debates/debates2025-03-11e conversation_25
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-03-11)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-03-11e conversation_25

Paula Barker:A significant proportion of those who experience homelessness are ex-offenders. I have previously raised concerns that the drive to alleviate the prison places crisis must not add to the homelessness emergency. The Deputy Prime Minister is in the process of establishing an inter-ministerial group on tackling homelessness. Will my right hon. Friend’s Department play a full and active role in that inter-ministerial group, and ensure that Ministers and officials from the Ministry of Justice are adequately represented? \p Nicholas Dakin: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and the Ministry of Justice will play a full part in the inter-ministerial group. \p Esther McVey: I welcome the Secretary of State’s attempts to prevent the Sentencing Council from changing the sentencing process, which would lead to a two-tier justice system. If, however, the council will not budge—as appears to be the case—a two-tier justice system will arrive in just 21 days, contradicting the key principle of the legal system that everyone should be equal before the law without discrimination. Will the Secretary of State introduce legislation immediately to ensure that that two-tier justice system does not come about? \p Shabana Mahmood: I have already set out exactly what I am going to do. I have written to the Sentencing Council, using the powers that I have to do so, and I will be meeting it later this week. I have made it very clear that I will consider its role and powers, and if I need to legislate, I will not hesitate to do so. \p Luke Murphy: One of my constituents has endured prolonged financial abuse due to drawn-out divorce financial order proceedings, which largely ignore domestic abuse except in rare cases. Will the Minister commit to reviewing financial settlement proceedings guidance to ensure that the impact of domestic abuse is properly considered, and to prevent the legal system from being used as a tool of continued coercion and control? \p Alex Davies-Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his important question, and my thoughts are with his constituent as she navigates this difficulty. The Government will consider carefully the 2024 report on financial provision on divorce, in which the Law Commission looked into the specific issue of domestic abuse as a factor. Later this year the Government will consult on the delivery of our manifesto commitment to strengthen the rights and protections of cohabiting couples, because all abuse is abuse, financial or otherwise. \p Julian Lewis: When someone enters this country illegally from another country to which we are not allowed to deport them, and when they have previously expressed support for terrorism and terrorist organisations, but not in this jurisdiction, is the Secretary of State content that the Government have enough powers to protect the community from such a person walking free in our society? \p Shabana Mahmood: The right hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. I am discussing with the Home Secretary the full range of powers that we need to have at our disposal, and she has already made it clear that we will not hesitate to act further if we need to. However, it is important that we are able to deport offenders who pose a risk to our country. \p Warinder Juss: Last week, at a Justice Committee hearing, it was confirmed that an effective probation service is essential to the rehabilitation of offenders and to prevent reoffending. However, over the years the service has been under immense strain owing to increased demand. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that probation officers have manageable caseloads, and that support is provided for their mental health and wellbeing to avoid high levels of stress and burnout, and also to help with the recruitment and retention of staff? \p Nicholas Dakin: Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the probation service. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the chaotic running of the service under the last Government. We are actively monitoring the effectiveness of the probation reset policy and assessing its impact on workload capacity, the time saved, and the increased focus on individuals posing the highest risk to public safety. We recognise the significant pressure that probation officers have been under, which is why comprehensive wellbeing support models have been put in place across our services, including dedicated wellbeing leads for both prison and probation services. \p Joshua Reynolds: What work is the Secretary of State doing with the Victims’ Commissioner to ensure that the families of British citizens who are murdered abroad have the same rights as the families of homicide victims in the United Kingdom? \p Alex Davies-Jones: I regularly meet both the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales and the London Victims’ Commissioner to consider all issues affecting victims and their families. We are strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner through legislation, we will be strengthening the victims code, and we will of course consider any other measures that are needed to protect victims and their families wherever they may be. \p Paul Foster: On several occasions I have met my constituent Beverley, whose son suffered a horrific murder. He was stabbed more than 140 times. She has been desperately attempting to get hold of the court transcripts, but to no avail. Will Ministers please meet me to help this still grieving mum? \p Sarah Sackman: I am really horrified to hear of that case. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, the transcript of sentencing remarks should have been made available free of charge, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how transcripts of trials more broadly can be made available. \p Siân Berry: On Radio 4’s “Today” programme last week, Matthew Ryder KC, who sits as a judge, praised the extreme helpfulness of pre-sentencing reports for passing effective sentences. Will the Secretary of State do as he asks and endorse the importance, value and independence of the Sentencing Council? \p Shabana Mahmood: We all agree across the House, I hope, that pre-sentencing reports play a vital role in ensuring that whoever is passing a sentence has all the relevant facts at their disposal. I do not believe that access to such reports, or whether a sentencer asks for them, should be dictated by race or ethnic background. They should be made available, and I would like to see more use of pre-sentencing reports across the board for every type of offender. \p Kim Johnson: Manchester Metropolitan University estimates that over 1,000 people are convicted under joint enterprise each year, costing the taxpayer £1.2 billion. Does the Minister agree that we need to amend the law on joint enterprise to free up spaces in our prisons? \p Shabana Mahmood: The law on joint enterprise has already developed somewhat since the previous Court of Appeal decision. I know that the Director of Public Prosecutions is keeping under review how prosecuting decisions are made. At this point we have no plans to go further, but I am happy to ensure that my hon. Friend can meet the relevant Minister. \p Jim Allister: Across the United Kingdom, inquests are defined as being for the purpose of finding out who the deceased was, and how, when and where they died; they are not trials and they are not about assigning blame, even when they are extended into article 2 investigations. Yet in Northern Ireland we have had findings of blame in respect of SAS soldiers killing active terrorists. Does the Minister agree that the Crime and Policing Bill affords an opportunity, through suitable amendment, to bring uniformity to the operation of inquests across the United Kingdom? \p Alex Davies-Jones: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to confirm that an inquest should be an inquisitorial process. It should not be adversarial either. I will raise the issue that he has mentioned with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but what is deemed to be in scope of legislation is a matter for the House authorities and the Leader of the House. \p Brian Leishman: Prison maintenance privatisation has been a complete and utter disaster. When will it be taken back in-house? \p Nicholas Dakin: We are investing approximately £500 million over two years in prison and probation service maintenance to improve conditions across our estate, but it is fair to say we have inherited a system in serious need of repair. The estimated cost of bringing the prison estate to a fair condition and maintaining it till the end of the decade is £2.8 billion. The programme is now under way, and we hope that we will make as much progress as possible. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Lindsay Hoyle: If Members keep standing, it makes it easier for me. \p Ayoub Khan: One of the key objectives of the Sentencing Council is to ensure that there is parity of sentence up and down the country. It is a known fact that people from ethnic minorities sometimes get tougher custodial sentences than their white counterparts for similar offences. Given that, does the Lord Chancellor regret her attempt to discredit the considered and evidence-based conclusions of some of the most esteemed members of our judiciary when they published the guidelines on pre-sentencing reports? \p Shabana Mahmood: What I am shocked about is that we can see a disparity in the overall cohort sentencing outcomes. Everybody accepts that we are not quite sure why it is happening, and there has not been sufficient curiosity over the last few years to work out why that is the case. My view is that if we can see a problem or think we have one, we need to get to the bottom of what is actually going on before we start coming up with broad policy solutions to fix that problem. I also think that some of these broad policy decisions are better made by Ministers, because we are directly elected individuals who will pay the price for the consequences of our choices. That is a conversation that I will pick up with the Sentencing Council when we meet later this week. \p Steve Race: In 2020, Lorraine Cox was brutally murdered in Exeter. Her murderer dismembered her body, and as a result her family have never been able to fully lay Lorraine to rest. Her father, Tony Cox, has been campaigning for the implementation of Helen’s law 2, meaning that desecrating or concealing a body would become a separate criminal offence. Will the Minister meet me to discuss whether the implementation of Helen’s law 2 is possible? \p Alex Davies-Jones: I will happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further. \p Blake Stephenson: What are this Government doing to crack down on unqualified people representing themselves as solicitors? \p Sarah Sackman: As the hon. Member well knows, the solicitors profession is highly regulated. We have the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which itself is regulated by the Legal Services Board. All our professionals, whether they are practising in criminal or civil law, are highly respected and highly regulated, and we are indebted to them. \p Jonathan Hinder: I was shocked to read the Sentencing Council’s response to the Secretary of State last night, with its arrogant tone. As she has said, this Parliament is sovereign, and the fact is that we have given too much power away to these unelected bodies in recent years. Can I reassure her of my support, and can she reassure me that she will not rest until we retain equality before the law? \p Shabana Mahmood: I thank my hon. Friend. I am very much looking forward to my meeting with the Sentencing Council later this week. As I have made clear, I am looking into the roles and powers of the council, and I will not hesitate to legislate if I need to do so. \p Ashley Fox: The two-tier sentencing guidelines take effect on 1 April. If the Lord Chancellor is sincere about having a justice system that treats everyone equally, will she not support our Bill to block the guidelines? \p Shabana Mahmood: I have already made my position clear. I have written to the Sentencing Council, and I will be meeting it later this week. I am reviewing the roles and powers of the council, and I will not hesitate to legislate if I need to do so. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee. \p Andrew Slaughter: Last month, the Justice Committee heard evidence from governors of prisons with some of the highest drug use rates in the country. From detecting drones to body scanners and physical barriers, they all felt under-resourced in technology and investment. What is the Secretary of State doing to better equip prison staff to keep drugs out of prisons? \p Shabana Mahmood: We have already pressed ahead with further measures on X-ray and baggage scanners, and we are taking action to deal with the problem of drones. My hon. Friend will be aware that, for security considerations, I am not going to give the detail of some of those mitigations and of our proposals for tackling drones, because they are used by those involved in serious organised crime. However, I can assure him that I, Ministers and all officials, including those working across the prison estate, are seized of this matter, and we are determined to crack down on drones bringing drugs into our prisons. \p Mike Kane: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the collision that occurred between two vessels off the east coast of Yorkshire yesterday. I want to begin by offering my sincere thanks to all those who are responding on the frontline, from His Majesty’s Coastguard to local emergency services. This is a challenging situation, and I know that I speak for everyone in this House when I say that the responders’ ongoing efforts are both brave and hugely appreciated. I also want to thank our international partners for their many offers of assistance to the UK and for the support from the maritime community.

This is a fast-moving situation, so let me set out the facts as I currently have them. At 9.47 am on Monday 10 March, the vessel MV Solong, sailing under the flag of Madeira, collided in the North sea with the anchored vessel MV Stena Immaculate, a fuel tanker sailing under the flag of the United States and operated by the US navy. The collision occurred approximately 13 nautical miles off the coast. Fire immediately broke out on both vessels and, after initial firefighting attempts were overwhelmed by the size and nature of the fire, both crews abandoned ship. Firefighting and search and rescue operations, co-ordinated by His Majesty’s Coastguard, continued throughout the day yesterday, pausing in the evening once darkness fell. Firefighting activity restarted this morning and I am pleased to say the fire on the Stena Immaculate appears to be extinguished, but the Solong continues to burn.

Although they became attached to each other during the collision, the Solong broke free of the Stena Immaculate late last night and began drifting southwards. Modelling suggests that, should the Solong remain afloat, it will remain clear of land for the next few hours. The assessment of HM Coastguard is, however, that it is unlikely the vessel will remain afloat. Tugboats are in the vicinity to ensure that the Solong remains away from the coast and to respond as the situation develops. I want to be clear that, while 1,000-metre temporary exclusion zones have been established around both vessels, maritime traffic through the Humber estuary is continuing.

The full crew of 23 on the MV Stena Immaculate are accounted for and on shore. One sailor was treated at the scene, but declined any further medical assistance. Thirteen of the 14 sailors of the MV Solong are accounted for. Search and rescue operations for the missing sailor continued throughout yesterday, but were called off yesterday evening at the point at which the chances of their survival had unfortunately significantly diminished. Our working assumption is, very sadly, that the sailor is deceased. The coastguard has informed the company, and it has been advised to inform the next of kin. Our thoughts are with the sailor’s loved ones at this time.

Regarding the cargo on the vessels, the MV Stena was carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel, which was the source of the fire. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is working at pace to determine exactly what cargo the Solong is carrying. I am aware of media reporting about potential hazardous materials on board, but we are unable to confirm that at this time. However, counter-pollution measures and assets are already in place, and both vessels are being closely monitored for structural integrity.

A tactical co-ordination group has been established through the Humber and Lincolnshire local resilience forum. The marine accident investigation branch has deployed to the site and begun its investigation. The MCA is rapidly developing a plan to salvage the vessels, once it is safe to do so. The Department for Transport will continue working closely with the Cabinet Office, other Government agencies and the resilience forum on the response.

Colleagues across the House will appreciate that the situation is still unfolding as I speak. I will try to answer questions from hon. Members with as much detail as possible and with the latest information I have at my disposal. I commend this statement to the House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister. \p Jerome Mayhew: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

Yesterday morning, shortly before 10 am, the container ship MV Solong collided with the oil tanker MV Stena Immaculate, which was at anchor in the North sea off the coast of Yorkshire. The Stena Immaculate was on a short-term charter to the US navy’s military sealift command and was carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel. The Minister has not formally confirmed the cargo of the Solong, a Madeira-flagged vessel, but it has been widely reported that it was carrying 15 containers of toxic sodium cyanide. I listened to the statement carefully, but can the Minister confirm that that is now not his understanding?

The collision and the resulting spill are deeply concerning. However, before questioning the Minister on the Government’s response, I join him in paying tribute to HM Coastguard, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the emergency services, and all others who helped to respond to the incident. As the Minister noted, the emergency services were on the scene swiftly and their actions saved many lives. Approaching fiercely burning vessels with a risk of explosion takes enormous bravery and we all commend them.

I am grateful for the confirmation that all mariners from the Stena Immaculate have been recovered without injury, and that 13 of the 14 crew members from the Solong have been brought safely ashore. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family and colleagues of the missing member of that crew. I understand that the search for life has concluded, but can the Minister update the House on the efforts being made to recover that mariner?

Turning to the collision itself, the Minister confirmed that early investigations do not point to foul play, but will he commit to remaining vigilant to ensure that any indications of foul play are carefully investigated? Additionally, will he inform the House of the impact on the investigative process of the involvement of ships registered in both the US and Madeira? Have the Government contacted the respective Governments to ensure their close co-operation?

The Minister will be aware of the deep concern over the effect of the oil spill on the surrounding marine environment. Environmental organisations have warned of potentially devastating impacts of pollution from the tankers on the habitats and species in the area, including threatened seabird colonies, grey seals and fish, and  nature-rich sites such as the Humber estuary, where conservationists have been restoring seagrass and oysters, could be devastated by this emergency. Has he been briefed by the Environment Agency on its response, and could he give us more details on it?

The Minister made reference to the drift of the Solong and the risk of it running aground without intervention. Can he update the House on the steps that will be taken to ensure that that does not happen? I understand that the marine accident investigation branch has begun a preliminary investigation into the emergency, and I am pleased that the Minister is working closely with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency as it conducts an assessment on the counter-pollution response that may be required over the coming days. However, I seek assurances that the Government will engage closely with local communities, who will be concerned about the impact of the collision on their environment.

The incident involves multiple Departments spanning emergency response, environmental protection, maritime safety, defence and chemical transport regulation, and effective cross-Government co-ordination is therefore crucial. Will the Minister assure the House that such co-ordination is taking place and that Parliament will receive regular updates? It is, of course, too early to draw significant conclusions at this stage, but it is clear that something went terribly wrong in the handling of these two vessels. We will support the Minister in whatever action is needed to ensure the highest standards of safety on the high seas. \p Mike Kane: The shadow Minister is exactly right: something did go terribly wrong. My thoughts and prayers are with the missing sailor’s family. The company has been informed, and his next of kin are being informed.

In response to the series of questions the shadow Minister asked, we know for sure that the Immaculate was carrying 220,000 barrels of Jet A-1 fuel, but we are yet to establish the cargo of the Solong; as soon as I know, I will make that information available to the House.

We will do everything to recover the body of the mariner. In a recent debate on emergency response services, we heard that though lives are lost at sea, some succour and comfort is given by the rescue services, who often bring people’s loved ones back to them for a proper funeral and burial.

Whether there was foul play is, I think, speculation; there is no evidence to suggest that at the moment. Through the MCA, we are in contact with our American and Portuguese counterparts and have liaised with them. On the counter-pollution measures that the shadow Minister mentioned, the MCA is standing by with marine and aerial counter-pollution measures, which it will use at the necessary time. However, the immediate concern is to put out the fire on the Solong.

The shadow Minister mentioned the issue of drift. The Immaculate remains anchored, so we are safe there; it is the Solong that is drifting at 2 nautical miles per hour. It is currently being shadowed by two tugboats, and the order will be given by SOSREP or the MCA to intervene as and when necessary to protect life onshore.

The shadow Minister is right about the marine accident investigation branch. We have deployed those assets to the scene. They are currently working with the local resilience forum, and I want to pass on my thanks to the Humberside resilience forum at this time. I can assure him that Government agencies are working together effectively and have been giving Ministers and the Secretary of State regular updates through situation reports as the night went on and the day continues. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Transport Committee. \p Ruth Cadbury: I endorse the Minister’s thanks to the frontline workers who have been involved, and his concern for and condolences to the missing mariner’s family. While we wait for the reports on how this appalling tragedy happened, which will have to be done, will the Minister confirm how routes are being managed while the Solong is drifting, and whether further protection of routes will be needed because of pollution in order not to delay further movement of shipping in these busy waters and to protect the welfare of seafarers in other ships? \p Mike Kane: I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for that question. It is an incredibly busy sea highway, as we all know. I had the great honour of visiting the command and control post of the Humber estuary on what was almost my last visit as shadow Maritime Minister just before the general election, and I pay tribute to the workers there for their hard work in dealing with this situation. I want to assure the Chair of the Transport Committee that the Immaculate was anchored; it is the Solong that is drifting. There is a 1,000-metre exclusion zone around both vessels. Other assets are currently allowed to traverse the Humber estuary. If that changes, I will make that information available during the day. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Paul Kohler: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The scenes we have all witnessed in news reports are very concerning, and our thoughts are with all those affected and with the family of the crew member who remains unaccounted for.

This event reminds us of the risks and dangers faced by those who work in the maritime sector. These men and women often work long, challenging hours, keeping our country and economy going with little—if any—recognition, and we are hugely grateful to them. We are also indebted to the emergency services, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the coastguard for their tireless work through the night. I know they are doing all they can to limit the damage and the environmental impact, and have done so much to minimise the loss of life. While it will take time to establish what has taken place, it is clear that the Government need to take urgent steps to limit the damage and reassure local communities. I welcome the Government’s formation of the tactical co-ordination group and the work it is doing with other agencies.

I appreciate that the situation is still unfolding and that many questions cannot be answered at this stage. However, will the Minister say first what immediate steps the Government are taking to protect the environment along the east coast? Secondly, what is he doing to keep   shipping routes open and safe? Thirdly, what is the Government’s plan to support fishing and other businesses that rely on waters that might now be contaminated? \p Mike Kane: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to maritime workers. Just as they kept us fed, fuelled and supplied all the way through covid, they keep our nation fed, fuelled and supplied every day of every week. I cannot commend them highly enough.

I also join with him in paying tribute to the emergency services. This is difficult, hard work and they are doing an exceptional job in the circumstances. As I have said, the MCA is standing by with marine and aerial counter-pollution measures in place. Once we get the fire on the Solong out, we will begin to assess the situation and deploy them. It is vital that we keep shipping lanes in the Humber estuary open as best we can as this continues, which is why we have placed a 1,000-metre exclusion zone around both ships. Outside that, maritime vessels can operate normally—as normally as is possible in this circumstance. \p Melanie Onn: I thank the Minister for his communication with me through this unfolding situation and everybody who has been involved in it. The situation is evolving minute by minute, and I pay tribute to the local RNLI, coastguard and emergency services for their rapid rescue response, and to the local community, who have been heavily involved in readying themselves for any potential ecological or environmental fallout from this incident.

As the Minister may be aware, Ernst Russ, which owns the Solong, has now put out a statement saying that it has been “misreported” that the hazardous chemical was on board the Solong, and that

“There are four empty containers that have previously contained the hazardous chemical,”

which it will continue to monitor. I wonder whether the Minister has had any success in tracking down the manifest for the Solong so that we can reassure my constituents and put their minds at ease as to exactly what was on that vessel. I would also like to know when the Minister is expecting the initial report from the marine accident investigation branch so that we can understand what on earth happened in this most extraordinary of events. \p Mike Kane: I thank my hon. Friend for keeping in contact with me throughout the night and this morning. Just before the election, we both visited the command and control centre in her constituency to see the excellent facilities in place. I pay tribute to the Humberside local resilience forum, which is made up of the police, the fire and rescue team, local authorities, the Red Cross, the NHS, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the clinical commissioning group, the Royal Navy, police and crime commissioners, the ambulance service, Border Force, environmental agencies, the Ministry of Defence, ABP Humber Ports, the Met Office and the UK Health Security Agency. Those teams are all working at pace to assess any risks to local people that may occur.

There have been many press reports on the manifest, but the facts are the facts. There were 220,000 barrels of A1 jet fuel on the Immaculate, and the MCA is working at pace to establish the cargo on the Solong, which  sailed from Grangemouth. Hopefully, as soon as we have that information from the manifest, we will make it available to the House. \p Graham Stuart: I join the Minister in saluting the heroic rescuers and mourning the loss of the seaman. Mr Speaker, you may share some of my frustration at the lack of communication with Members of this House regarding yesterday’s maritime disaster off the Holderness coast in my constituency. Apart from a brief phone call following my reaching out to the Secretary of State for Transport, I spoke to the leader of East Riding of Yorkshire council, the police and crime commissioner and local councillors. All were struggling to get information as to what was going on just miles off the coast. My constituents from Kilsney, Easington, Withernsea, Aldborough and beyond deserve better.

I must ask the Minister why it took so long for the local resilience forum to be set up. Is he confident that we have the proper structures of governance in place when a disaster such as this happens? How can we ensure that communications are improved? What work is being done to protect the puffins, wildlife and beaches in our area? And how can we ensure that the agencies responsible are held to account? Perhaps the Minister can comment on why he was missing in action yesterday. We would have loved to have heard not just from 24-hour rolling media but from a member of our own elected Government about what was happening with this terrible disaster. \p Mike Kane: Mr Speaker, I was dealing with the situation—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] The Secretary of State made a statement. We stood up the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and, within minutes, a response was ongoing. The right hon. Member had a call from a member of staff of the Secretary of State within an hour or two of the incident. He was kept fully informed. The local Humberside resilience forum was established. We deployed assets for marine protection at the site. I am not sure what he is asking for, but I am very proud of our agencies—both local and national—that have worked at pace to get us to where we are currently. \p Alison Hume: I welcome the Minister’s timely statement and would like to associate myself with his praise for the swift response of the emergency services and the RNLI volunteers. Over recent years, fishermen along the east coast of Yorkshire, including Scarborough and Whitby, have battled to keep going against the background of the effects of the crustacean die-off. They are naturally extremely concerned by reports of jet fuel possibly leaking into the sea. I do appreciate that this is a fast-moving situation, but can my hon. Friend tell the House more about the counter-pollution measures that are in place and also how predicted weather conditions will affect the ongoing operation? \p Mike Kane: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Yes, I know that Members on the north-east coast from both sides of this House have been worried over a number of years about the crustacean die-off. There is a concern that jet oil could well be leaking into the sea, but every resource is being deployed by the MCA and other agencies to assess the extent of the pollution, and every resource will be deployed to clean up that pollution.  I happen to be meeting fishermen organisations later in the week for separate reasons, so I hope to be able to update them with further information about their valuable trade at that time. \p Tom Gordon: I have been in communication with Liberal Democrat councillors in the East Riding of Yorkshire and also the Liberal Democrat administration in Hull. Yesterday, the leader of the council, Mike Ross, raised the call for a rapid response from Government, and I really push the Minister to provide clarity on what exactly we should be seeing from a tactical co-ordination group and whether there is Government commitment to cover any environmental or economic impact. Moreover, what more support will we see down the line if there are long-term consequences as a result of the pollution? \p Mike Kane: It is standard procedure to bring on board local resilience forums in any situation such as this. That has been done: the forum is up and running. I am grateful to all elected Members across the parties and hard-working councillors who will be involved in making sure that the best interests of the people of the Humber region are protected. We have currently deployed on site all the resources that are needed to contain the fire and to assess the environmental damage of any spillage. We will continue to make decisions in conjunction with the local resilience forum through the day and, I believe, for the rest of the week. \p Luke Myer: I wish to add my voice to the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) given the very perilous position of the Teesside and North Yorkshire marine ecosystem following the environmental disaster we suffered in 2021. I ask the Minister to ensure that the response is not only around the Humber estuary, but that he reviews the environmental impact for the entire east coast as well. \p Mike Kane: As I have said, the MCA’s counter-pollution assets are being deployed at the scene. The RNLI, search and rescue and aviation have all been on site, although search and rescue has been stood down. Both vessels were also carrying marine heavy fuel oil. That is a present pollution risk should either vessel sink or break apart. \p Charlie Dewhirst: I thank the Minister for his statement today and echo his comments about the missing sailor. I also add my thanks to all those who have been involved in the rescue operation, particularly those at the RNLI station in Bridlington. My constituents are rightly concerned about the potential environmental and ecological impact, not least because we have the biggest bird colony in mainland Britain, Bempton and Flamborough in Bridlington have the largest shellfish landing port in the UK, and we have around 5 million visitors to the area every year, enjoying the beaches from Bridlington down to Hornsea. Has the Minister yet had any assessment of the direction of any potential pollution and the role that currents and wind direction will play in where that pollution might eventually end up? \p Mike Kane: The hon. Member is right to raise that. I had a conversation late last night on that subject with the Minister responsible for nature, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh). The Met Office has told us that theoretical models are used to plot potential movement of the smoke plume, which is similar to the way that it forecasts weather. Air quality monitoring can be done by onshore monitoring stations, such as the one at Immingham, which is closest to the site. The immediate concern is to stop the fire so that we can assess the pollution. As soon as the fire is out, inspectors can move nearer or move in to assess the extent of the spill—if there is a spill—and then we can begin to deploy the relevant resources to tackle that spill. \p Ian Lavery: My constituency is on the north-east coast, probably about 150 miles from this horrendous disaster. Can the Minister say whether there has been an initial assessment on how it happened and where the pollution might move to? Is there a potential threat to the coastline of the north-east of England? \p Mike Kane: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I have said, the Met Office is modelling the wind situation at the moment. We need to get the fire out on the Solong. Once that is done, we can make a further assessment of what is required and in which direction any pollution—if there is any—is moving, and we will deploy our assets to tackle that when we know that for sure. \p Alistair Carmichael: It is just over 32 years now since the MV Braer was grounded off Shetland, but for us the memories are still very fresh. We know exactly how those communities on the east coast of England who are braced for what may be coming will feel. We might not know what happened, but we can be pretty certain that at some time, somewhere, something of this sort was going to happen, such is the nature of shipping and how it is regulated and owned across the world.

In Shetland we have been warning for years of the dangers of tankers anchored right by our shoreline and of others entering areas that are marked on the chart as to be avoided, but it is next to impossible to get any agency to take ownership of that. I know that the Minister is concerned about this, so can we use this moment to take a serious look at how we protect our coastal and island communities? \p Mike Kane: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his expertise in this area. He has raised with me the issue of tankers moored off Shetland and Orkney. I understand that the 1972 collision regulations state that there has to be proper sight and sound lookout and all other methods, so something has gone wrong. As difficult as it is to say, accidents always provide an opportunity to see how we can do things better. I hope that when the marine accident investigation branch comes back with both its initial and its substantive findings, which will come to my desk, we can learn the lessons of this accident. \p Martin Vickers: I join others in praising the emergency services, and I also praise Martyn Boyers and his colleagues from Port of Grimsby East, who supported the emergency services.  Obviously, the concern at the moment is extinguishing the fire, but there will be a potential longer-term impact on the local community, inasmuch as there will be pollution and the like on the beaches. Will the Minister and other Departments work closely with the council and other agencies to ensure that any support that is needed will be available? \p Mike Kane: The hon. Member has the Port of Immingham in his constituency, where the Immaculate was waiting to unload its cargo when a berth came available. I can assure him that the MCA is on stand-by. It has marine and aerial logistics in place to assess any potential pollution spill. If there is one, we will tackle it, but as I said, the priority is to extinguish the fire on the Solong . \p Richard Tice: I thank the Minister for his statement. We congratulate everyone involved. It is worth remembering the voluntary nature of so many of the emergency services and the RNLI. The volunteers from the RNLI Skegness rushed out of their homes and businesses to man the lifeboat, which was away for almost 11 hours, putting themselves in harm’s way with extraordinary bravery. We should never forget that. \p Mike Kane: The hon. Member should brace himself for what I am about to say: he acted with honour this weekend, relating to my circumstances, with his former party member, and I am grateful to him. He is exactly right. Our emergency services are second to none, as are our volunteers who help His Majesty’s Coastguard and the RNLI. These men and women risked their lives braving the seas, the winds, the temperature and the fog, to go and do what they could at the scene yesterday. I have nothing but the highest praise for them. \p James Wild: My constituency has the Norfolk coast area of outstanding natural beauty and other vital habitats, including the Wash, as well as a fishing fleet. Given the location of the collision, there is local concern about the potential impact. When will a risk assessment be done on the potential risk of pollution down the east coast to Norfolk? What action is being taken to contain it? Will the Minister commit to keeping the public informed? \p Mike Kane: MCA assets are being deployed currently to assess and monitor any potential environmental impacts of this accident. The hon. Gentleman is right that the area is richly biodiverse. The priority remains extinguishing the fire on the Solong, so that we can properly evaluate the situation. Once we get that done, we will use every resource possible to ascertain the extent of the pollution, and to clear it up. \p Steffan Aquarone: Let me put on record my thanks and appreciation to the resilience team at North Norfolk district council and its staff, and the port of Wells for its response and preparedness. It is not instantly clear what areas will be affected, and with changing winds and weather conditions, pollution can change course. North Norfolk is 50 nautical miles away from the incident and is currently predicted to be unaffected, but we are keeping a close eye on what happens. Will the Minister confirm that he will keep all MPs along the North sea coastline updated on developments? Will he  also confirm that if pollution is set to reach North Norfolk, my fishing communities will get as much notice as possible? They have well-rehearsed plans in place, but they need good notice in order to deploy them. \p Mike Kane: The hon. Member makes an important point about how interconnected our coastal communities are when it comes to this type of incident. Our officials are monitoring where the pollution is going; we are looking at wind direction. I am grateful for the fact that his local resilience team is stood up, and I am happy to keep all Members informed of the ongoing situation, when required. \p Andrew Murrison: Automatic identification systems and radar should mean that these sorts of things do not happen, even in dense fog, which is why many of us thought initially that this could well be a maritime 9/11-type event, or that a malign state actor could be involved. Fortunately, that appears not to be the case, but the event has exposed a vulnerability, and ships like the Stena Immaculate could be said to be sitting ducks. What audit will the Minister do of that vulnerability? Will he put in place what is practically necessary to prevent such occurrences? \p Mike Kane: The right hon. Gentleman asks a very good question. In addition to having maritime responsibilities, I am the security Minister for the Department of Transport. We will learn any maritime security lessons from this incident, in terms of malign actors, and we will implement any recommendations. \p Graham Leadbitter: Has the Minister been in contact with the Scottish Government, notably about the Solong’s port of origin? Clearly, it is in significant danger of sinking, and has containers on board. If any of those containers break loose and get washed up on shore, widespread and firm public information about the dangers of approaching any containers will be vital, given the hazardous substances in some of them. \p Mike Kane: Responsibility for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is reserved to me, and it covers the United Kingdom. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s first question. On his second question, I do not want to speculate on the cargo of the Solong until I have the facts confirmed by officials, and I will then let the House know appropriately. \p Julian Lewis: I thank the Minister for the clarity of his statement and his answers. Is it not extraordinary that there is such uncertainty about whether so deadly a cargo as sodium cyanide was being carried on one of the vessels? He said that tugs might have to intervene to prevent the vessel running aground on the shores of this country. Has he considered that if the fire is too dangerous for the tugs to approach, then in those extreme circumstances, the Royal Navy’s involvement might be necessary? \p Mike Kane: We are a proud maritime nation, and we have the maritime skills to transport all sorts of hazardous substances, if need be, to our island nation. We have the skills, the people, the ports, and the shipping lines to do that. I ask the right hon. Member not to speculate on what was on the Solong, because that has not been established. There have been multiple press reports, and  once I know for sure, I will inform the House appropriately. I remind the whole House that the United Kingdom is a world leader in maritime insurance. This is what we do. We trade, bringing goods and services across the world, and we insure those goods and services. We should all be proud of both our maritime sector and the insurance sector. \p Ellie Chowns: I too pay tribute to everyone involved in the emergency response. Does the Minister share my deep concern that more than 24 hours after this collision, we still do not know what the cargo was on the MV Solong? Surely the insurance industry ought to know that, at the very least.

