry into a workplace;

(b) communication with workers.”—(Justin Madders.)

See the explanatory statement to amendment 163.

Amendment 165, page 61, leave out lines 32 and 33.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 183.

Amendment 166, page 61, line 33, at end insert—

“(5A) A reference to communication with workers is a reference to communication with workers (including the provision of information to workers) by any means, whether directly or indirectly.”

See the explanatory statement to amendment 163 - this amendment would clarify that communication with workers in the context of access agreements means communication by any means and includes the provision of information to workers. For example, an access agreement could require an employer to provide information to their workers on behalf of officials of a union within an all-staff email.

Amendment 167, page 61, line 35, after “meet,” insert “support,”.

This amendment would clarify that access can be for the purpose of supporting workers in any way.

Amendment 168, page 62, line 8, at end insert—

“(11) Section 70ZJA contains general limitations on the provision that may be made under this Chapter, including in access agreements.”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 183.

Amendment 169, page 62, line 12, leave out “to a workplace”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 163.

Amendment 170, page 63, line 27, leave out “to the workplace”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 163.

Amendment 171, page 63, line 30, leave out “to the workplace”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 163.

Amendment 172, page 64, line 27, leave out “access a workplace” and insert— “physically enter a workplace or communicate with workers (or both)”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 163.

Amendment 173, page 64, line 31, leave out “to a workplace”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 163.

Amendment 174, page 64, line 31, at end insert—

“(ba) physical entry into a workplace should not be refused solely on the basis that communication with workers by means not involving physical entry into a workplace is permitted;

(bb) communication with workers by means not involving physical entry into a workplace should not be refused solely on the basis that physical entry into a workplace is permitted;”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 163 - this amendment would ensure that the Central Arbitration Committee’s determinations about access do not prioritise communication with workers other than by means involving physical entry over physical entry and vice versa.

Amendment 175, page 65, line 5, leave out “to a workplace”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 163.

Amendment 176, page 65, leave out lines 10 and 11.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 163.

Amendment 177, page 65, line 13, at end insert—

“(ca) the number of workers employed by the employer, or of a particular description, that are members of the union;”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 163.

Amendment 178, page 65, line 14, leave out “the” and insert “a”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 163.

Amendment 179, page 65, line 14, at end insert—

“(da) a description of workers;”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 163.

Amendment 180, page 65, line 15, leave out “to the workplace”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 163.

Amendment 181, page 67, line 17, leave out—

“may not exceed a prescribed amount”

and insert—

“may be any amount that the Central Arbitration Committee considers appropriate, subject to regulations under section 70ZIA”

This amendment and amendment 182 would allow the Secretary of State to make more detailed provision in regulations about the amounts required to be paid for breaches of access requirements.

Amendment 182, page 67, line 30, at end insert—

“70ZIA Power to make provision about amounts payable under section 70ZI

(1) The Secretary of State may prescribe that an amount payable under section

70ZI(5)(b)—

(a) must be at least a prescribed amount;

(b) may not exceed a prescribed amount.

(2) An amount may be prescribed under subsection (1)(a) or (b)—

(a) as a fixed amount;

(b) by reference to one or more prescribed factors;

(c) as the highest or lowest of two or more prescribed amounts, whether prescribed as fixed amounts or by reference to one or more prescribed factors.

(3) The factors that may be prescribed under subsection (2)(b) or (c) include (among others)—

(a) the nature of the complaint under section 70ZI(2) against the person required to pay the amount (the “liable party”);

(b) whether the liable party has previously been subject to a complaint under section 70ZH(1)

or 70ZI(2), or a prescribed number of such complaints, declared by the Central Arbitration Committee to be well-founded;

(c) whether the liable party is of a prescribed description;

(d) in the case of a liable party that is an undertaking, the turnover of the liable party in a prescribed period, including (in particular) worldwide, European or United Kingdom turnover;

(e) in the case of a liable party that is an employer—

(i) the number of workers employed by the liable party, or

(ii) the number of workers of a prescribed description employed by the liable party;

(f) in the case of a liable party that is a trade union, the number of members that the liable party has.

(4) The Secretary of State may prescribe matters to which the Central Arbitration Committee must have regard in considering what amount is payable under section 70ZI(5)(b).”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 181.

Amendment 183, page 68, line 14, at end insert—

“General limitations on access agreements etc

70ZJA General limitations on access agreements etc

(1) Nothing in this Chapter requires or authorises any of the following (each, a “prohibited activity”)—

(a) physical entry by any person into a dwelling;

(b) a disclosure of personal data without the consent of the data subject;

(c) a disclosure of information that would contravene the data protection legislation (but, in determining whether a disclosure would do so, the provisions of this Chapter are to be taken into account).

(2) Accordingly—

(a) a term of an access agreement entered into under section 70ZD that requires or authorises a prohibited activity is of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter;

(b) the Central Arbitration Committee may not specify as a term of an access agreement under section 70ZE any term that would require or authorise a prohibited activity;

(c) the Central Arbitration Committee may not exercise any function under sections 70ZH to 70ZJ so as to require or authorise a prohibited activity.

(3) In this section—

(a) “consent” has the same meaning as in the UK GDPR (see Article 4(11) of the UK GDPR);

(b) “personal data”, “data subject”, “the data protection legislation” and “the UK GDPR” have the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”

This amendment would ensure that the provisions requiring trade unions to have access to workers and workplaces cannot require physical entry into dwellings, the disclosure of personal data without consent (whether or not that would be a breach of the data protection legislation) or a disclosure in breach of the data protection legislation (whether or not the breach arises from a lack of consent).

Amendment 184, page 68, line 35, at end insert—

“(3) In section 263 (proceedings of the Central Arbitration Committee)—

(a) in subsection (4), omit “or, in Scotland, an oversman”;

(b) after subsection (6) insert—

“(6A) In relation to the discharge of the Committee’s functions under section 70ZE—

(a) section 263ZA and subsection (6) apply, and

(b) subsections (1) to (5) do not apply.”;

(c) in subsection (7), before “Schedule A1” insert “section 70ZH or 70ZI or”;

(d) after subsection (7) insert—

“(8) The reference in subsection (7) to the Committee’s functions under Schedule A1 does not include a reference to its functions under paragraph 166 of that Schedule.”

(4) After section 263 insert—

“263ZA Proceedings of the Committee under section 70ZE

(1) For the purpose of discharging its functions under section 70ZE in any particular case, the Central Arbitration Committee is to consist of—

(a) one member of the Committee, or

(b) a panel of three members of the Committee,

as the chairman of the Committee may direct.

(2) In deciding what direction to make under subsection (1), the chairman of the Committee must have regard to the complexity of the case, with a view to directing that the Committee is to consist of one member only in cases which the chairman considers are less complex.

(3) For those purposes, the chairman must in particular—

(a) consider whether any terms proposed as terms on which officials of a qualifying trade union are to have access are prescribed under section 70ZF(3), and

(b) consider whether, if any of those terms are so prescribed, that fact reduces the complexity of the case, having regard to any other terms so proposed.

(4) In subsection (3), “qualifying trade union” and “access” have the same meaning as in Chapter 5ZA of Part 1 (see section 70ZA).

(5) The chairman of the Committee may amend a direction under subsection (1) at any time.

(6) If a direction under subsection (1) is amended—

(a) the amendment does not affect anything done by the Committee before the amendment;

(b) anything done by the Committee before the amendment is to be treated as having been done by the Committee as it is constituted after the amendment.

(7) If the Committee consists of one member of the Committee—

(a) the member is to be appointed by the chairman of the Committee;

(b) the member is not required to be the chairman or a deputy chairman of the Committee;

(c) the member may at the member’s discretion sit in private where it appears expedient to do so.

(8) If the Committee consists of a panel of three members of the Committee—

(a) the panel is to be appointed by the chairman of the Committee;

(b) the panel is to consist of the following members—

(i) the chairman or a deputy chairman of the Committee;

(ii) a member of the Committee whose experience is as a representative of employers;

(iii) a member of the Committee whose experience is as a representative of workers;

(c) the panel is to be chaired by the chairman or the deputy chairman of the Committee;

(d) the panel may at the discretion of its chairman sit in private where it appears expedient to do so.

(9) If—

(a) a panel cannot reach a unanimous decision on a question arising before it, and

(b) a majority of the panel have the same opinion,

the question is to be decided according to that opinion.

(10) If—

(a) a panel cannot reach a unanimous decision on a question arising before it, and

(b) a majority of the panel do not have the same opinion,

the chairman of the panel may decide the question acting with the full powers of an umpire.

(11) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Committee may determine its own procedure.”

(5) In section 263A (proceedings of the Central Arbitration Committee under Schedule A1)—

(a) for the heading substitute “Proceedings of the Committee: other special cases”;

(b) in subsection (1), for “under Schedule A1” substitute “in relation to which this section applies (see section 263(7))”;

(c) in subsection (6), omit “or, in Scotland, an oversman”;

(d) omit subsection (8).

(6) In section 264 (awards of the Central Arbitration Committee)—

(a) in the heading, after “Awards” insert “etc”;

(b) in subsection (1), after “award,” insert “in any determination, declaration, order or other decision of the Committee under Chapter 5ZA of Part 1,”;

(c) after subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to Chapter 5ZA of Part 1.”

(7) In Schedule 1 to the Employment Relations Act 2004 (minor and consequential amendments), omit paragraph 15.” . —(Justin Madders.)

This amendment would make administrative provision associated with the functions of the Central Arbitration Committee under the new Chapter on trade union access rights. The CAC would sit as a panel with representation from unions and employers in most cases, but in certain cases decided by the chairman of the CAC, the CAC would sit as a single member. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 185, Page 69, line 2, leave out clause 51.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on the relevant provisions being inserted into NS2. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 291, page 71, line 1, leave out Clause 52.—(Greg Smith.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 324.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: 186, page 71, line 7, leave out from “For” to “substitute” in line 8 and insert

“sections 84 (contributions to political fund from members of a union) and 84A (information to members about contributing to political fund)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 189.

Amendment 187, page 71, leave out lines 15 to 25.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 189.

Amendment 188, page 71, line 33, leave out from “of” to end of line 34 and insert

“four weeks beginning with the day on which an opt-out information notice is given to the member under section 84A,”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 189 and would also require an opt-out notice to be given four weeks (rather than one month) after the opt-out information notice is given where a political resolution is passed for the first time, for the opt out to take effect on the day it is given.

Amendment 189, page 72, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert—

“84A Opt-out information notices

(1) A trade union must give an opt-out information notice to each member of the union—

(a) within the period of eight weeks beginning with the day after the day on which a political resolution is passed by the members of the union under section 73, and

(b) within the period of eight weeks beginning with the end of—

(i) the period of ten years beginning with the day on which a political resolution is passed, and

(ii) each successive period of ten years,

unless during that period of ten years the political resolution is rescinded or otherwise ceases to have effect.

(2) An “opt-out information notice” is a notice stating that—

(a) each member of the union has the right not to be a contributor to the political fund of the union, and

(b) a member may exercise that right by giving an opt-out notice under section 84.

(3) An opt-out information notice must be given in accordance with rules of the union approved for the purpose by the Certification Officer.

(4) In deciding whether to approve those rules, the Certification Officer must have regard in each case to the existing practice and character of the union.

(5) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of any period of eight weeks within which an opt-out information notice must be given, a trade union must send to the Certification Officer a copy of—

(a) the opt-out information notice, or

(b) if there is more than one form of opt-out information notice, each form of notice.

(6) A member of a trade union who claims that the union has failed to comply with this section may complain to the Certification Officer.

(7) Where the Certification Officer is satisfied on a complaint under subsection (6) that a trade union has failed to comply with this section, the Officer may make such order for remedying the failure as the Officer thinks just under the circumstances.

(8) Before deciding the matter the Certification Officer—

(a) may make such enquiries as the Officer thinks fit;

(b) must give the union and the member making the complaint an opportunity to make written representations;

(c) may give the union and the member making the complaint an opportunity to make oral representations.

(9) An order made by the Certification Officer under this section may be enforced by the Certification Officer in the same way as an order of the court.”

This amendment would require a trade union to give notice to its members every ten years that they have the right to opt out of contributing to the political fund.

Amendment 190, page 72, line 22, leave out from “section” to “not” in line 24 and insert

“84A (opt-out information notices) may provide for opt-out information notices”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 189.

Amendment 191, page 72, line 27, leave out from “section” to third “to” in line 28 and insert

“84A(1) is not to be taken to require opt-out information notices”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 189. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 192, page 79, leave out lines 3 to 6.

This amendment removes the provision in clause 58 relating to support thresholds for industrial action ballots, in order for that provision to appear in a separate clause, NC41. This is for the purpose of providing for different commencement dates for the provisions on the turnout threshold (to be commenced by regulations) and support thresholds (to be commenced automatically two months after Royal Assent).

Amendment 193, page 79, line 6, at end insert—

“(2A) In section 231 (information for members as to result of ballot)—

(a) omit paragraph (a);

(b) insert “and” at the end of paragraph (d);

(c) for paragraph (e) (and the “and” after it) substitute—

“(e) the number of spoiled voting papers.”;

(d) omit paragraph (f).”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 192. The effect of commencing the provisions on turnout and support thresholds at different times is that the consequential amendments to section 231 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (currently in clause 59(3)) need to be made separately (as they relate to those provisions) when each of those provisions is commenced.

Amendment 194, page 79, line 9, leave out “(4),” and insert “(4)—

(a)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 196.

Amendment 195, page 79, line 11, leave out “sections 2 and 3” and insert “section 2”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 192.

Amendment 196, page 79, line 12, at end insert—

“(b) in section (Industrial action ballots: support thresholds) of this Act, omit subsection (3)(a).”—(Justin Madders.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 192 - once clause 58 is brought into force, the provision in subsection (3)(a) of NC41 (which will come into force automatically two months after Royal Assent) will no longer be necessary. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 197, page 79, line 14, leave out from beginning to “(information” in line 16 and insert—

“(1) In section 229 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 198.

Amendment 198, page 79, line 18, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment is necessary because amendments to section 231 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to the same effect will now be contained in clause 58 (by virtue of amendment 193) and NC41.

Amendment 199, page 79, line 26, leave out from “the” to “of” in line 27 and insert—

“amendment made by subsection (1), omit section 5”. —(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 198 - because of the need to amend different parts of section 231 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 at different times, section 6 of the Trade Union Act 2016 (which inserted most of the current content of section 231) will not be repealed. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 200, page 80, line 4, after “action)” insert

“—

(a) in subsection (3B), omit paragraph (b) (but not the “and” after it);

(b) in subsection (3C)(b), omit the words from “and the number” to “categories”;

(c)”.

This amendment would remove the requirement for a trade union to provide information to an employer ahead of industrial action as to  the number of employees in each category that are expected to take part in the action.

Amendment 201, page 80, line 6, leave out “seventh” and insert “tenth”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment would increase the notice a trade union must give the employer of industrial action from seven days to ten days.

Amendment proposed: 297, page 80, line 6, leave out “seventh” and insert “fourteenth”.—(Andrew Griffith.)

This amendment would increase, from seven to 14 days, the notice period that trade unions are required to adhere to when notifying employers that they plan to take industrial action.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 328.

Question accordingly negatived.

More than five hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, 11 March).

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

Amendment made: 202, page 80, line 8, leave out “(1)” and insert “(1)(c)”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 200. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 203, page 89, leave out lines 17 and 18.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 181.