On the pollution, I understand that this incident may have taken place in or close to two marine protected areas. Are those areas affected? What is the plan for cleaning them up? The Minister mentioned that pollution measures are in waiting, but have not been implemented, because the priority is reducing the fire, but I understand that the Stena Immaculate—the one with hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fuel oil—is no longer burning. What measures are being taken to tackle the pollution now? Speed is of the essence. \p Mike Kane: I think the incident started at about 10 minutes to 10 yesterday, so we are only about 27 hours in. Within minutes, assets were stood up and the crews were brought safely home, except for one member of the Solong. We have assets in place to measure the pollution now, and those assets are being deployed where that is safe, but the priority remains getting the fire out on the Solong. \p Wendy Chamberlain: Several hon. Members have mentioned the effects on the marine environment, including endangered bird species such as puffins and kittiwakes, which are returning to colonies right now in places like the Isle of May in my constituency. What engagement is the Minister having with the charities and organisations who run those colonies? Secondly, following the question from the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) about the Scottish Government, if, as we fear, we see the worst- case scenario of pollution extending extensively, are there any plans for engagement between the Environment Agency and Scottish Environment Protection Agency? \p Mike Kane: The environment is absolutely at the front of our mind. Once we get the fire out, we will make those impact assessments and take the appropriate measures to clean up pollution, if there is any. The Department is working across Government and with the local resilience forums. In the days ahead, once we have the impact assessments, we will liaise with partner agencies on the best way forward on bird, marine and fish protection and the environment. \p Robin Swann: I join the Minister in paying tribute to all those emergency services that responded, but the unknown—the cargo of the Solong—is a major concern to many in the Chamber, and many who are working to deal with the incident. What engagement on this issue has the Minister had with the UN’s International Maritime Organisation, which has   responsibility for the safety and security of shipping, and the prevention of marine and atmospheric pollution by shipping? What steps will be taken to learn from it? Will we engage with the IMO to ensure that all cargo at sea is known by someone? \p Mike Kane: We are in discussions with the owners of both vessels. We know that the Solong was sailing from Grangemouth, and that it had a mixed cargo of containers. That is the only information available to me, and that information is being analysed. We are trying to ascertain more. I do not have information for the House at the moment, but as soon as I do, we will make it known. As I said, the Stena Immaculate was carrying 220,000 barrels of A-1 jet fuel. We can begin to prepare contingency plans with the information that we already have about the vessel. \p Calum Miller: I thank the Minister for his full statement, and I associate myself with remarks made about the potential loss of life and the communities affected. I understand that the priority is dealing with the immediate incident, and that there will be a full investigation by the Maritime Accident Investigation Branch in due course. Given that the Royal Navy has deployed vessels to the North sea to monitor hostile states’ activities on and under the sea, will the Minister assure us that the Government and their agencies will undertake an assessment, so that we can be clear that there has been no foreign interference in this terrible accident? \p Mike Kane: The answer is yes. The Ministry of Defence contacted me last night to say that it was ready and willing to be deployed, if required. So far, that has not been required, because we feel that there was no malign intent in this incident. However, as the hon. Member said, the Marine Accident Investigation Branch will investigate and give me its initial findings as soon as humanly possible. I will read its final report—it is my duty to do so as maritime Minister—and we will take the matter from there. The hon. Member was right to raise that point. \p Jim Shannon: I thank all those who have responded; we owe them a debt. I also thank the Minister for his endeavours. I spoke to him yesterday about this. He has been assiduous and focused, and we in the House should put on record our thanks to him for all that he has done. Will he outline the steps that will be taken to investigate whether failings in visual observation, radar or the automated identification system led to this unexpected collision? How can we ensure that the long-term environmental effects of this devastating collision are dealt with in a co-ordinated manner? \p Mike Kane: I thank the hon. Member. May I update the House? No sign of pollution from the vessels is observed at this time. Monitoring is in place, and should the situation change, the assets in place will be used as needed. That is the latest information relayed to me. The hon. Gentleman’s question is a matter for the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. We have extraordinarily dedicated officials on site; they were deployed yesterday. They will survey the two vessels and report back to me with initial findings when they can. There will be a final report for sign-off on my desk at some stage. I am grateful for his support. \p David Simmonds: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, David Lawrence, a former Labour parliamentary candidate, put out a public statement saying that he was pleased to be

“invited to No. 10 for a preview of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill”,

a landmark piece of legislation yet to see the light of day in this House, despite a number of statements from Ministers about how significant and important it would be. May I seek your guidance on how we can ensure that important legislation deserving the scrutiny of Parliament is first seen in this House, not shared offline with Labour parliamentary candidates? \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I am sure that his comments have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench. \p Angela Rayner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I assure the House that no one has had a preview? The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is coming to the House. Of course, we regularly consult stakeholders, but no one has had a preview before the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the Secretary of State for that point of clarification. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57

Secretary Angela Rayner, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Ed Miliband, Secretary Heidi Alexander, Secretary Steve Reed, Secretary Jo Stevens and Secretary Ian Murray, presented a Bill to make provision about infrastructure; to make provision about town and country planning; to make provision for a scheme, administered by Natural England, for a nature restoration levy payable by developers; to make provision about development corporations; to make provision about the compulsory purchase of land; to make provision about environmental outcomes reports; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 196) with explanatory notes (Bill 196—EN). \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Robert Jenrick, supported by Mrs Kemi Badenoch, Rebecca Harris, Dr Kieran Mullan and Helen Grant, presented a Bill to provide that the Sentencing Council may not issue sentencing guidelines without the consent of the Secretary of State; to give the Secretary of State the power to amend sentencing guidelines prepared by the Sentencing Council before they are issued; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 March, and to be printed (Bill 197). \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Peter Bedford: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about financial education; and for connected purposes.

Without that education, we are collectively creating the greatest financial crisis of our time. The problem, quite simply, is that we as a nation are not living within our means. There was once a sense that people had certain financial responsibilities: to save for a house, to save for retirement, to save for holidays or for a rainy day—but no more.

Two fifths of Brits have less than £1,000 in savings and, as a result, money has become synonymous with anxiety. How will we pay our bills, our mortgage, our tuition fees and even our meals? We have also ignored people’s anxieties about money for far too long, whether they be university students, apprentices or parents not eating to ensure that their children can. We have high expectations but low means.

An extraordinary and deeply depressing statistic is that 96% of young people worry about money every single day—yet we continue to spend, not least because it is so easy. Offers pop up on our screens every day, created by marketing wizards who know exactly where we are most vulnerable. They use our search history to whet our appetite for new books, video games, appliances and overseas trips. In a single click, we are committed and plunged further into the red.

Around 20 million people effectively pay on account, not to local shop owners who know them and live locally but through impersonal buy now, pay later schemes that bring with them all-too-easy extortionate rates of interest. The debt just keeps on growing. There is a solution, which is to treat the problem at source, through education. Young people need to understand how money works, the principle of saving and the dangers and opportunities of compound interest.

This is not a new idea. The coalition Government brought in financial education for secondary schools, and this Bill aims to consolidate that learning and extend provision to primary schools and tertiary education. Money habits are formed at an early age—indeed, from the age of seven—yet many school leavers remain in the dark. Fifty-five per cent of those employing apprentices are aware that many of their workers face financial difficulties.

The situation does not require extra resource, just extra creativity. In fact, it can bring the curriculum to life. In Finland, for example, money is incorporated into the teaching of all subjects. In maths lessons problems link to savings and debt, geography lessons explain the cost of deforestation on goods in the supermarket, and IT lessons explain the financial consequences of buying extra credit for a favourite video game.

This is not a party political matter. The Bill will reduce inequality and help explain the importance of property, the benefits of home ownership and a comfortable retirement, and what it takes to provide for one’s own family. I have spoken to bankers, teachers, children,  parents, police, employers, councillors, accountants, magistrates and lawyers. Whatever their political persuasion, they all agree that money is the root of many of society’s problems, not least because people are increasingly unaware of how to manage it or what is possible through careful budgeting.

Schools should prepare young people for the adult world. Yet for all the focus on balancing an equation, there is no attention given to balancing one’s bank account, and for the many hours spent generating interest in past events, none is focused on meeting interest payments on a future loan or mortgage. We are sending our young people out into the world and putting them into the game of life without even teaching them the rules first.

Fifty per cent of the British public would fail an OECD financial literacy test. We rank alongside Thailand and Albania despite being one of the world’s wealthiest countries. It is no wonder that only 1% of teachers believe their pupils possess adequate financial skills, or that 67% of young people do not feel confident planning for their financial future.

In my maiden speech, I focused on the importance of social mobility. We did not have much—I could not always attend school trips and we could not always have the heating on—but I found ways to save for the things that I wanted in life. In an age when many believe that the responsibility of toothbrushing should be handed to teachers, we cannot leave our entire financial future to materialise like magic and our economy to decay even faster than those young teeth.

As a country, we have to balance the books, and that starts by understanding the principles of money. That is why I and the sponsors of this Bill urge the House to give future generations the tools and the knowledge to avoid walking into financial ruin and to lead successful and prosperous lives, irrespective of their background.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr Peter Bedford, Jerome Mayhew, Blake Stephenson, Josh Newbury, Mr Jonathan Brash, Sir Roger Gale, Shockat Adam, Wera Hobhouse, Ian Roome, Siân Berry, Lewis Cocking and Martin Vickers present the Bill.

Mr Peter Bedford accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 April, and to be printed (Bill 195). \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That the Order of 21 October 2024 (Employment Rights Bill: Programme) be varied as follows:

1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.

3. Proceedings on Consideration—

(a) shall be taken on each of those days in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and

(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on the second day and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration on the second day.—(Justin Madders.) \p UNKNOWN: 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; Fourth Report of the Work and Pensions Committee of Session 2023-24, Statutory Sick Pay, HC 148; and written evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, on Statutory Sick Pay, reported to the House on 10 March 2025, HC 787.] \p UNKNOWN: “(1) After section 27BU of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (inserted by section 3) insert— \p UNKNOWN: 27BUA Agency workers

(1) In this Part, “agency worker” means an individual—

(a) who has a worker’s contract or an arrangement with a work-finding agency by virtue of which the individual is (or is to be) supplied to work for and under the supervision and direction of another person,

(b) who does not do (or is not to do) the work under a worker’s contract with the other person, and

(c) who is not (or is not to be) a party to a contract under which the individual undertakes to do the work for another party to the contract whose status is, by virtue of the contract, that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual.

(2) In this Part—

(a) references to an agency worker include, where the context requires, a former agency worker, and

(b) where that is the case, references in relation to the agency worker to a work-finding agency, and references (however expressed) to a person for and under the supervision and direction of whom the agency worker works, are to be read accordingly.

(3) An individual is an “agency worker” for the purposes of this Part—

(a) whether the individual is (or is to be) supplied to work for and under the supervision and direction of another person—

(i) by the work-finding agency referred to in subsection (1)(a), or

(ii) by a person other than the work-finding agency;

(b) whether the individual is (or is to be) paid, for work done for and under the supervision and direction of another person—

(i) by the work-finding agency referred to in subsection (1)(a), or

(ii) by a person other than the work-finding agency.

(4) In this Part, “work-finding agency” means a person carrying on the business (whether or not with a view to profit and whether or not in conjunction with any other business) of finding, or seeking to find, work  for individuals to do for and under the supervision and direction of other persons (but not in the employment of those other persons).

(5) Part 1 of Schedule A1 contains provision about guaranteed hours and agency workers.

(6) Part 2 of Schedule A1 contains provision about rights of agency workers to reasonable notice in relation to shifts.

(7) Part 3 of Schedule A1 contains provision about rights of agency workers to payment for shifts that are cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice.”

(2) Schedule (Agency workers: guaranteed hours and rights relating to shifts) inserts Schedule A1 into the Employment Rights Act 1996.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause adds a new clause (intended to go after clause 3) which provides a new definition of “agency worker” for the purposes of Part 2A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and introduces the new Schedule inserted by NS1 which inserts a new Schedule A1 into the 1996 Act. Schedule A1 is to take the place of the regulation-making power in proposed new section 27BW of the 1996 Act which is removed by amendment 48.

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

Government new clause 33—Collective agreements: contracting out.

Government new clause 34—Collective redundancy consultation: protected period.

Government new clause 35—Duty to keep records relating to annual leave.

Government new clause 36—Extension of regulation of employment businesses.

Government new clause 37—Power to establish Social Care Negotiating Body.

Government new clause 38—Agency workers who are not otherwise “workers”.

New clause 1—Domestic abuse victims’ leave—

“(1) Within twelve months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations entitling a worker who is a victim of domestic abuse to be absent from work on leave under this section.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “domestic abuse” is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

(3) The regulations must include provision for determining—

(a) the extent of a worker's entitlement to leave under this section; and

(b) when leave under this section may be taken.

(4) Provision under subsection (3)(a) must secure that, where a worker is entitled to take leave under this section, that worker is entitled to―

(a) at least ten working days’ leave; and

(b) the benefit of the terms and conditions of employment which would have applied but for the absence.

(5) The regulations may―

(a) make provision about how leave under this section is to be taken;

(b) make different provision for different cases or circumstances; and

(c) make consequential provision.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide for statutory leave for victims of domestic abuse, with regulations providing for a minimum of ten days’ leave.

New clause 2—Domestic abuse: right not to suffer detriment—

“In Part V of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Rights not to suffer detriment), after section 47G, insert new section 47H—

‘Domestic abuse

(1) A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by their employer done on the ground that the worker has been, or is suspected to have been―

(a) a victim of domestic abuse; or

(b) affected directly by domestic abuse.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “domestic abuse” is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’”

This new clause would amend the Employment Rights Act 1996 to protect workers from adverse treatment on the grounds that they are, or are suspected to be, a person affected by domestic abuse.

New clause 3—Dismissal for reasons related to domestic abuse—

“In Part 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, after section 99, insert—

‘99B Domestic abuse

(1) A worker who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as having been unfairly dismissed if the reason for the dismissal is that the worker has been, or is suspected to have been―

(a) a victim of domestic abuse; or

(b) affected directly by domestic abuse.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “domestic abuse” is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’”

This new clause would amend the Employment Rights Act 1996 to protect workers from dismissal on the grounds that they are, or are suspected to be, a victim or a person affected by domestic abuse.

New clause 4—Employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent domestic abuse—

“After section 40A of the Equality Act 2010 (employer duty to prevent sexual harassment of workers), insert—

‘40B Employer duty to prevent workers from experiencing domestic abuse

(1) An employer (A) must take all reasonable steps to prevent their workers from experiencing domestic abuse in the course of their employment.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “domestic abuse” is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’”

This new clause would require employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent their workers from experiencing domestic abuse.

New clause 5—Employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent domestic abuse (contract workers)—

“After section 41 of the Equality Act 2010 (contract workers), insert—

‘41A Employer duty to prevent workers from experiencing domestic abuse

(1) An employer (A) must take all reasonable steps to prevent a contract worker working for or on behalf of (A) from experiencing domestic abuse in the course of their engagement.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “domestic abuse” is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’”

This new clause would require employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent contract workers from experiencing domestic abuse.

New clause 6—Workplace contravention of Equality Act: obtaining information—

“(1) In this section—

(a) P is a worker who thinks that a contravention of the Equality Act 2010 has occurred in relation to P’s employment or working practices;

(b) R is P’s employer and P thinks that R is responsible for the contravention mentioned in paragraph (a).

(2) A Minister of the Crown must by order prescribe—

(a) forms by which P may question R on any matter which is or may be relevant to subsection (1);

(b) forms by which R may answer questions by P.

(3) A question by P or an answer by R is admissible as evidence in proceedings under this Act (whether or not the question or answer is contained in a prescribed form).

(4) A court or tribunal may draw an inference from—

(a) a failure by R to answer a question by P before the end of the period of 8 weeks beginning with the day on which the question is served;

(b) an evasive or equivocal answer.

(5) Subsection (4) does not apply if—

(a) R reasonably asserts that to have answered differently or at all might have prejudiced a criminal matter;

(b) R reasonably asserts that to have answered differently or at all would have revealed the reason for not commencing or not continuing criminal proceedings;

(c) R’s answer is of a kind specified for the purposes of this paragraph by order of a Minister of the Crown;

(d) R’s answer is given in circumstances specified for the purposes of this paragraph by order of a Minister of the Crown;

(e) R’s failure to answer occurs in circumstances specified for the purposes of this paragraph by order of a Minister of the Crown.

(6) The reference to a contravention of the Equality Act 2010 includes a reference to a breach of an equality clause or rule, insofar as it relates to employment or working practices.

(7) A Minister of the Crown may by order—

(a) prescribe the period within which a question must be served to be admissible under subsection (3);

(b) prescribe the manner in which a question by P, or an answer by R, may be served.

(8) This section—

(a) does not affect any other enactment or rule of law relating to interim or preliminary matters in proceedings before a county court, the sheriff or an employment tribunal, and

(b) has effect subject to any enactment or rule of law regulating the admissibility of evidence in such proceedings.”

This new clause would reintroduce, for workers in relation to employers, the right to statutory Discrimination Questionnaires pursuant to the Equality Act 2010 regarding age, disability, sex, race, sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity, gender reassignment, religion or belief and marriage and civil partnership discrimination.

New clause 7—Protected paternity or parental partner leave—

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult on the introduction of protected paternity or parental partner leave for all employees.

(2) A consultation under subsection (1) must consider―

(a) the minimum duration for a period of protected paternity or parental partner leave;

(b) how best to ensure that protected paternity or parental partner leave is protected, non-transferable and does not result in discrimination against the employee taking that leave;

(c) how best to ensure that protected paternity or parental partner leave reduces the risk of employees experiencing discrimination as a result of being eligible for ordinary maternity leave; and

(d) the extent to which the costs to employers of protected paternity or parental partner leave should be reimbursed, in full or in part, and the manner in which this should be achieved.

(3) Following a consultation under subsection (2), within twelve months of commencing the consultation, the Secretary of State must by regulations―

(a) introduce protected paternity or parental partner leave, ensuring that it is paid, protected and non-transferable;

(b) define the length of any period of protected paternity or parental partner leave under subsection (3)(a); and

(c) make provision for any other matters the Secretary of State considers relevant to the matters under subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b).

(4) For the purposes of this section—

(a) “protected” leave means leave during which an employer must not permit an employee who satisfies prescribed conditions to work; and

(b) “parental partner leave” means leave taken for the purposes of caring for a child, with the exception of maternity leave taken under sections 71 to 73 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

(5) For the purposes of subsections (2)(b) and (2)(c), “discrimination” is defined according to sections 13 to 19 of the Equality Act 2010.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on a period of protected paternity or parental partner leave, and require them to introduce protected paternity or parental partner leave by regulations at a subsequent date.

New clause 10—Carer’s leave: remuneration—

“(1) In section 80K of the Employment Rights Act 1996, omit subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) In subsection (1)(a), “terms and conditions of employment” includes—

(a) matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under the contract of employment, and

(b) terms and conditions about remuneration.””

This new clause would make Carer’s Leave a paid entitlement.

New clause 12—Rates of statutory maternity pay, etc—

“(1) In regulation 6 of the Statutory Maternity Pay (General) Regulations 1986 (prescribed rate of statutory maternity pay) for “£184.03” substitute “£368.06”.

(2) In the Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay (Weekly Rates) Regulations 2002—

(a) in regulation 2(a) (weekly rate of payment of statutory paternity pay) for “£184.03” substitute “£368.06”; and

(b) in regulation 3(a) (weekly rate of payment of statutory adoption pay) for “£184.03” substitute “£368.06”.

(3) In regulation 40(1)(a) of the Statutory Shared Parental Pay (General) Regulations 2014 (weekly rate of payment of statutory shared parental pay) for “£184.03” substitute “£368.06”.

(4) In regulation 20(1)(a) of the Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) Regulations 2020 (weekly rate of payment) for “£184.03” substitute “£368.06”.”

This new clause sets out rates of Statutory Maternity Pay, Statutory Paternity Pay, Statutory Adoption Pay, Statutory Shared Parental Pay and Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay.

New clause 13—Publication of information about parental leave policies: regulations—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to require any employer with more than 250 employees to publish information on the internet about the employer’s policies on parental leave and pay for parental leave.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must be published within one year of this Act being passed.

(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative regulation procedure.”

This new clause would require companies with more than 250 employees to publish information about their parental leave and pay policies.

New clause 14—Entitlement to paternity leave—

“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 80A (entitlement to paternity leave: birth)—

(a) in subsection (3), for “two” substitute “six”,

(b) in subsection (4), for “56 days” substitute “52 weeks”.

(3) In section 80B (entitlement to paternity leave: adoption)—

(a) in subsection (3), for “two” substitute “six”

(b) in subsection (4), for “56 days” substitute “52 weeks”.”

This new clause sets out an entitlement to paternity leave.

New clause 15—Whistleblowers: protected disclosures—

“In Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996, for section 103A, substitute—

“103A Protected disclosure

An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or one of the reasons) for the dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure.””

This new clause would slightly extend the circumstances in which an employee is considered as unfairly dismissed after making a protected disclosure.

New clause 16—Adoption pay: self-employed persons—

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

(a) self-employed, or

(b) contractors.

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

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

New clause 17—Meaning of “kinship care”—

“(1) This section defines “kinship care” for the purposes of sections 80EF to 80EI of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (inserted by section (Kinship care leave) of this Act).

(2) Kinship care describes an arrangement where a child is raised by a friend, relative or extended family member other than a parent.

(3) Subsections (4) to (9) set out the arrangements that are recognised as being types of kinship care.

(4) An arrangement where a child is adopted (within the meaning of Chapter 4 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002) by a friend, relative or extended family member (“kinship adoption”).

(5) An arrangement where—

(a) a child is looked after by a local authority (within the meaning of section 22 of the Children Act 1989), and

(b) a friend, relative or extended family member of that child is approved by the local authority to be a foster carer for that child (“kinship foster care”).

(6) An arrangement created by a special guardianship order pursuant to section 14A of the Children Act 1989 (“special guardianship”).

(7) An arrangement created by a child arrangements order pursuant to section 8 of the Children Act 1989 where the court orders that a child is to live predominantly with a friend, relative or extended family member of that child (“kinship child arrangement”).

(8) An arrangement where a child is fostered privately (within the meaning of section 66 of the Children Act 1989) by a friend or extended family member (“private fostering arrangement”).

(9) Any other arrangement where a child is cared for, and provided with accommodation in their own home—

(a) by a relative of the child, other than—

(i) a parent of the child; or

(ii) a person who is not a parent of the child but who has parental responsibility for the child; and

(b) where the arrangement has lasted, or is intended to last, for at least 28 days (“private family arrangement”).”

This new clause is subsequent to the new clause about kinship care leave.

New clause 18—Kinship care leave—

“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 80EE insert— \p UNKNOWN: 80EF Kinship care leave

(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations entitling an employee to be absent from work on leave under this section if the employee satisfies conditions specified in the regulations as to an eligible kinship care arrangement with a child.

(2) The regulations must include provision for determining—

(a) the extent of an employee’s entitlement to leave under this section in respect of a child;

(b) when leave under this section may be taken.

(3) Provision under subsection (2)(a) must secure that—

(a) where only one employee is entitled to leave under this section in respect of a given child, the employee is entitled to at least 52 weeks’ leave;

(b) where more than one employee is entitled to leave under this section in respect of the same child, those employees are entitled to share at least 52 weeks’ leave between them.

(4) An employee is entitled to leave under this section only if the eligible kinship care arrangement is intended to last—

(a) at least one year, and

(b) until the child being cared for attains the age of 18.

(5) For the purposes of this Chapter, “eligible kinship care arrangement” means—

(a) special guardianship,

(b) a kinship child arrangement,

(c) a private fostering arrangement, or

(d) a private family arrangement

within the meaning given by section [Meaning of ‘kinship care’] of the Employment Rights Act 2024.

(6) The regulations may make provision about how leave under this section is to be taken.

(7) In this section—

(a) “special guardianship”, “kinship child arrangement”, “private fostering arrangement” and “private family arrangement” have the same meanings as in section [Meaning of ‘kinship care’] of the Employment Rights Act 2024.

(b) “week” means any period of seven days.

80EG Rights during and after kinship care leave

(1) Regulations under section 80EF must provide—

(a) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is entitled, for such purposes and to such extent as the regulations may prescribe, to the benefit of the terms and conditions of employment which would have applied but for the absence,

(b) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is bound, for such purposes and to such extent as the regulations may prescribe, by obligations arising under those terms and conditions (except in so far as they are inconsistent with subsection (1) of that section), and

(c) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is entitled to return from leave to a job of a kind prescribed by regulations, subject to section 80EH.

(2) The reference in subsection (1)(c) to absence on leave under section 80EF includes, where appropriate, a reference to a continuous period of absence attributable partly to leave under that section and partly to any one or more of the following—

(a) maternity leave,

(b) paternity leave,

(c) adoption leave,

(d) shared parental leave,

(e) parental leave,

(f) parental bereavement leave.

(3) In subsection (1)(a), “terms and conditions of employment”—

(a) includes matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under the contract of employment, but

(b) does not include terms and conditions about remuneration.

(4) Regulations under section 80EF may specify matters which are, or are not, to be treated as remuneration for the purposes of this section.

(5) Regulations under section 80EF may make provision, in relation to the right to return mentioned in subsection (1)(c), about—

(a) seniority, pension rights and similar rights;

(b) terms and conditions of employment on return.

80EH Special cases

(1) Regulations under section 80EF may make provision about—

(a) redundancy during or after a period of leave under that section, or

(b) dismissal (other than by reason of redundancy) during a period of leave under that section.

(2) Provision by virtue of subsection (1) may include—

(a) provision requiring an employer to offer alternative employment;

(b) provision for the consequences of failure to comply with the regulations (which may include provision for a dismissal to be treated as unfair for the purposes of Part 10).

80EI Chapter 5: supplemental

(1) Regulations under section 80EF may—

(a) make provision about notices to be given, evidence to be produced and other procedures to be followed by employees and employers;

(b) make provision requiring employers or employees to keep records;

(c) make provision for the consequences of failure to give notices, to produce evidence, to keep records or to comply with other procedural requirements;

(d) make provision for the consequences of failure to act in accordance with a notice given by virtue of paragraph (a);

(e) make special provision for cases where an employee has a right which corresponds to a right under section80EF and which arises under the person’s contract of employment or otherwise;

(f) make provision modifying the effect of Chapter 2 of Part 14 (calculation of a week’s pay) in relation to an employee who is or has been absent from work on leave under section 80EF;

(g) make provision applying, modifying or excluding an enactment, in such circumstances as may be specified and subject to any conditions which may be specified, in relation to a person entitled to take leave under section 80EF;

(h) make different provision for different cases or circumstances;

(i) make consequential provision.

(2) The cases or circumstances mentioned in subsection (1)(h) include—

(a) more than one child being subject to the same eligible kinship care arrangement, and

(b) a child being subject to an eligible kinship care arrangement on two or more separate occasions, and regulations may, in particular, make special provision regarding the applicability and extent of the entitlement to leave in such circumstances.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for some or all of a period of kinship care leave to be paid.””

This new clause sets out an entitlement to kinship care leave.

New clause 20—Duty to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace—

“(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—

‘(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from violence and harassment, including—

(i) gender-based violence;

(ii) sexual harassment;

(iii) psychological and emotional abuse;

(iv) physical and sexual abuse;

(v) stalking and harassment, including online harassment;

(vi) threats of violence.’

(3) After subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) It shall be the duty of every employer to prepare, and as often as may be appropriate revise, an assessment to identify potential risks of violence and harassment in the workplace and implement policies and procedures to eliminate these risks so far as is reasonably practicable.

(3B) It shall be the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches.

(3C) In subsection (3B) a “gender-responsive approach” means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls, when designing and implementing policies and procedures.

(3D) In this section, “persons working in the workplace” includes—

(a) employees;

(b) full-time, part-time, and temporary workers; and

(c) interns and apprentices.

(3E) In subsection (2)(f) and subsections (3A) and (3B), a reference to the workplace includes remote and hybrid work environments.’”

This new clause will amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to place a duty on employers to protect all those working in their workplace from gender-based violence and harassment.

New clause 21—Expanded duties of the Health and Safety Executive—

“In the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, after section 11 (functions of the Executive) insert—

‘11ZA Duties of the Executive: health and safety framework on violence and harassment

(1) It shall be the duty of the Executive to develop, publish and as often as may be appropriate revise a health and safety framework on violence and harassment in the workplace.

(2) This framework shall include specific provisions relating to—

(a) the prevention of gender-based violence and harassment of those in the workplace including the prevention of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse;

(b) the duty of employers to create safe and inclusive workplaces and the preventative measures they must adopt; and

(c) the use of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with the duty of the employer in relation to violence and harassment (see section 2(2)(f)).

(3) The Executive shall work with other relevant bodies, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission and law enforcement agencies, to develop and revise this framework.

11ZB Duties of the Executive: guidance for employers

The Executive shall, in consultation with such other persons as it considers to be relevant, issue guidance for employers about the protection of those facing violence and harassment on the basis of gender in the workplace by—

(a) implementing workplace policies to prevent violence and harassment;

(b) establishing confidential reporting mechanisms to allow victims to report incidents;

(c) conducting risk assessments and ensuring compliance with the health and safety framework (see section 11ZA);

(d) reporting and addressing incidents of violence and harassment; and

(e) supporting victims of violence and harassment, including making accommodations in the workplace to support such victims.’”

This new clause will create a duty on the Health and Safety Executive to develop a health and safety framework on violence and harassment and to issue guidance for employers about the protection of those facing violence and harassment on the basis of gender in the workplace.

New clause 22—Duty of employer to prepare domestic abuse policy—

“(1) It is the duty of every employer to develop, publish and as often as may be appropriate revise a written statement of its general policy with respect to the support it provides to workers who are victims of domestic abuse.

(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for determining—

(a) the scope of a domestic abuse policy;

(b) the form and manner in which a domestic abuse policy is to be published;

(c) when and how frequently a domestic abuse policy is to be published or revised;

(d) requirements for senior approval before a domestic abuse policy is published.

(3) The regulations may make provision for a failure to comply with subsection (1)—

(a) to be an offence punishable on summary conviction—

(i) in England and Wales by a fine;

(ii) in Scotland or Northern Ireland by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;

(b) to be enforced, otherwise than as an offence, by such means as may be prescribed.

(4) The regulations may not require an employer to revise the policy more frequently than at intervals of 24 months.

(5) For the purposes of this section, ‘domestic abuse’ is defined in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

(6) This section does not apply to an employer who has fewer than 5 employees.

(7) Regulations under this section must be made no later than twelve months after the passage of this Act.”

This new clause would create a duty on employers with 5 or more employees to have a policy outlining the support they provide to workers who are victims of domestic abuse.

New clause 23—Prescribed rate of statutory maternity pay—

“In regulation 6 of the Statutory Maternity Pay (General) Regulations 1986, delete ‘is a weekly rate of £184.03’ and insert ‘is a rate of £12.60 per hour in the UK and £13.85 per hour in London’.”

This new clause would increase the current rate of statutory maternity pay, bringing it in line with the “real Living Wage”.

New clause 25—Working Time Council—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, establish a Working Time Council (‘the Council’) to provide advice and make recommendations to the Secretary of State on the matters specified in subsection (4).

(2) The members of the Council—

(a) are to be appointed by the Secretary of State, and

(b) must include representatives of—

(i) trade unions;

(ii) businesses;

(iii) government departments; and

(iv) experts on matters relating to employment.

(3) Each member of the Council must hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms and conditions of the member’s appointment.

(4) The Council must provide advice and make recommendations on how a transition could be made from a five-day working week to a four-day working week with no impact on pay, including—

(a) how such a transition would affect employers and employees, and

(b) how businesses, public bodies and other organisations should approach such a transition.

(5) The Secretary of State may pay such remuneration or allowances to members of the Council as the Secretary of State may determine.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a Working Time Council to provide advice and recommendations on the transition from a five-day working week to a four-day working week.

New clause 27—Flexible working duties: reports on compliance—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, once every six months, report on compliance with the duties under section 80G of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (employer’s duties in relation to application for change to working hours, etc).

(2) The first report must be published and laid before Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.

(3) Each further report must be published and laid before Parliament within six months of the last such report being published.”

This new clause would require the Government to report on employers’ compliance with the flexible working duties set out in this Bill.

New clause 30—Special constables: right to time off for public duties—

“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended is follows.

(2) In section 50 (Right to time off for public duties), after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) An employer shall permit an employee who is a special constable, appointed in accordance with section 27 of the Police Act 1996, section 9 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 or section 25 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, to take time off during the employee’s working hours for the purpose of performing their duties.

(1B) In section (1A), “duties” means any activity under the direction of a chief officer of police.’”

This new clause gives employees who are special constables the right to time off to carry out their police duties.

New clause 61—Status of Workers—

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

(2) Omit section 145F(3).

(3) Omit section 151(1B).

(4) Omit sections 295 (meaning of employee and related expressions) and 296 (meaning of worker and related expressions) and insert—

‘295 Meaning of worker and related expressions

(1) In this Act—

(a) “worker” and “employee” both mean an individual who—

(i) seeks to be engaged by another to provide labour,

(ii) is engaged by another to provide labour, or

(iii) where the employment has ceased, was engaged by another to provide labour, and is not, in the provision of that labour, operating a business on the employee or worker’s own account;

(b) an “employer” in relation to a worker or employee is─

(i) every person or entity who engages or engaged the worker or employee, and

(ii) every person or entity who substantially determines terms on which the worker or employee is engaged at any material time;

(c) “employed” and “employment mean engaged as an “employee” or as a “worker” under subsection (1)(a);

(d) “contract of employment” means a contract or employment relationship, however described, whereby an individual undertakes to do or perform any labour, work or services for another party to the contract or employment relationship whose status is not by virtue of the contract or employment relationship that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual, and any reference to the contract or employment relationship of an employee or a worker shall be construed accordingly;

(e) The ascertainment of the existence of a contract of employment or employment relationship shall be guided primarily by the facts relating to the performance of work, irrespective of how the contract or employment relationship is designated in any contractual or other arrangement by one or more of the parties involved;

(f) In ascertaining the existence of a contract of employment or employment relationship, all relevant facts may be taken into consideration but the following facts, if found, may be considered indicative of the existence of a contract of employment and the presence of any such fact shall raise the rebuttable presumption that the arrangement is a contract of employment—

(i) the use, by a person other than the putative worker, of automated monitoring systems or automated decision-making systems in the organisation of work;

(ii) the work is carried out according to the instructions and under the control of another entity;

(iii) the work involves the integration of the worker in the organisation of another entity;

(iv) the work is performed solely or mainly for the benefit of another entity;

(v) the work is to be done, or is in fact done, predominantly by the worker personally;

(vi) the work involves the provision of tools, materials and equipment by an entity other than the worker;

(vii) the worker is to a significant extent subordinated to and economically dependent on the entity for which the work is done;

(viii) the determination of the worker’s rate of remuneration and other significant terms and conditions is wholly or mainly that of an entity other than the worker and, in any event, significantly outweighs the power of the worker to determine his or her rate of remuneration and other significant terms and conditions;

(ix) the worker’s remuneration and other terms and conditions are not determined by collective bargaining;

(x) the financial risks of the entity for which the work is done are not to any significant extent those of the worker beyond his or her interest in securing further remunerated work;

(xi) the worker has no significant capital investment in the entity for which the work is done beyond the provision of tools and equipment necessary for the worker to perform the work;

(xii) the remuneration for the work done constitutes the worker's sole or one of their principal sources of income;

(xiii) part of the remuneration is in kind, such as food, lodging or transport.

(2) It is for a person who is claimed to be the employer and contests that claim to demonstrate in any legal proceedings that—

(a) they are not the employer, or

(b) the person providing the work is not an employee or a worker.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) apply to all employment of a government department, except for members of the armed forces.

(4) A person undertaking the work of a foster carer shall be treated as a ‘worker’ for the purposes of this Act.

(5) An entitlement on the part of a person to substitute the labour of another for his or her own labour shall be ignored in determining whether he or she is a worker or employee.

(6) Where a worker or employee provides labour through a personal service company the employer is the third party for whom the labour is performed.

(7) A “personal service company” means a company—

(a) in which the worker or employee is a director, or a substantial shareholding is held by the worker or employee, by themself or by or with a member of the family of the worker or employee, or by or with a third party for whom the labour is or was performed, or a nominee or nominees of such a third party; and

(b) which has contracted with the worker or employee to provide their labour to a third party or parties nominated by the company; and

(c) in relation to which the terms and conditions on which the worker or employee is or was engaged to perform the labour are or were substantially determined by any third party for whom the labour is or was to be performed, by itself or jointly with another person or entity; and

(d) in which the status of any third party for whom the labour is or was to be performed is not in practice that of a client or customer of the profession or business undertaking carried on by the worker or employee.

(8) An employer that employs, or proposes to engage, an individual to carry out work must not represent to the individual that the contract under which the individual is, or would be, engaged by the employer is a contract for services under which the individual performs, or would perform, work as an independent contractor if that is not the case.

(9) Subsection (8) does not apply if the employer demonstrates that, when the representation was made, the employer reasonably believed that the contract was a contract for services.

(10) In determining, for the purpose of subsection (9), whether the employer's belief was reasonable, regard must be had to all relevant circumstances including the size and nature of the employer's enterprise.

(11) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate as “workers” other persons engaged in work, and designate as “employers” other entities engaged in the provision of work, after consultation with organisations which appear to the Secretary of State to represent such persons and entities and any such regulations must be made by statutory instrument,

(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (11) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(12) This section has effect subject to sections 68(4), 116B(10) and 235.'”

New clause 62—Procedure for handling dismissal and re-engagement—

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

(2) After Chapter I (collective bargaining), insert— \p UNKNOWN: 187A Duty of employer to consult representatives

(1) This section applies to an employer where, in an undertaking or establishment with 50 or more employees, in the light of recent events or information and the economic situation affecting the employer, there is a threat to continued employment within the undertaking, and one or both of the following matters apply—

(a) decisions may have to be taken to terminate the contracts of or more employees for reasons other than conduct or capability, or

(b) anticipatory measures are envisaged which are likely to lead to substantial changes in work organisation or in contractual relations affecting or more employees.

(2) The employer shall consult with a view to reaching an agreement to avoid decisions being taken to terminate contracts of employment, or to introduce changes in work organisation or in contractual relations.

(3) The consultations under subsection (2) shall take place with all the persons who are appropriate representatives of any of the employees who are or may be affected by those matters that apply.

(4) The consultation shall begin as soon as is reasonably practicable and in good time for any agreement to be reached so as to avoid decisions being taken to terminate contracts of employment or introduce changes in work organisation or in contractual relations.

(5) The employer shall allow the appropriate representatives access to the affected employees and shall afford to those representatives such accommodation and other facilities as may be appropriate.

(6) In this section, “appropriate representatives” has the same meaning as in section 188(1B) (and the requirements for the election of employee representatives in section 188A apply).

(7) If there are special circumstances which render it not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with a requirement of this section, the employer shall take all such steps towards compliance with that requirement as are reasonably practicable in those circumstances.

(8) Where the threat to continued employment emanates from a person controlling the employer (directly or indirectly), or a decision leading to the termination of the contract of an employee for reasons other than conduct or capability or a decision leading to substantial changes in work organisation or in contractual relations is that of a person controlling the employer (directly or indirectly), a failure on the part of that person to provide information to the employer shall not constitute special circumstances rendering it not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with such a requirement.

187B Duty of employers to disclose information

(1) An employer to which section 187A applies shall, for the purposes of the consultation provided for in section 187A, disclose to the appropriate representatives, on request, the information required by this section.

(2) The information to be disclosed is all information relating to the employer's undertaking (including information relating to use of agency workers in that undertaking) which is in the employer’s possession, or that of an associated employer, and is information—

(a) without which the appropriate representatives would be to a material extent impeded in carrying on consultation with the employer, and

(b) which it would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice that the employer should disclose for the purposes of the consultation.

(3) A request by appropriate representatives for information under this section shall, if the employer so requests, be in writing or be confirmed in writing.

(4) In determining what would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice, regard shall be had to the relevant provisions of any Code of Practice issued by ACAS, but not so as to exclude any other evidence of what that practice is.

(5) Information which an employer is required by virtue of this section to disclose to appropriate representatives shall, if they so request, be disclosed or confirmed in writing.

(6) The employer is not required to disclose any information or document to a person for the purposes of this section where the nature of the information or document is such that, according to objective criteria, the disclosure of the information or document would seriously harm the functioning of, or would be prejudicial to, the undertaking.

(7) If there is a dispute between the employer and an employee or an appropriate representative as to whether the nature of the information or document which the employer has failed to provide is such as is described in subsection (6), the employer, employee or appropriate representative may apply to the Central Arbitration Committee for a declaration as to whether the information or document is of such a nature.

(8) If the Committee makes a declaration that the disclosure of the information or document in question would not, according to objective criteria, be seriously harmful or prejudicial as mentioned in subsection (5) the Committee shall order the employer to disclose the information or document.

(9) An order under subsection (8) shall specify—

(a) the information or document to be disclosed;

(b) the person or persons to whom the information or document is to be disclosed;

(c) any terms on which the information or document is to be disclosed; and

(d) the date before which the information or document is to be disclosed.

187C Complaint to Central Arbitration Committee

(1) An appropriate representative may present a complaint to the Central Arbitration Committee that an employer has failed to comply with a requirement of section 187A or section 187B. The complaint must be in writing and in such form as the Committee may require.

(2) If on receipt of a complaint the Committee is of the opinion that it is reasonably likely to be settled by conciliation, it shall refer the complaint to ACAS and shall notify the appropriate representative and employer accordingly, whereupon ACAS shall seek to promote a settlement of the matter. If a complaint so referred is not settled or withdrawn and ACAS is of the opinion that further attempts at conciliation are unlikely to result in a settlement, it shall inform the Committee of its opinion.

(3) If the complaint is not referred to ACAS or, if it is so referred, on ACAS informing the Committee of its opinion that further attempts at conciliation are unlikely to result in a settlement, the Committee shall proceed to hear and determine the complaint and shall make a declaration stating whether it finds the complaint well-founded, wholly or in part, and stating the reasons for its findings.

(4) On the hearing of a complaint any person who the Committee considers has an interest in the complaint may be heard by the Committee, but a failure to accord a hearing to a person other than the appropriate representative and employer directly concerned does not affect the validity of any decision of the Committee in those proceedings.

(5) If the Committee finds the complaint wholly or partly well-founded, the declaration shall specify─

(a) each failure in respect of which the Committee finds that the complaint is well-founded

(b) the steps that should be taken by the employer to rectify each such failure, and

(c) a period or periods (not being less than one week from the date of the declaration) within which the employer ought to take those steps.

(6) On a hearing of a complaint under this section a certificate signed by or on behalf of a Minister of the Crown and certifying that particular information could not be provided except by disclosing information the disclosure of which would have been against the interests of national security shall be conclusive evidence of that fact. A document which purports to be such a certificate shall be taken to be such a certificate unless the contrary is proved.

187D Application for injunction pending rectification of failure

(1) This section applies if a declaration of the Central Arbitration Committee under section 187C finds a complaint wholly or partly well-founded.

(2) An appropriate representative may apply to the Court for an injunction to subsist until the employer can satisfy the Committee that the steps under section 187C(5)(b) have been completed within the specified period or periods under section 187C(5)(c)—

(a) to compel the employer to take those steps within the period or periods, or

(b) to render void any dismissal or changes in work organisation or in contractual relations.

187E Complaint to employment tribunal

(1) This section applies where an employer—

(a) offers or proposes to offer re-engagement on different terms to an employee—

(i) it has dismissed or proposes to dismiss for reasons other than conduct or capability, or

(ii) in relation to whom it has made or proposes to make substantial changes in work organisation or in contractual relations; or

(b) has failed to comply with any of the obligations set out in sections 187A or 187B.

(2) Any affected employee or their appropriate representative may make a complaint to the employment tribunal.

(3) If the tribunal finds the complaint well-founded it shall make a declaration to that effect.

187F Award of compensation

(1) An employee, or the appropriate representative of an employee, whose complaint under section 187E has been declared to be well-founded may make an application to an employment tribunal for an award of compensation to be paid by the employer.

(2) The amount of compensation awarded shall, subject to the following provisions, be such as the employment tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances having regard any loss sustained by the complainant which is attributable to the dismissal or substantial changes in work organisation or in contractual relations to which the complaint related.

187G Duty of employer to notify Secretary of State in certain circumstances

(1) This section applies to an employer to which section 187A applies in relation to 50 or more employees at one establishment or undertaking.

(2) The employer shall notify the Secretary of State, in writing, of the matters under section 187A(1) that apply and any related proposals not later than the end of whichever is the longer of—

(a) 45 days, or

(b) the notice period necessary to terminate lawfully the employment of all those employees who may be affected by any such matter before any decision to put into effect that matter is reached.

(3) A notice under this section shall—

(a) be given to the Secretary of State by delivery or by sending it by post, at such address as the Secretary of State may direct in relation to the establishment where employees who may be affected are employed,

(b) where there are representatives to be consulted under section 187A(2), identify them and state the date when consultation with them under that section began or will begin, and

(c) be in such form and contain such particulars, in addition to those required by paragraph (b), as the Secretary of State may direct.

(4) After receiving a notice under this section from an employer the Secretary of State may by written notice require the employer to give them such further information as may be specified in the notice.

(5) Where there are representatives to be consulted under section 187A(2) the employer shall give to each of them a copy of any notice given under subsection (3). The copy shall be delivered to them or sent by post to an address notified by them to the employer, or (in the case of representatives of a trade union) sent by post to the union at the address of its head or main office.

(6) If in any case there are special circumstances rendering it not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with any of the requirements of subsections (1) to (5), the employer shall take all such steps towards compliance with that requirement as are reasonably practicable in the circumstances. Where the decision regarding the matters is that of a person controlling the employer (directly or indirectly), a failure on the part of that person to provide information to the employer shall not constitute special circumstances rendering it not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with any of those requirements.

187H Failure to notify

(1) An employer who fails to give notice to the Secretary of State in accordance with section 187G commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(2) Proceedings in England or Wales for such an offence shall be instituted only by or with the consent of the Secretary of State or by an officer authorised for that purpose by special or general directions of the Secretary of State. An officer so authorised may prosecute or conduct proceedings for such an offence before a magistrates' court.

(3) Where an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person purporting to act in any such capacity, that person as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(4) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (3) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with their functions of management as if they were a director of the body corporate.”

New clause 63—Protection of contracts of employment—

“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) After Part IIA (zero hours workers) insert— \p UNKNOWN: 27BA

(1) Any variation to an employment contract is void if it—

(a) was obtained under the threat of dismissal, and

(b) is less favourable to the employee than the pre-existing provision, unless the employer has complied with all its obligations under, and arising from, sections 187A to 187G of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in relation to any person employed under the contract.

(2) In subsection (1)(b), the definition of “less favourable” shall be determined by the perception of a reasonable employee in the position of the affected employee.

27BB Unilateral variation of employment contracts

(1) Any provision in an agreement (whether an employment contract or not) is void in so far as it purports to permit the employer to vary unilaterally one or more terms within an employment contract where the variation is less favourable to the employee that the pre-existing provision.

(2) In subsection (1), the definition of “less favourable” shall be determined by the perception of a reasonable employee in the position of the affected employee.

(3) In Chapter I (right not to be unfairly dismissed), after section 104G insert—

(3) In Chapter I (right not to be unfairly dismissed), after section 104G insert—

“104H Refusal of variation of contractual terms

(1) In relation to an employee who claims to have been unfairly dismissed in circumstances in which the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee has refused to agree to a variation of contractual terms—

(a) section 98(1)(b) shall not apply save that it shall be for the employer to show that the reason for the dismissal fell within section 98(2);

(b) section 108(1) shall not apply.

104I Matters for consultation under section 187C of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

(2) An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if—

(a) the Central Arbitration Committee has made a declaration under section 187C of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of the employer and employee, and the employer has not complied with the steps in that declaration, or

(b) the employer has failed, in respect of the employee, to comply with a provision of a collective agreement applicable to a matter for consultation under section 187A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.”

(4) In section 116 (unfair dismissal: choice of order and its terms), after subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) If an employee has been unfairly dismissed and the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) the dismissal is unfair is one specified under section 104H or 104I, the tribunal may only find that it is not practicable for—

(a) the employer to comply with an order for reinstatement under subsection (1)(b), or

(b) the employer (or a successor or an associated employer) to comply with an order for re-engagement if the employer (or if appropriate a successor or an associated employer) would be likely to become insolvent within three months if such an order was made.”

(5) In section 128(1)(a)(i) (interim relief pending determination of complaint), for “or 103A” substitute “103A, 104H or 104I”.

(6) In section 129(1)(a)(i) (procedure on hearing of application and making of order), for “or 103A” substitute “103A, 104H or 104I”.”

New clause 71—Review of Statutory Sick Pay costs—

“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult on how the Government can best support small employers with Statutory Sick Pay costs.

(2) The consultation under subsection (1) must consider the economic effects of increasing Statutory Sick Pay for small employers with 250 employees or less, including the effects on—

(a) productivity;

(b) long-term illness;

(c) benefit spending; and

(d) economic growth & tax revenue.

(3) Following a consultation under subsection (2), within twelve months of commencing the consultation, the Secretary of State must report to Parliament on actions taken to implement the findings of the report of the consultation.”

This new clause would require the Government to consult on how best to support small employers with statutory sick pay costs while taking into account the wider economic effects of increasing it.

New clause 72—Duty on employers to investigate protected disclosures—

“(1) Part 4A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protected disclosures) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).

(2) In section 43C (Disclosure to employer or other responsible person), after subsection (2) insert―

“(3) Employers must take reasonable steps to investigate any disclosure made to them under this section.

(4) Employers with―

(a) 50 or more employees;

(b) an annual business turnover or annual balance sheet total of £10 million or more;

(c) operations in financial services; or

(d) vulnerabilities in other respects to money laundering or terrorist financing,

must establish internal channels and procedures for reporting and managing qualifying disclosures.

(5) The calculation of the number of employees under subsection (4)(a) includes employees of all franchises, subsidiaries and associated employers as defined under section 231 of this Act.

(6) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the commencement of this provision, set out in statutory guidance what “reasonable steps” under subsection (3) should include.”

(3) In section 48 (Complaints to employment tribunals), after subsection (1B), insert―

“(1C) A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that the worker’s employer has failed to comply with the duty in section 43C (Duty to investigate protected disclosures).”

(4) In section 49 (Remedies), after subsection (1A), insert―

“(1B) Where an employment tribunal is satisfied that an employer has contravened the duty set out in section 43C (duty to investigate), the tribunal―

(a) shall make a declaration to that effect, and

(b) may make an award of compensation to be paid by the employer to the complainant in respect of the failure and may increase any award payable to the complainant by no more than 25%.””

This new clause would create a duty on employers to investigate whistleblowing concerns, to establish internal channels for reporting and managing whistleblower disclosures, and enable tribunal claims with respect to contravention of those duties.

New clause 73—Hourly statutory sick pay—

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

(2) After section 151 (Employer’s liability), insert—

“151A Hourly statutory sick pay

(1) Where an employee has an hour of incapacity for work in relation to his contract of service with an employer, that employer shall, if the conditions set out in sections 153 and 154 are satisfied, be liable to make him, in accordance with the following provisions of this Part of this Act, a payment (to be known as “hourly statutory sick pay”) in respect of that hour.

(2) For the purposes of this section an hour of incapacity for work in relation to a contract of service means an hour during which the employee concerned is, or is deemed in accordance with regulations to be, incapable by reason of some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement of doing work which he can reasonably be expected to do under that contract.

(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations make any amendment to this Part that is necessary to enable the operation of a system of hourly statutory sick pay.””

This new clause introduces a new defined term “hourly statutory sick pay”, enabling pro rata payment of statutory sick pay by the hour. This will give employers greater flexibility in SSP payment, which can currently only be paid in whole days.

New clause 74—Non-disclosure agreements: harassment—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make changes by regulation to ensure that an agreement to which this section applies is void insofar as it purports to preclude the worker from making a relevant disclosure.

(2) This section applies to any agreement between a worker and the worker's employer (whether a worker’s contract or not), including—

(a) any proceedings for breach of contract;

(b) a non-disclosure agreement; or

(c) a non-disparagement agreement.

(3) Regulations made under this section―

(a) must not prevent a worker from being granted confidentiality protections associated with a settlement agreement, if those protections are made at the worker’s request; and

(b) must replicate or enhance the protections offered to workers by section 1 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, with respect to non-disclosure agreements and harassment, but must apply those protections to all workers.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

(a) “relevant disclosure” means any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, shows that harassment has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed, by a fellow worker or a client of the employer;

(b) “harassment” means any act of harassment as defined by section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to void any non-disclosure agreement insofar as it prevents the worker from making a disclosure about harassment (including sexual harassment), with relevant exceptions at the worker’s request.

New clause 75—Statutory sick pay: consultation on rate—

“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult on the rate of Statutory Sick Pay.

(2) A consultation under subsection (1) must conclude within six months of its commencement.

(3) A consultation under subsection (1) must consider―

(a) the rate at which Statutory Sick Pay should be set to ensure that employees are able to—

(i) cover their basic needs without falling into negative budgets;

(ii) recover from an illness; and

(iii) remain in work while managing their disability or long-term health condition;

(b) how best to phase in increases to Statutory Sick Pay over a five year period;

(c) the support that the Government could offer small businesses for longer-term absences or to improve the health of their workforce; and

(d) the support that the Government could offer to encourage better insurance protections for businesses to manage staff absences.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to hold a consultation on the rate of Statutory Sick Pay.

New clause 76—Statutory sick pay: gradual increases—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, commence a five year period of annual increases to the rate of Statutory Sick Pay.

(2) At the end of the five year period under subsection (1), the rate of Statutory Sick Pay must be no less than 80% of the National Living Wage.

(3) The annual increases under subsection (1) must be incremental, with each annual increase representing at least 10% of the overall increase required over the five year period.”

This new clause would gradually increase the rate of Statutory Sick Pay over the next five years, taking it to at least 80% of rate of the National Living Wage.

New clause 78—Access to employment rights: workers on temporary visas—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, commission an independent report on the extent to which workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law.

(2) In commissioning the report, the Secretary of State must arrange for the report to meet the requirements set out in subsections (3) to (5).

(3) The report must examine the extent to which workers on temporary visas feel unable to assert their employment rights because they are dependent on their employers to sponsor their visas.

(4) The report must make recommendations to the Secretary of State about how the Secretary of State can support workers on temporary visas in the assertion of their employment rights.

(5) The report must be completed within three months of being commissioned.

(6) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is practicable after receipt of the report, publish the report and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.

(7) The Secretary of State must, within three months of receipt of the report—

(a) respond to the recommendations in the report, and

(b) publish the response and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission a report ensuring that workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law in order to prevent abusive practices.

New clause 79—Duty to prevent and monitor sexual harassment in the workplace—

“(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—

“(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from sexual harassment; and

(g) the monitoring of sexual harassment in the workplace.”

This new clause would require the Health and Safety Executive to prevent and monitor sexual harassment in the workplace.

New clause 80—Single status of worker: review—

“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of Government policy on the single status of worker, and how it affects the ability to access the rights provided for by this Act.

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

This new clause calls on the Secretary of State to review the Government’s policy on the single status of workers within 6 months of this section coming into force.

New clause 81—Modern slavery in UK workplaces: review—

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

(a) the extent to which employees in UK workplaces are subject to modern slavery as a result of the actions of their employer, and

(b) the effectiveness of employment rights in preventing modern slavery in UK workplaces.

(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 conduct a review of modern slavery to ensure that the employment rights granted in the Act are effective in preventing modern slavery.

New clause 83—Impact on employment tribunals: sections 1 to 6—

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

(a) the impact of sections 1 to 6 on the operation of employment tribunals, and

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

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

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

New clause 84—Consultation and assessment on the right to request flexible working—

“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of the right to request flexible working provided for in section 7 of this Act.

(2) As part of the assessment, the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation on the proposed right to request flexible working.

(3) The assessment must—

(a) include labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis;

(b) examine the impact of the measures in section 7 on employment, wages and economic output;

(c) consider the likelihood of the costs of flexible working measures being passed on to employees through lower wages; and

(d) examine the likely effect of the right to request flexible working on—

(i) productivity

(ii) wage growth

(iii) equality of opportunity

(iv) job security

(v) economic activity, and

(vi) employment.

(4) A report setting out the findings of the assessment must be laid before each House of Parliament no sooner than 18 weeks after the consultation has been initiated.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clause 7.

New clause 85—Employer duties on harassment: impact assessment—

“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of section 18 of this Act on employers.

(2) The assessment must—

(a) report on the extent to which the prevalence of third-party harassment makes the case for the measures in section 18;

(b) include an assessment of the impact of section 18 on free speech;

(c) include an assessment of the likely costs to employers of section 18;

(d) include—

(i) an assessment of which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment through no fault of the employer, and

(ii) proposals for mitigations that can be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions in Clauses 18.

New clause 86—Unfair dismissal: impact assessment—

“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of section 21 and Schedule 2 of this Act on—

(a) employers, and

(b) the economy.

(2) The assessment must—

(a) include labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis;

(b) examine the impact of the measures in section 21 and Schedule 2 of this Act on employment, wages and economic output;

(c) consider the likelihood the dismissal measures leading to lower employment, and greater use of temporary contracts; and

(d) examine the likely effect of section 21 and Schedule 2 of this Act on—

(i) productivity

(ii) wage growth

(iii) equality of opportunity

(iv) job security

(v) economic activity, and

(vi) employment, including levels of youth employment.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clause 21 and Schedule 2.

New clause 87—Regulations under Part 1 and 2—

“When making regulations under Parts 1 and 2 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 new clause would require the Secretary of State, when making regulations under Part 1 and 2 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 91—Use of positive action in the workplace—

“(1) In this section—

(a) “P” is a public sector worker who reasonably thinks that the application by P’s employer, in relation to P’s employment or a working practice, of sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010 has caused or risks causing detriment to P; and

(b) “R” is P’s public sector employer; and

(c) P reasonably thinks that R is responsible for the detriment in subsection (1)(a).

(2) A Minister of the Crown must by regulations make provision for—

(a) forms through which P may anonymously question R on any matter relevant to subsection (1);

(b) forms through which R may answer questions by P; and

(c) such forms to be made publicly available.

(3) Within six months of the passing of this Act and every three months thereafter, R must publish a report to set out―

(a) the number of forms received under subsection (2), and

(b) a summary of the nature of the complaints to which they relate.

(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations require R to report on the use of sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act.

(5) This section does not apply to activities undertaken by R under paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 of the Equality Act.”

New clause 92—Rolled-up holiday pay for irregular hours workers and part-year workers—

“In the Working Time Regulations 1998, omit regulation 16A (Rolled-up holiday pay for irregular hours workers and part-year workers).”

This new clause would remove regulation 16A from the Working Time Regulations, which gives employers the ability to pay irregular hours workers and part-year workers their holiday pay by way of ‘rolled-up pay’, i.e. an uplift to their weekly or monthly pay.

New clause 93—Working Time Regulations 1998: records—

“In Regulation 9 (Records) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, omit paragraphs (2) and (3) and substitute—

“(2) The records referred to in paragraph (1)(a) must be created, maintained and kept in such manner and format as the Secretary of State may prescribe.””

This new clause would remove the discretion given to employers in 2023 to keep records in any form they choose (or not at all) in relation to each worker’s daily working hours.

New clause 94—Annual report on application of changes to employment rights to seafarers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament an annual report on the extent to which the relevant employment rights changes made by this Act apply to seafarers.

(2) Each annual report must describe—

(a) so far as appropriate, whether each relevant employment rights change applies or is intended to apply at the time of its commencement to seafarers on a relevant service within the meaning given by section 1 of the Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023;

(b) any proposals by the Secretary of State to apply any relevant employment rights change to such seafarers subsequent to commencement;

(c) the extent to which the application of changes to employment rights to seafarers is affected by any change or prospective change to the Maritime Labour Convention, adopted on 23 February 2006 by the International Labour Organisation.

(3) The first annual report under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament within three months of the passing of this Act.

(4) In this section, “relevant employment rights changes made by this Act” means the provisions of—

(a) Part 1 of this Act,

(b) sections 25, 28 and 29.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the application of employment rights provisions to seafarers.

New clause 95—Annual report on provisions relating to seafarers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament an annual report on the extent to which the provisions of sections 26, 47 and 48 of, and Schedule 3 to, this Act improve the working conditions and employment rights of seafarers.

(2) The first annual report under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament within three months of the passing of this Act.”

New clause 97—Rights of employer and employee to minimum notice—

“(1) Section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Rights of employer and employee to minimum notice) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) omit “for one month or more”;

(b) for both instances of “one week’s notice”, substitute “one month’s notice”; and

(c) for “twelve weeks’ notice”, substitute “twelve months’ notice”.”

This new clause would change the minimum notice period for termination of contract to a day one right, and would increase the notice period to: one month for an employee who has been employed for up to twelve years; and twelve months for an employee who has been employed for over twelve years.

New clause 101—Duty to establish a regulatory body for foster carers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make a report to Parliament on progress made to date on establishing a regulatory body for the employment rights and remuneration of foster carers.

(2) Any regulatory body established pursuant to the Secretary of State’s activities under subsection (1) must include—

(a) representatives of employers and foster care workers;

(b) independent members; and

(c) representatives of individuals with lived experience in foster care; and

(3) A regulatory body established pursuant to subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the establishment of a central registration system for foster carers;

(b) the expansion of employment rights for foster carers;

(c) remuneration rates for foster caring; and

(d) any other matters which the Secretary of State deems appropriate.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory body for foster carers for the purposes of consideration the remuneration and the expansion of employment rights for foster carers.

New clause 102—Statutory sick pay: report to Parliament—

“(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that any regulations made under section 157 (rates of payment) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 do not result in an employee receiving a lower rate of statutory sick pay than the employee would have received prior to the passing of this Act.

(2) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must report to Parliament on how the prescribed percentage of weekly earnings specified in section 9 of this Act will ensure that all employees receive an increase to their eligible rate of statutory sick pay.”

This new clause would ensure that the Bill’s changes to statutory sick pay do not result in any employees receiving a reduced rate, compared with current rates.

New clause 105—Substitution clauses: duties of company directors—

“(1) The director of a relevant company has a duty to ensure that the company keeps a register of all dependent contractors.

(2) The director must supply details of the register under subsection (1) with the Secretary of State within 12 months of the passing of this Act and every 12 months thereafter, subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about what information must be supplied in the register of dependant contractors.

(4) For the purposes of this section―

(a) a “relevant company” is a company that―

(i) provides services in relation to postal and courier activities, food and beverage service activities or taxi operation;

(ii) has more than 250 employees in the UK and overseas; and

(iii) includes provision within the company’s contracts with contractors which allow the contractor to send another qualified person (a "substitute") to complete the work in the contractor’s place if the contractor is unable to complete the work;

(b) a “director” includes any person occupying the position of director, by whatever name called; and

(c) “dependent contractor” means a person who—

(i) performs work or services for the relevant company;

(ii) is paid according to tasks performed rather than hours of work;

(iii) depends partially or primarily on the relevant company for employment and income;

(iv) is not required to perform services for the relevant company; and

(v) is not specified as an employee or worker for the relevant company within a statement of employment particulars or a contract of employment.”

This new clause requires certain company directors to keep a register of the people carrying out work for the company under so-called ‘substitution clauses’, which allow companies to permit their suppliers – including some delivery couriers – to appoint a substitute to supply services on their behalf.

Amendment 275, in clause 1, page 2, line 30, leave out from “period” to the end of line 32.

This amendment aims to take out reference to low hours.

Amendment 276, page 2, leave out lines 36 and 37.

This amendment is linked to amendment 275.

Government amendment 8.

Amendment 277, page 3, line 20 leave out “with the specified day” and insert “12 weeks after the commencement”.

This amendment proposes that the reference period for offering guaranteed hours to workers previously on a zero-hours contract be 12 weeks.

Government amendment 9.

Amendment 264, page 3, line 39, at end insert—

“(11) In this section an agency worker is a qualifying worker”.

Government amendments 10 to 15.

Amendment 265, page 5, line 4, leave out from “event” to the end of line 7.

Government amendment 16.

Amendment 266, page 5, line 14, leave out from “contract” to “, and” in line 15.

Government amendment 17.

Amendment 267, page 5, line 25, leave out lines 25 to 42.

Government amendment 18.

Amendment 328, page 8, leave out lines 10 and 11.

Amendment 269, page 11, line 24, at end insert—

“(c) the length of the response period which shall not be less than one week.”

Government amendments 19 to 28.

Amendment 278, in clause 2, page 16, line 22, leave out “a specified amount of time” and insert “2 weeks and ideally one month”.

This amendment, and amendments 279 to 281, aim to set time limits for workers to be given notice of shifts, when shifts are moved and when compensation should be paid.

Government amendment 29.

Amendment 279, page 17, line 16, leave out “a specified amount of time” and insert “2 weeks and ideally one month”.

This amendment is linked to amendment 278.

Government amendments 30 to 37.

Amendment 280, in clause 3, page 21, line 29, at end insert “provided that the notice is at least 10 days in advance of the original planned shift”.

This amendment is linked to amendment 278.

Amendment 281, page 21, line 39, leave out “a specified amount of time” and insert “a week”.