Amendment 204, page 89, line 18, at end insert—

“(da) section 70ZIA (enforcement of access agreements: amounts payable for breach);”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 182. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 205, page 90, line 15, at end insert—

“(6A) Subsection (1) does not limit the Secretary of State’s powers under—

(a) section (Power to bring proceedings in employment tribunal) (power to bring proceedings in employment tribunal), or

(b) section (Power to provide legal assistance) (power to provide legal assistance).”—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC57 and NC58. It makes it clear that clause 77(1), which sets out the Secretary of State’s general function of enforcing the legislation listed in Part 1 of Schedule 5, does not limit what can be done under those new clauses (which apply in relation to a wider category of legislation). \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 206, page 90, line 31, at end insert—

“( ) any function under or by virtue of section (Power to bring proceedings in employment tribunal) or (Power to provide legal assistance) (powers in relation to civil proceedings);”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC57 and NC58. It excludes functions under or by virtue of those new clauses from being enforcement functions of the Secretary of State. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 207, page 91, line 2, at end insert—

“( ) any function of the Secretary of State by virtue of section (Power to bring proceedings in employment tribunal) (power to bring proceedings in employment tribunal);”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment would enable the power conferred on the Secretary of State by NC57 to be delegated to a public authority under clause 79. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 208, page 92, line 2, at end insert—

“( ) In addition to the matters referred to in subsection (1), the Board may also provide advice to the Secretary of State about such matters as the Secretary of State may specify relating to the Secretary of State’s functions under or by virtue of sections (Power to bring proceedings in employment tribunal) and (Power to provide legal assistance) (powers in relation to civil proceedings).”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC57 and NC58. It would enable the Advisory Board to provide advice on matters relating to the Secretary of State’s functions under those new clauses. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 209, page 92, line 25, after “Parliament” insert

“and the Northern Ireland Assembly”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a copy of the labour market enforcement strategy published under clause 81 before the Northern Ireland Assembly. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 210, page 93, line 9, after “Parliament” insert

“and the Northern Ireland Assembly”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay copies of annual reports published under clause 82 before the Northern Ireland Assembly. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 211, page 104, line 8, at end insert

“, other than a power by virtue of section (Power to bring proceedings in employment tribunal) (power to bring proceedings in employment tribunal).”—(Justin Madders.)

The effect of this amendment is that, where an enforcement officer is exercising a power by virtue of NC57, the officer does not need to produce identification showing that the officer is authorised to do so \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 212, page 106, line 28, at end insert—

““civil proceedings function” means a function under or by virtue of section (Power to bring proceedings in employment tribunal) or (Power to provide legal assistance) (powers in relation to civil proceedings);”.

This amendment and other amendments to this clause are consequential on NC57 and NC58. They would enable the disclosure of information to an enforcing authority for the purposes of exercising functions under those new clauses. They would also enable information obtained in connection with the exercise of a function under those clauses to be used or disclosed in accordance with clause 106.

Amendment 213, page 106, line 31, at end insert

“(other than a power by virtue of section (Power to bring proceedings in employment tribunal)).”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 212.

Amendment 214, page 106, line 33, at end insert

“or a civil proceedings function.”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 212.

Amendment 215, page 106, line 35, after “function” insert

“or a civil proceedings function”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 212.

Amendment 216, page 106, line 37, at end insert “or civil proceedings function;”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 212.

Amendment 217, page 107, line 3, after “function” insert

“or a civil proceedings function”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 212.

Amendment 218, page 107, line 4, after first “function” insert “or civil proceedings function”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 212.

Amendment 219, page 107, line 7, after first “function” insert

“or a civil proceedings function”.—(Justin Madders.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 212 \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 220, page 111, line 6, at end insert

“, other than a power by virtue of section (Power to bring proceedings in employment tribunal) (power to bring proceedings in employment tribunal).”—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC57. It would not be appropriate for the offence of obstruction to apply where an enforcement officer is exercising a power to bring proceedings in an employment tribunal. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 221, page 116, line 6, at end insert—

““the liable party” , in relation to a notice of underpayment, has the meaning given by section (Power to give notice of underpayment)(1);”.

This amendment is consequential on NC44.

Amendment 222, page 116, line 10, after “120;” insert

“and any reference to a failure to comply with relevant labour market legislation is to be read accordingly;”.

This amendment is consequential on NC60.

Amendment 223, page 116, line 10, at end insert—

““notice of underpayment” has the meaning given by section (Power to give notice of underpayment)(2);”.

This amendment is consequential on NC44.

Amendment 224, page 116, line 11, at end insert—

““the relevant day” , in relation to a notice of underpayment, has the meaning given by section (Power to give notice of underpayment)(1);”.

This amendment is consequential on NC44.

Amendment 225, page 116, line 15, at end insert—

““statutory pay provision” has the meaning given by section (Power to give notice of underpayment)(7);”.

This amendment is consequential on NC44.

Amendment 226, page 116, line 21, at end insert—

““underpaid individual” , in relation to a notice of underpayment, has the meaning given by section (Power to give notice of underpayment)(1);”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC44. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 227, page 118, line 14, after “State” insert “or the Welsh Ministers”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 228, page 118, line 15, at end insert—

“( ) For provision about the making of regulations under this Act by the Scottish Ministers, see section 27 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) (which provides for such regulations to be made by Scottish statutory instrument).”

This amendment is consequential on NC37. The effect of section 27 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 is that regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under Chapter 2 of Part 3 will be made by Scottish statutory instrument.

Amendment 229, page 118, line 23, after “procedure”” insert “—

“(a) in the case of regulations of the Secretary of State,”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 230.

Amendment 230, page 118, line 24, at end insert—

“(b) in the case of regulations of the Welsh Ministers, the statutory instrument containing the regulations is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of Senedd Cymru;

(c) in the case of regulations of the Scottish Ministers, the regulations are subject to the negative procedure (see section 28 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10)).”

This amendment is consequential on NC37. It defines what is meant by “negative resolution procedure” for regulations made by the Welsh Ministers or the Scottish Ministers.

Amendment 231, page 118, line 26, after “procedure”” insert “—

(a) in the case of regulations of the Secretary of State,”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 232.

Amendment 232, page 118, line 28, at end insert—

“(b) in the case of regulations of the Welsh Ministers, the regulations may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru;

(c) in the case of regulations of the Scottish Ministers, the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10)).”

This amendment is consequential on NC37. It defines what is meant by “affirmative resolution procedure” for regulations made by the Welsh Ministers or the Scottish Ministers.

Amendment 233, page 118, line 29, after “included” insert “by a person”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 234, page 118, line 30, after “made” insert “by the person”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC37. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 235, page 119, line 4, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—

“(b) in Part 3—

(i) Chapter 1 extends to England and Wales;

(ii) Chapter 2 extends to England and Wales and Scotland;

(iii) Chapter 3 extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland;”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC37. It provides for Chapter 2 to extend to England and Wales and Scotland. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 236, page 119, line 28, at end insert—

“(za) section (Political funds: requirement to pass political resolution) (political funds: requirement to pass political resolution);”.

This amendment would bring NC40 into force two months after Royal Assent.

Amendment 237, page 119, line 34, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—

“(e) section (Industrial action ballots: support thresholds) (industrial action ballots: support thresholds);”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 192 - this amendment together with others will have the effect that the provision about support thresholds for industrial action ballots will come into force automatically two months after Royal Assent, whereas the provision about the turnout threshold will come into force by regulations.

Amendment 238, page 119, line 34, at end insert—

“(ea) section (Notice of industrial action ballot and sample voting paper for employers) (notice of industrial action ballot and sample voting paper for employers);”.

This amendment would bring NC42 into force two months after Royal Assent.

Amendment 239, page 119, line 36, at end insert—

“(fa) section (Period after which industrial action ballot ceases to be effective) (period after which industrial action ballot ceases to be effective);”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment would bring NC43 into force two months after Royal Assent. \p UNKNOWN: 1 Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended in accordance with Parts 2 to 5 of this Schedule.

2 Part 6 of this Schedule contains consequential amendments to the Employment Relations Act 2004. \p UNKNOWN: Meaning of “the application day”

3 In paragraph 2 (interpretation of Part 1 of Schedule A1), after sub-paragraph (5) insert—

“(6) In relation to an application under paragraph 11 or 12, a reference to the application day is to the day on which the CAC receives the application.”

Acceptance of applications

4 (1) Paragraph 14 (acceptance of applications: multiple applications) is amended as follows.

(2) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—

“(1A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), any worker who joined any of the relevant bargaining units after the application day is to be disregarded.”

(3) In sub-paragraph (4), for “10 per cent test” substitute “required percentage test”.

(4) In sub-paragraph (5)—

(a) for “10 per cent test” substitute “required percentage test”;

(b) for “at least 10 per cent” substitute “at least the required percentage (see paragraph 171B)”.

(5) After sub-paragraph (5) insert—

“(5A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (5), any worker who joined the relevant bargaining unit after the application day is to be disregarded.”

(6) In sub-paragraph (7)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for “10 per cent test” substitute “required percentage test”;

(b) in paragraph (b), for “10 per cent test” substitute “required percentage test”.

(7) In sub-paragraph (8), for “10 per cent test” substitute “required percentage test”.

Withdrawal of application

5 In paragraph 16 (withdrawal of application), in sub-paragraph (1)(a), after “19F(5)” insert “, 19K(4) or (5), 19P(4) or (5)”.

Notice to cease consideration of application

6 In paragraph 17 (notice to cease consideration of application), in sub-paragraph (3)(a), after “19F(5)” insert “, 19K(4) or (5), 19P(4) or (5)”.

Communication with workers through independent person after application

7 (1) Paragraph 19C (appointment of independent person to handle communications between union and workers) is amended as follows.

(2) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—

“(2A) An application under sub-paragraph (2) is valid only if it is made before the end of the period of 5 working days starting with the day after the day on which the CAC gives the union (or unions) notice under paragraph 15(5) that the application mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) is accepted.”

(3) In sub-paragraph (5)(c), after “19F(5)” insert “, 19K(4) or (5), 19P(4) or (5)”.

(4) In sub-paragraph (7), for “an application” substitute “a valid application”.

Access agreements

8 After paragraph 19F insert—

“Access agreements

19G(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the CAC accepts an application under paragraph 11(2) or 12(2) or (4), and

(b) the application is in progress.

(2) The union (or unions) may, by giving notice to the CAC and the employer within the access request period, request access to the relevant workers in connection with the application.

(3) In the case of an application under paragraph 11(2) or 12(2), the relevant workers are—

(a) in relation to any time before an appropriate bargaining unit is agreed by the parties or decided by the CAC, those falling within the proposed bargaining unit, and

(b) in relation to any time after an appropriate bargaining unit is so agreed or decided, those falling within the bargaining unit agreed or decided upon.

(4) In the case of an application under paragraph 12(4), the relevant workers are those falling within the bargaining unit agreed by the parties.

(5) The access request period is the period of 5 working days starting with the day after the day on which the CAC gives the union (or unions) notice under paragraph 15(5) that the application is accepted.

(6) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraphs 19H to 19K, an application under paragraph 11 or 12 is in progress if none of the following has occurred—

(a) the withdrawal of the application;

(b) the CAC giving notice to the union (or unions) of a decision under paragraph 20 that the application is invalid;

(c) the CAC giving notice to the union (or unions) of a declaration issued under paragraph 19F(5), 19K(4) or (5), 19P(4) or (5), 22(2) or 27(2) in relation to the application;

(d) the holding of any ballot arising from the application.

19H(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the CAC accepts an application under paragraph 11(2) or 12(2) or (4),

(b) the union requests (or unions request) access to the relevant workers under paragraph 19G(2) in connection with the application, and

(c) the application is in progress.

(2) The CAC must try to help the parties to reach agreement within the negotiation period as to terms on which the union is (or unions are) to have access to the relevant workers.

(3) The negotiation period is, subject to any notice under sub-paragraph (4) or (6), the period of 15 working days starting with the day after the day on which the union gives (or unions give) notice to the employer under paragraph 19G(2).

(4) If, during the negotiation period, the CAC concludes that there is no reasonable prospect of the parties’ agreeing terms on which the union is (or unions are) to have access to the relevant workers before the time when (apart from this sub-paragraph) the negotiation period would end, the CAC may, by a notice given to the parties, declare that the negotiation period ends with the date of the notice.

(5) A notice under sub-paragraph (4) must contain reasons for reaching the conclusion mentioned in that sub-paragraph.

(6) If, during the negotiation period, the parties apply to the CAC for a declaration that the negotiation period is to end with a date (specified in the application) which is earlier or later than the date with which it would otherwise end, the CAC may, by a notice given to the parties, declare that the negotiation period ends with the specified date.

19I (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the CAC accepts an application under paragraph 11(2) or 12(2) or (4),

(b) the union requests (or unions request) access to the relevant workers under paragraph 19G(2) in connection with the application,

(c) the parties have not within the negotiation period agreed terms on which the union is (or unions are) to have access to the relevant workers, and

(d) the application is in progress.

(2) Within the adjudication period, the CAC must—

(a) decide the terms on which the union is (or unions are) to have access to the relevant workers, or

(b) decide that the union is (or unions are) not to have access to the relevant workers.

(3) The adjudication period is—

(a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day after the day with which the negotiation period ends, or

(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.

(4) Any terms decided by the CAC must be terms that the CAC regards as allowing such access to the relevant workers as is reasonable to enable the union (or unions) to—

(a) inform the workers of the object of the application or any ballot arising from it, and

(b) seek their support and their opinions on the issues involved.

19J(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) an access agreement is entered into, and

(b) the application under paragraph 11 or 12 is in progress.

(2) “Access agreement” means—

(a) terms on which the union is (or unions are) to have access to the relevant workers and which are agreed between the parties under paragraph 19H during the negotiation period, or

(b) terms on which the union is (or unions are) to have access to the relevant workers and which are decided by the CAC under paragraph 19I,

and such an agreement is “entered into” when the terms are so agreed or decided.

(3) The parties must comply with the access agreement.

(4) The employer must refrain from making any offer to any or all of the relevant workers which—

(a) has or is likely to have the effect of inducing any or all of them not to attend any relevant meeting between the union (or unions) and the relevant workers, and

(b) is not reasonable in the circumstances.

(5) The employer must refrain from taking, or threatening to take, any action against a worker solely or mainly on the grounds that the worker—

(a) attended or took part in any relevant meeting between the union (or unions) and the relevant workers, or

(b) indicated an intention to attend or take part in such a meeting.

(6) In the case of an application under paragraph 11(2) or 12(2), the relevant workers are—

(a) in relation to any time before an appropriate bargaining unit is agreed by the parties or decided by the CAC, those falling within the proposed bargaining unit, and

(b) in relation to any time after an appropriate bargaining unit is so agreed or decided, those falling within the bargaining unit agreed or decided upon.

(7) In the case of an application under paragraph 12(4), the relevant workers are those falling within the bargaining unit agreed by the parties.

(8) A meeting is a relevant meeting in relation to a worker for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) if—

(a) it is organised in accordance with an access agreement or as a result of a step ordered to be taken under paragraph 19K to remedy a failure to comply with the duty in sub-paragraph (3), and

(b) it is one which the employer is, by such an agreement or order as is mentioned in paragraph (a), required to permit the worker to attend.

(9) The duties imposed by sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) do not confer any rights on a worker; but that does not affect any other right which a worker may have.

(10) Any provision of an access agreement that would require personal data relating to any of the relevant workers to be disclosed to any person who is not an appointed person is of no effect for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule.