This amendment is linked to amendment 278.

Government amendments 38 to 50 and 79.

Amendment 7, in clause 9, page 29, leave out from line 34 to line 3 on page 30 and insert—

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

(a) the National Living Wage; or

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

(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), the “National Living Wage” is defined in accordance with regulation 4 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015.”

This amendment brings the rate of Statutory Sick Pay into line with the National Living Wage.

Amendment 272, page 29, leave out from line 34 to line 3 on page 30 and insert—

“The weekly rate of statutory sick pay that an employer must pay to an employee is the higher of—

(a) £116.75; and

(b) 65% of the employee’s normal weekly earnings.”

This amendment would make the rate of statutory sick pay 65% of an employee’s earnings or £116.75 a week, whichever is higher.

Government amendments 80 to 85.

Amendment 1, in clause 16, page 33, line 8, at end insert—

“( ) after subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) The conditions specified under subsection (2) must be framed so as to ensure that a “bereaved person” includes those bereaved by pregnancy loss.

(2B) In subsection (2A) “pregnancy loss” includes—

(a) a pregnancy that that ends as a result of—

(i) a miscarriage;

(ii) an ectopic pregnancy;

(iii) a molar pregnancy;

(iv) a medical termination conducted in accordance with section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967;

(b) an unsuccessful attempt at in vitro fertilisation due to embryo transfer loss.””

This amendment requires that any regulations made under section 80EA of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (as amended by the Bill) must include conditions framed by reference to those bereaved by pregnancy loss.

Amendment 2, page 33, line 11, at end insert—

“( ) in subsection (5), after “child” insert “or as a result of pregnancy loss.”

This amendment amends section 80EA(5) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to ensure that the two week leave period is made available to those bereaved as a result of pregnancy loss.

Amendment 3, page 34, line 8, at end insert—

“( ) In section 171ZZ6 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (entitlement to statutory pregnancy loss pay), after subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) The conditions specified under subsection (2) must be framed so as to ensure that a “bereaved parent” includes those bereaved by pregnancy loss.

(3B) In subsection (3A) “pregnancy loss” includes—

(a) a pregnancy that that ends as a result of—

(i) a miscarriage;

(ii) an ectopic pregnancy;

(iii) a molar pregnancy;

(iv) a medical termination conducted in accordance with section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967;

(b) an unsuccessful attempt at in vitro fertilisation due to embryo transfer loss.””

This amendment amends the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 to ensure that the entitlement to statutory pregnancy loss pay extends to those bereaved by pregnancy loss.

Amendment 288, page 34, line 32, leave out clause 18.

Amendment 289, in clause 18, page 35, line 7, at end insert—

“(1D) Subsection (1A) does not apply to the hospitality sector or to sports venues.”

This amendment would exclude hospitality providers and sports venues from the Bill’s duties for employers not to permit harassment of their employees.

Amendment 287, page 36, line 10, leave out clause 21.

Government amendments 86 to 89.

Amendment 329, in clause 24, page 37, line 30, at end insert―

“(3A) For the purposes of this section, any provision in an agreement (whether a contract of employment or not) is void in so far as it purports to confer on the employer or a third party the power to vary, unilaterally, the terms of the agreement.”

This amendment would render void, for the purposes of a case of unfair dismissal in relation to failing to agree to a variation of contract, any provision enabling an employer to vary a contract unilaterally.

Government amendment 90.

Amendment 316, in clause 25, page 39, line 8, omit subsection (2)(a) and insert—

“(a) in subsection (1), omit “at one establishment” and insert “or more than 10% of the employer’s employees, whichever is the smaller number,”;”

This amendment would require an employer to consult with representatives of affected employees when proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees or at least 10% of their employees, whichever is the smaller number.

Amendment 317, page 39, line 9, at end insert—

“(2A) After section 189 (complaint and protective award), insert—

“189A Failure to comply with section 188 or 188A

Where the employer has failed to comply with the requirements under section 188 or section 188A, any proposal to dismiss employees as redundant shall be void and of no effect.””

This amendment would increase the sanction for failing to consult with representatives of affected employees by rendering the dismissal ineffective.

Government amendment 91.

Amendment 318, page 39, line 15, at end insert—

“(3A) In section 189(4), omit “but shall not exceed 90 days””

This amendment would remove the cap on the length of a protected period for which an employer is ordered to pay remuneration in protective awards.

Government amendments 92 to 97.

Amendment 302, in clause 26, page 40, line 26, leave out “120” and insert “52”.

This amendment applies the provisions for collective redundancy notices for ships’ crew to ships providing a service entering a harbour in Great Britain on at least 52 occasions in the relevant period.

Amendment 303, page 40, line 31, leave out “10” and insert “5”.

Amendment 273, in clause 28, page 46, line 28 at end insert―

“(ii) a public authority specified in Part 3 of Schedule 19,”.

This amendment would apply this section to public authorities in Scotland.

Amendment 4, page 47, line 3, at end insert—

“(c) supporting employees who provide or arrange care for a dependant with a long-term care need, as defined by the Carer’s Leave Act 2023.”

Government amendment 98.

Amendment 330, in clause 31, page 49, line 11, leave out from "Body" to the end of subsection (2)(b) and insert—

“that person being selected by agreement between officials of the trade unions and employers’ representatives who are members of the Negotiating Body and, in the event of a failure to agree chosen by the Central Arbitration Committee.”

This amendment would require the Chair of the Negotiating Body to be appointed by agreement between trade union and employers’ representatives or the Central Arbitration Committee rather than by regulations by the Secretary of State.

Government amendments 99 and 100.

Amendment 331, page 49, line 26, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and paragraph (b) and insert—

“equal numbers of persons nominated by—

(i) trade unions that represent the interests of social care workers; and

(ii) employers’ associations representing the interests of employers of social care workers.”

This amendment would require the regulations to establish the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body to provide for equal numbers of trade union representatives and employers’ representatives to be appointed to the Negotiating Body.

Government amendment 101.

Amendment 332, in clause 32, page 49, line 40, leave out from “are” to the end of paragraph (b) and insert—

“matters relating to or connected with matters in Section 178(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations No. 332, (Consolidation) Act 1992.”

This amendment would extend the remit of the negotiating body to the list of matters for collective bargaining set out in Section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

Government amendments 102 to 107.

Amendment 333, page 50, line 4, at end insert—

“(d) the training of social care workers;

(e) career progression of social care workers;

(f) a procedure for the resolution of disputes at employer, regional and national level which may refer a dispute to ACAS for conciliation and mediation and, if not then resolved, shall be entitled to refer the matter to the Central Arbitration Committee to resolve the dispute, the decision of the latter being binding;

(g) discipline and grievance procedures;

(h) any other matter agreed to be the subject of negotiation by the members of the Negotiating Body.”

This amendment would add additional matters to those within the Negotiating Body’s remit; namely, the training and career progression of social care workers, dispute resolution procedures and discipline and grievance procedures and other matters agreed by members of the Negotiating Body.

Government amendments 108 and 109.

Amendment 334, in clause 33, page 50, line 8, leave out from “means” to the end of subsection (1) and insert—

“an individual who, as paid work, provides social care for an adult, including an individual who, as paid work, supervises or manages individuals providing such care or is a director or similar officer of an organisation which provides such care.”

This amendment would bring the definition of social care worker in line with the definition of a “care worker” in Section 20(3) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

Government amendments 110 to 114.

Amendment 335, in clause 34, page 50, line 23, leave out subsections (1), (2) and (3) and insert—

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring the Negotiating Body, if it reaches an agreement about a matter within its remit, to submit the agreement to the Secretary of State.”

This amendment would remove almost all of Section 34 on the consideration of matters by the Negotiating Body, retaining the power in the regulations that agreements on matters by the Negotiating Body be referred to the Secretary of State.

Government amendments 115 to 126.

Amendment 336, in clause 35, page 51, line 22, leave out paragraphs (c) to (f).

This amendment removes the provisions about what happens where an agreement is referred back to the Negotiating Body in paragraphs (c) to (f) of Section 35(3).

Government amendments 127 to 129.

Amendment 337, page 51, line 36, leave out clause 36.

This amendment would remove Clause 36 on cases where the Negotiating Body is unable to reach an agreement about a matter

Government amendments 130 to 138.

Amendment 338, in clause 38, page 52, line 17, leave out from “remuneration” to the end of line 18 and insert—

“the worker’s remuneration is to be no less than that determined and paid in accordance with the agreement.”

This amendment relates to an agreement on a social care worker’s remuneration and is in line with sectoral collective bargaining by which a local agreement can be more but not less favourable than the national agreement.

Government amendments 139 and 140.

Amendment 339, page 52, line 25, leave out clause 39.

This amendment would remove Clause 39 on the power of the Secretary of State to deal with matters referred to the Negotiating Body.

Government amendments 141 to 153.

Amendment 340, page 55, line 16, leave out clause 45.

This amendment would remove Clause 45 which prevents agreements reached by the Negotiating Body being regarded as collective bargaining.

Government amendments 154 to 161.

Government new schedule 1—Agency workers: guaranteed hours and rights relating to shifts.

Government amendments 51 to 78 and 240.

Amendment 324, in schedule 2, page 127, line 14, at end insert—

“(1A) In section 98 of Part 10, in subsection (4)(b), at end insert “in the view of the employment tribunal”.”

This amendment would focus the determination of the question on whether a dismissal is fair or unfair on the judgment of the employment tribunal.

Amendment 325, page 127, line 14, at end insert—

“(1A) In section 98 of Part 10, in subsection (4), at end insert—

“(c) the tribunal shall take into account, in accordance with the rules of natural justice, whether or not there has been a fair investigation and a fair appeal.””

This amendment requires the employment tribunal to have regard to the rules of natural justice when determining whether or not a dismissal is fair.

Amendment 327, page 127, line 14, at end insert—

“(1A) In section 98, in subsection (1)(b) after “reason” insert “relating to the employee””

Amendment 5, page 127, line 37, leave out from “period” to the end of line 38 and insert—

“of not less than 3 months and not more than 9 months from the day on which the employee starts work.”

This amendment will ensure that the initial period of employment is between 3 and 9 months.

Amendment 326, page 127, line 38, at end insert—

“(4A) The initial period of employment specified in, or determined in accordance with the regulations shall in relation to a contract for a fixed or reasonably ascertainable term not be longer than ten percent of the duration of that term.”

Government amendment 241.

Amendment 319, page 129, line 29, at end insert—

“(5A) In section 139 (Redundancy), after subsection (1)(b) insert—

“(c) the fact that the requirements of that business—

(i) for employees with their existing contractual entitlements to carry out work of a particular kind, or

(ii) for employees with their existing contractual entitlements to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where the employee was employed by the employer,

have ceased or diminished.””

This amendment would provide for workers dismissed by a process of fire and rehire to reduce wages or other terms and conditions to be treated as redundant.

Amendment 320, page 129, line 29, at end insert—

“(5A) Omit section 155 (Qualifying period of employment).”

This amendment removes the qualifying period of two years of continuous employment for the right to a redundancy payment.

Amendment 321, page 129, line 29, at end insert—

“(5A) In section 162 (Amount of a redundancy payment), in subsection (2), for every reference to “week”, substitute “month”.”

This amendment would increase the calculation of the appropriate amount of redundancy pay for each specified period of employment.

Amendment 322, page 129, line 29, at end insert—

“(5A) In section 162 (Amount of a redundancy payment), omit subsection (3).”

This amendment would remove the 20-year cap on entitlement to a redundancy payment.

Amendment 323, page 129, line 29, at end insert—

“(5A) In section 162 (Amount of a redundancy payment), after subsection (3) insert—

“(4) For the purposes of this section, “year of employment” means “year of employment or part year of employment”.”

This amendment clarifies that, when redundancy pay is calculated, each part year worked is treated as a full year of employment.

Government amendments 242 and 243.

Amendment 343, in schedule 3, page 131, leave out lines 13 to 29.

This amendment would remove section 148B from Schedule 3 relating to matters within the remit of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.

Amendment 290, page 131, leave out from the beginning of line 14 to the end of line 29 and insert—

“(1) In the case of staff employed under section 148C, matters within the SSNB’s remit are limited to the establishment of a framework to which employers of school support staff must have regard when discharging their functions.

(2) A framework under subsection (1) must include information on—

(a) the remuneration of school support staff;

(b) the terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;

(c) the training of school support staff;

(d) career progression for school support staff; and

(e) related matters.”

(3) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(a) of section 148C, the matters within the SSSNB’s remit are matters relating to the following—

(a) the remuneration of school support staff;

(b) terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;

(c) the training of school support staff;

(d) career progression for school support staff.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, for the purposes of subsection 5—

(a) a payment or entitlement of a prescribed kind is, or is not, to be treated as remuneration;

(b) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;

(c) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to the training of school support staff;

(d) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to career progression for school support staff.”

This amendment would change the matters within the SSNB’s remit, limiting it to the creation of a framework to which school employers should have regard but do not need to follow.

Amendment 341, page 131, line 15, leave out from “are” to the end of line 19 and insert—

“matters relating to or connected with matters in Section 178(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.”

This amendment would extend the remit of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body to the list of matters for collective bargaining set out in Section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

Amendment 342, page 131, line 19, at end insert—

“(e) a procedure for the resolution of disputes at employer, regional and national level, including the power to refer a dispute to ACAS for conciliation and mediation and, if not then resolved, entitlement to refer the matter to the Central Arbitration Committee to resolve the dispute, the decision of the latter being binding;

(f) Any other matter agreed to be the subject of negotiation by the parties.”

This amendment would add a dispute resolution procedure to the matters within the remit of the the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.

Government amendments 244 and 245.

Amendment 344, page 139, leave out lines 3 to 34.

This amendment would remove section 148Q from Schedule 3 relating to guidance issued by the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.

Amendment 304, in schedule 4, page 144, line 22, at end insert—

“(ia) for “120 occasions” substitute “52 occasions”;”

This amendment applies the requirement for national minimum wage equivalence declarations to ships providing a service entering a harbour on more than 52 occasions during a relevant year.

Amendment 305, page 145, leave out from the beginning of line 35 to the end of line 3 on page 146 and insert “52 occasions”.

This amendment applies the requirement for remuneration declarations to ships providing a service entering a harbour on more than 52 occasions during a relevant year.

Amendment 306, page 149, leave out lines 15 to 18 and insert “52 occasions”.

This amendment applies the requirement for safe working declarations to ships providing a service entering a harbour on more than 52 occasions during a relevant year.

Amendment 307, page 150, line 26, at end insert— \p UNKNOWN: 4H Regulations relating to other working conditions

(1) Regulations may specify conditions relating to other working conditions of seafarers who carry out work relating to the provision of a relevant service, including conditions about the provision of—

(a) sick pay,

(b) holiday pay

(c) pensions,

(d) training on matters other than those specified in section 4E(5).

(2) In this Act, regulations under subsection (1) are referred to as “regulations relating to other working conditions”.

(3) Regulations relating to other working conditions may impose requirements on the operator of a relevant service.

(4) Regulations relating to other working conditions may apply to—

(a) all relevant services, or

(b) one or more relevant services of a specified description.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (5)(b), a service may be described by reference to (among other things) the route operated by the service. \p UNKNOWN: 4I Request for declaration relating to other working conditions

(1) Subsection (2) applies where a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service to which regulations relating to other working conditions apply will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least 52 occasions during a relevant year (see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”).

(2) The harbour authority must, within such period as is determined by regulations under this subsection, request that the operator of the service provide the authority with a declaration relating to other working conditions in respect of the service for the relevant year.

(3) The duty under subsection (2) is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 16(1)(a).

(4) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—

(a) in England and Wales, to a fine, or

(b) in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. \p UNKNOWN: (1) A declaration relating to other working conditions in respect of a service for a relevant year is a declaration within any of subsections (2) to (5).

(2) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided before the beginning of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the relevant working conditions will be met in relation to the service in the relevant year.

(3) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that the relevant working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year.

(4) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that—

(a) the relevant working conditions have been met in relation to the service in so much of the relevant year as has already occurred, and

(b) the relevant working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year.

(5) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided after the end of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the relevant working conditions were met in relation to the service in the relevant year.

(6) For the purposes of this section the relevant working conditions are met in relation to a service at a particular time if at that time the service is operated in compliance with regulations under section 4H(1) that apply to the service.

(7) References in subsection (6) to the operation of a service  include references to its operation outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.”

This amendment inserts an additional power to make regulations and matching declaration requirements for a broader range of working conditions of seafarers.

Amendment 308, page 151, line 17, at end insert—

“(iv) section 4J(4) or (5),”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.

Amendment 309, page 151, line 39, at end insert—

“(iv) within subsection (3) of section 4J (and not also within subsection (4) of that section),”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.

Amendment 310, page 152, line 7, leave out “or safe working declaration” and insert—

“safe working declaration or declaration relating to other working conditions”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.

Amendment 311, page 152, line 12, leave out “or safe working declaration” and insert “safe working declaration or declaration relating to other working conditions”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.

Amendment 312, page 152, line 30, at end insert—

“(iii) information relating to matters that are the subject of regulations relating to other working conditions.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.

Amendment 313, page 153, line 27, at end insert “or

“(d) a declaration relating to other working conditions;

“declaration relating to other working conditions” has the meaning given by section 4J(1);”.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.

Amendment 314, page 153, line 31, at end insert—

“regulations relating to other working conditions has the meaning given by section 4H(2);”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 307.

New clause 96—Annual report on application of changes in Parts 4 and 5 to seafarers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament an annual report extent to which the changes provided for in Parts 4 and 5 of this Act (“the relevant changes”) apply to seafarers.

(2) Each annual report must describe—

(a) so far as appropriate, whether each relevant change applies or is intended to apply at the time of its commencement to seafarers on a relevant service within the meaning given by section 1 of the Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023;

(b) any proposals by the Secretary of State to apply any relevant change to such seafarers subsequent to commencement;

(c) the extent to which the application of the relevant changes to seafarers is affected by any change or prospective change to the Maritime Labour Convention, adopted on 23 February 2006 by the International Labour Organisation.

(3) The first annual report under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament within three months of the passing of this Act.”

Government amendments 227 to 235.

Amendment 6, in clause 129, page 119, line 25, at end insert—

“(aa) section [Working Time Council];”.

This amendment is consequential on NC25.

Amendment 301, page 120, line 11, at end insert—

“(q) section [Annual report on application of changes to employment rights to seafarers];

(r) section [Annual report on provisions relating to seafarers]

(s) section [Annual report on application of changes in Parts 4 and 5 to seafarers]”

This amendment provides for the coming into force of NC94, NC95 and NC96 two months after the passing of the Act.

Amendment 283, page 120, line 13, at end insert—

“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force sections 1 to 6 of this Act until the findings of the report under section [Impact on employment tribunals: sections 1 to 6] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”

This amendment would prevent the Bill’s provisions on zero hours workers coming into force until the review of the impact on the employment tribunals of the Bill’s provisions on zero hours workers had been assessed and approved by Parliament.

Amendment 284, page 120, line 13, at end insert—

“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force section 7 of this Act until the findings of the report under section [Consultation and assessment on the right to request flexible working] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”

Amendment 285, page 120, line 13, at end insert—

“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force section 18 of this Act until the findings of the report under section [Employer duties on harassment: impact assessment] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”

Amendment 286, page 120, line 13, at end insert—

“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force section 21 and Schedule 2 of this Act until the findings of the report under section [Unfair dismissal: impact assessment] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”

Government amendments 246, 248 and 250.

Amendment 274, in schedule 10, page 190, line 36, leave out paragraph 17 and insert—

“(17) In section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination etc at work), in subsection (1)(a)―

(a) for “3” substitute “6”; and

(b) at end insert―

“(ab) for cases involving sexual harassment, the period of 12 months starting with the date of the act to which the complaint relates, or””.

This amendment would increase to 12 months the time limit for bringing employment tribunal claims relating to sexual harassment.

Government amendments 262 and 263. \p Justin Madders: I start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I have done throughout the passage of the Bill. I thank Members in all parts of the House for their valuable contributions throughout the passage of the Bill to date, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) for her assistance in taking the Bill through Committee, and the other members of the Public Bill Committee for providing substantial debate and scrutiny.

The Government’s plan to make work pay is a core part of our mission to grow the economy, raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all. It will tackle the low pay, poor working conditions and poor job security that have been holding our economy back. The Bill is the first phase of delivering our plan to make work pay, supporting employers, workers and unions by raising the minimum floor of employment rights, raising living standards across the country and levelling the playing field for those businesses that are engaged in good practice.

This is a landmark Bill that, once implemented, will represent the biggest upgrade in employment rights for a generation. It is therefore important that we get the detail right. The amendments being put forward by the Government directly demonstrate our commitment to full and comprehensive consultation on the detail of the plan to make work pay. On 4 March, we published five consultation responses relating to key areas of the Bill. That package represents the first phase of formal public consultations on how best to put our plans into practice. We have also undertaken extensive engagement with more than 150 stakeholder organisations, in addition to the formal consultations.

We have made great efforts to listen to the range of views from businesses, trade unions, representative organisations, civil society and others. The insights gained have been invaluable in informing the amendments to ensure the Bill works in practice, both for workers and for businesses of all sizes across the whole country. The amendments will strengthen the Bill, providing further detail and clarity on measures and ensuring such measures can be implemented in a straightforward way.

I turn to the detail of the amendments. The Government have tabled a range of amendments in relation to zero-hours measures. These amendments will help ensure that the zero-hours contract reforms work for workers and employers, supporting a culture where secure work and prosperous growth go hand in hand. Amendments in relation to clause 1, covering the right to guaranteed hours, will clarify requirements where a worker works for an employer under more than one contract at the same time; clarify that under a guaranteed hours offer, if it is accepted, work must be provided by the employer for the hours set out and that those hours must be worked by the worker; and enable a worker to take a case to an employment tribunal on the ground that an employer deliberately structured the worker’s hours or offered work in such a way as to make a reduced guaranteed hours offer or to avoid having to make an offer at all. \p Edward Leigh: Given the urgent necessity to promote growth, surely the acid test of a Bill such as this is whether it will actually make it more attractive for entrepreneurs to create jobs. What is the answer? \p Justin Madders: The answer is in the Department’s press release, which cites Simon Deakin, professor of law at the University of Cambridge, no less. He has said:

“The consensus on the economic impacts of labour laws is that, far from being harmful to growth, they contribute positively to productivity. Labour laws also help ensure that growth is more inclusive and that gains are distributed more widely across society.”

I am sure that the right hon. Member wants to see that happen.

Amendments in relation to the rights in clauses 2 and 3 to reasonable notice of shifts and payment for short-notice cancellation, curtailment and movement of shifts will ensure that the rights work appropriately for workers whose contracts specify the timing of at least some of their shifts; provide that a worker is entitled to a payment from their employer only for a shift cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice if they reasonably believed they would be needed to work the shift; and allow employers to disclose personal information about a worker in notices of exceptions, where appropriate and in accordance with data protection law, and ensure that the usual burden of proof applies where it is alleged that such a notice is untrue. \p Liam Byrne: The Minister will have seen the appalling evidence that the Business and Trade Committee took from McDonald’s, where the BBC investigation exposed allegations from hundreds of young workers who were suffering harassment, and even allegations from one worker of managers soliciting them for sex in return for scheduling shifts. The tightening up that he proposes is very welcome. When does he think he will set out the detail—[Interruption.] When will he set out the detail of, for example, the period of time that someone must work before being offered a zero-hours contract? \p Justin Madders: I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his question. We are aiming to work on this once the Bill has passed this stage, and consultation will take place in due course. I have to say that the chuntering from those on the Conservative Benches really shows how they fail to appreciate the power imbalance that there is in some workplaces and the exploitation and harassment that arise from that.

Our measures on guaranteed hours, reasonable notice of shifts, and payment for short-notice cancellations seek to ensure that workers, often in fragmented sectors with little voice of their own, do not bear all the risk of uncertain demand. However, we recognise that there are cases where unions and employers, working together, may want to agree more tailored rights than the provisions allow, which would benefit both the workers and the employer given the unique context of that particular sector. Unions, businesses and trade associations have made a case for that flexibility in their meetings with us. We want to allow for that, while also providing a baseline for sectors where unionisation is uncommon or agreement cannot be reached. New clause 33 and associated amendments will allow employers and unions to collectively agree to modify or opt out of the zero-hours contract measures.

Like the other workers covered by this part of the Bill, agency workers deserve a baseline of security and access to a contract that reflects their regular hours. Many agency workers have a preference for guaranteed hours, according to survey evidence. We know that 55% of agency workers requested a permanent contract with their hirer between January 2019 and September 2020, according to the Department for Business and Trade’s agency worker survey. We are keen not to see a wholesale shift from directly engaged workers to agency workers as a way for employers to avoid the zero-hours provisions in the Bill.

New clause 32, new schedule 1 and associated amendments will narrow the broad power currently in the Bill and instead include provisions for similar rights to be extended to agency workers. Hirers, agencies and agency workers can then be clear where responsibilities will rest in relation to the new rights. These amendments reflect the call for clarity from stakeholders in their response to the Government’s public consultation on this issue. Given the important role that agency work plays in businesses and public services, we recognise the need to work with the recruitment sector, employers and trade unions to design detailed provisions for regulations that work—that is, regulations that achieve the policy objective of extending rights to agency workers without unintended consequences for employment agencies and hirers—and we will work on that in due course.

The Government have also tabled amendments in relation to dismissal and redundancy practices. This Bill will help employers to raise standards in relation to these practices, so that the vast majority of businesses that do the right thing by their workers will no longer be undercut by those with low standards. \p Ashley Fox: I had the good fortune to serve with the Minister for 21 sessions in Committee, and at the end of that we had a Bill 192 pages long. We now have 270 pages of amendments, most of which come from the Government. Why are they tabling so many amendments and giving them just two days’ scrutiny? Are these just more union demands? \p Justin Madders: I have literally just explained how we have been consulting with businesses and trade unions and put down amendments as a result. Of course, if the hon. Member is concerned about the length of the amendment paper, he can withdraw his own amendment, which we will no doubt be debating later on.

We are tabling some technical amendments to clause 21 on unfair dismissal that will update cross-references in other legislation to “the sum”, which is the existing cap on the compensation that can be awarded by an employment tribunal in most unfair dismissal cases.

It is the Government’s intention to end the unscrupulous use of fire and rehire. We are proposing technical amendments that allow the clause to work as intended to provide those protections. They ensure that, once the provisions of the Bill that make unfair dismissal a day one right come into force, the automatic unfair dismissal protections from unscrupulous fire and rehire practices will apply once the employee starts work. This brings the provision in line with other changes to unfair dismissal. These amendments also make it clear that the person will be protected from fire and rehire when they are dismissed and then rehired to do exactly the same job as they were doing previously, but on worse conditions.

Clause 25 will modernise the collective redundancy framework to ensure that it works for employees and employers alike. We have listened to feedback from business on the clause as introduced, which required consultation whenever 20 or more redundancies were proposed to be made across an employer’s organisation. Businesses told us that this would have put them in a constant state of consultation, so the changes proposed would ensure that this clause extends protections for employees while limiting burdens for employers.

The amendment means that collective redundancy obligations will be triggered where 20 or more redundancies are proposed at one establishment, in line with the existing law, or the number of proposed redundancies across the organisation meets a certain threshold. The Government will set this threshold out in due course via secondary legislation. This will happen after we have consulted, ensuring that it balances the needs of a growing business with the interests of employees. This could be a proportion of employees in a business, a suitable number of employees across a business, or some other threshold proposed through detailed consultation. Employers will also be required to notify the Government of redundancies that meet the threshold set in secondary legislation.

The Government’s intention is to ensure that it is more difficult for a small and unscrupulous minority of employers to ignore their collective redundancy obligations, as we have seen in recent years. New clause 34 will therefore double the protective award an employment tribunal can make from 90 to 180 days. We consulted on this and other matters from October to December 2024, and after listening carefully to a range of responses from businesses and employee representatives, we have concluded that the maximum period of the protective award an employment tribunal can make should be raised from 90 to 180 days. This is on top of changes that the Government have already made. From 20 January this year, employment tribunals have had the ability to uplift the protective award by up to 25% where an employer unreasonably failed to follow the code of practice on dismissal and re-engagement.

We recognise that responsible employers up and down the country already go further than their current obligations to collectively consult and will continue to do so. They recognise that collective consultation with their workforce can be valuable in finding solutions to the challenges that businesses face. We will publish a new code of practice to guide employers on their collective consultation obligations and promote the way good employers are working with their employees to arrive at mutually beneficial outcomes, so that all businesses are required to do the same.

The Government are also tabling amendments in relation to the Bill’s provisions on flexible working and dismissal during pregnancy. The Bill will increase the baseline set of rights for employees with parental responsibilities, enabling more working parents to get on at work and achieve a better work-life balance, whether they are raising children or looking after a loved one with a long-term health condition. Businesses will gain too, where this boosts workforce participation and helps employers to fill vacancies. These amendments will ensure that these provisions work as intended.

Clause 22 adds a new power to make provisions for non-redundancy dismissals during or after the protected period of pregnancy. The amendments will add supplementary provisions to this power. This is to ensure that the regulations can clearly set out details as part of defining the circumstances in which a pregnant woman can still be fairly dismissed. We will work with stakeholders on how to exercise these powers in regulations.

Amendment 79 to clause 7 proposes that the flexible working measures in the Bill be added to those provisions in scope of section 202 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That means that the security services—MI5,  GCHQ and the Secret Intelligence Service—will be exempt from disclosing any information related to flexible working requests if, in the opinion of a Minister, it would be contrary to national security. In those instances, the employer would not need to disclose the reasons for refusing a request.

The Government are moving amendments on statutory sick pay. In our “Plan to Make Work Pay”, we committed to establishing a fair earnings replacement for lower earners. We launched a public consultation that asked employers, employees, trade unions, stakeholders and members of the public what percentage rate that should be. After carefully considering the responses, the Government believe that an 80% rate strikes the right balance between providing financial security to employers that need it, including retaining an incentive to return to work when appropriate, while limiting additional cost to businesses.

Today’s amendments will set the rate of statutory sick pay at 80% of an employee’s normal weekly earnings or the flat rate—whichever is lower. Consequently, we will remove the previously proposed power for the Secretary of State to prescribe the percentage rate in secondary legislation. However, Ministers will still be able to use the existing power in section 157 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 to substitute a different provision as to the weekly flat rate of SSP, or the percentage rate of the employee’s weekly earnings, depending on which is lower. The amendments also amend the weekly flat rate to £118.75, as agreed by Parliament as part of its annual uprating exercise.

The Government are moving amendments that will add two new provisions into part 2 of the Bill. Analysis conducted by the Resolution Foundation found that 900,000 workers reported that they had no paid holiday despite that being a day one entitlement. New clause 35 will create a new duty in the Working Time Regulations 1998 for employers to retain records relating to holiday pay and annual leave for six years. \p Alec Shelbrooke: I apologise if the Minister has moved on a bit; I was just waiting to hear what he said. The Minister may correct me, but I do not believe the provisions around menstrual health—the menopause strategy and so on—include endometriosis, which can be crippling for people in the workplace. I may not have seen it in the Bill, but does the Minister have any plans to ensure that this becomes a protected area of sick leave? Endometriosis is devastating for many women, but at the moment, they are struggling to get this terrible disease recognised in the workplace. \p Justin Madders: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for raising this important point. It was touched on in Committee, but there are not any amendments dealing with that specific issue today.

Returning to holiday pay, where an employer does not keep adequate records, a Fair Work Agency enforcement officer may seek a labour market enforcement undertaking from the employer to ensure future compliance. Where the employer refuses to give a labour market enforcement undertaking, or fails to comply with one, the FWA enforcement officer may apply to the appropriate court for a labour market enforcement order. \p Chris Law: I apologise to the Minister because he has moved on, but I want to come back to the new level of statutory sick pay, which is £118.75 or 80% of an employee’s weekly earnings. An employee with weekly earnings of £125 would at present get £116.75, but under the new model, they would receive only £100. Is that correct? \p Justin Madders: Yes, but the hon. Member forgets the fact that we are removing the waiting days. With the provisions on the lower earnings limit going, 1.3 million people will be accessing statutory sick pay. We think that that is the right balance and that it will leave people in a much better position. Of course, it is something that we will always continue to review.

Moving on to umbrella companies, we are aware of non-compliance in this market, where umbrella companies can be responsible for denying employment rights to those who work through them. New clause 36 will allow for the regulation of umbrella companies and for enforcement by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, and subsequently the Fair Work Agency. The specific requirements on umbrella companies will be set out in the relevant regulations, which set out the minimum standards of conduct for employment agencies and employment businesses. We will consult before amending these regulations, and we are committed to working with the sector to ensure that future regulation works effectively for umbrella companies. The amendment marks an important step towards ensuring non-compliant umbrella companies are no longer able to deny workers the rights they are owed.

The Government are moving a range of amendments in relation to part 3 of the Bill, which covers the adult social care negotiating body and the school support staff negotiating body. On the SSSNB, the Government are moving two technical amendments to correct incorrect cross-references. The body is an important part of delivering both the Government’s “Plan to Make Work Pay” and our opportunity mission. The Government will today commit to consult in the summer on whether agency workers should be brought into scope of the SSSNB in future legislation to support those missions. \p Munira Wilson: Could the Minister clarify for the House whether the provisions on the school support staff negotiating body will provide a ceiling as well as a floor on pay, or will it just be a floor? There are certainly a number of school and academy leaders who say they want to pay above what the Government might recommend for support staff and that this may limit them from doing so. \p Justin Madders: That was debated in detail in Committee. My understanding is that there will be a floor, but there will not be a ceiling. If I am wrong about that, I will come back to that. We absolutely think that a floor is needed given some of the issues with low pay in this country.

Amendments to the adult social care negotiating body provisions will remove clause 42, thereby removing the power to make stand-alone enforcement provision in respect of the agreements reached by negotiating body. Enforcement of pay terms under agreements will instead be in the remit of the new Fair Work Agency under schedule 4. \p Wendy Morton: The Minister is rattling off a whole list of amendments that appear to have come after the legislation has gone through Committee. Does he not understand that that creates a massive burden on many businesses? Would it not be better to accept that the Government have gone a little overboard with the Bill and to start afresh with proper consultation with businesses at ground level? \p Justin Madders: The reason why we are putting so many amendments down is because we have been consulting and working with businesses, and that is why we have so much to say today. It was a Labour party commitment to launch an Employment Rights Bill within 100 days of taking office, and I am proud that we have delivered on that commitment and that we have this Bill here today. \p Desmond Swayne: In that consultation, how many small businesses expressed their support for the Bill? \p Justin Madders: I refer the right hon. Member to our departmental press release, where at least half a dozen business representatives and businesses have expressed support, and of course, there are many more businesses out there. Indeed, I visited one only recently that supported the Bill. \p Alison Griffiths: Would the Minister be kind enough to name one of those businesses on the press release? [Interruption.] He had better look at the press release just to check. \p Justin Madders: There is the Co-op—quite a big business—Richer Sounds, Centrica and the British Chambers of Commerce. These are not bit-part players at all, are they?

New clause 38 seeks to ensure that agency workers in the adult social care sector who do not have a “worker’s contract”, within the meaning of employment legislation, would nevertheless be able to bring a claim in the employment tribunals or in civil proceedings where a fair pay agreement has been breached. It does that by deeming a contract to exist for this purpose between the worker and the party that pays them. That will allow such workers to bring an unlawful deduction of wages claim or breach of contract claim for a breach of fair pay agreement terms.

New clause 37 and associated amendments will enable the Scottish and Welsh Ministers to establish their own separate negotiating bodies and associated framework, and to enable their negotiating bodies and the resulting agreements to cover social care workers in both adult and children’s social care. Care policy, funding and commissioning is delivered together in both Wales and Scotland. In England, the two workforces, and therefore the policies and delivery, are distinct. As such, it is right for Scotland and Wales to have the powers to set up negotiating bodies that can provide for their systems and workforces as they are now. These amendments and associated consequential amendments will allow the devolved Ministers to exercise certain powers in this chapter of the Bill with the consent of the Secretary of State, ensuring that the Secretary of State retains oversight of regulations relating to the reserved matters of employment and industrial relations.

Amendment 151 to clause 41 supplements the power to make regulations in relation to record keeping. It will enable those regulations to apply to section 49 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 in order to prevent employers from trying to contract out of their new record keeping obligations.

Before winding up, I will address some other amendments. I will take this opportunity to note the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). I am grateful to her Women and Equalities Committee for raising the important issue of miscarriage leave. The loss of a baby at any stage is an incredibly difficult and personal experience. The Committee’s inquiry demonstrated a clear gap in support for those who experience pregnancy loss and need time to recover and grieve. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for showing great courage in talking about her personal experience of that. I am grateful to her and to other hon. Members and campaigners for speaking about that issue—we have heard them. We fully accept the principle of bereavement leave for pregnancy loss, as addressed by the amendments. We look forward to further discussions with my hon. Friend and noble Lords as the Bill moves on to its stages in the other place. Bereavement is not an illness or a holiday, and it needs its own special category.

I will also take this opportunity to note the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Lowestoft (Jess Asato). The Government recognise the important points raised by both hon. Friends, and the serious impact that domestic abuse has on society, particularly on women and girls. We strongly encourage employers to support staff who experience domestic abuse. Many already do so through their membership of Employers’ Initiative for Domestic Abuse, which empowers employers to tackle domestic abuse. The Bill includes provision to make flexible working easier to request, which we know can be of great help to those experiencing domestic abuse, who may need to take time from work for appointments for domestic abuse-related matters.

The Government have committed to halving violence against women and girls in a decade. I have met the Minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is, as the House knows, a dedicated and respected campaigner on those issues. I have also spoken to several Members about their concerns, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), whose private Member’s Bill—the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill—has been given its First Reading; my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft; and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). Members shared many powerful stories from their constituents.

Every part of Government will need to contribute towards our ambition. \p Jerome Mayhew: When my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) asked a moment ago which businesses support the Bill, the Minister mentioned the British Chambers of Commerce. I have just visited its website, which states:

“The British Chambers of Commerce has used an evidence session on the Employment Rights Bill to highlight businesses’ serious concerns about the legislation and the speed and detail of consultation.”

Will the Minister withdraw his comment? \p Justin Madders: I am glad that the hon. Member has access to the internet. I direct him to the Department’s webpage, where he will see that Jane Gratton, deputy director of public policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, said:

“There is much here to welcome as sensible moves that will help ensure that employment works for both the business and the individual”.

That was in response to the amendments, so it is a much more up-to-date comment than the one the hon. Member mentioned.

Returning to the important issue of violence against women and girls, it is incumbent on every part of Government to work together to tackle violence against women and girls. That is not a task for a single Department or Minister. The Government are steadfastly committed to delivering our manifesto commitment to halving violence against women and girls, and we will publish a cross-Government strategy shortly. I intend to work with colleagues to ensure that our Department does its bit in that respect.

I also take this opportunity to note the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on non-disclosure agreements. I have met advocates on that issue and I understand the significant problems that they have highlighted in relation to the misuse of non-disclosure agreements in some circumstances. That important issue warrants further consideration. The Government are pressing ahead with plans to implement the provisions relevant to NDAs in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 and the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. We take NDA misuse seriously and will continue to look into it to see what we can do. \p Julian Smith: New clause 72, in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), focuses on whistleblowing and protected disclosures. That area has been so important in recent public scandals, including the Post Office-Fujitsu scandal and the Lucy Letby case. May I urge the Minister to consider that new clause? Imposing a duty on bigger employers to look at and investigate protected disclosures is a vital way of moving forward on that key legislation. \p Justin Madders: I have begun to consider it, as that legislation is now a quarter of a century old and needs looking at in the light of experiences in a number of the scandals that have been mentioned. We are considering where we go next on whistleblowing legislation.

To conclude, Britain’s working people and businesses are the driving force of the UK economy, and the Bill will help to create a labour market that delivers for both. It will deliver significant benefits to the UK, including better working conditions, more secure work, reduced inequalities and improved industrial relations. I appreciate that I have outlined a lot of detail today, but it is important to remember that, as is typical with any legislation of this nature, many of the policies will  be provided for through regulations and, in some cases, through codes of practice. We expect further consultations on these reforms to begin later in the year, when we will seek significant input from stakeholders.

I am grateful for Members’ efforts to improve the Bill, and for their scrutiny and debate so far. I look forward to hearing further debate this afternoon. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p Greg Smith: After 21 sittings in the Public Bill Committee, the Government are still tabling hundreds of amendments to the Bill. That highlights once again that their false political deadline of 100 days in which to publish the Bill was foolhardy. They should have taken better time.

This is a bad Bill. Although it contains many good and well-intentioned measures, the Government have failed to get the balance right between employees and employers. Although I welcome some of the Minister’s comments—not least on bereavement leave for pregnancy loss, on which we spoke at length and agreed in Committee—I am afraid that the Government have got the balance wrong in the vast majority of the Bill. The amendments in the names of right hon. and hon. Friends in His Majesty’s loyal Opposition seek to highlight how the Bill simply goes too far in too many regards: it will affect our economy, it will affect the number of people who have a job, and it will affect the willingness of employers—the wealth and job creators—to take on new staff, to grow, to put new product lines in place and to keep employing people. \p Luke Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and doff my cap to him for his 21 sittings in Committee. When the Regulatory Policy Committee considered the Bill, it said that eight of the 23 impact assessments were “not fit for purpose”. Is he any more confident that that has been rectified through the amendments? \p Greg Smith: I am sorry to have to report to my hon. Friend that, no, I do not have greater confidence that the Bill will work. He is right that the RPC placed so much of the Bill in the red column—at severe risk—and identified it as “not fit for purpose”. Some of the amendments in my name and those of right hon. and hon. Friends, to which I will speak in more detail in a moment, seek to explore further the impact that the measures in the Bill will have on the economy, and to answer the point that he rightly outlined.

Fundamentally, we know that every Labour Government leave unemployment higher than when they started; the difference with this one is that they are actually legislating for that outcome.

I will turn first to new clause 83 and amendment 283. When we were in government, we banned exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts. We know that this flexibility works for many employees on zero-hours contracts, such as students and those with a summer job or other responsibilities—employees can value that. This Bill imposes a statist, top-down, “Government knows best” approach, which will limit flexibility for both employers and employees. \p Gregory Stafford: I visited the Nelson Arms in Farnham recently and met the publican, who employs a lot of people on zero-hours contracts, one of whom, in addition to working in the pub, works as a paramedic, because the flexibility allows him to do both jobs. These are the sorts of people who will be impacted by this legislation. \p Greg Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am attending a wedding in Farnham later this year, and I look forward to visiting the Nelson Arms and thanking his constituent for the service he also gives as a paramedic. \p Andy McDonald: Is the shadow Minister aware that the TUC’s survey clearly shows that the vast majority of people on zero-hours contracts really want regular hours? Can he respond to that? \p Greg Smith: The hon. Gentleman says it is “the vast majority”. I do not know whether it is the vast majority, but some people, of course, will want the guarantee of the hours he talks about. The point I am making is about allowing flexibility for those for whom it does work. I gave the example of students, and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) gave another example of someone for whom this flexibility works. That is not to say that there are not many people in our economy who do seek the change the hon. Gentleman wants, but it is not a universal rule, and it should not simply be applied to everyone. I gently invite him to reflect on the impact this will have on people such as those my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon referred to. \p Deirdre Costigan: Has the shadow Minister actually read the Bill? Does he understand that the flexibility included is the flexibility to ask for guaranteed hours, and if a student or somebody doing a second job does not want those guaranteed hours, they do not need to have them? \p Greg Smith: I am happy to confirm to the hon. Lady that I have read the Bill, and I have read a considerable number of documents from the House of Commons Library and many other organisations. I have spoken to a lot of businesses in my constituency, as well as further afield, who I can assure her are horrified at the Bill. The Minister was asked earlier to name a single small business that supported the Bill, and his answer was the Co-op and Centrica. The last time I looked, neither of those would be considered small businesses. \p Alec Shelbrooke: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Wendy Morton: rose— \p Greg Smith: I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress. \p Alec Shelbrooke: Does it worry my hon. Friend that, once again, the Government have revealed they are desperately hoping that companies such Centrica do become small businesses? \p Greg Smith: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point in his stylish, witty manner.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, the Regulatory Policy Committee has given a red rating to the identification of options and choice of policy on zero-hours contracts and guaranteed hours in the Bill. That means the Government have not justified the necessity of clauses 1 to 6. What is the problem the Government are trying to solve with those clauses? Why are those clauses needed? We just do not know. The Bill, despite literally hundreds of Government amendments, remains silent about how these provisions will work in practice, which means the Government’s assessment that the administrative cost of the Bill to business in shift and workforce planning will be £320 million could well be an underestimate.

The deputy CEO of UKHospitality raised their concerns in Committee, saying:

“the Government are intending to leave it to case law and employment tribunal systems to figure out what ‘reasonable notice’ means.” ––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 43, Q39.]

That is an unacceptable way to legislate. Businesses crave certainty and a stable regulatory environment. This Bill provides anything but, and the result, as the chair of the CBI has said, is that it risks becoming

“an adventure playground for employment rights lawyers.” \p Luke Evans: My hon. Friend is a learned man and he may have seen the report in the Financial Times that, for the first time ever, the number of companies registered at Companies House has fallen. Does he think this Bill being on the horizon has anything to do with that, particularly given the points that have been made about it not being fit for purpose? \p Greg Smith: My hon. Friend makes an exceptional point. The Bill categorically will be playing a part in that, along with the Budget of broken promises, the increase in employer NI and so on. I shudder to think what will happen when the Bill becomes law. We understand the parliamentary arithmetic—we understand that the Government will force this through, and that is the reason we have tabled new clause 83 and amendment 283.

New clause 83 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of

“(a) the impact of sections 1 to 6 on the operation of employment tribunals, and

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

Amendment 283 would place a commencement block on clauses 1 to 6. We believe that those clauses should not come into force until the review required by new clause 83 has been approved by Parliament. Both businesses and employees will struggle when claims are brought because of the confusion created by the Bill if the employment tribunal is not able to cope with the increased caseload. \p Uma Kumaran: Will the shadow Minister give way? \p Greg Smith: I will happily give way in one moment. Government Members should have their eyes open to the consequences of this badly thought out legislation. Perhaps the hon. Lady will open her eyes to that point. \p Uma Kumaran: These measures will ensure protections for all the 2.4 million people in the UK with irregular work patterns, be it zero-hours contracts or agency contracts. Can the shadow Minister tell the House why he thinks agency workers do not deserve the same protections as everyone else? \p Greg Smith: The hon. Lady makes a point that she made in Committee. It was good to debate with her and others in Committee—we had a genuine and robust debate. What I am arguing for is flexibility and a recognition of how the employment market and our economy works in real life. To treat everything with one universal rule will be a disaster for our economy. I fear that it will result in fewer people in work and fewer jobs in the economy, and it certainly will not deliver the growth that this Government pretend they want to see. \p Matt Western: Will the shadow Minister give way? \p Greg Smith: How can I resist the hon. Gentleman? \p Matt Western: Does the shadow Minister not accept that it is due to the expendability of employees in the workplace that we have such a poor rate of productivity in this country, particularly compared with France and Germany? \p Greg Smith: I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman, and we have worked together on a number of issues in recent years, but I do not accept his point. Is there room to improve productivity? Of course there is—there is room to improve productivity across all sectors all the time; we would not grow the economy if we could not do that. However, the Bill takes a sledgehammer to crack the proverbial nut. Applying a universal rule for all will not deliver what the hon. Gentleman nobly wishes to achieve in the economy. As is often the case in politics, the thing that divides us is not the end goal or the point we want to get to; it is the means of getting there. I do not think the Bill will deliver what he wants to achieve. He looks like he wants to intervene again. I want to make progress, but I will give him one last go. \p Matt Western: The shadow Minister is being very generous. I am making a simple point: it is less motivating and of less interest to a company to invest in machinery and plant if it can ultimately change the structure of its workforce or expend them through fire and rehire. That is what is holding us back, and that is why we have a 20% deficit to France and Germany in terms of productivity. \p Greg Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I do not see businesses out there that want to expend or get rid of their workforces, or disinvest in them, and he is giving a very pessimistic outlook of the way that the business environment runs in this country. Businesses want to innovate. They want to grow and employ more people. They want to make more money. Making money is not something people should look down their noses at—it is a fundamentally good thing that creates wealth, grows the economy, and increases the tax base to pay for the services that we all want. I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view of the world when it comes to the Bill and the point he is trying to make. \p Wendy Morton: Listening to the debate, it is clear that there are Conservative Members who understand business, and who come to this place with years of experience—[Interruption.] If Labour Members would stop heckling for one moment, they might start to listen. If we want to increase productivity, that is about employees, but it is also about employers being able to invest in their staff through training, contracts, plant and machinery. It is a whole raft of things, none of which we can do if businesses are stifled with red tape and employment law, or measures that are basically about law through the courts. \p Greg Smith: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The crux of what she says is the difference between the approach of Conservative Members to economy and the way that Labour Members, and those on the other left-wing Benches, look at the economy. The left of British politics tends to view everything through the lens of business being bad, of all employers seeking to exploit their workforces, and of an image of a Victorian factory from a novel of that era. In reality, we must recognise the symbiotic relationship between employer and employee, because we do not grow the economy without things working in both their interests. The Bill seeks to tip the balance too far in one direction, forgetting that that will take away the incentive for employers—the wealth creators—to get on and grow.

Let me move to new clause 84 and amendment 284. Conservative Members have absolutely no issue with the right to request flexible working. Indeed, Conservatives in government passed the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023. That made it easier for employees to make flexible working requests, gave them a statutory right to do so, and required employers to consider and discuss any requests made by their employee more quickly. That legislation appears to be working. Indeed, the Regulatory Policy Committee has said that

“there is little evidence presented that employers are rejecting requests unreasonably.” \p Sarah Russell: I spent 13 years as a solicitor working in employment rights, predominantly for employees and periodically for employers, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that flexible working is not working for many mothers in this country. Many women are giving up jobs and becoming self-employed because their employers will not agree their flexible working requests. \p Greg Smith: It is good to hear from a real solicitor who gives her wealth of knowledge to this area. I am not trying to suggest that everything is perfect and working well. I fully accept the fair and good point that the hon. Lady makes about many mothers getting back into the workplace or extending their careers, but the Bill is not the answer she is looking for, if she looks at it in more detail.

The RPC gave the Government’s impact assessment for flexible working provisions a red rating, and that goes to the nub of the point. Is there room for improvement? Of course there is, but the impact assessment for the flexible provisions in the Bill was given a red rating—not fit for purpose. Once again, I ask the Minister this: what problem are the Government trying to solve with clause 7? Before rushing to pile more red tape on businesses  through the Bill, did the Government consider options such as raising awareness of the right to request flexible working? Our new clause 84 requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact that clause 7 will have on employment, wages and economic output. \p Sarah Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Greg Smith: One more crack, yes. \p Sarah Russell: I assure the hon. Gentleman that women absolutely do know about the right to request flexible working, and that is not the source of the problems they are facing. \p Greg Smith: The hon. Lady almost makes the point for me. Earlier, I made the very point that we introduced that right. It was working well, yet the RPC says that the provisions in the Bill will do nothing for it and are not fit for purpose—I thank her for her intervention.

New clause 84 calls for consideration of

“the likelihood of the costs of flexible working measures being passed on to employees through lower wages”,

and of the likely effect that the right to request flexible working will have on productivity, wage growth, equality of opportunity, job security, economic activity and employment. Equally, it requires that a report setting out that those findings

“must be laid before each House of Parliament no sooner than 18 weeks after the consultation has been initiated.” \p Laurence Turner: The hon. Gentleman has just said that there may be areas where we could go further on flexible working. Can he explain why the previous Government’s flexible working taskforce met just once last year, and just once the year before? As with the long-awaited employment Bill that never materialised, is it the case that this Government are bringing forward real measures because the previous Government vacated that territory? \p Greg Smith: The hon. Gentleman, with whom we debated these matters at length in Committee, clearly has not listened to what I said. I detailed how we did legislate in this area, yet this Government are bringing forward a Bill that the RPC, in this respect, has given a red rating and said is not fit for purpose. I gently urge him to look again at this issue, and at where we can agree on areas that could go further or be different from measures set out in either existing or proposed legislation. We must understand the impact that measures in the Bill will have on the real economy.

Amendment 284 would ensure that clause 7 could not come into force until Parliament had approved that report. To put it simply, the genesis of the amendment is that the Government have not done their homework, and they have no idea what they are doing or why. We know that these provisions will damage business, which in turn will hurt workers, and we want Labour Members to acknowledge that it will be ordinary people who pay the price.

Let me turn to new clause 85 and amendments 285, 288 and 289. Clause 18, which makes employers liable for harassment of their employees by third parties, is another example of the Government putting more regulation on business without knowing the problem they are trying to solve. The independent Regulatory Policy Committee has said that the Government have  not managed sufficiently to demonstrate the need for the third-party harassment provisions in the Bill, and has once again rated this impact assessment as red.

It should go without saying that Conservative Members do not condone any form of harassment in the workplace. When we were in government, we legislated to put a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to anticipate and prevent sexual harassment, a horrible, evil crime that is covered by other legislation to protect everybody in the country. I double underline that we are not condoning sexual harassment—indeed, we legislated clearly to clamp down on that evil and heinous crime. However, I would be interested in any evidence the Minister has for the prevalence of third-party harassment in the workplace, and of how clause 18 might solve that, because the Government have not produced that evidence so far. \p Antonia Bance: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Greg Smith: I will make some progress, as I think I have demonstrated that I am not shy of giving way, and I will come back to the hon. Lady. The problem is that badly considered law, developed with no evidence base, is likely to cause problems, rather than to solve them. That is the law of unintended consequences. We are deeply concerned about not just the unclear liabilities that the clause places on employers, but the implications it has for freedom of expression.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that the third-party harassment protections

“raise complex questions about the appropriate balance between third parties’ rights to freedom of expression (as protected under Article 10 ECHR) and employees’ protection from harassment and their right to private and family life.”

We are already struggling to ensure freedom of speech at our universities—places that should be guardians of free, open and challenging debate. \p Wera Hobhouse: It was of course my private Member’s Bill that the previous Government supported, but only partly, because third-party harassment was scrubbed out of the Bill; I am very pleased that the new Government are reintroducing that bit. The question is: why does the hon. Gentleman support the idea that employers should prevent sexual harassment in the workplace and demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps, but think that for third parties that impacts on freedom of speech? It does not make sense. \p Greg Smith: If the hon. Lady will allow me to continue, it will become clear why we take such a position; I will give some concrete examples in a few moments of where the law of unintended consequences will kick in on this provision.

A 2022 study by the Higher Education Policy Institute found that quiet no-platforming, where students decide not to invite otherwise suitable speakers to an event because of their views, was more common than reported cases of no-platforming. Speakers quietly no-platformed include Alex Salmond, Liam Neeson, Harry Enfield, Tony Blair—one that those on the Labour Benches might blink at—and Peter Hitchens. Although this clause is well meaning, it is likely to make matters worse. As James Murray, the legal director of Doyle Clayton, has  pointed out, this clause could well cause difficulties for universities in offering a platform to discuss issues on which those listening may have differing views. \p John Hayes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the problem in universities. It has particularly found form in no-platforming speakers deemed to be unacceptable or to make people feel uncomfortable because of their views on transsexuals, for example. Kathleen Stock, a distinguished academic and a feminist, was no-platformed in exactly that way because of her view that sex is a biological fact. This clause needs to be examined in that context. I welcome much about this Bill—particularly on trade unions and zero-hours contracts, as it happens—but I feel that this one area needs to be looked at again by the Government, for the very reasons that my hon. Friend made clear. \p Greg Smith: I totally agree with my right hon. Friend that this area needs to be looked at again to ensure that those unintended consequences that challenge freedom of speech in this country are not allowed to come through. I double-underline that we have no truck with harassment: we absolutely believe that it should be stamped out, using criminal law where necessary, to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice. This Bill opens the door to unintended consequences. \p Antonia Bance: I will help the hon. Gentleman to come back to the point. Two in three young women have experienced sexual harassment or verbal abuse in the workplace. It is important that where they are in customer-facing roles, they are protected from abuse both by their colleagues and managers and by their customers. That is particularly important if they work in a university bar, another sort of bar or a shop or retail setting. I was very pleased to have taken the first piece of evidence about the nature and extent of workplace sexual harassment when I worked for the TUC in 2015, and I am sad that it has taken us a decade to get to the point where we say, “No more sexual harassment by customers and clients.” The Conservative party could have achieved that much more quickly if it had just accepted the private Member’s Bill put forward by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). \p Greg Smith: I do not think that the hon. Lady is actually disagreeing with what I have said so far. Sexual harassment is clearly a crime—it is already a crime—and any perpetrator of it should be brought to justice. That is covered by different law. \p Nadia Whittome: Will the shadow Minister give way? \p Greg Smith: In a moment. To answer the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance), the point I am getting at is not about sexual harassment or anything else covered in the criminal law. For example, if somebody who is waiting on tables or serving at a bar in a hospitality setting overhears a conversation that they find themselves deeply offended by—perhaps around the situation in Israel and Gaza right now—this Bill— \p Nadia Whittome: Will the shadow Minister give way? \p Greg Smith: I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment. This Bill would criminalise and bring in the banter police and so on just because people are expressing a perfectly legitimate political view that somebody else finds offensive. I double-underline that sexual harassment is absolutely— \p Sarah Russell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The shadow Minister is in danger of misleading the House. Nothing that he has referred to is a crime. Sexual harassment, as dealt with in this Bill, is a civil matter dealt with by tribunal. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. That was in fact a point of debate, rather than a point of order. \p Greg Smith: I will get back to James Murray, the legal director of Doyle Clayton, who has pointed out that this clause could well cause difficulties for universities in offering those platforms to discuss issues where people have differing views. He said:

“If we think about a speaker that has been invited—say it’s a controversial gender critical speaker, like Julie Bindel or Kathleen Stock—someone might somewhat disingenuously say”

that they are an employee of the university and that they find what they say to be deeply harassing. He also said:

“The concern is that this will shift the balance away from free speech and universities will be more risk averse as they won’t want to be held liable for third-party harassment.”

Why do the Government want to run that risk?

There is then the burden on businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector. \p Laurence Turner: Will the shadow Minister give way? \p Greg Smith: The hon. Gentleman has had a go; he may come back later.

Kate Nicholls, the chief executive of UKHospitality, said that staff in restaurants, bars, pubs and hotels work in a “social environment” where

“there are jokes and people are boisterous”.

She said that while everyone wants to ensure that their staff are protected,

“we don’t want to be policing our customers”,

and she is concerned that this clause could add “undue restrictions”. If someone works in a pub or a comedy club, for example, there is a high risk that they might hear comments that they do not like, but it is wrong to restrict free speech just because somebody does not like something. The unintended consequence of this provision is likely to be a chilling effect on free speech and unclear responsibilities for employers about where they need to draw the line. \p Wera Hobhouse: rose— \p Laurence Turner: rose— \p Greg Smith: I will make some progress. I have been on my feet for a long time, and I know that a lot of people wish to speak in this debate.

In other words, this clause could well function as a banter ban at best, and as a restriction on academic debate and inquiry. Due to our concern about how this clause will operate, especially in the higher education and hospitality sectors, we have tabled amendment 289,  which would carve out the hospitality sector and sports venues from clause 18. We believe those are the sectors where the potential for unintended consequences from this clause will be the greatest.

It is because we believe that clause 18 will create problems, rather than solve them, that we have tabled new clause 85, which would require the Secretary of State to report on the clause. The report must include the extent to which the prevalence of third-party harassment makes the case for the measures in clause 18, including an assessment of the impact of the clause on free speech, an assessment of the likely costs of the clause to employers, an assessment of which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment through no fault of the employer, and proposals for mitigations that can be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations. We will require the Secretary of State to lay a report setting those out before each House of Parliament, and amendment 285 would prevent clause 18 from coming into force until that report is approved by Parliament.

The Government need to go away and think again, and that is what our amendments are designed to achieve. If the Government are not willing to do so, we have also tabled amendment 288, which would leave the clause out of the Bill entirely, so great is our concern about the unintended consequences it could have. \p Wera Hobhouse: Will the shadow Minister give way? \p Greg Smith: Once more. \p Wera Hobhouse: Since we were discussing this issue for the best part of the previous Parliament, can I ask the shadow Minister whether there is a misunderstanding about what this part of the Bill does? It is about a preventive duty, not predicting everything that could happen in the hospitality sector, for example. The guidance is to make sure that everybody knows that their workplace will protect people from harassment—that is what an employer needs to do. What is the problem with that? \p Greg Smith: I am not sure that the hon. Lady has firmly grasped what the Bill says in this respect. Of course we want to protect everybody in our society—that is the first duty of Government—but I do not think she has fully considered the unintended consequences in the real world, particularly in the hospitality sector.

I will speak briefly to new clause 86 and amendments 286 and 287. Clause 21 and schedule 2 are another example of the Government rushing to legislate in an attempt to meet an arbitrary deadline set by the Deputy Prime Minister, with chaotic results. Clause 21 will remove the qualifying period for unfair dismissal. Again, the Regulatory Policy Committee slapped a red rating on the Government’s impact assessment for these provisions, meaning that the Government have not adequately justified the need for them. They have admitted that they do not have robust data on the incidence of dismissal for those under two years of employment. In other words, yet again, we do not know whether there is even an actual problem with unfair dismissal for this Bill to try to solve.

The British Chambers of Commerce has said that

“Members say that there would be a reduced hiring appetite were this legislation to come in, and that they would be less likely to recruit new employees due to the risk and difficulty, particularly  under the day one rights, unless there were at least a nine-month probation period”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 8.]

As such, our new clause 86 requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of clause 21 and schedule 2, and amendment 286 requires Parliament specifically to approve that impact before these sections of the Bill can come into force. \p Richard Burgon: Will the shadow Minister give way? \p Greg Smith: I am mindful of time, and I do not wish to incur Madam Deputy Speaker’s wrath, so I will make progress.

We have also tabled amendment 287, which would remove clause 21 from the Bill entirely, so concerned are we about how damaging it will be to both employers and employees, particularly those who will not get work as a direct consequence of these requirements.

Our new clause 87 seems a perfectly sensible thing to ask for: a simple requirement that the Secretary of State must have regard to the objectives of economic growth and improving the international competitiveness of the UK economy when making regulations under parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. If agreed to, though, it would of course be a wrecking amendment, because the Government do not know how they intend to give effect to the provisions on guaranteed hours, the extension of those provisions to agency workers or the provisions on unfair dismissal, to name but a few. All of those things will be left to regulations after the Bill is passed, without proper scrutiny from this place, and it will be working people who pay the price.

Our new clause 91 would clamp down on public sector employers using positive discrimination under sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010 where it causes detriment to other employees, and would promote merit-based employment practices. Taxpayers rightly expect that their money should be spent well, and part of offering value for money is that taxpayer money should be ruthlessly focused on improving the public services on which all of our constituents rely. That always means hiring on merit.

Amendment 290, which deals with the school support staff negotiating body, is the last of our amendments that I will speak to. In 2010, the then Conservative Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, abolished the school support staff negotiating body. The Conservative Government had a clear and principled reason for this: employers should have the flexibility to set pay and conditions locally, rather than having a top-down, centralised framework imposed on them. It was to allow school leaders—who know better than politicians in Whitehall—to innovate and do what works best for their schools, their pupils and their employees. Instead of giving employers flexibility to do what works best for them, the Government are re-establishing a national terms and conditions handbook, training, career progression routes and pay rates for school support staff that all school employers will be obliged to follow. We believe that the current arrangements for employing school support staff are working well. \p Lola McEvoy: Will the shadow Minister give way? \p Greg Smith: I have explained that I do not wish to incur Madam Deputy Speaker’s wrath, which I fear is close at this point, so I will make some progress.

The current arrangements have also allowed for innovation that is beneficial for pupils. We believe that school employers must retain a degree of freedom and flexibility to recruit, develop, remunerate and deploy their staff for the benefit of the children in their community, to achieve their particular aims from a school improvement or inclusion perspective. I urge the Government to consider this.

There are many more amendments that I could speak to, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will not. I will only say that this is a bad bit of legislation, and some of the amendments we are considering, particularly those tabled by the Government, make the Bill worse in many respects. They add to the already heavy burden on business, a burden that will combat growth—will slap down growth—and will mean that the Government will not achieve the objectives they have set out to achieve in their landmarks, missions, road signs and whatever else they have announced. I therefore urge the Government to consider our amendments, go back, and tame the worst excesses of this job-destroying Bill. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. Before I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Select Committee, I want to make clear that I will then call Steve Darling, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Immediately after Mr Darling, there will be a six-minute time limit. I call Liam Byrne. \p Liam Byrne: Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am going to be very brief—I will just make three quick points—and will do my best to salvage a degree of consensus from the conflict that has characterised this debate at its outset.

If there are a couple of things that unite us across this House, it is that we all believe in fair play, and we all believe in an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work. However, the reality is that millions of workers in this country are simply not earning their fair share of the wealth that we produce together. If labour income were the same share of national income as it was back in the 1950s, something like £12,000 a year would go into the pay packets of every single one of the 33.8 million workers in this country. As such, following a decade that has seen 4 million people trapped in low pay and during which we have had a living standards crisis, it behoves each and every one of us to think more creatively and constructively about how we support workers in this economy to earn a good life for them and their family.