(11) In sub-paragraph (10)—

(a) “appointed person” means—

(i) a person appointed to handle communications under paragraph 19C, or

(ii) a person appointed to conduct a ballot under paragraph 25;

(b) “personal data” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).

(12) An access agreement is to be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract; and, accordingly, where an access agreement is, or is part of, a collective agreement, section 179(2) and (3)(a) do not apply to the access agreement.

19K (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—

(a) the CAC is satisfied that a party has failed to fulfil any of the duties imposed on that party by paragraph 19J, and

(b) the application under paragraph 11 or 12 is in progress.

(2) The CAC may order the party—

(a) to take such steps to remedy the failure as the CAC considers reasonable and specifies in the order, and

(b) to do so within such period as the CAC considers reasonable and specifies in the order.

(3) Sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) apply if—

(a) the CAC is satisfied that a party has failed to comply with an order under sub-paragraph (2),

(b) the application under paragraph 11 or 12 is in progress,

(c) the parties have agreed an appropriate bargaining unit or the CAC has decided an appropriate bargaining unit, and

(d) in the case of an application under paragraph 11(2) or 12(2), the CAC, if required to do so, has decided under paragraph 20 that the application is not invalid.

(4) If the party that has failed to comply is the employer, the CAC may issue a declaration that the union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

(5) If the party that has failed to comply is a union, the CAC may issue a declaration that the union is (or unions are) not entitled to be so recognised.

19L (1) Each of the powers specified in sub-paragraph (2) is to be taken to include power to issue Codes of Practice about any matter relating to requests for access under paragraph 19G(2), including (among other things)—

(a) what access is reasonable for the purposes of paragraph 19I(4);

(b) the duty in paragraph 19J(4).

(2) The powers are—

(a) the power of ACAS under section 199(1);

(b) the power of the Secretary of State under section 203(1)(a).”

Unfair practices

9 After paragraph 19L (inserted by paragraph 8 of this Schedule) insert—

“Unfair practices

19M (1) Each of the parties informed by the CAC under paragraph 15(5) that an application under paragraph 11 or 12 is accepted must refrain from using any unfair practice in relation to the application.

(2) A party uses an unfair practice if, with a view to influencing the outcome of the application, the party does any of the following—

(a) dismisses, or threatens to dismiss, a worker;

(b) takes, or threatens to take, disciplinary action against a worker;

(c) subjects, or threatens to subject, a worker to any other detriment;

(d) offers to pay money, or give money’s worth, to a relevant worker in return for the worker’s agreement to vote in a particular way, or to abstain from voting, in a relevant ballot;

(e) makes an outcome-specific offer to a relevant worker;

(f) coerces, or attempts to coerce, a relevant worker to disclose—

(i) whether the worker intends to vote, or to abstain from voting, in any relevant ballot, or

(ii) how the worker intends to vote, or has voted, in any relevant ballot;

(g) uses, or attempts to use, undue influence on a relevant worker.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) “relevant ballot” means any ballot that is or may be held in which workers are asked whether they want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf, and

(b) “relevant worker” means any worker who is or would be entitled to vote in a relevant ballot.

(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(e) an “outcome-specific offer” is an offer to pay money, or give money’s worth, which—

(a) is conditional on the issuing by the CAC of a declaration that—

(i) the union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit, or

(ii) the union is (or unions are) not entitled to be so recognised, and

(b) is not conditional on anything which is done or occurs as a result of the declaration in question.

(5) The duty imposed by this paragraph does not confer any rights on a worker; but that does not affect any other right which a worker may have.

(6) Each of the following powers is to be taken to include power to issue Codes of Practice about unfair practices for the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) the power of ACAS under section 199(1);

(b) the power of the Secretary of State under section 203(1)(a).

19N (1) A party may complain to the CAC that another party has failed to comply with paragraph 19M.

(2) A complaint under sub-paragraph (1) may not be made after—

(a) the application under paragraph 11 or 12 is withdrawn;

(b) the CAC gives notice to the union (or unions) of a decision under paragraph 20 that the application is invalid;

(c) the CAC notifies the union (or unions) of a declaration issued under paragraph 19F(5), 19K(4) or (5), 19P(4) or (5), 22(2) or 27(2) in relation to the application;

(d) if the CAC informs the union (or unions) under paragraph 25(9) of a ballot in relation to the application, the fifth working day after—

(i) the date of the ballot, or

(ii) if votes may be cast in the ballot on more than one day, the last of those days.

(3) Within the decision period the CAC must decide whether the complaint is well-founded.

(4) A complaint is well-founded if the CAC finds that the party complained against used an unfair practice.

(5) The decision period is—

(a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day after the day on which the complaint under sub-paragraph (1) was received by the CAC, or

(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by a notice containing reasons for the extension.

19O (1) This paragraph applies if the CAC decides that a complaint under paragraph 19N is well-founded.

(2) The CAC must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, issue a declaration to that effect.

(3) The CAC may order the party concerned to take any action specified in the order within such period as may be so specified.

(4) Sub-paragraph (5) applies if—

(a) the parties have agreed an appropriate bargaining unit or the CAC has decided an appropriate bargaining unit, and

(b) the CAC has at any time informed the union (or unions) under paragraph 25(9) of a ballot in relation to the application (including a ballot that was cancelled or is ineffective).

(5) The CAC may give notice to the employer and to the union (or unions) that it intends to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot in which the workers constituting the bargaining unit, other than those who joined the bargaining unit after the application day, are asked whether they want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

(6) The CAC may make an order under sub-paragraph (3), or give a notice under sub-paragraph (5), either at the same time as it issues the declaration under sub-paragraph (2) or at any other time before any of the following occurs—

(a) the withdrawal of the application under paragraph 11 or 12;

(b) the CAC giving notice to the union (or unions) of a decision under paragraph 20 that the application is invalid;

(c) the CAC notifying the union (or unions) of a declaration issued under paragraph 19F(5), 19K(4) or (5), 19P(4) or (5), 22(2) or 27(2) in relation to the application;

(d) if the CAC informs the union (or unions) under paragraph 25(9) of a ballot in relation to the application, the CAC acting under paragraph 29 in relation to the ballot.

(7) The action specified in an order under sub-paragraph (3) must be such as the CAC considers reasonable in order to mitigate the effect of the failure of the party concerned to comply with the duty imposed by paragraph 19M.

(8) The CAC may make more than one order under sub-paragraph (3).

19P (1) Sub-paragraphs (4) to (6) apply if—

(a) the CAC issues a declaration under paragraph 19O(2) that a complaint that a party has failed to comply with paragraph 19M is well-founded,

(b) the application under paragraph 11 or 12 has not been withdrawn,

(c) the parties have agreed an appropriate bargaining unit or the CAC has decided an appropriate bargaining unit,

(d) in the case of an application under paragraph 11(2) or 12(2), the CAC, if required to do so, has decided under paragraph 20 that the application is not invalid,

(e) the CAC has not notified the union (or unions) of a declaration issued under paragraph 19F(5), 19K(4) or (5), 19P(4) or (5), 22(2) or 27(2) in relation to the application, and

(f) sub-paragraph (2) or (3) applies.

(2) This sub-paragraph applies if the declaration states that the unfair practice used consisted of or included—

(a) the use of violence, or

(b) the dismissal of a union official.

(3) This sub-paragraph applies if the CAC has made an order under paragraph 19O(3) and—

(a) it is satisfied that the party subject to the order has failed to comply with it, or

(b) it makes another declaration under paragraph 19O(2) in relation to a complaint against that party.

(4) If the party that has failed to comply is the employer, the CAC may issue a declaration that the union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

(5) If the party that has failed to comply is a union, the CAC may issue a declaration that the union is (or unions are) not entitled to be so recognised.

(6) The powers conferred by this paragraph are in addition to those conferred by paragraph 19O.”

Powers of CAC on proceeding with application

10 (1) Paragraph 22 (powers of CAC where majority of workers are members of union) is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(a), after “19F(5)” insert “, 19K(4) or (5) or 19P(4) or (5)”.

(3) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—

“(1A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), any worker who joined the bargaining unit after the application day is to be disregarded.”

(4) In sub-paragraph (3), after “bargaining unit” insert “, other than those who joined the bargaining unit after the application day,”.

(5) After sub-paragraph (4) insert—

“(4A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(b) and (c), evidence from or relating to a worker who joined the bargaining unit after the application day is to be disregarded.”

11 (1) Paragraph 23 (CAC to order ballot where majority of workers are not members of union) is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(a), after “19F(5)” insert “, 19K(4) or (5) or 19P(4) or (5)”.

(3) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—

“(1A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), any worker who joined the bargaining unit after the application day is to be disregarded.”

(4) In sub-paragraph (2), after “bargaining unit” insert “, other than those who joined the bargaining unit after the application day,”.

Ballots

12 (1) Paragraph (1) 24 (notice of holding of ballot) is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), after “paragraph” insert “19O(5),”.

(3) In sub-paragraph (5)—

(a) before paragraph (a) insert—

“(za) in the case of notice given under paragraph 19O(5), the period of 5 working days starting with the day on which the union (or the last of the unions) receives that notice,”;

(b) in paragraph (a)—

(i) at the beginning insert “in the case of notice given under paragraph 22(3) or 23(2),”;

(ii) for the words from “the CAC’s notice” to the end substitute “that notice”;

(c) in paragraph (b), for “so starting” substitute “starting with the day mentioned in paragraph (za) or (a) (as the case may be)”.

(4) In sub-paragraph (6)—

(a) before paragraph (a) insert—

“(za) in the case of notice given under paragraph 19O(5), the period of 5 working days starting with the day on which the union (or the last of the unions) receives that notice,”;

(b) in paragraph (a)—

(i) at the beginning insert “in the case of notice given under paragraph 22(3) or 23(2),”;

(ii) for the words from “the CAC’s notice” to the end substitute “that notice”;

(c) in paragraph (b), for “so starting” substitute “starting with the day mentioned in paragraph (za) or (a) (as the case may be)”.

13 In paragraph 25 (rules relating to ballot), after sub-paragraph (1) insert—

“(1A) A worker who joined the bargaining unit after the application day is not eligible to vote in the ballot.”

14 (1) Paragraph 26 (duties (1) of employer in relation to ballot) is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), omit “five”.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) for “The first duty is to” substitute “The employer must”;

(b) for “the second and third duties are not” substitute “no other duty of the employer under this Part of this Schedule is”.

(4) Omit sub-paragraph (3).

(5) In sub-paragraph (4)—

(a) in the words before paragraph (a), for “The third duty is to” substitute “The employer must”;

(b) in paragraph (a)—

(i) for “to give” substitute “give”;

(ii) for “constituting the bargaining unit” substitute “eligible to vote in the ballot”;

(c) omit paragraph (b);

(d) in paragraph (c)—

(i) for “to inform” substitute “inform”;

(ii) omit “or (b)”.

(6) After sub-paragraph (4) insert—

“(4ZA) If the ballot is being held by virtue of paragraph 19O(5), the duty under sub-paragraph (4)(a) is limited to—

(a) giving the CAC the names and home addresses of any workers eligible to vote in the ballot which have not previously been given to it in accordance with that duty;

(b) informing the CAC of any change to the name or home address of a worker whose name and home address have previously been given to the CAC in accordance with that duty;

(c) informing the CAC of any worker whose name had previously been given to it in accordance with that duty who has ceased to be within the bargaining unit.”

(7) Omit sub-paragraphs (4A) to (4E), (4G), (8) and (9).

15 After paragraph 27 insert—

“27ZA (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the union has (or unions have) been informed of a ballot under paragraph 25(9), and

(b) the CAC issues a declaration under paragraph 19K.

(2) If the ballot has not been held, the CAC must take steps to cancel it.

(3) If the ballot is held, it is to have no effect.

27ZB (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the union has (or unions have) been informed of a ballot under paragraph 25(9),

(b) a complaint is made under paragraph 19N, and

(c) the ballot did not begin before the beginning of the decision period referred to in paragraph 19N(5).

(2) The CAC may by notice to the parties and the qualified independent person postpone the date on which the ballot is to begin until a date which falls after the end of the decision period.

27ZC (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the union has (or unions have) been informed of a ballot under paragraph 25(9),

(b) the CAC issues a declaration that a complaint under paragraph 19N is well-founded, and

(c) the CAC—

(i) gives a notice under paragraph 19O(5), or

(ii) issues a declaration under paragraph 19P(4) or (5).

(2) If the ballot has not been held, the CAC must take steps to cancel it.

(3) If the ballot is held, it is to have no effect.

27ZD (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the CAC gives a notice under paragraph 19O(5), and

(b) the CAC has previously made an order under paragraph 27(1) in relation to a cancelled or ineffective ballot in connection with the application to which the notice relates.

(2) The order has effect, to the extent that the CAC specifies in a notice to the parties, as if it were made for the purposes of the ballot to which the notice under paragraph 19O(5) relates.”

16 Omit paragraphs 27A to 27F (unfair practices during ballot).

17 (1) Paragraph 28 (costs of ballot) is amended as follows.

(2) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—

“(1A) If the ballot is one to which a notice under paragraph 19O(5) relates, the gross costs of the ballot are to be borne by such of the parties and in such proportions as the CAC may determine.”

(3) In sub-paragraph (2), for “The gross costs” substitute “If the ballot is one to which a notice under paragraph 22(3) or 23(2) relates, the gross costs”.

(4) In sub-paragraph (4), for “the employer and the union (or each of the unions)” substitute “the party or parties required to bear the costs”.

18 (1) Paragraph 29 (result of ballot) is amended as follows.

(2) For sub-paragraphs (1) and (1A) substitute—

“(1) The CAC must act under this paragraph as soon as reasonably practicable after—

(a) the CAC is informed of the result of a ballot by the person conducting it, and

(b) the complaint period ends.

(1ZA) The complaint period is the period of 5 working days starting with the day after—

(a) the day of the ballot, or

(b) if votes may be cast in the ballot on more than one day, the last of those days.

(1A) The duty in sub-paragraph (1) does not apply—

(a) if a complaint is made under paragraph 19N, on or before the day on which the CAC decides whether the complaint is well-founded;

(b) if the CAC gives a notice under paragraph 19O(5).”

(3) For sub-paragraph (3) substitute—

“(3) If the result is that the union is (or unions are) supported by a majority of the workers voting, the CAC must issue a declaration that the union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.”

(4) Omit sub-paragraphs (5) to (7).

General provisions about admissibility of applications

19 (1) Paragraph 35 (admissibility of applications: existing collective agreement) is amended as follows.

(2) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—

“(1A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), any worker who joined the relevant bargaining unit after the application day is to be disregarded.”

(3) After sub-paragraph (5) insert—

“(5A) In applying sub-paragraph (1) an agreement for recognition (the agreement in question) must be ignored if—

(a) the union recognised under the agreement in question does not have (or none of the unions recognised under the agreement in question has) a certificate of independence,

(b) the union (or unions) making the application under paragraph 11 or 12 made the application before the end of the period of reflection, and

(c) the agreement in question was entered into during the restricted period.

(5B) The period of reflection is the period of 20 working days starting with the first day after the end of—

(a) the first period referred to in paragraph 10(6), in the case of an application under paragraph 11, or

(b) the second period referred to in paragraph 10(7), in the case of an application under paragraph 12.

(5C) The restricted period is the period—

(a) starting with the day on which the employer receives a valid request for recognition under paragraph 4, and

(b) ending with the day on which the CAC makes a decision under paragraph 15.”