We on the Business and Trade Committee have the privilege of hearing from some of the best employers in the country, but we also have the duty of interrogating many firms that, frankly, have been letting down our country. I will highlight three examples, in order to illustrate some of the amendments that have been tabled in my name and in the names of other right hon. and hon. Members. They are not amendments that I wish to press to a Division; they are probing amendments, on which I think the Minister needs to provide the House with some answers.

I will start with McDonald’s, which I referenced in an earlier intervention. It is one of the most significant employers in our country, employing over 200,000 people. Some 90% of McDonald’s workers are on zero-hours contracts. On the day of our hearing, a BBC investigation by Zoe Conway, its employment correspondent, exposed the reality that hundreds of McDonald’s employees were contacting the BBC and the EHRC with allegations of the most appalling harassment. We heard about the case of a 17-year-old McDonald’s worker who alleged that she was being asked for sex in return for a manager giving her the shifts that she wanted—how on earth can that be acceptable in today’s economy? Yet when we put that point to the chief executive of McDonald’s and asked, “Do you think that the imbalance of power that has flourished in McDonald’s because 90% of your workers are on zero-hours contracts has anything to do with this litany of abuse, or with 700 workers contacting their solicitors to bring a case against McDonald’s?”, the answer was no. It was an absolutely extraordinary denial of reality.

We then heard from Evri, which, as many people know, is one of the most significant courier firms in the country, employing tens of thousands of people. Mr Hugo Martin came before our Committee to give evidence, and told us that all at Evri was sweetness and light. However, the Committee has now received hundreds upon hundreds of complaints from whistleblowers, alleging that they are being cheated and undercut, most recently through the rate cuts, the packet racket which is still persisting, health and safety abuses at work, intimidation, bullying and harassment. They are being told repeatedly that their shifts will be cut, or that they will be out of the door if they do not work six days a week. Our constituents are experiencing this completely unacceptable behaviour.

I must be careful about scope at this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but we also heard from the company Shein, which could not even tell us whether the products that it made contained cotton from China. We were simply trying to understand whether workers in our country were being undercut by an abuse of modern slavery practices abroad.

I say to the House that although we may have our differences on the Bill, we must accept the reality that millions of people in this country—millions of the people we are sent here to represent—are being treated in a way that should be unacceptable in a 21st-century economy. What the good employers told the Committee, time and again, was that they supported the spirit of the Bill, although of course they had concerns about the detail, and it is good that the Minister is listening. What they did not want to see persist was the situation that they feared, in which the good firms were being undercut by the bad. We must have a level playing field in this country: that will be a necessity if we are to win a global race to the top.

My amendments 275 to 277 suggest alterations to the zero hours regime that the Minister has set out. I think we should abolish the definition of “low hours” in contracts. I accept the evidence that was given to us by Paddy Lillis, the brilliant general secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, that retaining the definition creates a risk of loopholes that will be exploited by bad employers.

Amendments 278 to 281, which might be termed the McDonald’s amendments, urge the Secretary of State to put on the face of the Bill a definition of “reasonable notice” in relation to the moving of shifts and the compensation that should be entailed in the event of unreasonable shift movements. We need to ensure that our workers, particularly young workers, are never again subjected to the kind of abuse that we have seen unfold at McDonald’s. Those days must be consigned to the past.

New clause 80, which might be described as the Evri amendment, creates an obligation and duty for the Secretary of State to bring to the House, within six months of the Bill’s coming into the force, the final version of a review of the single status of workers. We heard compelling evidence from the director of Labour Market Enforcement, who told us that the Government, Ministers and civil servants could consult

“until the cows come home”.

We could put off the consultation about the different definitions of “worker” for ever and a day, when what we need to do is end the kind of abuse that we see at Evri now. Ensuring that these loopholes are closed so that bogus self-employment is no longer a loophole through which bad employers abuse honest workers: I should like to see the Minister step up to that requirement.

New clause 81, which we might call the Shein amendment, requires the Government to update the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and section 54 in particular, to ensure that the employment rights granted in the Bill are not undermined by companies operating in this country that are abusing this legislation. At the time the Modern Slavery Act was world-leading legislation, but we heard clear evidence from companies such as Tesco that this country risked becoming a “dumping ground” for bad products produced by workers exploited abroad. We cannot allow this country, which led the abolition of slavery, to be a country in which we have second-class protections against modern slavery in the 21st century, and I should therefore welcome a commitment from the Minister on when the Act will be updated.

We welcome some of the Government amendments, particularly the enhanced protection for agency workers and the action on umbrella companies. Both are recommendations in the Committee’s excellent report, which I commend to all Members. I hope that, as a result of this debate, we can salvage some consensus. The Bill will go through today, and this will be the biggest overhaul of employment rights in the country. We must ensure that it lasts for the future, and the more we can do to bring a cross-party consensus around that simple idea that all workers—all constituents—in the country should have the right, the power and the freedom to earn a good life for themselves and their families, and the sooner we can do it, the better. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Steve Darling: The holy grail sought by all Governments, of whichever hue, is economic growth. I therefore think it important for us to look through the lens of economic growth, and to think about whether the Bill drives it. I recall from my time in Committee, where I spent many hours listening to the oratory of the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), that we spoke a great deal about productivity and whether it would be driven by the Bill.

I have spoken about the possible impact of the Bill to people in my community, including representatives of Enlighten HR and Alison Benney, a human resources consultant, for whom its destination was very welcome. Indeed, we have heard from many other people who have been consulted that the Bill’s destination and aspirations are correct and appropriate, but it is a question of how we get there and whether the Government have achieved the right balance between employers and employees. That is important, because the last thing we want the Bill to do is have a chilling effect on the economy. We are only too well aware that the national insurance contributions that are set to kick in next month are already having that negative impact, and we do not want this well-intended Bill to echo that further.

There are 250 amendments before us at this late stage of the legislation. The Minister says that that is due to levels of consultation and so forth and should be welcomed, and that we are trimming our sails, but if that is the case, and if the Minister was in such listening mode in Committee, why did the Government accept no Opposition amendments whatsoever? I should welcome some reflections from the Minister when he winds up the debate.

As a Liberal Democrat, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions, I can say that carers are at the front and centre of our world. What is effectively the population of Portsmouth—200,000 people a year, or 600 a day—walk away from the employment market to take up caring occupations and, in many instances, support family members. That has an £8 billion annual impact on our economy, which leaves us less productive. I hope that the Government will give serious thought to our amendment to make leave for carers a paid opportunity, because giving them that flexibility and that breathing space would unlock more people for our employment market.

Our proposal to make caring a protected characteristic is extremely important. We have already heard about harassment and discrimination in connection with other parts of the Bill, but this would help immensely to support carers. Doubling the pay of those taking adoption leave is also important, as is support for people who take caring roles such as kinship care. I hope that the Ministers will take those family roles into account. \p Calum Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have missed an opportunity to recognise the extraordinary contribution of kinship carers in this Bill? I recently met a couple in my constituency who are kinship carers. They have acted out of love, but they have had none of the support that foster parents would have had in looking after the children in their care. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government would do well to look at including the same employment rights for kinship carers as they currently offer to foster parents? \p Steve Darling: As somebody who was adopted myself, I know only too well the importance of supportive love. I have been heavily involved with children’s services, and I know that the best care for children in need of loving homes is often not too far away from home. The more that children’s services can be less of a child-rescuing service and more of a child support service, the better, so I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend alludes to.

An area that particularly exercised the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire in Committee was third-party harassment, and I strongly support the Government’s proposals in this Bill. I have engaged with young women in Torbay who work in retail and the hospitality industry, particularly those from Torquay girls’ grammar school, and they find that harassment in the workplace is not a bit of banter, but repugnant in the extreme. They told me that they will go to a shift feeling sick to the stomach because they know a particular individual will be coming in that evening who will act inappropriately. Their managers should have a duty of care toward them, and I welcome that proposal in the Bill.

I know that some of the amendments allude to non-disclosure agreements. I welcome the Minister’s kind words, but warm words do not get measures into legislation. I ask him to reflect on that, and I am sure that colleagues will speak about NDAs.

The final area I need to cover is probationary periods. We Liberal Democrats would really welcome putting a three to nine-month probationary period on the face of the Bill, which would ensure that there is less chance of expensive tribunals for employers. We welcome the steps that the Government have taken in respect of statutory sick pay, but we need to ensure that the correct balance is struck between the burden on employers and positive outcomes for employees. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: I welcome the amendments put forward by the Liberal Democrats, especially new clauses 12 to 14, which would extend paternity leave from two to six weeks and double the amount of pay. Those precious weeks are essential for fathers to bond with their child and to provide additional support to their partners. Does my hon. Friend agree that these are essential new clauses that the Government should accept? \p Steve Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. When I go and speak to primary school teachers, they say that they face a challenge where there is poor attachment between the parent and the child, which can have a significant developmental impact on young people. By giving greater powers through this Bill, we can drive stronger connections between those parts of the family unit.

The reality is that we need to support small businesses and get the right balance between implementing the good stuff in this Bill and making sure that we are not punishing businesses. We need to make sure that we support the family, because, as I have said, the family is the core part of what our society is, and strengthening that will hopefully strengthen outcomes and strengthen our society. My fear is that this Bill is a little bit like Snow White’s apple: it may have looked extremely good on the outside, but it sent her to sleep. My fear is that this Bill is a little like that, because it may have a lot of promise on the outside, but it could be a sleeping potion for our economy. \p Peter Dowd: I give my full support to the measures in the Bill. Without question, they are some of the most progressive in this area of legislation for decades.

My new clause 25 seeks to set up a working time council, comprising businesses, trade unions, Government Departments and experts on the subject, to advise the  Secretary of State on how the transition from a five-day week to a four-day week would affect employers and employees, and on how businesses, public bodies and other organisations should approach such a transition. Virtually every progressive change in employment legislation over the decades has been pooh-poohed by the Conservative party. Leopards do not change their spots, as we have seen in spades today.

In the evidence session, the Minister asked some witnesses what the productivity implications of some of the proposals contained in the Bill would be. The answer from Professor Simon Deakin, of Cambridge University, was that

“there is a strong correlation between stronger labour protection and both productivity and innovation.”

He went on to say that research

“shows that, on average, strengthening employment laws in this country in the last 50 years has had pro-employment effects, for various reasons.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 137-138, Q141.]

I know the shadow Minister was there when Professor Deakin said that.

Historically, it is a well-trodden path for some to object to measures that would advance employment rights, even if those rights are of advantage to everyone concerned, be it employers, employees or society more generally. That is especially so in the medium to long term, because legislatures do not just legislate for today; they also legislate for tomorrow.

I thank the Minister—my admiration for him knows no bounds—and other Members for the work that they have put into this Bill. My primary aim in tabling new clause 25 was to try to get the debate about the four-day week out of the blocks. I accept that the notion is challenging, but that is not a reason to put off the debate; the discussion has to be had. It is over 100 years since the introduction of a five-day week in different industries, which was down to the influence of Henry Ford, who was not the most radical of people. In the 1920s, the introduction of the two-day weekend for those working at his car factories was a pivotal moment. He argued that it would boost worker productivity and morale, and it did.

The argument that a shorter week affects business resilience or productivity has been used time and again. The Factories Act 1961 contained requirements to deal with overcrowding, control temperature and introduce ventilation, all of which were opposed at the time on the basis of cost. As colleagues will know, the same argument was put forward about the Equal Pay Act 1970. It was the same when paid holidays were introduced in 1938. People said the minimum wage was going to cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, but we all know that it did not. Paternity and maternity leave was eschewed because it was said to damage industry, but did it do so? No, it did not.

Research from Barclays shows that working hours in the UK have fallen by 5% on average in the past four decades, with British workers now working 27% more hours on average than their German counterparts. Workers in France, Italy and Spain have enjoyed a 10% decline in working hours, but despite people in this country working longer hours than those in our competitor and partner   nations, we are one of the least productive countries in the G7, and we have to do something about that. What about the impact on employers? \p Alison Griffiths: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Peter Dowd: Well, I do not want to, but I will. \p Alison Griffiths: Maybe I am pre-empting the answer the hon. Member was going to give, but what exactly are the measures in this Bill and the amendments—the magic potion—that will improve productivity? \p Peter Dowd: I am pleased the hon. Lady asked me that question, because it is patently obvious that better working conditions lead to less absenteeism, more resilience in the workforce and better productivity. It is not a magic potion, but what is known as enlightened employment. She may like to read about that, and if she wants, I will put her in touch with a few people who can talk to her about it.

In that study I mentioned, 71% reported reduced levels of burnout, 54% said it was easier to balance work with household responsibilities, 60% found they had an increased ability to combine paid work with care responsibilities, and 62% reported that it was easier to combine work with social life, and so on and so on. As I have said, the Bill seeks to put this issue on the agenda, because I believe it is inevitable—history shows it—that changes in patterns of work, working arrangements, the nature of work and other associated issues, such as artificial intelligence, will eventually lead to a four-day week over a period of time. So let us embrace the change and let us plan for the change. If we do want to get the country back to work, get the country working productively and get many millions of people without work back into work, let us do this as progressively as we possibly can.

Finally, if we are lengthening the time we ask people to work by an extra year, two years or maybe three years in the future—if we ask them to have a longer working life—the least we can do is to ask them to have a shorter week. What is wrong with that, and is it really too much to ask? I do not think so, and many employers and employees take the same view, so let us not make an enemy of progress. Why do we not just embrace it? \p Damian Hinds: I rise to speak to the measures on zero-hours contracts, and Opposition new clause 83 and amendment 283. It is absolutely right that we should pause to consider the effects of these changes on employment tribunals, but it is also right that we should pause to consider their effect just on employment. Of course, there are bad employers and those who would seek to exploit, which is a very bad thing. We should bear down on them, but there is no reason to believe that the measures the Government are bringing forward will achieve that.

I suggest that the Government want to get rid of zero-hours contracts not because intrinsically there is a great problem attached to them, but because of the special place zero-hours contracts have in Labour mythology. I want to take us back to the glory days of the modern Labour party when the leader of the Labour party was the current leader’s immediate predecessor, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I see the then shadow Chancellor, the right  hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is with us in the Chamber, and as it happens, I was the Minister for Employment at the time.

When our Government came to power, unemployment had been 8%, and it then rose a little bit to 8.5% at the end of 2011. From then on, it came down, and it kept coming down. By late 2016, it was under 5%, and it would fall further still. However, that did not fit Labour Members’ narrative. They wanted to be able to say that this reduction in unemployment was not real: it was all fake employment or low-quality employment. That was not true, but it did not stop them saying it. In fact, three quarters of the increase in employment was in higher-skilled occupations, and three quarters of the jobs growth was in full-time work. At that time, employment was growing much more quickly than self-employment, and the No. 1 sector for employment growth was construction.

However, Labour Members still kept saying that the jobs being created were all low-quality ones, and at the top of the list of things to call out was the zero-hours contract. The then Leader of the Opposition used to talk about it weekly at Prime Minister’s Question Time. There were a couple of awkward moments, such as after his glorious appearance at Glastonbury, when it turned out that the Glastonbury festival—guess what?—employed people on zero-hours contracts. There was further embarrassment when it turned out that there were people working for none other than the Labour party conference who were on zero-hours contracts.

At the DWP we did some research, and it turned out that less than 3% of people relied on a zero-hours contract for their main employment. On average, it delivered them 25 hours of work a week, while, strangely, they had above-average job satisfaction, and most were not looking for more hours. People said the number had grown, but it is actually much more likely that that was because of growing awareness of the term “zero-hours contract”.

Thinking about our history, it has long been the case that far more than 3% of people have had irregular income patterns, where they have not had guaranteed hours of work or levels of salary—from casual labour to piece work, catalogue agents and commission-only sales. At a certain point, it dawned on me that my own first job had been washing dishes on a zero-hours contract—or at least it would have been, had a contract been involved at all. \p Antonia Bance: Does the right hon. Member accept that someone choosing to take on an irregular contract when they are at the high end of the pay scale with significant professional skills and expectations for the future is very different from the endemic insecurity at the bottom of the labour market, which is where zero-hours contracts are concentrated? Some 83% of people on a zero-hours contract— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I think the hon. Lady is in fact making her speech, rather than an intervention. [Interruption.] Oh, her speech will come tomorrow. \p Damian Hinds: The hon. Member is right: of course those things are different, but with the dawning realisation I had back then, I started to wonder who else might take a zero-hours contract? Yes, it is true that  disproportionately they are young people, but for quite a lot of people a zero-hours contract is for a second job. I would be interested to hear from the Government their assessment of that. It turned out, when we looked at this in 2016, that one of the biggest users of zero-hours contracts in the country was none other than the national health service, so that it could cope with increases in demand. These were people who had a permanent job as well, but who could, as bank staff, supply other hours when that was needed.

For this Government, it is totemic to do something about zero-hours contracts because of that Labour mythology. For the unions, there is also another reason. This is classic insider-outsider theory, with a shift in remuneration from people who are not in work to people who are already in work, and it pushes up what is called the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. In plain English, it is bad for jobs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must know that because, as we all know, she is most definitely an economist—she has worked as an economist, she has trained as an economist and she is an economist—and this is classical economic reality.

For whom might zero-hours contracts work well? They work well for any employer with an unpredictable, variable need for workers—from the events business to the NHS, as I have mentioned—and there are other obvious cases in tourism, agriculture and food. However, some people may just choose to have that flexibility. Over the last two years it has been a seller’s market to go into teaching, but some people have still chosen to become a supply teacher because, for whatever reason, for them that works well.

The other group for whom this may work are those furthest from the labour market, who have perhaps been out of work for a very long time, who perhaps are ex-offenders, or who for some other reason find it difficult to immediately land a regular, full-time job. When this is combined with universal credit—which, by the way, the right hon. Member for Islington North also wanted to abolish—it can work very well, because the top-up payment can be adjusted according to how much someone earns week to week.

This Bill is bound to have unintended consequences. We do not know exactly which ones they will be, but I will suggest some of them. It could suppress seasonal peaks in employment—for tourism in the summer, but also at Christmas time—because employers will not want to take on the liability from the reference period. It could deter people from second jobs, which will be bad for growth. It could mean people move from contracted employment to self-employment or casual work. It could mean a move from permanent contracts to temporary contracts and, yes, it could hit our national health service and other important public sector employers.

I do not doubt that this piece of legislation will be good for unions, but it will be bad for the economy and bad for growth, and it will be especially bad for people in the hardest circumstances who so badly want to get back to work, and for whom this kind of contract can also be that important first step. \p Louise Haigh: I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade,  my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) on all their incredible work in bringing forward this landmark piece of legislation. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who is co-sponsoring new clause 74 with me today.

This is the first speech I have given as a Back Bencher in nearly 10 years. One of the few benefits of—ahem—elevating oneself to the Back Benches is the ability to speak much more routinely on behalf of my constituents and those without a political voice. The amendment I rise to speak to today is literally about the voiceless: those who have been legally silenced in the name of organisational and personal preservation.

New clause 74 would prohibit employers from entering into non-disclosure agreements with workers in relation to complaints of sexual misconduct, abuse, harassment or discrimination. It very closely mirrors legislation recently passed in Ireland that bans NDAs in those circumstances but allows them at the express consent of the victim, and legislation that has been passed in multiple US states in relation to sexual harassment.

NDAs have a perfectly legitimate use in business to protect commercial confidentiality and trade, but they are frequently misused to bully people into silence when they have already suffered at work. We know of the most high-profile cases, from Harvey Weinstein to Mohamed Al-Fayed, only because their brave survivors risked breaching their NDAs. But these agreements are far from confined to celebrity abusers; they are being misused and exploited on a vast scale. The campaign Can’t Buy My Silence—led by Zelda Perkins, who helped to expose the abuse of Harvey Weinstein—has also uncovered multiple scandals in the higher education sector, which led to action by the former Government to ban the use of NDAs in that sector.

We sadly know that, in our own labour movement, trade unions have been accused of using confidentiality clauses in settlements, which have the same chilling effect as NDAs. I have been told stories— \p Alison Griffiths: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would the right hon. Lady be kind enough to declare her union interests from her entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I believe there is a £10,000 donation— \p Judith Cummins: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair, but a point for the Member. \p Louise Haigh: I am very grateful for that point of order. I am, of course, very happy to declare my interests, as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, just as I am in the process of criticising a trade union.

Trade unions have been accused of using confidentiality clauses in settlements, which have the same chilling effect as NDAs. I have been told stories that should be on the front pages of newspapers, such as the man who was accused of rape, signed an NDA and was paid off. His alleged victim only found out years later that that had been the case while she was still working in the same workplace.

Media organisations such as ITN have come under recent criticism. As former employee Daisy Ayliffe said:

“Women who work for ITN have tried to report harassment and discrimination, but soon after doing so found themselves suddenly out of a job and bound by non-disclosure agreements.”

Another former employee of ITN, on seeing Daisy speak out, realised that his experience was far from unique and asked that I use parliamentary privilege today to speak about the confidentiality clause he was required to sign. He has asked that I do not use his name, so I will call him Mr B.

Mr B joined ITN in 2008 on a scheme called Enabling Talent, which aimed to recruit more disabled people into the organisation. He suffers from a condition called functional neurological disorder, which has a number of symptoms, including non-epileptic seizures or dissociate seizures, which he describes as zone-outs or blackouts. In 2008, ITN made a number of reasonable adjustments for him, including help with note taking, a key to the first aid room, and disability leave when required in order to avoid stress and fatigue-induced seizures. He states that at the time he could not fault his employer for the support it gave him.

Mr B left ITN to pursue his career elsewhere and returned in 2017, when he again declared his disability and made a request for similar adjustments. Despite multiple requests for the kind of help he had received before, none were forthcoming. Instead, he suffered severe bullying and discrimination, including pressure to disclose his disability widely to his colleagues. The situation got so bad that his zone-outs and blackouts became increasingly frequent. After suffering one seizure at work, he was required to apologise to those who had witnessed it. He was repeatedly accused of lying about his disability and told that his issues were nothing to do with his disability, despite having joined ITN on a disability inclusion scheme.

Mr B took ITN to tribunal, incurring tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs. He settled but was required to sign a confidentiality clause. His health has deteriorated so badly that he now uses a wheelchair 50% of the time and, following the loss of his job, he was, for a period, made homeless. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in such cases there is no public interest and no interest for anyone, apart from guilty parties, to keep these things secret, and that that is why it is important NDAs are not used to hide problems that employers should sort out? \p Louise Haigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; he is absolutely right. There are many organisations, including the BBC, that as a policy do not use NDAs.

Imagine suffering that kind of treatment at work: losing your job, losing your health, and then being banned from explaining to another potential employer, or even your closest friends, what has happened to you. It makes it next to impossible to recover from the experience, very difficult to find work again and vanishingly unlikely that the organisation will face up to its wrongdoing and enact change.

For Mr B, for survivors of monsters such as Mohamed Al-Fayed, and for the thousands of victims across our society who have been legally required to suffer in  silence, I hope the House can agree that such agreements have no place in modern society. And if it can happen in organisations such as ITN, whose job is literally to expose injustice, or in trade unions, whose job is to protect workers, then it can happen anywhere. Organisations in these instances, no matter who they are, will circle the wagons and protect themselves rather than the victim. By doing so, they protect abusers. That is why we must simply remove the tools of their abuse and end the use of NDAs in these circumstances.

I am very grateful to the Minister for his earlier response and for confirming that the issue warrants further consideration, but may I press him a little further on exactly how we can see progress? And we must see progress. It is sickening that across the country women and men will have suffered abuse in their workplace and that, instead of action against the perpetrator, they are the ones who are shamed and silenced, ganged up on by lawyers and sentenced to a lifetime of regret. \p Ashley Fox: As a member of the Public Bill Committee for the Bill, I was surprised by the number of amendments the Government tabled to their own legislation in Committee. There were hundreds of amendments, demonstrating how badly the Bill was drafted when it was first proposed. It was clearly a bad idea to commit to introducing such a major piece of legislation within 100 days of the election, but I guess that was the price of trade union money to fund the Labour party. Having had 21 sittings in Committee scrutinising the Bill line by line, we now find ourselves with another vast number of Government amendments once again, but this time with only two days to scrutinise it. Most of the amendments on the amendment paper are the Government’s. The amendment paper is thicker than the original Bill.

This is a bad Bill. It pushes up the cost of labour, makes our flexible labour market less flexible and will increase unemployment. I am pleased to have tabled new clause 30, which would add special constables to the scope of section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, giving them the right to unpaid leave to perform their duties. Special constables are volunteers who give their time at no cost to the taxpayer to help our police forces. Specials have existed in some form ever since the Special Constables Act 1831, which allowed justices of the peace to conscript volunteers to combat riots and social unrest. The special constabulary as we know it was established by the Police Act 1964, which gave chief constables the authority to appoint and manage special constables. Today’s specials carry all the same legal powers as their full-time counterparts, both on and off duty, and put themselves in harm’s way without payment to keep our society safe.

Today, the special constabulary—an institution that has served this nation for nearly two centuries—faces a crisis. The number of volunteer officers has fallen by two thirds in the past decade; in the past year alone, we have seen a 20% drop. Many police forces now face significant gaps in their special constabulary ranks. This is not just a temporary dip, but a long-term trend. There are multiple factors at play, but clearly becoming a special is not an attractive proposition to too many potential recruits. I believe we must act now to ensure that the special constabulary continues to play a vital role in policing for generations to come.

It is in that context that I bring forward my amendment to the Bill, which seeks to amend section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. For those who are not aware, section 50 allows those undertaking a number of community roles to request unpaid time off work to perform their duties. On the list are magistrates, local councillors, school governors and even members of the Environment Agency. It seems strange to me that we would exclude those prepared to keep us safe from the list of community-minded citizens.

Of course, some employers are understanding and already try to support officers on their staff. When the Association of Special Constabulary Officers wrote to the Minister calling for him to back these changes, he responded that the Employer Supported Policing scheme was being promoted to increase the number of specials, but this is simply not enough. A survey completed by ASCO last year showed that more than 60% of specials are not supported by their employers, and it is currently lawful for employers to refuse time off for specials.

The riots last summer demonstrated the benefit of having a flexible police force. Given the Government’s focus on promoting neighbourhood and community policing, increasing the number of specials seems like a good choice. This measure will not cost the taxpayer a penny—it simply puts special constables on the same footing as other volunteers.

This new clause has the support of right hon. and hon. Members from almost every party represented in this House and has been endorsed by 10 police and crime commissioners. Importantly, Assistant Chief Constable Bill Dutton, acting in his capacity as the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for the special constabulary, has provided his written support for including special constables under section 50.

I believe that this new clause would help the recruitment and retention of many new special constables and make our streets safer. It would also finally recognise the work of the specials and put them on the same footing as the thousands of other people in the country who are allowed time off work to complete valuable civic duties. It is in that spirit that I ask the Minister to seriously consider whether the Government will accept new clause 30. \p Matt Western: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my union membership. The legislation before us today is truly historic. It is totemic in scale—the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. I commend the Minister and the team for the work they have done.

The Bill delivers not only for working families, but for the whole country. It will lead to higher productivity, higher wages and, ultimately, economic growth. These reforms are unashamedly pro-worker and pro-business, in sharp contrast with the past 14 years, when we saw low pay, low productivity and low growth in the economy. Shockingly, productivity grew by just 0.2% a year between 2010 and 2020. Since 2011, we have seen insecure work rise nearly three times as fast as secure work. Whether it be the 800 P&O workers who were sacked over Zoom without notice, the retail workers whose shifts get cancelled last minute and now cannot afford their weekly food shop, or the 9 million people—one in three workers in this country—not protected from unfair dismissal, it cannot go on.

I will talk briefly about some of the measures in the Bill. Day one rights will provide a serious boost for millions of people. Nine million workers have less than two years’ service with their employer, and thus do not enjoy protections from unfair dismissal. I would welcome some clarity around the initial period of employment. What specific timeframe would the measure apply to, and what exactly does it mean? Moreover, I urge the Government to look at what support is available for smaller firms that are concerned about the impact that the measure may have on their costs. Can we consider what more can be done to guide companies through these changes?

Zero-hours contracts are endemic across our economy. So many people with those contracts are given very little notice when their work is cancelled. In some cases, they may have already sorted out their childcare or made travel arrangements.

Let me turn briefly to industrial relations. An important element of the legislation is setting the new framework for industrial relations. The Business and Trade Committee heard from many good employers, such as Jaguar Land Rover and British Aerospace, that work with the unions to create the right employment practices across their businesses. By contrast, we also witnessed the mistreatment of workers and the denial of their basic rights at Amazon, which clearly had problems in the workplace.

The proposed Fair Work Agency, which is welcomed by unions and progressive businesses alike, is a positive move. As we heard in the Business and Trade Committee, the agency needs to be adequately resourced, because it is so important.

I shall turn to some of the amendments that I support. We just heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) about new clause 74. One constituent of mine, Mrs E, was the victim of harassment in the workplace. She was victim to a particular individual who was protected by the management. Ultimately, she had to leave the organisation. He then also had to leave himself. Harassment is such a problem in the workplace, and it is something that must be addressed in this legislation.

New clause 81 relates to modern slavery. The Select Committee heard about the problems of Shein and how companies in the UK have been disadvantaged by the practices of businesses that operate elsewhere.

I wish to talk a bit more about productivity and the points that I raised with the shadow Minister. The legislation is important because it brings not only great benefits to workers, but even greater responsibilities for employers. Tighter employment legislation leads to greater productivity, as we see in France and Germany. Both countries have seen a 20% advantage in their productivity compared with that of the UK. This is why we have seen such a stagnant economy in the UK over the past 10 years.

This legislation is another reminder to the people of this country that only the Labour party can deliver for working families. It will mean less uncertainty at work, less insecurity at work and more money in people’s pockets.

I urge the Government to look at the Fair Work Agency, and particularly at the definitions of “reasonable notice”, “moved” and “short notice”, and to provide clarity on how many weeks the initial and subsequent reference periods should be.

This is a colossal piece of legislation that is so important in this decade. It brings about real change, which is what this party will deliver for working people, thereby boosting productivity and ultimately growing the economy. \p Layla Moran: I rise to speak to new clause 74, which appears in the name of the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh). I pay tribute to her and say that the Back Benches are very lucky to have her. May I also pay tribute to Mr B, whose story she told so movingly?

The campaign to redress the power imbalance for those offered non-disclosure agreements in cases of sexual harassment, harassment, bullying and discrimination has been many years in the making. It transcends organisations and it transcends party. I pay tribute to Members past and present of all colours who have been part of this campaign for so long. I was pleased to hear from the Minister from the Dispatch Box that he hopes to continue to make progress, but I hope to urge him to go further faster, and for very good reason. It is long past time that this practice just stopped.

I want to reveal another never-before-told story from ITN. It is never-before-revealed because it is covered by a non-disclosure agreement, which means that I will be using privilege to reveal the details. Before I begin, it is worth saying that the victim is not alone; I understand that there are seven out there from ITN—we have heard another one today—and that investigations have been done by ITN’s board, which is intent on change. This victim is clear that she does not want to cause ITN problems, but she wants MPs to understand the effect that this continues to have on her life and why we need to act quickly.

This young woman was in her mid-20s when she landed her dream job at ITN. She quickly became trapped in what we understand to be a coercive, controlling sexual relationship with an older male editor. He would hurl wild accusations at her and accuse her of affairs with colleagues. She ended up suffering from panic attacks as a result of the relationship. Before Christmas 2019, she finally had the courage to end it.

When she returned to work in January, she had been demoted. Her hours were reduced and so was her pay. The first editor she told warned her to stay silent. She said: “You don’t want to be one of those women who always moan about being wronged.” She then confided in a more senior editor, and things got worse. She told her: “It’s not like he ever hit you. It’s not like you ever had to go to A&E with broken bones.”

She went to work every day for the next year. It took ITN months to agree to an HR investigation into what happened. It agreed only on the condition that she would also be investigated. HR found that it could not assess the complaint because it was criminal in nature, but at the same time found it to be unfounded. That makes no sense. Around this time, she asked a question at an ITN women’s empowerment forum, in front of all staff, during the pandemic. She simply asked, “What support is there for women who report alleged sexual harassment in the workplace?” Within an hour, her email had been cut off. HR summoned her to an urgent meeting; her primary offence, it would seem, was asking for help.

From that moment, she was suspended without pay. She had been completely cut off from almost all support networks for about a year. ITN told her that she was not allowed to tell anyone—except the police, to be fair—what was happening. Even her best friend had to sign an NDA to attend a meeting to support her. The NHS offered her group therapy for her anxiety, but she felt that she had to decline because the organisation insisted that she stayed silent. Her lawyer said that the organisation was trying to starve her out in negotiations over her exit. They took years. By the time they got to a settlement, she had racked up £70,000 in legal fees. \p Sarah Russell: I know from experience that it is a practice of employment lawyers who work for employers to go on to Google Maps and look at the houses in which complainants live, to assess the assets that they are likely to have and whether they are likely to be able to afford to continue their defence to tribunal, or whether they could be offered a smaller amount as a settlement. Does the hon. Lady agree that NDAs are providing cover for that? \p Layla Moran: Absolutely. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that we need to put a stop to.