20 In paragraph 36 (admissibility of applications: minimum support), for sub-paragraph (1) substitute—

“(1) An application under paragraph 11 or 12 is not admissible unless the CAC decides that members of the union (or unions) constitute at least the required percentage (see paragraph 171B) of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit.

(1A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), any worker who joined the relevant bargaining unit after the application day is to be disregarded.”

21 (1) Paragraph 38 (admissibility of applications: overlapping bargaining unit) is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(d)—

(a) after “19F(5),” insert “19K(4) or (5), 19P(4) or (5),”;

(b) omit “27D(3), 27D(4),”.

(3) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—

“(2A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a), any worker who joined the relevant bargaining unit or the bargaining unit referred to in sub-paragraph (1) after the application day is to be disregarded.”

22 In paragraph 40 (admissibility of applications: union not entitled to be recognised), in sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) for “27D(4)” substitute “19K(5), 19P(5)”;

(b) omit the words from “; and this is so” to the end.

23 After paragraph 40 insert—

“40A (1) This paragraph applies if the CAC issues a declaration under paragraph 81E(5), 81J(5) or 29(4) (where it applies by virtue of paragraph 89(5)) that a union is (or unions are) not entitled to be recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit.

(2) An application under paragraph 11 or 12 is not admissible if—

(a) the application is made within the period of 3 years starting with the day after the day on which the declaration was issued,

(b) the relevant bargaining unit is the same or substantially the same as the bargaining unit mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), and

(c) the application is made by the union (or unions) which made the application leading to the declaration.

(3) The relevant bargaining unit is—

(a) the proposed bargaining unit, where the application is under paragraph 11(2) or 12(2);

(b) the agreed bargaining unit, where the application is under paragraph 12(4).”

24 In paragraph 41 (admissibility of applications: union required to cease bargaining arrangements), in sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) for “119D(4), 119H(5)” substitute “116E(5), 116J(5)”;

(b) for “the ballot concerned is arranged” substitute “the declaration is issued”.

General provisions about validity of applications

25 (1) Paragraph 44 (validity of applications: existing collective agreement) is amended as follows.

(2) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—

“(1A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), any worker who joined the relevant bargaining unit after the application day is to be disregarded.”

(3) After sub-paragraph (5) insert—

“(6) In applying sub-paragraph (1) an agreement for recognition (the agreement in question) must be ignored if—

(a) the union recognised under the agreement in question does not have (or none of the unions recognised under the agreement in question has) a certificate of independence,

(b) the union (or unions) making the application under paragraph 11 or 12 made the application before the end of the period of reflection, and

(c) the agreement in question was entered into during the restricted period.

(7) The period of reflection is the period of 20 working days starting with the first day after the end of—

(a) the first period referred to in paragraph 10(6), in the case of an application under paragraph 11, or

(b) the second period referred to in paragraph 10(7), in the case of an application under paragraph 12.

(8) The restricted period is the period—

(a) starting with the day on which the employer receives a valid request for recognition under paragraph 4, and

(b) ending with the day on which the CAC makes a decision under paragraph 20.”

26 For paragraph 45 (validity of applications: minimum support) substitute—

“45 (1) The application in question is invalid unless the CAC decides that members of the union (or unions) constitute at least the required percentage (see paragraph 171B) of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), any worker who joined the relevant bargaining unit after the application day is to be disregarded.”

27 (1) Paragraph 46 (validity of applications: overlapping bargaining unit) is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(d)—

(a) after “19F(5),” insert “19K(4) or (5), 19P(4) or (5),”;

(b) omit “27D(3), 27D(4),”.

(3) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—

“(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a), any worker who joined the relevant bargaining unit or the bargaining unit referred to in sub-paragraph (1) after the application day is to be disregarded.”

28 In paragraph 48 (validity of applications: union not entitled to be recognised), in sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) for “27D(4)” substitute “19K(5), 19P(5)”;

(b) omit the words from “; and this is so” to the end.

29 After paragraph 48 insert—

“48A (1) This paragraph applies if the CAC issues a declaration under paragraph 81E(5), 81J(5) or 29(4) (where it applies by virtue of paragraph 89(5)) that a union is (or unions are) not entitled to be recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit.

(2) The application in question is invalid if—

(a) the application is made within the period of 3 years starting with the date of the declaration,

(b) the relevant bargaining unit is the same or substantially the same as the bargaining unit mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), and

(c) the application is made by the union (or unions) which made the application leading to the declaration.”

30 In paragraph 49 (validity of applications: union required to cease bargaining arrangements), in sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) for “119D(4), 119H(5)” substitute “116E(5), 116J(5)”;

(b) for “the ballot concerned is arranged” substitute “the declaration is issued”.

Competing applications

31 In paragraph 51 (competing applications), in sub-paragraph (2)(c), for “10 per cent test” substitute “required percentage test”.

Voluntary recognition

32 In paragraph 52 (voluntary recognition), in sub-paragraph (3)(f), after “19F(5)” insert “, 19K(4) or (5), 19P(4) or (5)”. \p UNKNOWN: Access agreements

33 After paragraph 81 insert—

“Access agreements

81A(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the CAC accepts an application under paragraph 66 or 75, and

(b) the application is in progress.

(2) The union (or unions) may, by giving notice to the CAC and the employer within the access request period, request access to the relevant workers in connection with the application.

(3) The relevant workers are—

(a) in relation to any time before the CAC decides that a bargaining unit other than the original unit is an appropriate bargaining unit, the workers constituting the original unit, and

(b) in relation to any time after the CAC decides that a bargaining unit other than the original unit is an appropriate bargaining unit, the workers constituting the new unit (see paragraph 82(4)).

(4) But, where there is more than one new unit, references to the relevant workers are references to the workers constituting each new unit separately.

(5) The access request period is the period of 5 working days starting with the day after the day on which the CAC gives the union (or unions) notice under paragraph 68(5) or 76(5) that the application is accepted.

(6) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraphs 81B to 81E, an application under paragraph 66 or 75 is in progress if none of the following has occurred—

(a) the withdrawal of the application;

(b) the CAC issuing a declaration under paragraph 69(3), 78(3), 81E(4) or (5) or 81J(4) or (5) in relation to the application;

(c) the CAC notifying the union (or unions) of its decision under paragraph 77(2) or 77(3);

(d) in relation to the new unit (or, if there is more than one, all of the new units)—

(i) the CAC issuing a declaration under paragraph 83(2), 85(2), 86(3) or 87(2), or under paragraph 27(2) (where it applies by virtue of paragraph 89(5)),

(ii) the union (or unions) notifying the CAC under paragraph 89(1), or

(iii) the holding of any ballot arising from the application.

81B(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the CAC accepts an application under paragraph 66 or 75,

(b) the union requests (or unions request) access to the relevant workers under paragraph 81A(2) in connection with the application, and

(c) the application is in progress.

(2) The CAC must try to help the parties to reach agreement within the negotiation period as to terms on which the union is (or unions are) to have access to the relevant workers.

(3) The negotiation period is, subject to any notice under sub-paragraph (4) or (6), the period of 15 working days starting with the day after the day on which the union gives (or unions give) notice to the employer under paragraph 81A(2).

(4) If, during the negotiation period, the CAC concludes that there is no reasonable prospect of the parties’ agreeing terms on which the union is (or unions are) to have access to the relevant workers before the time when (apart from this sub-paragraph) the negotiation period would end, the CAC may, by a notice given to the parties, declare that the negotiation period ends with the date of the notice.

(5) A notice under sub-paragraph (4) must contain reasons for reaching the conclusion mentioned in that sub-paragraph.

(6) If, during the negotiation period, the parties apply to the CAC for a declaration that the negotiation period is to end with a date (specified in the application) which is earlier or later than the date with which it would otherwise end, the CAC may, by a notice given to the parties, declare that the negotiation period ends with the specified date.

81C(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the CAC accepts an application under paragraph 66 or 75,

(b) the union requests (or unions request) access to the relevant workers under paragraph 81A(2) in connection with the application,

(c) the parties have not within the negotiation period agreed terms on which the union is (or unions are) to have access to the relevant workers, and

(d) the application is in progress.

(2) Within the adjudication period, the CAC must—

(a) decide the terms on which the union is (or unions are) to have access to the relevant workers, or

(b) decide that the union is (or unions are) not to have access to the relevant workers.

(3) The adjudication period is—

(a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day after the day with which the negotiation period ends, or

(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.

(4) Any terms decided by the CAC must be terms that the CAC regards as allowing such access to the relevant workers as is reasonable to enable the union (or unions) to—

(a) inform the workers of the object of the application or any ballot arising from it, and

(b) seek their support and their opinions on the issues involved.

81D(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) an access agreement is entered into, and

(b) the application under paragraph 66 or 75 is in progress.

(2) “Access agreement” means—

(a) terms on which the union is (or unions are) to have access to the relevant workers and which are agreed between the parties under paragraph 81B during the negotiation period, or

(b) terms on which the union is (or unions are) to have access to the relevant workers and which are decided by the CAC under paragraph 81C,

and such an agreement is “entered into” when the terms are so agreed or decided.

(3) The parties must comply with the access agreement.

(4) The employer must refrain from making any offer to any or all of the relevant workers which—

(a) has or is likely to have the effect of inducing any or all of them not to attend any relevant meeting between the union (or unions) and the relevant workers, and

(b) is not reasonable in the circumstances.

(5) The employer must refrain from taking, or threatening to take, any action against a worker solely or mainly on the grounds that the worker—

(a) attended or took part in any relevant meeting between the union (or unions) and the relevant workers, or

(b) indicated an intention to attend or take part in such a meeting.

(6) The relevant workers are—

(a) in relation to any time before the CAC decides that a bargaining unit other than the original unit is an appropriate bargaining unit, the workers constituting the original unit, and

(b) in relation to any time after the CAC decides that a bargaining unit other than the original unit is an appropriate bargaining unit, the workers constituting the new unit (see paragraph 82(4)).

(7) But, where there is more than one new unit, references to the relevant workers are references to the workers constituting each new unit separately.

(8) A meeting is a relevant meeting in relation to a worker for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) if—

(a) It is organised in accordance with an access agreement or as a result of a step ordered to be taken under paragraph 81E to remedy a failure to comply with the duty in sub-paragraph (3), and

(b) it is one which the employer is, by such an agreement or order as is mentioned in paragraph (a), required to permit the worker to attend.

(9) The duties imposed by sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) do not confer any rights on a worker; but that does not affect any other right which a worker may have.

(10) Any provision of an access agreement that would require personal data relating to any of the relevant workers to be disclosed to any person other than a person appointed to conduct a ballot under paragraph 25 (where it applies by virtue of paragraph 89(4)) is of no effect for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule.

(11) “Personal data” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).

(12) An access agreement is to be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract; and, accordingly, where an access agreement is, or is part of, a collective agreement, section 179(2) and (3)(a) do not apply to the access agreement.

81E (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—

(a) the CAC is satisfied that a party has failed to fulfil any of the duties imposed on that party by paragraph 81D, and

(b) the application under paragraph 66 or 75 is in progress.

(2) The CAC may order the party—

(a) to take such steps to remedy the failure as the CAC considers reasonable and specifies in the order, and

(b) to do so within such period as the CAC considers reasonable and specifies in the order.

(3) Sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) apply if—

(a) the CAC is satisfied that a party has failed to comply with an order under sub-paragraph (2),

(b) the application under paragraph 66 or 75 is in progress, and

(c) the CAC has given notice under paragraph 70 or 79 of a decision as to the bargaining unit which is (or units which are) appropriate (each, a “new unit”).

(4) If the party that has failed to comply is the employer, the CAC may issue a declaration that the union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the new unit or units.

(5) If the party that has failed to comply is a union, the CAC may issue a declaration that the union is (or unions are) not entitled to be so recognised.

81F (1) Each of the powers specified in sub-paragraph (2) is to be taken to include power to issue Codes of Practice about any matter relating to requests for access under paragraph 81A(2), including (among other things)—

(a) what access is reasonable for the purposes of paragraph 81C(4);

(b) the duty in paragraph 81D(4).

(2) The powers are—

(a) the power of ACAS under section 199(1);

(b) the power of the Secretary of State under section 203(1)(a).”

Unfair practices

34 After paragraph 81F (inserted by paragraph 33 of this Schedule) insert—

“Unfair practices

81G(1) Each of the parties informed by the CAC under paragraph 68(5) or 76(5) that an application under paragraph 66 or 75 is accepted must refrain from using any unfair practice in relation to the application.

(2) A party uses an unfair practice if, with a view to influencing the outcome of the application, the party does any of the following—

(a) dismisses, or threatens to dismiss, a worker;

(b) takes, or threatens to take, disciplinary action against a worker;

(c) subjects, or threatens to subject, a worker to any other detriment;

(d) offers to pay money, or give money’s worth, to a relevant worker in return for the worker’s agreement to vote in a particular way, or to abstain from voting, in a relevant ballot;

(e) makes an outcome-specific offer to a relevant worker;

(f) coerces, or attempts to coerce, a relevant worker to disclose—

(i) whether the worker intends to vote, or to abstain from voting, in any relevant ballot, or

(ii) how the worker intends to vote, or has voted, in any relevant ballot;

(g) uses, or attempts to use, undue influence on a relevant worker.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) “relevant ballot” means any ballot that is or may be held in which workers are asked whether they want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf, and

(b) “relevant worker” means any worker who is or would be entitled to vote in a relevant ballot.

(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(e) an “outcome-specific offer” is an offer to pay money, or give money’s worth, which—

(a) is conditional on the issuing by the CAC of a declaration that—

(i) the union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit, or

(ii) the union is (or unions are) not entitled to be so recognised, and

(b) is not conditional on anything which is done or occurs as a result of the declaration in question.

(5) The duty imposed by this paragraph does not confer any rights on a worker; but that does not affect any other right which a worker may have.

(6) Each of the following powers is to be taken to include power to issue Codes of Practice about unfair practices for the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) the power of ACAS under section 199(1);

(b) the power of the Secretary of State under section 203(1)(a).

81H (1) A party may complain to the CAC that another party has failed to comply with paragraph 81G.

(2) A complaint under sub-paragraph (1) may not be made after a conclusion event occurs.

(3) The following are conclusion events—

(a) the withdrawal of the application under paragraph 66 or 75;

(b) the CAC issuing a declaration under paragraph 69(3), 78(3), 81E(4) or (5) or 81J(4) or (5) in relation to the application;

(c) the CAC notifying the union (or unions) of its decision under paragraph 77(2) or 77(3);

(d) if the CAC has given notice under paragraph 70 or 79 of a decision as to the bargaining unit which is (or units which are) appropriate (each, a “new unit”), any of the following occurring in relation to the new unit (or, if there is more than one, all of the new units)—

(i) the CAC issuing a declaration under paragraph 83(2), 85(2), 86(3) or 87(2), or under paragraph 27(2) (where it applies by virtue of paragraph 89(5));

(ii) the union (or unions) notifying the CAC under paragraph 89(1);

(iii) the post-ballot complaint period having ended.

(4) The post-ballot complaint period is, in relation to any ballot held arising from the application, the period of 5 working days after—

(a) the date of the ballot, or

(b) if votes may be cast in the ballot on more than one day, the last of those days.

(5) Within the decision period the CAC must decide whether the complaint is well-founded.

(6) A complaint is well-founded if the CAC finds that the party complained against used an unfair practice.

(7) The decision period is—

(a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day after the day on which the complaint under sub-paragraph (1) was received by the CAC, or

(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by a notice containing reasons for the extension.

81I (1) This paragraph applies if the CAC decides that a complaint under paragraph 81H is well-founded.

(2) The CAC must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, issue a declaration to that effect.

(3) The CAC may order the party concerned to take any action specified in the order within such period as may be so specified.

(4) Sub-paragraph (5) applies if—

(a) the CAC has given notice under paragraph 70 or 79 of a decision as to the bargaining unit which is (or units which are) appropriate (each, a “new unit”), and

(b) the CAC has at any time informed the union (or unions) under paragraph 25(9) (where it applies by virtue of paragraph 89(4)) of a ballot in relation to the application (including a ballot that was cancelled or is ineffective).

(5) The CAC may give notice to the employer and to the union (or unions) that it intends to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot (or secret ballots) in which the workers constituting the new unit (or each of the new units) are asked whether they want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

(6) The CAC may make an order under sub-paragraph (3), or give a notice under sub-paragraph (5), either at the same time as it issues the declaration under sub-paragraph (2) or at any other time before any of the following occurs—

(a) the withdrawal of the application under paragraph 66 or 75;

(b) the CAC issuing a declaration under paragraph 69(3), 78(3), 81E(4) or (5) or 81J(4) or (5) in relation to the application;

(c) the CAC notifying the union (or unions) of its decision under paragraph 77(2) or 77(3);

(d) in relation to the new unit (or, if there is more than one, all of the new units)—

(i) the CAC issuing a declaration under paragraph 83(2), 85(2), 86(3) or 87(2), or under paragraph 27(2) (where it applies by virtue of paragraph 89(5)),

(ii) the union (or unions) notifying the CAC under paragraph 89(1), or

(iii) the holding of any ballot arising from the application.

(7) The action specified in an order under sub-paragraph (3) must be such as the CAC considers reasonable in order to mitigate the effect of the failure of the party concerned to comply with the duty imposed by paragraph 81G.

(8) The CAC may make more than one order under sub-paragraph (3).

81J (1) Sub-paragraphs (4) to (6) apply if—

(a) the CAC issues a declaration under paragraph 81I(2) that a complaint that a party has failed to comply with paragraph 81G is well-founded,

(b) the application under paragraph 66 or 75 has not been withdrawn,

(c) the CAC has given notice under paragraph 70 or 79 of a decision as to the bargaining unit which is (or units which are) appropriate (each, a “new unit”),

(d) the CAC has not issued a declaration under paragraph 69(3), 78(3), 81E(4) or (5) or 81J(4) or (5) in relation to the application,

(e) the CAC has not notified the union (or unions) of its decision under paragraph 77(2) or 77(3),

(f) in relation to the new unit (or, if there is more than one, all of the new units), none of the following has occurred—

(i) the CAC issuing a declaration under paragraph 83(2), 85(2), 86(3) or 87(2), or under paragraph 27(2) (where it applies by virtue of paragraph 89(5)),

(ii) the union (or unions) notifying the CAC under paragraph 89(1), or

(iii) the holding of any ballot arising from the application, and

(g) sub-paragraph (2) or (3) applies.

(2) This sub-paragraph applies if the declaration states that the unfair practice used consisted of or included—

(a) the use of violence, or

(b) the dismissal of a union official.

(3) This sub-paragraph applies if the CAC has made an order under paragraph 81I(3) and—

(a) it is satisfied that the party subject to the order has failed to comply with it, or

(b) it makes another declaration under paragraph 81I(2) in relation to a complaint against that party.

(4) If the party that has failed to comply is the employer, the CAC may issue a declaration that the union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the new unit or units.

(5) If the party that has failed to comply is a union, the CAC may issue a declaration that the union is (or unions are) not entitled to be so recognised.

(6) The powers conferred by this paragraph are in addition to those conferred by paragraph 81I.”

Powers of CAC where CAC decides new unit appropriate

35 (1) Paragraph 86 (new bargaining unit: assessment of support) is amended as follows.

(2) For sub-paragraph (2) substitute—

“(2) The CAC must decide whether members of the union (or unions) constitute at least the required percentage (see paragraph 171B) of the workers constituting the new unit.”

(3) In sub-paragraph (3), for “one or both of the questions in the negative” substitute “that members of the union (or unions) do not constitute at least the required percentage of the workers constituting the new unit”.

36 In paragraph 87 (powers of CAC where majority of workers are members of union), for sub-paragraph (1) substitute—

“(1) This paragraph applies if, following a decision under paragraph 86(2), the CAC is satisfied that a majority of workers constituting the new unit are members of the union (or unions).”

37 In paragraph 88 (powers of CAC where majority of workers are not members of union), for sub-paragraph (1) substitute—

“(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the CAC decides under paragraph 86(2) that members of the union (or unions) constitute at least the required percentage of the workers constituting the new unit, but

(b) the CAC is not satisfied that a majority of workers constituting the new unit are members of the union (or unions).”

38 (1) Paragraph 89 (ballots) is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (4), at the end insert “, but as if paragraph 25(1A) were omitted.”

(3) In sub-paragraph (5)—

(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (a);

(b) after paragraph (a) insert—

“(aa) references to provisions of paragraphs 19G to 19P were references to the corresponding provisions of paragraphs 81A to 81J,

(ab) the duty in paragraph 26(4) included—

(i) a duty to give to the CAC, as soon as is reasonably practicable, the name and home address of any worker who joins the bargaining unit after the employer has complied with paragraph 26(4)(a), and

(ii) a duty to inform the CAC, as soon as is reasonably practicable, of any worker whose name has been given to the CAC under that duty and who ceases to be within the bargaining unit, and”;

(c) in paragraph (b), for “26(4F) to (4H)” substitute “26(4F) and (4H)”.

(4) In sub-paragraph (8), for “or 27D(3)” substitute “, 81E(4) or 81J(4)”.

(5) In sub-paragraph (9), for “27D(4)” substitute “81E(5) or 81J(5)”.

Withdrawal of application

39 In paragraph 93 (withdrawal of application), in sub-paragraph (1)(a), for “or 78(3)” substitute “, 78(3), 81E(4) or (5) or 81J(4) or (5)”. \p UNKNOWN: Access agreements

40 After paragraph 116 insert—

“Access agreements

116A(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the CAC accepts an application under paragraph 106, 107 or 112, and

(b) the application is in progress.

(2) The union (or unions) may, by giving notice to the CAC and the employer within the access request period, request access to the workers constituting the bargaining unit in connection with the application.

(3) The access request period is the period of 5 working days starting with the day after the day on which the CAC gives the union (or unions) notice under paragraph 111(5) or 115(5) that the application is accepted.

(4) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraphs 116B to 116E, an application under paragraph 106, 107 or 112 is in progress if none of the following has occurred—

(a) in the case of an application under paragraph 106 or 107, the withdrawal of the application;

(b) in the case of an application under paragraph 112, an agreement or withdrawal as described in paragraph 116(1);

(c) the CAC refusing the application under paragraph 116E(4), 116J(4)(a) or (6) or 119(2);

(d) the CAC notifying the union (or unions) of a declaration issued under paragraph 116E(5) or 116J(5) in relation to the application;

(e) the holding of any ballot arising from the application.

116B(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the CAC accepts an application under paragraph 106, 107 or 112,

(b) the union requests (or unions request) access to the workers constituting the bargaining unit under paragraph 116A(2) in connection with the application, and

(c) the application is in progress.

(2) The CAC must try to help the parties to reach agreement within the negotiation period as to terms on which the union is (or unions are) to have access to the workers.

(3) The negotiation period is, subject to any notice under sub-paragraph (4) or (6), the period of 15 working days starting with the day after the day on which the union gives (or unions give) notice to the employer under paragraph 116A(2).

(4) If, during the negotiation period, the CAC concludes that there is no reasonable prospect of the parties’ agreeing terms on which the union is (or unions are) to have access to the workers before the time when (apart from this sub-paragraph) the negotiation period would end, the CAC may, by a notice given to the parties, declare that the negotiation period ends with the date of the notice.

(5) A notice under sub-paragraph (4) must contain reasons for reaching the conclusion mentioned in that sub-paragraph.

(6) If, during the negotiation period, the parties apply to the CAC for a declaration that the negotiation period is to end with a date (specified in the application) which is earlier or later than the date with which it would otherwise end, the CAC may, by a notice given to the parties, declare that the negotiation period ends with the specified date.

116C (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the CAC accepts an application under paragraph 106, 107 or 112,

(b) the union requests (or unions request) access to the workers constituting the bargaining unit under paragraph 116A(2) in connection with the application,

(c) the parties have not within the negotiation period agreed terms on which the union is (or unions are) to have access to the workers, and

(d) the application is in progress.

(2) Within the adjudication period, the CAC must—

(a) decide the terms on which the union is (or unions are) to have access to the workers, or

(b) decide that the union is (or unions are) not to have access to the workers.

(3) The adjudication period is—

(a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day after the day with which the negotiation period ends, or

(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.

(4) Any terms decided by the CAC must be terms that the CAC regards as allowing such access to the workers constituting the bargaining unit as is reasonable to enable the union (or unions) to—

(a) inform the workers of the object of the application or any ballot arising from it, and

(b) seek their support and their opinions on the issues involved.

116D (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) an access agreement is entered into, and

(b) the application under paragraph 106, 107 or 112 is in progress.

(2) “Access agreement” means—

(a) terms on which the union is (or unions are) to have access to the workers constituting the bargaining unit and which are agreed between the parties under paragraph 116B during the negotiation period, or

(b) terms on which the union is (or unions are) to have access to the workers constituting the bargaining unit and which are decided by the CAC under paragraph 116C, and such an agreement is to be treated as “entered into” when the terms are so agreed or decided.

(3) The parties must comply with the access agreement.

(4) The employer must refrain from making any offer to any or all of the workers constituting the bargaining unit which—

(a) has or is likely to have the effect of inducing any or all of them not to attend any relevant meeting between the union (or unions) and the workers constituting the bargaining unit, and

(b) is not reasonable in the circumstances.

(5) The employer must refrain from taking, or threatening to take, any action against a worker solely or mainly on the grounds that the worker—

(a) attended or took part in any relevant meeting between the union (or unions) and the workers constituting the bargaining unit, or

(b) indicated an intention to attend or take part in such a meeting.

(6) A meeting is a relevant meeting in relation to a worker for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) if—

(a) it is organised in accordance with an access agreement or as a result of a step ordered to be taken under paragraph 116E to remedy a failure to comply with the duty in sub-paragraph (3), and

(b) it is one which the employer is, by such an agreement or order as is mentioned in paragraph (a), required to permit the worker to attend.

(7) The duties imposed by sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) do not confer any rights on a worker; but that does not affect any other right which a worker may have.

(8) Any provision of an access agreement that would require personal data relating to any of the relevant workers to be disclosed to a person other than a person appointed under paragraph 117 to conduct a ballot is of no effect for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule.

(9) “Personal data” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).

(10) An access agreement is to be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract; and, accordingly, where an access agreement is, or is part of, a collective agreement, section 179(2) and (3)(a) do not apply to the access agreement.

116E (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—

(a) the CAC is satisfied that a party has failed to fulfil any of the duties imposed on that party by paragraph 116D, and

(b) the application under paragraph 106, 107 or 112 is in progress.

(2) The CAC may order the party—

(a) to take such steps to remedy the failure as the CAC considers reasonable and specifies in the order, and

(b) to do so within such period as the CAC considers reasonable and specifies in the order.

(3) Sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) apply if—

(a) the CAC is satisfied that a party has failed to comply with an order under sub-paragraph (2), and

(b) the application under paragraph 106, 107 or 112 is in progress.

(4) If the party that has failed to comply is the employer, and the application is under paragraph 106 or 107, the CAC may refuse the application.

(5) If the party that has failed to comply is a union, the CAC may issue a declaration that the bargaining arrangements are to cease to have effect; and the bargaining arrangements cease to have effect accordingly.

116F (1) Each of the powers specified in sub-paragraph (2) is to be taken to include power to issue Codes of Practice about any matter relating to requests for access under paragraph 116A(2), including (among other things)—

(a) what access is reasonable for the purposes of paragraph 116C(4);

(b) the duty in paragraph 116D(4).

(2) The powers are—

(a) the power of ACAS under section 199(1);

(b) the power of the Secretary of State under section 203(1)(a).”

Unfair practices

41 After paragraph 116F (inserted by paragraph 40 of this Schedule) insert—

“Unfair practices

116G (1) Each of the parties informed by the CAC under paragraph 111(5) or 115(5) that an application under paragraph 106, 107 or 112 is accepted must refrain from using any unfair practice in relation to the application.

(2) A party uses an unfair practice if, with a view to influencing the outcome of the application, the party does any of the following—

(a) dismisses, or threatens to dismiss, a worker;

(b) takes, or threatens to take, disciplinary action against a worker;

(c) subjects, or threatens to subject, a worker to any other detriment;

(d) offers to pay money, or give money’s worth, to a relevant worker in return for the worker’s agreement to vote in a particular way, or to abstain from voting, in a relevant ballot;

(e) makes an outcome-specific offer to a relevant worker;

(f) coerces, or attempts to coerce, a relevant worker to disclose—

(i) whether the worker intends to vote, or to abstain from voting, in any relevant ballot, or

(ii) how the worker intends to vote, or has voted, in any relevant ballot;

(g) uses, or attempts to use, undue influence on a relevant worker.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) “relevant ballot” means any ballot that is or may be held in which workers are asked whether the bargaining arrangements should be ended, and

(b) “relevant worker” means any worker who is or would be entitled to vote in a relevant ballot.

(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(e) an “outcome-specific offer” is an offer to pay money, or give money’s worth, which—

(a) is conditional on—

(i) the issuing by the CAC of a declaration that the bargaining arrangements are to cease to have effect, or

(ii) the refusal by the CAC of an application under paragraph 106, 107 or 112, and

(b) is not conditional on anything which is done or occurs as a result of that declaration, or, as the case may be, of that refusal.

(5) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraphs 116H to 116J as they apply in relation to an application under paragraph 112, references to a party are to be read as including references to the worker or workers making the application.

(6) The duty imposed by this paragraph does not confer any rights on a worker; but that does not affect any other right which a worker may have.

(7) Each of the following powers is to be taken to include power to issue Codes of Practice about unfair practices for the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) the power of ACAS under section 199(1);

(b) the power of the Secretary of State under section 203(1)(a).

116H (1) A party may complain to the CAC that another party has failed to comply with paragraph 116G.

(2) A complaint under sub-paragraph (1) may not be made after—

(a) in the case of an application under paragraph 106 or 107, the application is withdrawn;

(b) in the case of an application under paragraph 112, an agreement or withdrawal as described in paragraph 116(1);

(c) the CAC refuses the application under paragraph 116E(4), 116J(4)(a) or (6) or 119(2);

(d) the CAC notifies the union (or unions) of a declaration issued under paragraph 116E(5) or 116J(5) in relation to the application;

(e) if the CAC informs the union (or unions) under paragraph 117(11) of a ballot, the fifth working day after—

(i) the date of the ballot, or

(ii) if votes may be cast in the ballot on more than one day, the last of those days.

(3) Within the decision period the CAC must decide whether the complaint is well-founded.

(4) A complaint is well-founded if the CAC finds that the party complained against used an unfair practice.

(5) The decision period is—

(a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day after the day on which the complaint under sub-paragraph (1) was received by the CAC, or

(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by a notice containing reasons for the extension.