The young woman eventually reached a settlement, but it was extremely one-sided. She panicked, because the NDA gagged not just her but her partner, her best friends and her parents, but it did not gag the men or the senior executives involved in the harassment that she faced. It covered not just business matters—we are not seeking to stop confidentiality agreements on business matters—but everything painful that she had endured. Her mental health spiralled and she ended up in hospital. Every day that she was in a hospital bed, the lawyers sent her automatic reminders to sign her NDA. This was a woman at her most vulnerable. It is entirely wrong that she was put in that position.

It is worth saying that almost none of that NDA is enforceable. It if was taken to court, it would fail. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 makes it clear that she should have been able to get that support. We are kidding ourselves if we think that NDAs are not still being used and issued. They are. That is why this Bill—whether now, in the Lords or wherever—needs to put a stop to it.

Many years on, following an investigation into the treatment of these workers at ITN, the woman does believe that the organisation is trying to change, and she is grateful to the executives from within who are pushing for reform. The latest update is that ITN is willing to renegotiate her NDA. That is laudable, but she should never have been put under one in the first place, and those protections should be everywhere.

We face a weird situation which we in the House have created. In the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, there is a provision—it was tabled as an amendment by Labour and taken on in the Lords by the then Conservative Government—that says that such non-disclosure agreements are not allowed, but it covers only higher education settings, because that was the scope of the Act. I am an Oxford MP. How does it make any sense at all that I might have a constituent who is   protected from such non-disclosure agreements if they work for the university but not if they work for any of the university spin-outs? \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. I pay tribute to the people who have shared their experiences. Does she agree that the people we are talking about have means and support networks, and that without these protections the most vulnerable in society will be affected, which is why getting the laws right is so important? \p Layla Moran: I thank the hon. Member very much; these people are indeed incredibly brave. What we are trying to show is that it happens to men and women, it is discrimination, it is sexual harassment, and it is ubiquitous—it is happening everywhere and it is happening now. We are not seeking to silence people. In fact, new clause 74 says that if a victim wants an NDA for whatever reason, they would be allowed one. The new clause simply seeks to redress the gap.

How can it be right that, sometime soon, in some establishments, workers will be protected and that in others they will not? It is time for the Government to sort this out. The new clause does not say exactly how they should do that, but that the protections afforded to all workers anywhere should be the same as those afforded in universities. It would give the Government six months from the Bill’s enactment to sort it out, which should be plenty of time. Arguably, they should be able to tackle this with something in the Lords, which would give them a bit of extra time.

I urge the Minister not to wait for some other Bill or some other time. I welcome the meaningful words that we have heard from the Dispatch Box. However, I also urge him to look back—I appreciate that that is not to this Government but another one—because we have heard this before. The campaign has transcended parties and transcended years—it has transcended Parliaments. We are making slow progress; meanwhile, victims continue to be hurt day after day. Every day that these NDAs—often made in perpetuity—endure, that hurt and trauma continues. Please, let this be the Government who put the abuses of non-disclosure agreements where they belong—in the trash can—so that we finally afford the protections that we are about to give to all university workers to every single employee. \p Imogen Walker: As per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I am a member of GMB. My union membership has given me reassurance for many years that I have backing if I need it. I am conscious that although in this place we may be listened to when we speak up, for too many people insecurity and lack of respect at work are an everyday experience.

Businesses suffered under the failure of the previous Government to act when reform was needed. That was not in this area alone, of course, but today we are speaking about the relevant amendments. We can come back to their other failings another day—or perhaps on more than one other day—because this is the time for action and we are the party of business.

Everyone should have a contract that reflects the hours that they work. There is a place for flexibility, but people need to sort out transport and childcare and  plan their household budgets, so we will ensure that agency and low or zero-hours contracts work for both sides—for businesses and workers. For too long, zero-hours contracts have often been at the expense of people who are just trying to make a living for themselves and their families. We will put a stop to that.

A day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay, and giving the Fair Work Agency the power to bring civil proceedings and issue penalties is an important move. The vast majority of employers respect the rights of the people who work for them and have nothing to fear from that. In fact, they will welcome the levelling of the playing field. As they tell us all the time, their good practice must not be undermined by the unscrupulous minority.

We also say that everyone should be free from harassment when they are at their place of work. The message that Conservative Members send when they object to that protection—to, among others, the many thousands of young women who have been harassed at work—is appalling. In contrast, we believe that everyone deserves respect at work, whatever the industry they work in. I want to reassure, among others, workers in the hospitality and retail industries that they matter, they deserve better and we are on their side. Further, when issues happen, it is to everyone’s benefit to resolve them quickly. We will fast-track decision making and back that up with robust fines. That helps businesses and workers and it minimises stress, cost and delay.

I am pleased that the Bill is welcomed by many of our leading employers, including Centrica, as already mentioned. I know Centrica well; it has a training academy in my constituency. Its chief executive, Chris, is fully supportive of the legislation as not just the right thing to do but as a foundation for a high-growth, high-skills economy and the progress that our country needs.

A stable workforce will help both employers and workers. The chaos of repeated strikes has damaged businesses and services and left our country reeling. The Conservative party may be instinctively opposed to empowering ordinary people, but on the Labour Benches, we say that these are the people who keep our country going and they have the full support of this Government. \p Chris Law: I rise to speak to new clause 75 and to other new clauses and amendments in my name.

Last year, the Labour party committed to

“strengthen statutory sick pay, remove the lower earnings limit to make it available to all workers and remove the waiting period.”

Although the removal of the lower earnings limit and the waiting period are welcome, the fact remains that the UK’s statutory sick pay does not meet the needs of working people. The miserly increases to the rate—it has just been increased by £2 after five years—are far from the transformative change that Labour promised and will not help to deliver a healthier population and a growing economy. Indeed, only a few years ago, during the covid period, the Minister noted that the then Health Secretary had

“admitted that he could not live on statutory sick pay”.—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee Delegated Legislation Committee, 25 January 2021; c. 7.]

To be clear, the UK is lagging behind in its provision of SSP, offering one of the least generous systems in the OECD. While the Labour Government propose a rate of £118.75 a week, or 80% of average weekly earnings—whichever is lower—numerous other European countries, such as Austria, Germany, Iceland and Luxembourg either provide full salary payments or cover a portion of earnings ranging from 50% to 90%. Amendment 272 would bring the UK into closer alignment with other OECD countries.

With limited coverage and relatively low rates, many workers and particularly low-income and part-time employees are left without sufficient financial support when they fall ill. Such a gap in sick pay provision impacts workers’ wellbeing, exacerbating financial stress during illness, and can discourage people from taking the necessary time off to recover. It contributes to poorer health outcomes, undermining longer, healthier working lives across the UK population. Surely no one in this House wants that to continue.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation states that the most effective way of strengthening sick pay is by increasing the rate. There are numerous amendments that would do that, including new clause 76 in my name, which would gradually increase the rate of statutory sick pay over the next five years, taking it to at least 80% of the rate of the national living wage, and others that propose SSP to be the higher of a prescribed rate or percentage of usual weekly earnings. Moreover, a report by WPI Economics shows that sick pay reforms could result in a net financial benefit to this country of more than £4 billion. It also found that the positive effects of sick pay reform would particularly help the increasing proportion of the British workforce who manage long-term conditions and ensure that fewer workers fall out of the job market entirely.

As an example, many people with multiple sclerosis need to take time off work for varying lengths of time for reasons related to their condition. Some people with MS are well supported by their employers through occupational sick pay—of course we support that—and can take the time off work that they need on full pay. When people with MS can get the financial support they need while they are off work, they can often stay in work for longer, as they can better manage their symptoms in the long term. This needs to be the same for all those with MS and other long-term conditions who rely on SSP.

New clause 75 would require the Secretary of State to consider such a change, with the aim of properly reforming this outdated and inflexible system. Changes for those with such conditions could include SSP being paid at an hourly rate, rather than a daily rate, to enable people to work half or part days on a gradual, phased return to work, or changing the restrictions on how people can claim and use SSP so that it is fairer for people with fluctuating conditions by extending eligibility timeframes. Sadly, however, I suspect that the Labour party is looking to slash welfare spending, as has been reported today—700,000 disabled people being pushed into poverty will be no joy to many—and that it has little interest in making such supportive and progressive change. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

The Labour Government’s lack of gumption in their approach to SSP is illustrative of the timidity of their approach in this Employment Rights Bill. Yes, the Bill  makes improvements to the rights of working people and, yes, it reverses some of the worst excesses of the Tory Government, but it could have done so much more. Where is the straightforward system defining a single status of worker to replace the maze of confusing classifications, designed to limit protections, that continue to exist? Where are the increased provisions for collective bargaining to alleviate low pay? Where have the promises disappeared to of the right to switch off, which would ensure better work-life balance?

This was the opportunity to legislate to entrench employment rights and to ensure a fairer deal for workers and a healthier, more equitable and more productive economy and society. Unfortunately, this Bill is left wanting. I hope that, if the Labour party is serious about its manifesto commitments, the Minister will look at these new clauses and amendments. \p Lorraine Beavers: I welcome the Report stage of this Bill. I proudly declare my membership of Unite and the Communication Workers Union and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

This Bill will see the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights for a generation. It is an agenda for change—change that is desperately needed. Working class people keep this country cared for. They keep our streets clean, our shelves stacked and our public services running, but the imbalance of power in our workplace is plain to see. The P&O scandal was testament to that. This Bill represents a crucial first step in redressing that imbalance, especially amendment 80 on sick pay. It strengthens both collective and individual rights and puts more money in the pockets of working people.

I therefore welcome the Government’s amendment to the Bill ensuring that everyone gets sick pay from the first day they are ill, including those previously excluded for earning too little. Currently, around 1.2 million workers are excluded from statutory sick pay altogether, and the present three-day wait is extremely hard for those on low pay who often budget on a week-to-week basis. Me and my husband were those people who lived week to week and dragged ourselves into work when we were not well, because if we did not work, we did not eat when my children were small. The fact that the Bill rectifies that is extremely welcome.

The pandemic exposed just how inadequate current levels of sick pay are. I therefore urge the Government to ensure that as many workers as possible benefit from the measures in the Bill. In particular, they should look at what they can do to increase the rate of statutory sick pay over time, as we currently have one of the lowest rates of sick pay across the developed countries. I hope the Government continue to consider the impact of the removal of the lower earnings limit to ensure that everybody benefits from the measures in this Bill.

Overall, these changes will be transformative for working people in my constituency. As a working-class woman from a council estate, it does my heart good to be able to stand in this place supporting changes that will make the lives of working people better and give them the rewards they so deserve. \p James Wild: I pay tribute to all the Members who served on the Bill Committee for its 21 sessions. Their job was made harder by the  fact that this was rushed legislation brought forward purely to spare the blushes of the Deputy Prime Minister, who made promises to the trade union barons who fund her party. As a result, we see the large number of amendments that we are discussing today. It is also the case that while the Government have consulted during the passage of the Bill, they do not appear to have listened to employers very much. Hon. Members should beware the unintended consequences of these measures and the Bill.

Turning to the amendments, given that the Government’s apparent priority is growth, new clause 87 is an essential addition. Many of the powers in the Bill will be implemented through regulations, which, clearly, the House, employers and employees do not have any details of. The approach again shows the rushed nature of the legislation. Commonly, throughout the passage of other Bills, the regulations would be passed in draft while the clauses implementing them were considered. That has not happened in this case, so it is therefore wholly sensible to require that when making regulations, Ministers must have regard to the international competitiveness of the economy. As hon. Members know, the Government inherited the fastest-growing economy in the G7, but since then, what has happened? Their actions and words have stopped growth stone dead. As well as competitiveness, it is essential that the Government take into account economic growth in the medium and long term.

My concern is that the Government are treating businesses like the mule in Buckaroo, loading on more and more costs and obligations. Anyone who has played the game will know that it is inevitable that there will be a reaction and the mule will buck. In economic terms, that means fewer jobs, higher prices and lower wages. The Government’s own impact assessment puts the cost to business at £5 billion a year. That simply cannot be absorbed by companies, so new clause 87 would offer some protection.

Many hon. Members have spoken about the extension of employment provisions to day one, and I recognise that the extension of unfair dismissal is well intentioned. However, the reality is that that increases the risk to employers of taking people on. The Federation of Small Businesses has said that the

“increased risk will inevitably deter small employers from taking on new people, for fear of facing an employment tribunal simply because a new recruit turns out to be unsuited to the role.”

That is bad for people, jobs, investment and growth.

New clause 86 would require the Secretary of State to assess the impacts of extending the provisions in clause 21, with Parliament having to approve them. This parliamentary lock is about protecting the chance that young people, ex-offenders and people from other vulnerable groups have to join the workforce, as otherwise firms might simply not take a chance on them. Part-time work will be particularly hit by the Bill. Those measures are on top of the Government’s £25 billion a year jobs tax, which is making 750,000 jobs in the hospitality sector subject to employer national insurance for the first time—a £1 billion cost for that sector. Those are the very type of flexible roles that are well suited, as was mentioned earlier, to people on long-term sickness benefits who might be looking to move back into the workplace, and the Bill undermines all of that.

The third area I want to focus on is flexible working and the provisions on guaranteed hours, including new clause 28 tabled by the Government. Again, it is worth listening to business leaders, who have warned about the unintended consequences. The chief executive of Currys, for example, has said that guaranteed hours measures will penalise younger workers and

“millions of others who benefit from flexible hours, making such jobs less viable and businesses less competitive.”

We do not need to be a retailer, or even an economist or lawyer, to know that stores and leisure and hospitality businesses have seasons. That is particularly the case in my constituency. Companies have to plan to have the right size workforce at different times of the year, and these measures will damage that. \p Sarah Russell: It appears to be quite commonly overlooked by Opposition Members that flexible working will still be available to people on fixed-term contracts. Does the hon. Member agree that such contracts can be used to manage seasonal fluctuations? \p James Wild: I am simply pointing to the words of the chief executive of Currys, which employs thousands of people across the country. I am not here to tell employers what form of contracts to offer their staff, and I am not sure that it is the hon. Lady’s job to do so either. However, the Bill will certainly remove flexibility.

The Government are doubling down by extending that requirement to agency workers. Flexible contracts, which are valued by staff—we have heard from other Conservative Members about their benefits—will be undermined by the Bill. A flexible labour market is an important part of securing a growing economy. The previous Government managed to achieve that while also extending employment rights. As the Federation of Small Businesses and organisations that provide millions of jobs have warned, the clear danger of the Bill is that it will make it harder to employ people by increasing risks and costs.

Rather than striking the balance that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), spoke about, the Government have produced measures that, when taken together—and on top of the Chancellor’s tax-raising Budget and the near doubling of business rates for hospitality, retail and leisure businesses—create a significant cost and regulatory risk. That is why we oppose the Bill and the Government’s action to hike taxes and increase regulation that will make us less competitive. \p Alistair Strathern: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my trade union membership.

For far too long, our economy has been stuck in a low-growth, low-wage, low-aspiration situation. For far too long, we have allowed some of the best employers and businesses in the country to be undercut by more unscrupulous employers that, as they are unable to compete through competitive advantage or productivity, do so only by levelling down working conditions. That simply cannot be right. We have heard in Committee, in the House and in headlines over many years some heartbreaking examples of the worst scandals that that has enabled. Truthfully, there is not a person in our society who is not losing out as a result of our failure to tackle this issue.

Opposition Members have commented on the pace at which the Government are moving on that issue. We would not have to move at such a pace if they had done more. \p Marie Tidball: I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees with Julie Abraham, the CEO of Richer Sounds, who says:

“Happy colleagues are likely to be more productive. This also leads to reduced stock loss and higher staff retention, which in turn, minimises recruitment and training costs, not to mention disruption to established teams.” \p Alistair Strathern: I could not have put it better myself.

Research is clear about the strong link between good working conditions and good productivity, and the wider economic benefits that they bring. That is why I am grateful to everyone who has played their part, including the Minister and members of the Bill Committee—I have sympathy for those who had to endure some of the tropes that we have heard today—in ensuring that we had such a big and comprehensive package before us today.

We are debating some strong amendments today. I will focus on new clause 32 in particular, as it affects a constituent who came to my surgery recently. The literature on the harms of zero-hours contracts—their impact not just on productivity but on poverty and on workers’ conditions, health and mental health—is compelling, but if we do not acknowledge the human impact, we miss half the story.

At my constituency surgery two weeks ago, I was joined by a gentleman who had been working for four years on a zero-hours contract at Royal Mail. For four years, he had not known what hours he would be working week to week, month to month, year to year. For four years, he had not been able to plan his daily life—his other commitments, and the further education that he was trying to do to build out his skills and better himself. For four years, his life had been narrowed by the precarious reality of the exploitative application of zero-hours contracts by those who should haven know better.

For that reason, I am so glad that the Government committed in our manifesto and in the Bill, which was introduced some time ago now, to taking on zero-hours contracts and giving people the right, where appropriate, to request a fixed-hours contract. However, without new clause 32, my constituent would have been missed out, because although he works at Royal Mail, he is employed through an agency. Without the extension of protections in the new clause he would, like many others across the country, have lost out. I am very glad that we are being complete in our approach and ensuring that we do not miss out from that important protection the very many employees who are currently working for agencies.

There are lots of other important amendments to the Bill. I was glad to hear such warm words from the Minister in his opening remarks about the very important amendment tabled by my Bedfordshire neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). It is impossible to hear her testimony about bereavement or to speak to parents who have gone through bereavement and not recognise the simple reality that to be bereaved is not to be sick, and that our leave system should  recognise it as such. I was very glad to hear from the Minister that the Government will work with my hon. Friend and others across the House who have campaigned on this issue for a long time to ensure we recognise that reality.

There are a number of important measures in the Bill. I can do justice to very few of them in three minutes, so I want to focus on just one: clause 14, which is about ensuring we remove some of the barriers to new dads taking up paternity leave early on in their employment. It is a well-recognised fact that we have some of the worst paternity leave entitlements across Europe. Although shared parental leave sounds great as a concept, we do not have to look far to notice that its uptake is shockingly low and shockingly skewed to the highest earners. I am glad that we are taking a small but important step in the Bill to recognise that we need to do more to boost access to paternity leave. The Government will be conducting a review of parental leave later this year, and I know that Members across the House will be keen to engage with the Minister on how we can go further, not just in allowing fathers to have that crucial early time with their child but in breaking down the very gendered nature of parenting, which is currently baked into our statutory provision on parental leave.

There are so many important measures in the Bill and so many important areas where we know we will need to go further. Fundamentally, I am full of pride to see a Government finally, after inaction by the Conservatives for far too long, taking seriously the issues of workplace security, productivity and the wellbeing of people across the country in some of the most vulnerable forms of employment. I am proud that this Government are standing up for my constituent and many people like him across the country, and I am proud to support the Bill today. \p Alison Griffiths: In the last 30 years, I have worked in businesses of every size in numerous sectors, from consumer goods to cyber-security and insurance to cloud infrastructure. I may not be a lawyer, but I feel well qualified to comment on this Bill. The Government need not take it from me; if only they had listened to the businesses I have spoken to.

I am vice-chair of the Business and Trade Committee, and my fellow Committee members and I have spent many hours listening to evidence on the Bill from employers, trade unions and industry groups. Our Select Committee toured the country at the end of last year, collating evidence and hearing from a wide range of sectors. In my coastal constituency of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, I have spoken to numerous businesses, many of which are impacted by the vagaries of seasonal trade and inclement British weather. A consistent message emerges, from businesses at least, if not from the trade unions: how can a Government who claim their primary focus is delivering growth be so tin-eared to the views and needs of the very businesses, entrepreneurs and employees who are fundamental to creating that growth?

The Government have boasted of delivering this Bill, which is telephone directory-thick, within their first 100 days. This is not sensible governance—indeed, the telephone directory of amendments is testament to that. One of the most damaging provisions is the abolition of the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal under clause 21, allowing employees to question failing  probation or a trial period in their contract. From day one, employees will be able to take their employers to court. Our Conservative amendment 287 seeks to remove this clause entirely because it will disincentivise businesses from hiring, as they will know they cannot let an employee go even if it is not working out.

The Government expect entrepreneurs and businesses to take the risks necessary to drive growth. Indeed, that is what they expect and want to do, but clause 21 adds unnecessary risk and is likely to be to the detriment of jobseekers. It will further marginalise those who would already be considered risky candidates. \p Antonia Bance: The hon. Member and I both serve on the Business and Trade Committee. The statistics show that the vast majority of young people do not have two years’ service and therefore have no protection from US-style “fire at will” policies. In hospitality and catering, which are industries that the hon. Member has massive concerns about, vast numbers have no protection from fire at will—overnight firing for no reason and with no process—and the Bill will outlaw that. I know that she supports fair process and fair reasons for firing, so I hope that she will support the Bill today. \p Alison Griffiths: The hon. Member knows that I will always support fair process, but the point I was making is that this clause will make it more difficult for employers to take on prison leavers, care leavers, candidates with a non-traditional CV, career changers, and young people who are just looking for that first rung on the jobs ladder. Those people will not be given a fair chance, as employers will see them as too risky, and I hope she will see the risks inherent in the clause. \p Jerome Mayhew: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. I used to be an employer. I was an entrepreneur for about 15 years, and we employed more than 1,000 people. Does she agree that exactly those people who are a bit of a risk because they have something not quite right on their CV and are a high-risk hire, are the people who will not get jobs as a result of the Bill? \p Alison Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful point. Anyone who has ever looked for a job—Members in the Chamber will probably count themselves as being among the better qualified of the population looking for work—will know that most employers, of any kind, do not want to take a risk. If we make it even harder for them to employ people who are a risk at base point, it will not serve their purposes.

The Government’s own impact assessments suggest that the direct effects of the Bill will cost UK businesses an additional £5 billion annually. That estimate most likely understates the true cost, as it accounts only for administrative burdens while ignoring the broader impact on hiring, business costs and strike action. Key factors such as reduced hiring due to zero-hours contract limits, increased strike activity, and greater liability from employment tribunal claims, as outlined in the Bill, are dismissed as “too hard to calculate”, making those assessments highly questionable.

That is why I support new clause 86, which would require an impact assessment to be carried out for the measures in clause 21. We tabled new clause 83 and  amendment 283 to ensure that the Bill’s provisions on zero-hours workers would not come into force until a comprehensive review of the Bill’s impact on employment tribunals had been assessed and approved by Parliament. Clause 18 places a new duty on employers to prevent third-party harassment. Protecting employees is unquestionably important, and no one should doubt the sincerity of Conservative Members about that. \p Tom Hayes: Does the hon. Member agree, as I do, that it is right that 1.3 million low earners who find themselves ill should receive statutory sick pay for the first time? Like her, I represent a coastal seat with a tourist sector, and as a consequence my constituency has a significant number of low earners. Does she agree that we need to be backing them? \p Alison Griffiths: I refer the hon. Member first to my earlier comments about ensuring that we do not disincentivise employers, and secondly to the flexibility that is needed for both employers and employees.

Amendment 288 seeks to exclude hospitality providers and sports venues from those provisions, recognising the impracticality of holding employers accountable for every interaction in those environments. It is simply not practical to think that every publican, landlord and bar owner—small business owners—would be liable for any harassment that happens towards their employees in a pub, bar, nightclub or festival. Amendment 285 would require an impact assessment to be carried out on clause 18. Of course businesses and business owners should embed good working practices and guidelines to combat this abhorrent behaviour, but it is impractical and undesirable for the Government to legislate nationally for every sector and business. \p Sarah Russell: The hon. Lady will appreciate that there is a defence here if an employer has taken all reasonable steps. It is only reasonable steps. \p Alison Griffiths: I am sorry; I think we have made enough progress.

I urge the Government to reconsider, to withdraw the Bill and to work with businesses, unions and workers to create a fair and balanced approach that prioritises the political interests— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I call Lee Barron. \p Lee Barron: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have said it before, and I will say it again: due to the virtue of my last name, I am the only legitimate union Barron in this place, and I am absolutely proud of it.

It is an honour to speak on this Bill again, and I commend this Government for bringing it forward. We made a commitment to working people before the election, and we are following that through. I welcome the Government’s new clause on agency workers. In Corby we have more employment agencies than any other town in Northamptonshire. We now see that those who work in agency jobs will receive fair treatment  in pay, working hours and job security, which is to be welcomed as we aim to create a better local economy for the people of Corby and East Northants. \p Rosie Wrighting: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He and I are constituency neighbours. As he will know, there has been a lot of growth in Northamptonshire and increased distribution in the area, so the Government new clause will make a massive difference to our constituents. \p Lee Barron: It will indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point so well.

This Bill has been a huge move in terms of sick pay, as far as the Government are concerned. It will bring 1.3 million people into getting sick pay for the first time, and we need to welcome that. We might need to have a look at some point in the future to see if there has been a drag downwards in terms of the people around the lower earnings limit, but we should certainly welcome this as a step in the right direction.

This is not just about legislation: we must change  the jobs market and the perception of work that some people have in modern Britain. There are still some people who do not recognise the value that working people bring. I had a meeting last week with the parcel delivery company Evri, which operates in all our constituencies. It described the employer-employee relationship as a “master-servant” relationship. I turn around and say that that kind of view of working people is absolutely dated. Evri said that if it changed the status of its workers, it would want its “pound of flesh”—its words, not mine.

While we have those who treat and describe working people in such a way, we must bring in legislation to ensure that they cannot treat people like that. Working people are not servants, and they should be treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve. That is a fundamentally wrong, crass and outdated way to view employment in modern Britain, and as long as there are still those who think like that, we need to ensure that we change things for the better, and this Bill goes a long way towards doing that.

The question I often ask myself is this: why do those who want economic growth think that we make growth happen through insecure work, minimal wage rates and zero-hours contracts, under which people do not know what they will earn in order to support their family from one week to the next? Work should not mean a lifetime trapped in poverty; it should be the route out of poverty, and this Bill is a step in the right direction to ensure that is what it becomes once again.

I chair the all-party parliamentary group on modernising employment, and at our last meeting we heard from Zelda Perkins, of the Can’t Buy My Silence campaign, about non-disclosure agreements. Her testimony makes it absolutely clear that more needs to be done in that space, and if there is room to do so through this Bill, I urge the Government to accept the amendments that were described earlier. The APPG looks to the future of work and what good employment looks like. At the end of the month, the APPG is going to look at good work, the new deal and this Bill. We will look at the full effects of this Bill to see how we can take forward its benefits and transfer them into the modern world of work. In the 21st century, modern employment should look like  security of work, well-paid and with progression opportunities, in order to keep families out of poverty. This Bill goes some way towards doing that.

In conclusion, I urge all Members to support this Bill, which bans exploitative zero-hours contracts. Saying that this will somehow stop flexible working is for the birds—it is not the case. We had flexible working long before we had zero-hours contracts. We survived then, we can survive now, and we will survive into the future. \p Joe Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Lee Barron: No.

Zero-hours contracts are banned in Spain and in the Republic of Ireland—employers cannot use them. Do not tell me that those countries do not have flexibility; they have. We will survive in the future, as we survived in the past, without exploiting working people, because countries do not grow their economy by exploiting working people. This Bill goes some way towards stopping that.

The Bill bans exploitative zero-hours contracts, increases protection from sexual harassment, introduces equality menopause action plans, strengthens rights for pregnant workers, makes flexible working the default, strengthens bereavement leave, improves pay and conditions through fair pay agreements, provides day one protections against unfair dismissal, and establishes the Fair Work Agency to make sure all employers are playing by the same rules. The Bill will deliver the jobs for the future that will benefit working people in Corby and East Northamptonshire, and I am proud to support it. \p Alec Shelbrooke: I will focus first on new clause 83, tabled by the Opposition.

The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker)—who I think I am just catching before she leaves the Chamber—said that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay. The right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) also said that we all agree that an honest day’s work deserves an honest day’s pay. A lot of today’s speeches have been focused on banning zero-hours contracts, and the argument has been made that people deserve to know what their contracts are, what they are going to be paid, and that they are going to be treated properly. One of the reasons I think this Bill is rushed and is falling down goes back to a question I put to the Secretary of State when this Bill began its passage through the House: why does it not cover unpaid internships?

Looking at this Bill, and with today’s debate having focused so much on zero-hours contracts, I find it difficult to understand why we would leave a whole section of society out of the Bill—people who can work for up to 12 months without any pay. Banning unpaid internships has been in Labour manifesto after Labour manifesto. In every Parliament I have been a Member of, I have tabled a Bill to ban those internships. My Government did not want to do it, despite Prime Ministers making promises at the Dispatch Box when I first raised the issue, but there are Members on the Government Benches who stood on manifestos that said they would ban unpaid internships. Now we have this great Bill, which was trailed in the general election and is being promoted by the Labour party, yet there is nothing in it  about unpaid internships. When the Bill goes to the other place, that has to be looked at, because such internships are wrong.

We have heard a great deal today about opportunities for people, but what opportunities are there for people such as my sister and me, who had to work and earn a living to be able to do what we have gone on to do? We could not have spent 12 months working in London unpaid. The fact that a whole section of society can go unpaid is still not being addressed, and that fundamentally undermines what I am hearing from Labour Members about what the Bill will do to create equality. I think that is wrong. The review of the impact on employment tribunals that is proposed in new clause 83 needs to be wider, and it needs to be understood that if the aim is to create equality, it is not in fact being created.

Let me return to a point that I made to the Minister at the beginning of the debate. I am grateful for the answer that he gave me then. The Bill contains clauses about parental leave and bereavement leave—I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her dedication to this subject; it was very brave of her to bring her own experiences to the House—but it does not deal with all the aspects of menstrual health, and I think that that will need to be addressed in the other place. Endometriosis is a crippling disease, as I said in my intervention, and last Thursday I was proud to host an event at which it was discussed. I do not think people realise just how debilitating it can be for people in the workplace, and it deserves the same attention as any other aspect of menstrual health—a strategy like the menopause strategy, for instance. This constitutes a big hole in the Bill.

I am trying to take what the Government want to do at face value, but I think the Bill contains many flaws, which have been identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) and several other Conservative Members. There are significant gaps. The right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), among others, referred to non-disclosure agreements, and I thought that what she said illustrated some of the flaws in the provisions relating to psychological and emotional abuse. She gave the example of an incident involving someone who had been suffering at work and was made to apologise to the colleagues who had witnessed the incident, and I think that that should be dug into a bit. Why would that person have to apologise? The colleagues must have complained that the incident had been distressing for them. The words “psychological and emotional abuse” could have unforeseen consequences —although that is not to say that I do not care. The hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) said many things with which I could agree, but I ask Members please not to say that the Conservatives do not care about abuse in the workplace. \p Joe Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend think that some of the problems that he is identifying are a result of the Bill’s being rushed through this Chamber? \p Alec Shelbrooke: I do, and I am trying to make a serious point here. This is a big Bill, and it is one of the Government’s flagship pieces of policy. I heard someone say earlier, from a sedentary position, that we have   12 hours of debate, but that does not come up to the 21 days that we spent in Committee examining the Bill bit by bit. I agree with other Members that it has been rushed through for political purposes.

The purpose of debates such as this is to explore the issues, and try to make a Bill into a better piece of legislation. I am trying to be constructive in explaining where I see the flaws and in highlighting the unforeseen consequences. It worries me when we see the no-platforming of people at universities, and hear about trigger warnings and people saying that they feel emotionally put upon. That, I think, is an abuse of some of the protections that we are trying to introduce, and I think there are people who will try to abuse this particular clause. What I am saying to the Minister, and the Government, is, “Can that wording be tightened up?” \p Richard Burgon: It is always a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour from the other side of the House, the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke).

I really welcome the Bill, which needs to be put in its historical context. With the exception of those passed under the last Labour Government, virtually every time we have seen an employment rights Bill or a trade union Bill in recent decades, it has been an attack on trade union rights or workers’ rights, whereas this Bill makes a real difference in advancing the rights of working people in this country. They have been kicked around for too long, and it is right that we do not accept that it is fine for workers in this country to be some of the easiest to sack and mistreat in the continent. Workers in our country deserve better employment rights, and this Bill sets about putting them in place. \p Andy McDonald: My hon. Friend will have heard constantly, particularly in response to the P&O disaster, that the Conservatives were going to introduce an employment Bill when they were in government. Does my hon. Friend agree that they have criticised this Government for doing what they promised: to bring in this Bill within 100 days? \p Richard Burgon: I certainly do. The previous Government never got round to introducing such a Bill. When the Conservative party was in government, all we had about the P&O debacle were crocodile tears or statements of sorrow from the Dispatch Box, which just do not cut it.

This Bill contains important advances, such as establishing bereavement leave and introducing menopause action plans. Over 1 million people on zero-hours contracts will benefit from the guaranteed hours policy, and 9 million people who have been with an employer for less than two years will benefit from the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one. It seems to escape the understanding of many Conservative Members that this does not mean that employers cannot dismiss people; it means that they cannot dismiss people unfairly.