116I (1) This paragraph applies if the CAC decides that a complaint under paragraph 116H is well-founded.

(2) The CAC must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, issue a declaration to that effect.

(3) The CAC may order the party concerned to take any action specified in the order within such period as may be so specified.

(4) Sub-paragraph (5) applies if the CAC has at any time informed the union (or unions) under paragraph 117(11) of a ballot in relation to the application (including a ballot that was cancelled or is ineffective).

(5) The CAC may make arrangements for the holding of a secret ballot in which the workers constituting the bargaining unit are asked whether the bargaining arrangements should be ended.

(6) The CAC may make an order under sub-paragraph (3), or make arrangements under sub-paragraph (5), either at the same time as it issues the declaration under sub-paragraph (2) or at any other time before any of the following occurs—

(a) in the case of an application under paragraph 106 or 107, the withdrawal of the application;

(b) in the case of an application under paragraph 112, an agreement or withdrawal as described in paragraph 116(1);

(c) the CAC refusing the application under paragraph 116E(4), 116J(4)(a) or (6) or 119(2);

(d) the CAC notifying the union (or unions) of a declaration issued under paragraph 116E(5) or 116J(5) in relation to the application;

(e) if the CAC informs the union (or unions) under paragraph 117(11) of a ballot, the CAC acting under paragraph 121 in relation to the ballot.

(7) The action specified in an order under sub-paragraph (3) must be such as the CAC considers reasonable in order to mitigate the effect of the failure of the party concerned to comply with the duty imposed by paragraph 116G.

(8) The CAC may make more than one order under sub-paragraph (3).

116J (1) Sub-paragraphs (4) to (7) apply if—

(a) the CAC issues a declaration under paragraph 116I(2) that a complaint that a party has failed to comply with paragraph 116G is well-founded,

(b) the application under paragraph 106, 107 or 112 has not been withdrawn or, in the case of an application under paragraph 112, there has been no agreement as described in paragraph 116(1),

(c) the CAC has not refused the application under paragraph 116E(4), 116J(4)(a) or (6) or 119(2);

(d) the CAC has not notified the union (or unions) of a declaration issued under paragraph 116E(5) or 116J(5) in relation to the application, and

(e) sub-paragraph (2) or (3) applies.

(2) This sub-paragraph applies if the declaration states that the unfair practice used consisted of or included—

(a) the use of violence, or

(b) the dismissal of a union official.

(3) This sub-paragraph applies if the CAC has made an order under paragraph 116I(3) and—

(a) it is satisfied that the party subject to the order has failed to comply with it, or

(b) it makes another declaration under paragraph 116I(2) in relation to a complaint against that party.

(4) If the party that has failed to comply is the employer, the CAC may—

(a) refuse the employer’s application under paragraph 106 or 107;

(b) order the employer to refrain from any campaigning in relation to an application under paragraph 112.

(5) If the party that has failed to comply is a union, the CAC may issue a declaration that the bargaining arrangements are to cease to have effect on a date specified by the CAC in the declaration; and the bargaining arrangements cease to have effect accordingly.

(6) If the party that has failed to comply is the worker making an application under paragraph 112 (or any of the workers making an application under paragraph 112), the CAC may refuse the application.

(7) The powers conferred by this paragraph are in addition to those conferred by paragraph 116I.

116K (1) This paragraph applies if the CAC has made an order against the employer under paragraph 116I(3) or 116J(4)(b) in relation to an application under paragraph 112.

(2) The worker making the application (or each of the workers making the application) and the union (or each of the unions) are entitled to enforce obedience to the order.

(3) The order may be enforced—

(a) in England and Wales, in the same way as an order of the county court;

(b) in Scotland, in the same way as an order of the sheriff.”

Ballots

42 (1) Paragraph 117 (ballots: general) is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), for “This paragraph” substitute “Sub-paragraph (3)”.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2), for “This paragraph” substitute “Sub-paragraph (3)”.

(4) In sub-paragraph (4), for “The ballot” substitute “A ballot arranged under sub-paragraph (3), or under paragraph 116I(5),”.

43 (1) Paragraph 118 (duties of employer in relation to ballot) is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), omit “five”.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) for “The first duty is to” substitute “The employer must”;

(b) for “the second and third duties are not” substitute “no other duty of the employer under this Part of this Schedule is”.

(4) Omit sub-paragraph (3).

(5) In sub-paragraph (4)—

(a) in the words before paragraph (a), for “The third duty is to” substitute “The employer must”;

(b) in paragraph (a), for “to give” substitute “give”;

(c) in paragraph (b), for “to give” substitute “give”;

(d) in paragraph (c), for “to inform” substitute “inform”.

(6) After sub-paragraph (4) insert—

“(4ZA) If the ballot is arranged under paragraph 116I(5), the duty under sub-paragraph (4)(a) is limited to—

(a) giving the CAC the names and home addresses of any workers in the bargaining unit which have not previously been given to it in accordance with that duty;

(b) giving the CAC the names and home addresses of those workers who have joined the bargaining unit since the employer last gave the CAC information in accordance with that duty;

(c) informing the CAC of any change to the name or home address of a worker whose name and home address have previously been given to the CAC in accordance with that duty;

(d) informing the CAC of any worker whose name had previously been given to it in accordance with that duty who has ceased to be within the bargaining unit.”

(7) Omit sub-paragraphs (4A) to (4E), (8) and (9).

44 In paragraph 119 (breach of paragraph 118), after sub-paragraph (4) insert—

“(5) If—

(a) the ballot has been arranged in consequence of an application under paragraph 112,

(b) the CAC has made an order against the employer under sub-paragraph (1), and

(c) the ballot has not been held, the worker making the application (or each of the workers making the application) and the union (or each of the unions) are entitled to enforce obedience to the order.

(6) The order may be enforced—

(a) in England and Wales, in the same way as an order of the county court;

(b) in Scotland, in the same way as an order of the sheriff.”

45 After paragraph 119 insert—

“119ZA (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the union has (or unions have) been informed of a ballot under paragraph 117(11), and

(b) the CAC refuses an application or issues a declaration under paragraph 116E.

(2) If the ballot has not been held, the CAC must take steps to cancel it.

(3) If the ballot is held, it is to have no effect.

119ZB (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the union has (or unions have) been informed of a ballot under paragraph 117(11),

(b) a complaint is made under paragraph 116H, and

(c) the ballot did not begin before the beginning of the decision period referred to in paragraph 116H(5).

(2) The CAC may by notice to the parties and the qualified independent person postpone the date on which the ballot is to begin until a date which falls after the end of the decision period.

(3) In relation to an application under paragraph 112, ”the parties” includes the worker or workers making the application.

119ZC (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the union has (or unions have) been informed of a ballot under paragraph 117(11),

(b) the CAC issues a declaration that a complaint under paragraph 116H is well-founded, and

(c) the CAC—

(i) makes arrangements under paragraph 116I(5),

(ii) refuses under paragraph 116J(4)(a) or (6) an application under paragraph 106, 107 or 112, or

(iii) issues a declaration under paragraph 116J(5).

(2) If the ballot has not been held, the CAC must take steps to cancel it.

(3) If the ballot is held, it is to have no effect.

119ZD (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the CAC makes arrangements under paragraph 116I(5), and

(b) the CAC has previously given an order under paragraph

119(1) in relation to a cancelled or ineffective ballot in connection with the application to which the notice relates.

(2) The order has effect, to the extent that the CAC specifies in a notice to the parties, as if it were made for the purposes of the ballot for which arrangements are made under paragraph 116I(5).

(3) In relation to an application under paragraph 112, ”the parties” includes the worker or workers making the application.”

46 Omit paragraphs 119A to 119I (unfair practices during ballot).

47 (1) Paragraph 120 (costs of ballot) is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), after “paragraph” insert “116I(5) or”.

(3) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—

“(1A) If the holding of the ballot is arranged under paragraph 116I(5), the gross costs of the ballot are to be borne by such of the parties and in such proportions as the CAC may determine.

(1B) In relation to an application under paragraph 112, ”the parties” includes the worker or workers making the application.”

(4) In sub-paragraph (2), for “The gross costs” substitute “If the holding of the ballot is arranged under paragraph 117(3), the gross costs”.

(5) In sub-paragraph (4), for “the employer and the union (or each of the unions)” substitute “the party or parties required to bear the costs”.

48 In paragraph 121 (result of ballot), for sub-paragraphs (1) and (1A) substitute—

“(1) The CAC must act under this paragraph as soon as reasonably practicable after—

(a) the CAC is informed of the result of a ballot by the person conducting it, and

(b) the complaint period ends.

(1ZA) The complaint period is the period of 5 working days starting with the day after—

(a) the day of the ballot, or

(b) if votes may be cast in the ballot on more than one day, the last of those days.

(1A) The duty in sub-paragraph (1) does not apply—

(a) if a complaint is made under paragraph 116H, on or before the day on which the CAC decides whether the complaint is well-founded;

(b) if the CAC makes arrangements under paragraph 116I(5).”

Derecognition where recognition automatic

49 In paragraph 122 (derecognition where recognition automatic on agreed terms), in sub-paragraph (1)(a)—

(a) after “19F(5),” insert “19K(4), 19P(4),”;

(b) for “, 27(2) or 27D(3)” substitute “or 27(2)”.

50 In paragraph 123 (derecognition where recognition automatic on specified terms), in sub-paragraph (1)(a)—

(a) after “19F(5),” insert “19K(4), 19P(4),”;

(b) for “, 27(2) or 27D(3)” substitute “or 27(2)”.

51 In paragraph 124 (derecognition where recognition automatic following changes to bargaining unit), in sub-paragraph (1), after “paragraph” insert “81E(4), 81J(4) or”.

52 After paragraph 132 insert—

“Access agreements

132A Paragraphs 116A to 116E apply if the CAC accepts an application under paragraph 128 (as well as in the cases mentioned in paragraph 116A(1)), as if—

(a) the references in paragraphs 116A(1) and (4), 116B(1)(a), 116C(1)(a), 116D(1)(b) and 116E(1)(b) and (3)(b) to paragraph 106, 107 or 112 were to paragraph 106, 107, 112 or 128;

(b) the reference in paragraph 116A(3) to paragraph 111(5) or 115(5) were to paragraph 111(5), 115(5) or 132(5);

(c) the references in paragraphs 116A(4)(a) and 116E(4) to paragraph 106 or 107 were to paragraph 106, 107 or 128.”

53 After paragraph 132A (inserted by paragraph 52 of this Schedule) insert—

“Unfair practices

132B Paragraphs 116G to 116K apply if the CAC accepts an application under paragraph 128 (as well as in the cases mentioned in paragraph 116G), as if—

(a) the references in paragraphs 116G(1) and (4)(a)(ii) and 116J(1)(b) to paragraph 106, 107 or 112 were to paragraph 106, 107, 112 or 128;

(b) the reference in paragraph 116G(1) to paragraph 111(5) or 115(5) were to paragraph 111(5), 115(5) or 132(5);

(c) the references in paragraphs 116H(2)(a), 116I(6)(a) and 116J(4)(a) to paragraph 106 or 107 were to paragraph 106, 107 or 128.”

54 (1) Paragraph 133 (ballot on derecognition) is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), for “and (2)” substitute “, (2) and (4)”.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for “references in paragraphs 119(2)(a) and 119D(3)” substitute “reference in paragraph 119(2)(a)”;

(b) in paragraph (b), for “119A(3)(a)(ii), 119E(1)(b)” substitute “119ZC(1)(c)(ii)”.

Derecognition where union not independent

55 After paragraph 146 insert—

“Access agreements

146A Paragraphs 116A to 116E apply if the CAC accepts an application under paragraph 137 (as well as in the cases mentioned in paragraph 116A(1)), as if—

(a) the references in paragraphs 116A(1) and (4), 116B(1)(a), 116C(1)(a), 116D(1)(b) and 116E(1)(b) and (3)(b) to paragraph 106, 107 or 112 were to paragraph 106, 107, 112 or 137;

(b) the reference in paragraph 116A(4)(b) to paragraph 112 were to paragraph 112 or 137;

(c) the reference in paragraph 116A(3) to paragraph 111(5) or 115(5) were to paragraph 111(5), 115(5) or 141(5);

(d) the reference in paragraph 116A(4)(b) to paragraph 116(1) were to paragraph 116(1), 142(1) or 145(3).”

56 After paragraph 146A (inserted by paragraph 55 of this Schedule) insert—

“Unfair practices

146B Paragraphs 116G to 116K apply if the CAC accepts an application under paragraph 137 (as well as in the cases mentioned in paragraph 116G), as if—

(a) the references in paragraphs 116G(1) and (4)(a)(ii) and 116J(1)(b) to paragraph 106, 107 or 112 were to paragraph 106, 107, 112 or 137;

(b) the reference in paragraph 116G(1) to paragraph 111(5) or 115(5) were to paragraph 111(5), 115(5) or 141(5);

(c) the references in paragraphs 116G(5), 116H(2)(b), 116I(6)(b), 116J(1)(b), (4)(b) and (6) and 116K(1) to paragraph 112 were to paragraph 112 or 137;

(d) the references in paragraphs 116H(2)(b) and 116I(6)(b) to paragraph 116(1) were to paragraph 116(1), 142(1) or 145(3).”

57 (1) Paragraph 147 (ballot on derecognition) is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), for “and (2)” substitute “, (2) and (4)”.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for “references in paragraphs 119H(1) and 119I(1)(a)” substitute “reference in paragraph 119(5)(a)”;

(b) in paragraph (b), for “119A(3)(a)(ii), 119E(1)(b)” substitute “119ZC(1)(c)(ii)”;

(c) after paragraph (c) insert—

“(d) the reference in paragraph 119ZA(1)(b) to the CAC refusing an application included a reference to it being required to give notice under paragraph 146(5).” \p UNKNOWN: 58 After paragraph 171A insert—

““The required percentage”

171B (1) In this Schedule, “the required percentage” means 10%.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this paragraph so that the required percentage is a percentage—

(a) not greater than 10%, and

(b) not less than 2%.

(3) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) are to be made by statutory instrument;

(b) may include supplementary, incidental, saving or transitional provision, including provision amending this Schedule;

(c) may make different provision for different cases.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.” \p UNKNOWN: 59 (1) The Employment Relations Act 2004 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 9—

(a) omit subsections (1) to (4);

(b) in subsection (5), for “that Schedule” substitute “Schedule A1 to the 1992 Act”;

(c) omit subsections (6) to (9).

(3) Omit section 10.

(4) Omit section 13.

(5) In paragraph 23 of Schedule 1—

(a) in sub-paragraph (10), omit paragraph (b) (and the “and” before it);

(b) in sub-paragraph (11), omit paragraph (b) (and the “and” before it);

(c) in sub-paragraph (13), omit paragraph (b) (and the “and” before it);

(d) in sub-paragraph (14), omit paragraph (b) (and the “and” before it);

(e) omit sub-paragraph (19);

(f) in sub-paragraph (26), omit paragraph (a) (and the “and” after it);

(g) in sub-paragraph (27), omit paragraph (a) (and the “and” after it).”—(Justin Madders.)

This new Schedule would amend Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to extend the prohibition on unfair practices to the entirety of a recognition or derecognition process, ensure that the Central Arbitration Committee can make orders in relation to such practices whether or not they have an impact on the process, increase the time limit for making claims in relation to such practices, provide for binding arrangements for access by the union to workers throughout a recognition or derecognition process, prevent workers who joined the bargaining unit after a recognition application from being counted for various purposes, prevent a new recognition agreement with a non-independent union stopping a recognition process, and make the amendments currently in clause 51.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the schedule be read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 333, Noes 100.

Question accordingly agreed to.

New schedule 2 read a Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 246, page 155, line 2, at end insert—

“Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992

7A Section 147(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (employer’s liability to pay statutory sick pay).

7B Regulations under section 149(5)(b) of that Act (requirement to provide statement about entitlement).

Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992

7C Regulations under section 5 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (regulations about claims for and payments of benefit), so far as relating to statutory sick pay.

7D Section 12(3) of that Act (duty of employers to provide certain information to employees in relation to statutory sick pay).

7E Regulations under section 122 of that Act (duties of employers), so far as relating to statutory sick pay.”

This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to exercise the powers conferred by Part 5 of the Bill to enforce certain obligations relating to statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland.

Amendment 247, page 155, line 13, leave out paragraph 13 and insert—

“13 Section 17 of that Act (non-compliance: worker entitled to additional remuneration).”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 254.

Amendment 248, page 155, line 22, at end insert—

“(d) regulation 16B(1) (duty to keep records relating to annual leave entitlement);

(e) regulation 29(1) (offences), so far as relating to regulation 16B(1).”

This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to exercise the powers conferred by Part 5 of the Bill to enforce the duty imposed by regulation 16B of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (inserted by NC35).

Amendment 250, page 156, line 26, at end insert—

“24A Section 38(2) of this Act (entitlement of social care workers to be paid in accordance with ratified agreements of Negotiating Body).

24B Section 39(5) (entitlement of social care workers to be paid in accordance with regulations made by Secretary of State, etc).”.—(Justin Madders.)

The effect of this amendment is that the Secretary of State’s enforcement powers under Part 5 of the Bill (in particular, the new power to give a notice of underpayment conferred by NC44) will be exercisable in relation to the entitlements of social care workers to be paid in accordance with agreements of a Negotiating Body or regulations made by the appropriate authority. As a result, clause 42, which would have enabled the application of provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 for the purposes of enforcing those entitlements, is unnecessary. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 251, page 157, line 2, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under this paragraph may not add an enactment that deals with a transferred matter, or vary a reference to such an enactment, without the consent of the appropriate Northern Ireland department.

(2B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2A)—

“the appropriate Northern Ireland department”, in relation to an enactment that deals with a transferred matter, means the Northern Ireland department which has responsibility for that matter;

“deals with” is to be read in accordance with section 98(2) and (3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;

“transferred matter” has the meaning given by section 4(1) of that Act.”

This amendment would provide that the Secretary of State may not amend the list of legislation in Part 1 of Schedule 5 to add an enactment that deals with a transferred matter in Northern Ireland, or vary a reference to such an enactment, without the consent of the appropriate Northern Ireland department. Employment law is generally a transferred matter in relation to Northern Ireland.

Amendment 252, page 157, line 6, at end insert—

“( ) section (Power to give notice of underpayment) (power to give notice of underpayment);”.

This amendment would enable regulations that added an enactment to Part 1 of Schedule 5 (the list of legislation to be enforced by the Secretary of State under Part 5) to make consequential amendments of NC44, for example to exclude a provision from being a “statutory pay provision” for the purposes of giving notices of underpayment.

Amendment 253, page 157, line 8, at end insert—

“( ) Regulations under this paragraph that add an enactment which—

(a) confers a right or entitlement to the payment of any sum to an individual, or

(b) prohibits or restricts the withholding of payment of any sum to an individual,

may provide that a notice of underpayment relating to sums due under or by virtue of the enactment may relate to sums becoming due before the coming into force of the regulations.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause enables regulations that amend Part 1 of Schedule 5 to add an enactment to the list of legislation enforceable by the Secretary of State under Part 5 of the Bill to provide that a notice of underpayment relating to sums due under or by virtue of the enactment may relate to sums becoming due before the coming into force of the regulations. This corresponds to the provision made by subsection (6) of NC46. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 254, page 163, leave out from beginning of line 17 to end of line 3 on page 164 and insert—

“23 Omit sections 19 to 19H (notices of underpayment).”

This amendment would provide for the repeal of sections 19 to 19H of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, which enable notices of underpayment to be given in respect of non-payment of the national minimum wage. Those provisions will be superseded by the powers in the Bill.

Amendment 255, page 171, line 6, at end insert—

“Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

69A (1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 36 (effect of accused’s failure or refusal to account for objects, substances or marks), after subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) This section applies in relation to enforcement officers who—

(a) are appointed by the Secretary of State under section 77 of the Employment Rights Act 2025, and

(b) are acting in the exercise of functions conferred on them by virtue of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984,

as it applies in relation to constables.”

(3) In section 37 (effect of accused’s failure or refusal to account for presence at a particular place), after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) This section applies in relation to enforcement officers who—

(a) are appointed by the Secretary of State under section 77 of the Employment Rights Act 2025, and

(b) are acting in the exercise of functions conferred on them by virtue of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984,

as it applies in relation to constables.””

The effect of this amendment is that, where an individual is arrested for a labour market offence by an enforcement officer who is authorised to exercise police powers, and the individual (when asked) fails or refuses to account for an object, substance or mark on their person, clothing, etc, or to account for their presence in a particular place, a court or jury may draw inferences from that failure or refusal in any criminal proceedings against the individual for the offence.

Amendment 256, page 171, line 11, at beginning insert—

“(1) The Employment Tribunals Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 18 (conciliation: relevant proceedings etc), in subsection (1)(c), omit “, 19D(1)(a)”.”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 254.

Amendment 257, page 171, line 12, at end insert—

“(4) In section 21 (jurisdiction of Employment Appeal Tribunal), in subsection (1), after paragraph (ge) insert—

“(gf) Part 5 of the Employment Rights Act 2025,”.”

This amendment provides that appeals in relation to decisions of an employment tribunal under Part 5 of the Bill lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Amendment 258, page 174, line 16, leave out “sections 16 and” and insert

“the following—

(a) section 9(1) and (2);

(b) section 16;

(c) section”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 254.

Amendment 259, page 175, line 7, leave out paragraph 88 and insert—

“88 In the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, omit the following—

(a) in section 150, subsections (4) and (7);

(b) section 152.”—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 254. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 260, page 183, line 31, at end insert—

“Notices of underpayment under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998

17A Except so far as provided for by paragraph 6(1) or (2) of this Schedule, the repeal of sections 19 to 19H of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 by paragraph 23 of Schedule 8 does not apply in relation to any notice served under any of those sections before the coming into force of that repeal (and accordingly paragraph 6(3) of this Schedule does not apply in relation to things done, or in the process of being done, under any of those sections).”

Amendment 261, page 183, line 33, leave out “28” and insert

“23, 71(2), 84(a) and 88(b)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 256, 258 and 259. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 262, line 5, after “equality;” insert—

“to amend the definition of “employment business” in the Employment Agencies Act 1973;”.

This amendment is consequential on NC36.

Amendment 263, line 6, leave out—

“the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body”

and insert “Social Care Negotiating Bodies”.— (Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Third Reading

King’s consent signified. \p Angela Rayner: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I am a lifelong proud trade unionist.

Let me begin by thanking right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for their positive and constructive engagement over recent months. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for his superhuman work in steering this Bill through its Commons stages, and all the members of the Public Bill Committee for their thoughtful scrutiny.

When this Government took office, we promised the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation—nothing less than a new deal for working people. We said we would introduce a Bill to deliver that within 100 days, and we heard from Conservative Members who said we should not; and there were those who said we could not, but we did. Today, this House is taking another giant step towards making work pay. Let us be clear: too many working people have had to wait for too long for change. Over a decade, wages flatlined, in-work poverty grew, and growth was strangled. We inherited a failing economy that served no one, but today a Government of working people for working people are turning the tide.

This landmark Bill—pro-growth, pro-business and pro-worker—will put fairness back into work. Almost 9 million employees will be protected from unfair dismissal, up to 2 million will receive a right to bereavement leave and 1 million workers on zero-hours contracts will get the security they deserve. In three weeks’ time, over 3 million workers will see one of the biggest rises in the minimum wage on record. We said that we would make work pay, and this Government meant it.

Our vision is backed by many of the best businesses such as the 1,200 members of the Good Business Charter, from FTSE 100 companies to small and medium-sized enterprises. They prove that if you treat people well, you get the best out of them. They know that being pro-worker is not a barrier to success, but a launchpad to it. That is why this Bill takes the very best standards from the very best businesses and extends them to millions more workers. It is also why we proudly say that this is a pro-business and pro-worker Bill.

But we know that this will represent change, and I understand that many businesses want to work with the Government to get the details right. Our commitment in the weeks and months ahead to is do just that.  My message is clear: this transformative package is a huge opportunity. It is a once-in-a-generation chance to reshape the world of work, to drive a race to the top on standards, to deliver growth and to build an economy that works for everyone.

We know that the Tories, in lockstep with Reform, will fight this every step of the way. Over two decades ago, they did the same with Labour’s minimum wage. They said then that it would destroy 2 million jobs, and now they are queueing up to vote against every single measure in this Bill, but the truth is that they were wrong then and they are wrong now. The only thing they are consistent on is that every time they have had the chance to deliver basic fairness for workers, they have voted against it. We know that they cannot be trusted to stand up for working people, but this Labour Government will.

For too long, people in Britain have been overlooked and undervalued, and our plan changes that: with jobs that are more secure and family-friendly; with women supported in work at every stage of life; with a genuine living wage and sick pay for the lowest earners; with further and faster action to close the gender pay gap; with rights that are enforced; and with trade unions that are strengthened.

In July, after 14 years of failure, the country voted for change. We promised to deliver a new deal, and today this Labour Government deliver on that promise with a once-in-a-generation transformation to build an economy based on fairness, to raise living standards, to drive growth and to deliver a better Britain for working people. I commend this Bill to the House. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Andrew Griffith: Before I summarise the Opposition’s view on the Bill, I pay tribute to those on the Conservative Benches who contributed during its passage. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) has held the Government to account with forensic skill on Report and in Committee. He was joined in the Bill Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), and my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) and for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) performed great service as members of the Select Committee. I also acknowledge the work of officials in the Department and in Parliament. Their job cannot have been easy, given the indecent haste with which the Bill has been produced.

We disagree on much, but it would be churlish of me not to recognise that today represents a personal victory for the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). While the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) lie low, there is no doubt who has been in the driving seat. [Interruption.] Well, he is now. He’s here now. It is very—[Interruption.] \p Judith Cummins: Order. \p Andrew Griffith: We welcome him to his place.

At least the Deputy Prime Minister is honest in her unwavering support for the trade union agenda. She is proud to walk in the footsteps of Neil Kinnock, Michael Foot and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), a conviction politician in the proper sense of the word, not a politician with convictions like the Labour Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Mike Amesbury). It makes a welcome change—[Interruption.] Well, he’s going. It makes a welcome change from a Prime Minister who pretends the Bill is about growth.

It is not easy for the right hon. Lady. It is always awkward being at odds with your boss: he says grow, you say slow; he wants fewer regulators, you create new ones. We all remember how in 2021 she herself was a victim of fire and rehire by a bad boss. Just wait until he sees the higher unemployment, higher prices and lower growth that the Bill will bring. [Interruption.] \p Judith Cummins: Order. \p Andrew Griffith: I’ll do that again: higher unemployment, higher prices and lower growth. No wonder the right hon. Lady is in favour of making it harder to be sacked.

This is a sad day for business and a bad day for Parliament. Business will have watched the last two days with dismay—[Interruption.] They will watch this with dismay as well, Madam Deputy Speaker. As they struggle with the Chancellor’s job tax and with the business rates hike about to hit next month, they see hundreds of pages of red tape heading their way. They will have seen the Minister yesterday, asked to name a single small business who supports the Bill, reel off the names of three large ones, two of which turned out not to support it anyway and the third was a quote from the chief inclusion officer at the Co-op. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) put it well yesterday when he said the Government plan to increase the number of small businesses by starting with large ones and making them smaller.

No one who cares about Parliament legislating well can be proud of how we have got here: a rushed Bill which was introduced at half the length to which it has now grown; an impact assessment which the Regulatory Policy Committee described as not fit for purpose; over 260 pages of amendments, few of which were scrutinized in Committee; and speeches in favour that have leaned heavily in support of the trade unions who stand to gain so much financially from the Bill.

But my final word goes to the real—[Interruption.] I can do some more. The final word goes to the real victims—[Interruption.] They do not want to hear it, Madam Deputy Speaker. The final word goes to the real victims of this Bill. Faced with this legislation, employers will take fewer risks on new employees. As a result, this Bill will hit young people disproportionately hard. They do not have the track record to rely on someone giving them the chance, a first step into the world of work.

Unlike so many Labour Members, whose first job was at a comfortable desk in TUC Congress House, my first job was at a supermarket. That company was able to take a risk on a young Andrew Griffith with no  career experience; it was able to take that chance because it knew that I could not start work in the morning and then file an employment tribunal claim in the afternoon.

I know that for many Labour Cabinet members career experience on their CV is a sensitive topic, but that does not excuse what is a vindictive attack on the next generation. The truth is that Labour do not understand business. They do not understand what it takes to grow; they never have and they never will. Every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they started, and that is why we cannot support this terrible Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 333, Noes 100.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed. \p Jonathan Reynolds: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has come to my attention that in a speech that I gave on 28 April 2014, recorded in column 614 of Hansard, on the subject of high-speed rail, I made a reference to my experience of using our local transport system in Greater Manchester when

“I worked as a solicitor in Manchester city centre.”—[Official Report, 28 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 614.]

I should have made it clear that, specifically, that was a reference to being at the time a trainee solicitor. This was an inadvertent error and, although the speech was over a decade ago, as it has been brought to my attention, I would like to formally correct the record, and I seek your advice on doing so. \p Judith Cummins: I thank the right hon. Member for giving advance notice of his point of order and for placing his correction on the record. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 5 February, be approved.—(Gerald Jones.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That the Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025 (SI, 2025, No. 137), a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 February, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Lucy Powell.) \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Church Funds Investment Measure (HC 772), a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 March, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Lucy Powell.)

Ordered,

That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled Chancel Repair (Church Commissioners’ Liability) Measure (HC 773), a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 March, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Lucy Powell.) \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gerald Jones.) \p Kim Johnson: This month marks the 40th anniversary of the publication of the groundbreaking Swann report “Education for All”. The first of its kind, the report was commissioned to examine disparities in educational attainment and experiences among ethnic minority pupils, and made recommendations to tackle institutional racism in the education system. The inquiry, led by Lord Swann, was launched in response to a number of campaigns against racism in education, in particular the high-profile scandal of educationally subnormal—ESN—schools that disproportionately removed higher numbers of black Caribbean children from mainstream education settings, and wrongly labelled them educationally subnormal.

A mixture of education policy and racist attitudes was responsible for this shocking discrimination. The 1960s was a time of rising immigration, with the post-war British empire’s invitation to the Windrush generation of workers from the Caribbean and its other colonies to rebuild Britain. It was also a time of significant racist backlash, with the overt racism of Enoch Powell and the notions of racial superiority that gained traction in the political mainstream. These ideas worked their way into our national education policy, with the aim of creating and maintaining a two-tier labour force and a deliberately under-educated black population to fill all the menial jobs that white Brits did not want.

This significant miscarriage of justice took place in the 1960s and 1970s, and saw hundreds of black—mostly Caribbean—children wrongly sent to schools that were meant for pupils with severe physical and mental disabilities. These schools had existed since the 1940s, due to the provision, under the Education Act 1944, of appropriate schools for pupils with severe mental or physical disabilities. But by the late 1960s, almost 30% of pupils in ESN schools in London were black immigrant children, compared with 15% in mainstream schools.

It was clear that decisions were being made by teachers, educational psychologists and local education authorities to place these children in ESN schools for reasons other than mental or physical disabilities. Although parents were aware that their children were being forced to struggle against a racist system, most were isolated and not given the information that they needed to make informed decisions about their child’s education. It was not until an Inner London Education Authority report was leaked that the true extent of this shocking discrimination was revealed.

Grenadian educator Bernard Coard took the initiative to write and publish the groundbreaking pamphlet “How the West Indian child is made educationally subnormal in the British school system”, making the leaked ILEA information accessible to parents and communities. Mass community mobilisation as a result of Coard’s pamphlet inspired parents and community organisations to campaign against the now undeniable institutional racism in British schools. That forced the Government to respond, and these schools were eventually shut down in the early 1980s.

Published in March 1985, Swann’s report confirmed Coard’s analysis: the persistence of racist stereotypes, biased IQ tests, a deep misunderstanding of culture and language, and biases in teacher expectations, disciplinary practices and curriculum content were creating significant barriers to education for black children. It challenged the racist myths that black children were less intelligent than their white counterparts, and recognised instead that the structural racism embedded in the British education system was disadvantaging them. Inadequate support for pupils with English as a second language, a lack of diversity in the curriculum, and a significant disconnect between schools and parents from ethnic minority backgrounds were identified as further barriers to black children achieving their full academic potential. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I spoke to her beforehand to ask permission to intervene. I looked at the Swann report, which she has outlined very clearly. Does she agree that although substantial strides have been taken since that eye-opening report, the learning curve for the integration and understanding that we all wish to see must continue, as we strive to ensure that each of us can claim the best of British education, incorporating our own ethnic backgrounds and rich cultural history and heritage? Things are better, but there is still a lot more to do. \p Kim Johnson: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. However, as I will say later in my speech, I do not think that things have substantially improved, as he suggests, for lots of black children in our education system.

The report produced several key recommendations, including diversifying and decolonising the curriculum, more diversity in teacher recruitment, anti-racism training for teachers, more resources for language support, better data collection and monitoring, and a better approach to working with parents and communities to build trust and encourage active participation in pupils’ education.

Predictably, the Thatcher Government did little to progress those recommendations. However, the following Labour Government took some of the lessons learned as a framework for our Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, particularly the introduction of the duty for public institutions, including schools, to promote racial equality.

However, we know that many racist barriers still exist in education—from disparities in educational attainment to the school-to-prison pipeline, the adultification of black pupils, to the presence of police in schools and the need for a truly anti-racist curriculum. Today’s patterns of racism, segregation and exclusion in education have evolved directly from the policies and attitudes that drove the ESN scandal. The closure of ESN schools in the 1980s led directly to a rapid expansion in the use of school exclusions. We began to see higher numbers incarcerated in prisons, and the expansion of the use of sets and tiering in education, whereby certain groups of children are increasingly denied the opportunity to sit exams at certain levels and then the opportunity to progress in educational settings, including university.

The establishment of pupil referral units is recognised as another method of systematic exclusion from education. We must be clear: the use of PRUs and exclusions are a  symptom of failure of the education system. The disruptive behaviour of a child is a cry for help, not a crime. An education system that does not respond with care and support is an education system that is broken. The number of exclusions have soared in recent years, with children as young as five being kicked out of school. Draconian behavioural policies disproportionately impact on poor children, those living in care, and those from black Caribbean, mixed and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller backgrounds.

Swann’s recommendations for an inclusive education system are more important today, and we must take this opportunity to update the lessons learned and apply them to our current system. The societal impact is still as relevant today as it was in the 1960s and 1970s. Lessons must be learnt on the 40th anniversary of the Swann report in order to put an end to this systemic discrimination. Evidence of the scale of the injustice of children being forced needlessly into ESN schools in the 1960s and 1970s is scarce, but we do know about the impact that misclassification as educationally subnormal has had on survivors, some of whom have joined us in the Public Gallery. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for all their work in exposing this scandal and campaigning to raise awareness of the racial injustice that they suffered. Their work has already made a huge difference, and they have my commitment to keep fighting for the justice and dignity that they deserve.

We heard from some of the survivors at the event I held yesterday in Parliament. We heard from Noel Gordon, who told us that he was wrongly misclassified as educationally subnormal after a chain of events starting with him being diagnosed at the age of four with sickle cell. He describes being bullied and abused by teachers, running away from school and his mum fighting tooth and nail to get him out, but to no avail. Through his determination, he has achieved several qualifications including a degree.

We heard from Maisie Barrett, who is a natural creative. She described how she needed support with her academic skills and her stutter, but those resources were and still are systematically denied to black children. She has said that her grandchild is a victim of today’s SEND system, just like she was a victim of ESN. She told us that if she had received a proper education, she might have pursued her dreams and migrated to Jamaica, and fought for recognition for being wrongly classified as educationally subnormal.

We heard from Rene Stephens, who was expelled from his mainstream secondary school after his teacher assaulted him and was sent to an ESN school that neglected his academic development. He left school with no qualifications. Deprived of education and support, he has now spent 18 years in and out of the criminal justice system due to his misclassification. He was forced to abandon his dream of becoming head chef at the Savoy hotel. He says he continues to struggle with societal participation as a direct consequence of being denied a proper secondary education.

We heard from Denise Davidson, who described how, even in her innocence as a young girl, she realised that her school was different to other schools. She remembers challenging her educational psychologist, and described how her experiences now help her as a children’s social worker to support vulnerable children in similar positions.

This is not only an historic injustice; it is a living one for all who went through it. Most left school at 16 or earlier, unable to read, write or count, and were denied the opportunity to thrive and achieve their full potential. The survivors of ESN still have significant problems with self-worth and with accessing meaningful, well-paid work after they were denied an education. \p Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the hon. Member for her excellent speech and for the brilliant event that was organised last night. Does she agree that many brave black parents in the late 1960s, and even earlier than that, recognised the abominable way in which their children were being treated, including people like Bernard Coard who led the campaign against the banding policy in Haringey? At that time, black children were unfairly treated and classified in the way that the hon. Member has described, and we should pay tribute to the brave work of those people and acknowledge the abuse that those families suffered because they stood up for their rights. Her debate today and the meeting she held last night are a testament to the efforts that they put in all those years ago. \p Kim Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and I totally agree with him about the amazing work that Bernard Coard and all those families were involved in as they tried to seek justice and to enable their children to fulfil their potential. That needs to be recognised.

Opportunities to access meaningful, well-paid work were denied to those children, and they continue to face financial hardship because of the barriers to work for those without an education. This has had an impact on their families. A few have succeeded in the face of adversity, gaining qualifications and better jobs. That is a testament to their strength and determination, but they should never have had to struggle in this way.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognise all those whose campaigning helped to get us here today, as well as the incredible campaigners who were misclassified as ESN and who are fighting for justice. My thanks go to Bernard Coard, who pioneered this campaign; to the educator and anti-racist campaigner Gus John for a lifetime of work challenging racism in the British education system; and to all those parents and communities who organised and fought for change so that our children could receive fair and equal treatment and thrive and achieve their full potential. The incredible No More Exclusions group has done invaluable work shining a light on the injustices of the current system of exclusions, and challenging the racist policies and educational segregation that drive the school-to-prison pipeline.

I want to recognise the work of Frances Swaine and Leigh Day solicitors in their pursuit of justice for the survivors, and thank Professor Leslie Thomas KC, Dr Cynthia Pinto and Professor Christine Callender for their pioneering work in this area. I also recognise the incredible work of journalists and producers Lyttanya Shannon and Sir Steve McQueen for exposing this scandal with the BBC documentary, “Subnormal: A British Scandal” and the incredible “Small Axe” series. We have seen with “Mr Bates vs The Post Office” and Jimmy McGovern’s “Common” just how crucial TV and film can be in bringing miscarriages of justice to light, and I hope the same will prove to be true here and  that the momentum from this campaign and these dramas will secure justice for those impacted and change a system still producing the same racist outcomes today.

I hope the Minister will join me today in recognising the wrong that was done to the survivors of ESN. A public inquiry into the scandal of ESN schools is necessary, not only to secure justice for the victims of these historical discriminatory policies, but for us to understand how systemic racism and discrimination take form in our current education system and how we can eradicate them. The survivors and campaigners are calling on the Government to give due consideration to a public inquiry, four decades on from the first public inquiry report into racism in education, to learn the lessons of the past and secure justice for all those whose lives were impacted and who continue to suffer. \p Catherine McKinnell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) on securing this important and, indeed, timely debate on the 40th anniversary of the Swann report. The report is an important and stark reminder of the unacceptable treatment of young people, the majority of whom were from the Caribbean, who were inappropriately placed in so-called educationally subnormal schools during the 1960s and 1970s. My hon. Friend spoke passionately when sharing the experiences of Noel, Maisie, Rene and Denise, ensuring that their voices are heard.

The report serves as a timely reminder to all of us that the mistakes that were made must never be repeated and that we must never be complacent. No children or young people today should suffer from the structural barriers and entrenched racism that held back many in previous generations, and that legacy prevails today. Let it be clear that there is no place for hate or prejudice in our education system, and this Government are determined to root out structural inequality, as well as direct discrimination, to create a genuinely level playing field.

We cannot reflect on the Swann report without acknowledging the history of so-called educationally subnormal schools. We owe it to the campaigners who exposed this and refused to accept that these children were somehow less capable but rather the victims of racism. My hon. Friend mentioned people like Bernard Coard, and more recently the campaign has rightly received renewed attention through the work of the filmmaker Sir Steve McQueen, whose documentary “Subnormal: A British Scandal” shed light on the impact of these policies. It has also sparked important conversations about the ongoing challenges faced by black and ethnic minority students in our education system.

Britain has made strides in tackling overt racial discrimination over the past half century, but despite progress, there is no room for complacency or, indeed, self-congratulation. That is why this Government want to ensure that whoever you are and wherever you come from, Britain will respect your contribution and give you a fair chance to get on in life.

Our opportunity mission will build opportunity for all by setting up every child for the best start in life, helping them to achieve and thrive at school, build skills, and achieve growth and family security. Our work on the opportunity mission will focus cross-Government  attention and collaboration on ensuring that every child and young person truly believes that success belongs to them.

We are more committed than ever to tackling the disparities in educational outcomes that persist. The picture of educational achievement across ethnic groups is complex, and different social, economic and cultural factors contribute to that, including parental income, parental career and educational achievement, geography, family structure and attitudes to education in the family and wider community. While overall the outcomes of some ethnic groups now compare positively with national average outcomes, for some groups, outcomes are significantly below average, or worse than for other groups throughout the education system, and that includes black Caribbean children.

One of the most significant factors affecting pupil attainment, which cuts across all ethnicities, is economic disadvantage. International studies show that attainment has broadly improved or remained stable over the last 30 years. However, disadvantaged pupils persistently perform significantly worse on average than their peers at all stages of their education, and there is considerable variation in attainment by region and ethnicity. That is just not acceptable, and it why this Government’s opportunity mission will break down barriers and the unfair link between background and success.

We are determined to help all children achieve and thrive. High and rising standards are at the heart of the mission, and are key to unlocking stronger outcomes. We will deliver those improvements through excellent teaching and leadership; a high-quality curriculum that seeks to deliver a rich, broad, inclusive and innovative education that readies young people for life and work, but that reflects the issues and diversities of our society, ensuring that all children and young people are represented; new regional improvement for standards and excellence—RISE—teams; and a system that removes the barriers to learning that hold far too many children back.

The Department for Education acknowledges that some groups of children have a greater likelihood of exclusion than others. Local context means that there are different patterns across the country, but we are determined to get to grips with the causes of exclusions to ensure that every child, no matter their background, can succeed. We have already committed to providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school. We want earlier intervention in mainstream schools for all pupils, but particularly those at risk of exclusion.

We are absolutely committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, and to strengthening accountability by reforming Ofsted. We will enhance the inspection regime by replacing the single headline grade with a new report card system, telling parents how schools are performing, and introducing a new annual review of safeguarding, attendance and pupil movement, including off-rolling. \p John Martin McDonnell: One of the lessons learned through the work that people have done on the ESN scandal is about the role of unconscious bias. We hear from parents, experts, teachers, educational psychologists and others that unconscious  bias has the same cause as exclusions. One of the reasons why people are calling for an inquiry is to look at the lessons that can be learned by Ofsted and other agencies about how we support schools and address their practices. \p Catherine McKinnell: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We have learned a lot in the past 40 years about unconscious bias and its impact. I will come on to the points he raised about the public inquiry, and the developments over the years—the protections put in place, which we need to work to enforce.

First, I want to touch on the challenges in the special educational needs and disability system today. We have a clear commitment to addressing those challenges. We are prioritising early intervention and inclusive provision in mainstream settings, because we know that early intervention will prevent unmet needs from escalating. It will support all children and young people in achieving their goals, prevent the gap in achievement from growing, and get that support to children at the very earliest stage, so that issues do not escalate.

Underpinning our ambition to create a fairer society is the Equality Act 2010, which enshrines in law that schools must not discriminate, in a number of respects, against a pupil on the grounds of a protected characteristic. Part 6, chapter 1 of the Act ensures fair treatment for all pupils by prohibiting schools from discriminating against, harassing or victimising pupils when it comes to education, access to benefits, facilities and services, exclusion, and other detriments. Additionally, the public sector equality duty requires schools to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations among people of all characteristics. That is what will underpin the improvements that we need to see. \p James Asser: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) for securing this debate; she has made important points. The voices of the people affected 40 years ago will never have been heard. Does the Minister agree that poverty and deprivation—she talked about their impact on educational standards—often make it challenging for people to get their voice heard when there are problems? On the Equality Act, does she agree that in making the system fairer, we must ensure that when there are problems, people can speak out and know that they will be heard? \p Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend raises a really important point. One of the reasons why we are so focused on early intervention, particularly for children who have experienced a more socioeconomically disadvantaged start to life, is to help children find their voice, so that they can speak up and be a part of the national conversation. That is what we want for every child in our education system.

I am conscious of time, and I want to address the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside raised about the public inquiry. The Government do not currently plan to establish a public inquiry on the policy framework surrounding the placement of children in schools for the so-called educationally subnormal in the 1960s and 1970s.

The 40th anniversary of the Swann report is a timely reminder to reflect on the progress that has been made, but also to ensure that mistakes made at that time are  never repeated. It reminds us that there are always ways in which we must go further to ensure that no children or young people today suffer from the structural barriers and entrenched racism that held too many of our young people back in previous generations. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are not complacent; we are committed to delivering a fairer society with better opportunities for all. We firmly believe that every child should know that success belongs to them, which is why we must break down the barriers to opportunity. We are committed to changing the school system so that every child can achieve and thrive. \p Kim Johnson: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Catherine McKinnell: I will. I have maybe a few seconds. \p Kim Johnson: I just wanted to ask my hon. Friend whether she could provide some rationale for why the Government have not decided to go down the route of a public inquiry. \p Catherine McKinnell: I think we are out of time, but I am supposed to meet my hon. Friend next week. We can discuss this in more detail then, when we will have more time, but I look forward to continuing to work with her to redress race disparities and work on these issues, which I know she is rightly incredibly passionate about.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.