The Conservatives are arguing for the right of employers to dismiss people unfairly. As it stands, before this legislation comes in, the only way that workers can claim unfair dismissal from day one is if it is a discriminatory dismissal. To be clear, an employer could, six months into someone’s contract of employment, say, “I’m sacking you because I don’t like people who wear green jumpers,”  or, “I’m sacking you because I find your voice irritating.” That would be unfair dismissal. As it stands, people do not have the right not to be unfairly dismissed until they have accrued two years of service, and the Conservative party needs to come clean about that.

Before I move on to my new clause 6, I want to say that I welcome many of the Government amendments and the amendments tabled by Labour Back Benchers, including the many important amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who did such a good job at developing employment policy in opposition; the important amendments on sick pay, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain); and the important amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and for Luton North (Sarah Owen).

My new clause 6 would right what I consider to be a historical wrong. The last Labour Government brought in the groundbreaking Equality Act 2010, which we can all be proud of. As part of that, they introduced statutory discrimination questionnaires. When I was an employment lawyer before becoming a Member of Parliament, I lost track of the number of times that we used statutory discrimination questionnaires to smoke out discrimination in the workplace in relation to age, disability, sex, race, sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity, gender reassignment, religion or belief, and marriage and civil partnership.

I bumped into an old colleague who is a trade union lawyer on a train, and he made the point that statutory discrimination questionnaires also—[Interruption.] I make no apologies for having a friend who is a trade union lawyer—I think the Conservatives need to get out a bit more. He made the point that statutory discrimination questionnaires showed when a claim did not have a good chance of succeeding at an employment tribunal, helped to manage potential claimants’ expectations, and thus led to an unmeritorious claim either not being pursued or being settled. Such questionnaires helped to smoke out discrimination in workplaces, helping not just the individual employee, but tackling discrimination against workers more widely in that workplace. The truth is that in 2025, given some of the rhetoric from politicians in this country and around the world, it is as important as ever to have mechanisms in place to tackle discrimination in workplaces across the country.

That was part of the last Labour Government’s pioneering Equality Act. Shamefully, the Conservative Government abolished statutory Equality Act questionnaires in 2014 as part of their attack on workers’ rights. In their consultation, 83% of respondents said it was wrong to remove this important mechanism for workers to unmask and tackle discrimination—83%—yet the Conservative party when in government, aided and abetted by some of their erstwhile friends, ploughed ahead in any event.

I tabled new clause 6 because this is an important opportunity for our new Labour Government to right the wrong done by that Conservative-led Government and reinstate a very important advance made in the last Labour Government’s Equality Act. I look forward with interest to hearing the Minister’s response. If he will not accept this amendment to the Bill, I invite him to come forward with a proposal to reintroduce statutory discrimination questionnaires as soon as possible. They made a real difference. They helped to stop some claims  going to tribunal that should not have gone to tribunal, but, more importantly, they empowered workers to smoke out discrimination in their workplaces not only for their benefit, but for the benefit of their colleagues in that workplace and for the benefit of wider society. We need that now in 2025, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. \p Lisa Smart: A great many very important employment-related issues are being discussed, but I rise in support of new clause 16. As it stands, self-employed people are not entitled to statutory adoption pay, which creates a substantial economic barrier for prospective adopters. Without this support, the selfless act of adoption is being made harder. New clause 16 would fix that.

A constituent of mine, Kirsty, is a self-employed mother who discovered this significant gap in the financial support system while exploring the possibility of adoption. Kirsty and her husband have a son, Charlie, who is a bright-eyed four-year-old with an unshakeable love of trains. He often talked about how much he wanted a little sibling to be his assistant train driver, and after a year of trying to conceive a second child, Kirsty and her family decided that opening their hearts and their home to a child through adoption was the best option. However, one of Kirsty’s close friends—also self-employed and in the process of adopting—informed her that she was not entitled to the same financial support through statutory adoption pay, throwing her plans into doubt.

Unlike biological parents, who qualify for maternity allowance, or employed adopters, who are eligible for statutory adoption pay, self-employed adopters such as Kirsty fall into a financial support void. While statutory guidance allows local authorities to make discretionary means-tested payments equivalent to these allowances for the self-employed, such support is not guaranteed, and local authorities have no legal duty to provide it. In fact, a freedom of information request by the charity Home for Good has revealed that 34% of local authorities lack any policy for providing this financial support. Even worse, 90% of self-employed adopters, when they were surveyed by the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence back in 2022, reported that their social worker never advised them about these discretionary payments and the possibility of receiving them.

Adoption provides children with the opportunity to thrive in a permanent, loving home, often completing a family, as I have had the great pleasure of seeing for myself in my role as a proud adopted auntie. I am confident in my belief that Members across the House will agree that self-employed people are no less suited to adopt than anyone else. Despite the increase in the number of children in care, the number of adoptions in the UK has halved since its peak in 2015, and this is completely unsustainable. The enormous and growing pressures that face our foster care system will only worsen if the number of adoptions continues to decrease.

As of December 2024, there are 4.39 million self-employed people across the UK. If we began removing the financial barriers and empowering those who are self-employed through guaranteed financial support for adoption, we could begin to reverse the worrying trends in the number of adoptions. That would allow willing adopters such as Kirsty and her husband to be financially able to do so.

The financial case for supporting adoptive parents is compelling. Research by the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies UK shows that in 2021 adoption saved the economy £4.2 billion through improvements in children’s health, education and employment prospects, compared to the outcomes for children who remained in care or other placements. The CVAA also found that at least £1.3 million-worth of value is created when each child is adopted, underscoring the societal and economic benefits of increasing adoption numbers. I have raised the glaring gap in the financial support system several times in recent months. I have raised it with Ministers in a very constructive debate in Westminster Hall and with the Leader of the House, who recommended I table an amendment to this Bill.

The hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) mentioned the upcoming review of parental leave, and I am sure the Minister will mention it in summing up, but I really encourage the Government to support new clause 16 to grant entitlement to statutory adoption pay to the self-employed. We should be removing any barriers to adoption so that brilliant potential parents can adopt and some of our most vulnerable children can join their forever families. \p Michael Wheeler: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my proud membership of USDAW and the GMB.

It was an honour to serve on the Public Bill Committee for this historic piece of legislation. The Bill represents a watershed moment: a turning point for working people in our country who for too long have been left behind in an economy plagued by weak employment rights, stagnant growth and the soaring cost of living. The measures contained in the Bill represent a meaningful intervention in our broken labour market, looking to promote good quality jobs that offer dignity, security and respect to working people. As someone with a proud background representing workers, I wholeheartedly support the Bill’s spirit and provisions. I believe it will meet Labour’s promise to deliver a new deal for working people— a new deal that will make work pay.

Whether it is banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, ending the scandal of fire and rehire, or protecting employees from unfair dismissal from day one, the Bill will promote good secure employment and a workforce who finally feel valued. It recognises trade unions as the force for good in the workplace that they are, encouraging positive, productive and harmonious partnerships between companies and unions. The evidence we heard in Committee made it clear that many of the Bill’s measures enjoy broad support from both employees and employers, such as the modernising of family friendly rights to meet the needs of today’s workers, and the creation of the Fair Work Agency, which will protect good employers from being cynically undercut by unscrupulous competitors.

Let me now turn to statutory sick pay and Government amendment 81. During the pandemic, it became clear that SSP is in desperate need of reform. I am therefore delighted that the Bill removes the three waiting days and the lower earnings limit, delivering greater financial security to working people when they need it most. However, an issue remains. Setting the amount a low-paid worker receives while off sick at 80% of their wages has  the unintended consequence of reducing sick pay for those who earn at, or slightly above, the lower earnings limit. Low-paid, long-term sick workers will be the most affected. I believe that is an oversight, and contrary to the spirit of the legislation. I call on the Minister to close the gap.

Turning now to the right to a regular hours contract, the proliferation of one-sided flexibility throughout the workforce has been one of the most damaging labour market developments of the past 14 years. It has left workers vulnerable to sudden changes of income as their hours change from week to week. The right to a regular-hours contract is therefore one of the Bill’s most important provisions. However, limiting that right to those on a specified number of hours, such as 16 hours a week, will unnecessarily exclude those above the threshold from benefiting from the right, while giving employers a perverse incentive to give additional hours, when available, to those who already have more hours.

I raise these points not to be critical, but because I believe that we have in front of us a magnificent piece  of legislation—one that is testament to the power of collaboration and consultation—and I want as many people as possible to benefit from it. Jobs are the cornerstone of our lives. The Bill takes giant strides forward, ensuring that people are fulfilled by their jobs, protected while at work and take home enough to make ends meet. It restores a fair balance of power between employers and employees. It is good for workers, good for productivity and good for growth, and is therefore good for business, too. I suggest to the House that anyone serious about fairness at work and increasing living standards should support it. \p Joe Robertson: The hon. Gentleman talks about the Bill being good for growth, but is he concerned that the Government’s own assessment says it will cost businesses £5 billion? Does he have any concerns at all about the downward impact on growth of that cost? \p Michael Wheeler: I think that a Bill that promotes good, secure work across the economy is something we should not shy away from. I believe, if I am correct, that the figure referenced represents 0.5% of the costs of businesses, so no—I am not concerned.

I would like to finish in a slightly odd place. Benjamin Disraeli believed that his Government’s active role in passing legislation that benefited the working person would

“gain and retain for the Conservatives the lasting affection of the working classes”—

clearly he failed in that endeavour. One nation Tories are now a vanishingly scarce presence on the Opposition Benches. I ask all hon. Members on those Benches, with their opposition to this Bill: when did the Conservatives give up even trying to be on the side of working people? \p John Cooper: If growth is the intended destination, as my friends in Dublin would say, “You can’t get there from here”. This Bill—so long on amendments and so short on detail—cannot be reconciled with this Government’s stated mantra of growth, growth, growth. By their own estimate, the Bill will cost business £5 billion—so easily dismissed by the  hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler), despite being a serious amount of money. The only growth will be in the mountain of red tape in which the Bill will snare businesses.

I rise to speak in favour of new clause 87, which would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the

“international competitiveness of the economy”

and its growth in the medium to long term. The Secretary of State for Business must surely recognise the importance of this—after all, I saw him just days ago in a slick video, with cuts quicker than the shower scene in Hitchcock’s “Psycho”, boasting of

“working together abroad to deliver growth at home”.

Now, I love a fantasy film as much as anyone, but the Secretary of State is in danger of jumping the shark with this level of sophistry and stretching credulity beyond snapping point. Growth at home is feeble, and this Bill is its enemy.

So lacking in detail is this Bill, which was clearly scrabbled together to beat the Government’s own deadline of the first 100 days, that it is the equivalent of a parliamentary blank cheque—sign here, and we will fill in all those pesky details later—handing sweeping powers to the Secretary of State. We are being asked to walk into a cage without a key. I have seen this before with the SNP’s woeful prospectus for Scottish independence in 2014. Scots were bright enough then to see through the smokescreen. Will Members across the House be sharp enough to discern the dangers here? \p Gavin Williamson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite clear that the Government did not do the work needed to get the Bill into the right place and position to be introduced to this House in the first place? That was exemplified in Committee, with the amount of drafting that had to be done at that stage. The Bill should have been stopped by the parliamentary business and legislation committee; it should never have been allowed to get to the Floor of the House. \p John Cooper: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. He is a very experienced parliamentarian and knows full well that to arrive at this stage with, as we have heard from other Members, a telephone directory of amendments is quite an incredible situation. How could any self-respecting Secretary of State for Business and Trade stand over the anti-growth regulations contained in—but not confined to—parts 1, 2 and 4 of this Bill? Even a trainee solicitor can see that they strip out flexibility for both employees and employers, making it less likely that people—especially young people and people with sketchy backgrounds—will be hired for that all-important first job. Whither your employee rights if you have no job?

As someone who bends his elbow, I am familiar with the occasionally coarse atmosphere in pubs. My daughter took a part-time job in a bar while studying at university, but I see nothing useful for her in the Bill’s bid to make employers liable for third-party harassment. It is why I also support our amendment to exclude the hospitality sector from this onerous clause. Aside from the fact that my daughter was well capable of dealing with the rare rude, sexist or obstreperous client under existing laws,  clause 18 risks the Bill becoming a snooper’s charter—a busybody’s dream. If our amendment 289 falls, the public bar will no longer be the cockpit of free speech, but placed in the purview of the censorious, and the malicious gauleiters of orthodoxy.

Set as we are in a sea of troubles amid global turmoil, are Labour really so afraid of off-colour jokes, or the bar stool crank with outré political views, that it will establish the banter police? One of my criticisms of the Holyrood Parliament in Edinburgh is that it passes “never mind the quality, feel the width” legislation in a bid for self-justification. With this Bill, that accusation could rightly be levelled at this Government, too. \p Stella Creasy: I will be proud to see this Bill progress through Parliament and to develop accordingly. That is what the amendments before us offer us the chance to do. May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), who is no longer in her place, and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for the work that they are doing?

In the short time available to me, I wish to speak to new clause 7, which reflects a manifesto commitment made by the Labour party that said explicitly that the current parental leave system does not support working families. Millions of people across this country will recognise that that is the case. New clause 7 is about putting meat on the bones of that commitment, because it is long overdue. We are behind the curve in this country in how we treat dads. I wish to thank everybody who has signed this amendment, because it sends the message that we care about our fathers in this country.

We have the worst paternity leave in the EU, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), who is no longer in his place, pointed out. Two weeks is just enough time for the dad to realise that the meconium is going to stop and that they might eventually get three hours’ sleep at some point. Let us see how our economic competitors treat dads better. Dads get 16 months in Sweden, eight months for each parent and three months protected for the dad. In France, Spain, Norway and Luxembourg, dads get at least six weeks. In Japan, they get a year. Why do they do that? It is because dads make a difference. Yes, this Bill would give them a day one right to paternity leave, but only two weeks. One in five dads—35% of them—in this country does not take any leave at all, because they cannot afford to do so. They need a paid and protected right of itself to benefit from paternity leave. It benefits them and it benefits their kids. It is better for the mental health of the father. It means that they take fewer sick days—there is evidence to prove that—and it is good for the kids. It is also good for the mums.

We need to end the battle of the sexes when it comes to childcare, because research shows that women really cannot win. Even when we do not have kids, we pay the price because of maternity discrimination. We all know of employers who do not employ women in their 20s and 30s because of the risk that ladies do babies. The challenge with this legislation, which rightfully strengthens maternity discrimination powers, is that it could inadvertently reinforce that message if we do not bring   forward legislation to support fathers. [Interruption.] I am glad Conservative Members support what I am saying. I wish they would vote with us on this tonight.

The gender pay gap does exist in this country, but it is basically a maternity pay gap, because the motherhood penalty is all too real. By the time of their first child, a woman’s wages are a third below a man’s within 20 months. Members might say that that is to do with working part-time, but that is even when women return to the front. One in nine mums have been dismissed, made redundant or forced out. Women are considered 10% less competent in the workplace when they become mums, as if juggling things make them less able to do things rather than more. Childless women are eight times more likely to be promoted. Conversely, dads are considered 5% more committed than non-dads because we expect them to be in work, paying for their children rather than helping to look after them.

I want to deal not in caricatures but in cold, hard cash. Above all, supporting paternity leave in its own right, and leave for the other parents in relationships, is good for the economy. It helps boost women’s participation and productivity. Countries with better paid parental leave have a smaller gender participation gap in their economy, with all the economic benefits that that  brings. Closing that gap could bring £23 billion into our economy—1% of GDP. \p Joe Robertson: The hon. Member is talking about the benefits of her new clause to fathers, but does she accept that the effect of the Bill will be negative and harmful to everyone and to the economy, by stripping £5 billion away from businesses? It is no good that her new clause would be helpful for fathers if the net effect of the Bill is bad for everyone, through the damage done to the economy. \p Stella Creasy: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had been listening, because I just pointed out that dealing with the gender pay gap would bring £23 billion to our economy. That is exactly how we pay for better parental leave—it is a cost-neutral proposal.

A newsflash for those who have not worked it out: mothers are already paying for this childcare in their lower wages, opportunities and progression. Women’s salaries are hit by 33% after the birth of their first child. Women are doing 450 million hours of unpaid childcare in this country, which equates to £382 billion worth of work—twice as much as men. A consultation could explicitly look into these issues and at how we can share that cost and benefit fairly, so that both men and women can contribute equally to our society and look after their children equally. It could look explicitly at self-employed parents. After all, there are nearly a million self-employed dads in this country, who pay £1.1 billion in national insurance contributions. They do not get any parental leave at all.

We know that shared parental leave is not the answer. Only 2% of dads have taken it in the 10 years that it has been available, because it is not paid. That is why we must be explicit that any consultation must look at the pay that needs to be behind parental leave, as well as at protecting it. Those on the lowest incomes do not take shared parental leave at all. More shared parental leave has been claimed in London alone than in Wales, Scotland, the north-west and the north-east combined.

Above all, this is about our kids. God knows, we love them all dearly, but we can all understand why 20% of divorces take place in the first five years after having a child: because of the unequal situation that we put families in and the pressures that that creates—the mum and dad guilt. We have a choice in this place about whether we deal with mum and dad guilt, with the Government making a proper commitment with a proper timetable, and with proper involvement from Parliament and the Women and Equalities Committee.

To all those who will say, “Well, I struggled, and so should you,” I say that that is bad for the economy and bad for our kids. It means that fathers do not get the time to work out the quirks of their children, so mums end up being the ones who know how to cut the sandwiches. It means that mums end up doing more of the childcare and dads get pushed further away from their children. If this Government are serious about supporting families—I believe that they are—they need to show us the detail. That way, in every family, which come in all shapes and sizes, every parent—whether the father, the non-birthing parent or the mother—will have the time to be the best parent and contributor. That is why these policies are massively popular with Conservative and Reform voters—if only the Reform MPs were here to do something for men for a change.

This long overdue change will make a difference. I hope that Ministers are listening to why it matters to show a commitment to this, and I look forward to hearing to what they have to say in response to the new clause. \p Judith Cummins: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2025

Crown Estate Act 2025. \p UNKNOWN: Debate resumed. \p Gregory Stafford: It is always a pleasure to follow the King. [Laughter.]

I rise on behalf of my constituents in Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere and Liphook who are opposed to this fundamentally anti-business Bill. Nothing has highlighted more clearly than this debate the old adage that where we think the Labour party is wrong, it thinks that we are evil. Nothing that has come from Labour Members has given any consideration to the absolutely correct concerns that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), raised in his opening remarks.

The Bill, which has been bodged both in Committee and today, has been put together simply to assuage the union paymasters that fund so many Labour Members. The Bill highlights Labour’s complete misunderstanding of how to help business, employees and, of course, the economy overall. We have a Government who talk about growth but legislate to destroy it.

The Government claim to be pro-growth and pro-business, yet the Bill is precisely the opposite. The Institute of Directors has warned that it will lead to slower growth, deter investment and bury business under an avalanche of unnecessary regulation. Even the Government’s own impact assessment, which Opposition Members have mentioned on a number of occasions, concedes that business will face a staggering £5 billion in additional costs: an economic straitjacket that will choke innovation and job creation. Labour Members seem to have failed to realise that being pro-business, as the Conservatives are, is being pro-worker, because if businesses do not exist there will be no one to employ workers.

In my constituency alone we have over 5,000 businesses, the vast majority of which are small and medium-sized enterprises. Many of them operate in the education, retail and hospitality sectors, which rely on flexibility to survive, yet the Bill’s attack on zero- hours contracts threatens to wipe out opportunities for students, part-time workers and those juggling multiple jobs to make ends meet. \p Lincoln Jopp: Among the 5,000 small businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency, has my hon. Friend come across one that is in favour of the Bill or lobbied him to vote for it? \p Gregory Stafford: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am happy for the Minister to come to Farnham and Bordon—or Haslemere, Liphook or any other of my villages—to meet all the people who tell me what a damaging effect the Bill will have on their small business. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the simple fact is that the Government have not consulted small business properly. If they had, the Bill would be scrapped.

I think of the University for the Creative Arts students who rely on flexible work and the NHS paramedic in Farnham picking up extra shifts at the Nelson Arms, as I mentioned earlier. Those are real people whose livelihoods are at risk because of the Bill. That is why I support new clause 83 and amendment 283 on zero-hours contracts and employment tribunals.

UKHospitality has been clear that for 90% of workers on zero-hours contracts, that is their preference. The sector relies on these contracts to manage fluctuating demand, and removing that flexibility could devastate those businesses and lead to job losses. There is no job security for those who do not have a job. The House of Commons Library briefing actually supports that, confirming that zero-hours contracts provide essential flexibility for both employers and, most importantly, employees. That is why I support new clause 83 and amendment 283, which would demand a review of the impact on employment tribunals of the provisions concerning zero-hours workers before the Government recklessly legislate against them. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has already made it clear that banning zero-hours contracts will hurt the very workers the Government pretend to protect. But yet again, Ministers plough ahead, blind to the economic damage that they are about to unleash.

I turn to amendment 286 and new clause 86 on unfair dismissal and business confidence. The Government’s proposal to grant employees the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one is another reckless intervention, and one that is raised with me by small businesses day in, day out. The amendment and new clause seek to introduce an impact assessment before clause 21 and schedule 2 come into force. Without that, we have to be clear that businesses will be discouraged from hiring in the first place. Flexibility in employment is not one-sided; it benefits both workers and their employers.

Similarly, the right to request flexible working must be assessed properly. New clause 84 and amendment 284 rightly demand that the Secretary of State assess the impact of clause 7 before it comes into force. Rushed policymaking will not help workers or businesses; it will create uncertainty and drive investment away. That is why it is essential that we accept new clause 87 in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, because we need an impact assessment of how the Bill will affect businesses.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I fear the clock may not have started for my speech, so I will draw to a close. [Hon. Members: “More! More!”] In that case, I shall carry on! No, no; I am conscious of my hon. Friends who wish to speak.

This Government seem to have learned nothing from history. We have heard history lessons from Government Members, most of which have seemed to take us back to the 1970s. Economic success does not come from shackling businesses with red tape or giving trade unions unchecked power. It comes from fostering an environment where employers can hire, invest and grow. \p Steve Witherden: I am proud to declare my membership of Unite the union and the NASUWT, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Before I was elected, I was a teacher for 20 years. Today, as we welcome this transformative legislation, I think of my former students. Their lives will be significantly improved by better wages, stronger workers’ rights and a fairer economy.

I welcome the Bill, which will drastically limit the exploitative use of fire and rehire. Just outside my constituency, but affecting many of my constituents directly, more than 500 Oscar Meyer workers are striking  against the company’s appalling use of the practice. By creating a new right to claim automatic unfair dismissal if someone is reemployed on varied terms to carry out the same duties, the Bill takes a vital step towards dignifying employees with security and autonomy. \p Christopher Vince: My hon. Friend is giving one of his trademark passionate speeches. Does he agree with me, as a former teacher myself, that removing fire and rehire will give the young people  that he used to teach the confidence that when they go into the workplace, they will look at careers and not  just jobs? \p Steve Witherden: I wholeheartedly agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. I am also pleased to see Government new clause 34 encouraging greater employer compliance and increasing compensation for workers subjected to fire and rehire by raising the maximum period of the protective award from 90 to 180 days.

Amendment 329, tabled in my name, seeks to further protect against that harmful practice, ensuring that any clause in an employment contract that allows an employer to change the terms without the employee’s consent would be unenforceable, especially in cases of unfair dismissal related to a refusal to accept changes. That would further help redistribute the power imbalance between employers and employees, which currently allows low wages and poor working conditions to become commonplace. The Bill also takes crucial steps towards banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, ensuring that all workers have predictable hours and offering security for their day-to-day lives. I am pleased to see amendments extending such protections to agency workers.

We have all felt the effects of a system that has left so many behind: flatlined wages, insecure work and falling living standards. It is therefore not just my former pupils but millions across the country who will benefit from the biggest upgrade to rights at work in a generation. I am proud to support our Labour Government in this historic step towards better quality employment across the country, and I look forward to the full delivery of the plan to make work pay. Diolch yn fawr. \p Alison Bennett: I rise to speak in support of new clause 10, which would make carer’s leave a paid right. We have an opportunity to give carers in employment a fair deal right across the country, while also bolstering our economy. The Government have an opportunity to build on the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), and take the next step in providing working carers with the flexibility they need to juggle work and care.

Carers UK estimates that the value to the economy of carers being able to work is £5.3 billion. When I have met major blue-chip employers such as Centrica and HSBC, and their employees who have benefited from those corporations’ carers policies, they are clear that having those policies in place to support caring is not only good for the employees, but makes them better employees for the employer. The employers really benefit from having members of staff who support them and are also able to do the best for their families.

Backing our Liberal Democrat amendment to make carer’s leave a paid entitlement would be the right thing to do on a human level and would also support the Government’s growth agenda. For a Government on a mission to spend less while also delivering growth and better living standards, this is a no-brainer. We must do everything we can to help those carers who can and want to work to do so. Currently, the Government have simply indicated that they will review the implementation of carer’s leave and consider whether there is a need to change the current approach. I say to the Government in the strongest possible terms that change is needed and the time is now.

The 2.8 million people who juggle a job and caring responsibilities are going above and beyond to care for those they love while also contributing to our economy. Many of them are on low incomes, they are often women, and they cannot afford to use their right to carer’s leave unless it becomes a paid right. We must acknowledge their work with a fair deal for them. I know that this is something the carers in my constituency deserve. They deserve better. We must be adaptable to the changing needs of our population while also seeing the benefits. This really can be a win-win.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are also pushing for an amendment to make caring a protected characteristic. When people apply for jobs, equality monitoring forms do not ask them whether they have unpaid caring responsibilities. There is also no direct requirement for simple, reasonable adjustments for carers in the workplace. I feel that this would make all the difference, encouraging those who might otherwise leave employment to stay, making our economy more resilient and protecting their own families’ finances. We know that being a carer makes people much more likely to fall into poverty.

Carers UK’s research also tells us that almost half of all those who left employment early to fulfil a caring responsibility say that they would have stayed in employment longer, had carer’s leave on a paid basis existed. It seems clear that paid carer’s leave helps carers and those they care for, and it is good for our economy. I hope the Government can see that with the same clarity and do the right thing in supporting these vital Liberal Democrat amendments. \p Sarah Russell: I need to highlight to the House that I am a member of the Community and USDAW trade unions, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I would like to speak to various bits of this legislation today. There is so much in it, and I know that so many of us on the Government Back Benches are really pleased with what we are bringing forward.

The first part of the legislation that I want to address is clause 22, which will bring forward in future legislation more protections for women who are pregnant, on maternity leave and in the period immediately following their maternity leave. I have spent the past 13 years representing large numbers of women who were either made redundant while pregnant, on maternity leave or trying to come back from maternity leave, or whose employer suddenly woke up one morning and decided that they were underperforming, often within 24 hours of their announcing their pregnancy. I had a client who had been headhunted and brought into the company,  was totally stellar, doing incredibly well and got promoted, but then announced her pregnancy and within a week she was on a performance plan. HR explained to her that because they were, you know, kind and did not want to do that to her while she was pregnant, they were very generously offering her a settlement agreement so that she did not have to go through that.

Lots of perfectly decent people do not understand why they are losing their jobs, and it is because they are pregnant. Pregnant Then Screwed found that 12.3% of women who have had a baby have either been sacked, constructively dismissed or made redundant while pregnant, on maternity leave or within a year of their maternity leave ending. It is a widespread problem, so it is fantastic that the Bill contains clause 22, which will allow the Minister to bring forward steps to expand the available protections. I would like to know how quickly we can do that, because pregnant women out there need that protection literally today. \p Lola McEvoy: My hon. Friend, who has great expertise in this area, is making an eloquent speech. Does she agree that dismissals of pregnant women or new mothers are dramatically under-reported because of the use of non-disclosure agreements in a lot of companies while they are taking action against them? \p Sarah Russell: I could talk about NDAs at some length, but I do not have time to today. They are definitely problematic, and they are definitely concealing the extent of the problems that women suffer when they announce their pregnancies.

The second element I like in the legislation is the improvements to the right to request flexible working. Those on the Conservative Benches have questioned why we would do this. The answer is that the term “part-timer” is still a term of abuse in this country. While that is still something that people say fairly regularly within workplaces and popular parlance, we still have a problem, so this legislation should help to improve that.

Conservative Members have talked a lot about clause 17 and the third-party harassment elements, and it is worth getting into some of the detail. The defence for an employer for failing to protect their staff from third-party harassment is taking all reasonable steps to prevent that harassment from occurring. Employment tribunals have been interpreting the meaning of “reasonable” for a long time, and in a discrimination claim there is essentially a three-part judiciary: a judge with legal experience, someone with employer experience, and someone with employee experience—sometimes from a trade union, but sometimes from elsewhere. When they talk about “all reasonable steps”, it is only reasonable steps; it is not every single step in the entire history of the universe that anyone could ever dream up or imagine. \p Wera Hobhouse: The hon. Member is speaking powerfully. Does she agree that this amendment is being used by the Conservative party to condone something offensive and despicable, and that they are trying to defend the indefensible? \p Sarah Russell: I completely and utterly agree with  the hon. Member. Actually, a lot of what is coming from Conservative Members is scaremongering. A lot  of those discussing this behave as if employees with unfair dismissal rights were unexploded bombs. All the people I represented did not want to bring tribunal claims; they just wanted to have been treated fairly and reasonably in the first place. They were typically extremely destressed by their experiences, and for quite a lot of them, their mental health had deteriorated substantially in the course of what they had gone through. I do not think that when people have unfair dismissal rights a little bit sooner, they will all be rushing to employment tribunals the moment that something goes slightly wrong in their workplace. What most people want to do every morning is get up, go to work, do a decent job, get paid for it and go home. That is what we will continue to see after this legislation passes: that most employers want to look after their employees perfectly reasonably, and most employees want to do a perfectly decent job. \p Joe Robertson: I have been rather unsuccessful this afternoon in finding someone on the Government Benches who has concerns about the £5 billion cost to businesses that this Bill will bring. Will the hon. Member express concern over the £5 billion cost and the downward pressure on growth that this Bill brings, according to the Government’s own assessment? \p Sarah Russell: My primary concern is that those on the Conservative Benches talk about employees as if they are, as I said, unexploded bombs, and they talk about employers as if they are unlikely ever to recruit anyone ever again, and I just do not believe that to be true. Most employers will make a sensible assessment of whether having an additional member of staff will benefit their business and then they will recruit them. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you.

It is really important that we cut through the disinformation and scaremongering, and that when we take the legislation forward, ACAS has good information ready to go. It already has great information online— I encourage employers who are worried to look up ACAS information videos on YouTube and look at its factsheets. We must make it clear to people that they have access to sources of free advice, which is important for small businesses, so that they can see what is and is not required of them. The position being stated today is bluntly exaggerated and quite damaging as a result. \p Nick Timothy: I rise to speak in favour of my new clause 105. The labour abuse that it seeks to address is the wrongful use of substitution clauses by gig economy workers. To guarantee fairness and justice in the labour market, it is crucial that there be transparency, which can be delivered through the introduction of a comprehensive register of all dependent contractors. That will help to ensure that employment rights are upheld and pay is not suppressed through illegitimate competition, but it will also support the enforcement of right-to-work checks. The unlawful employment of migrants with no right to work here is not good for taxpayers, British workers or migrants who follow the rules, yet substitution clauses allow what have become known as “Deliveroo visas”—the industrial scale abuse of our immigration and labour laws.

Before addressing the substance of my new clause,  I also commend new clause 30 in the name of my  hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox),  which I have sponsored. It would give special constables the right to take time off to carry out their police duties. Other public service volunteers, such as magistrates and councillors, receive that right.

I turn to my new clause 105. Ministers have said that they will consult on employment status and moving towards a two-part legal framework that identifies people who are genuinely self-employed. I support that ambition, and I am grateful to the Minister for his warm words in Committee, but my new clause provides a way to resolve a particular abuse and hold big employers in the gig economy to account.

There are 4.7 million gig economy workers in the UK, including 120,000 official riders at Uber Eats and Deliveroo, two of the largest delivery companies in the country. For years we have heard stories of the rampant labour market fraud and visa abuse committed by contractors related to those companies. From late 2018 to early 2019, there were 14,000 fraudulent Uber journeys, according to Transport for London. In addition to Uber and Deliveroo, Amazon and Just Eat have been linked to labour market abuses. Much of that abuse has come through the legal loophole created by substitution clauses.

Amazon tells its couriers that it is their

“responsibility to pay your substitute…at any rate you agree with them”

and

“you must ensure that any substitute…has the right to work in  the UK”.

It is a dereliction of duty to pass responsibility for compliance with criminal and right-to-work checks on to workers, but those companies clearly have an interest in maintaining a status quo in which undocumented migrants take the lowest fees in delivery apps.

Data from the Rodeo app shows the effect of that abuse on riders’ order fees. Just Eat riders saw their fees drop by 14.4%, from £6.53 in 2021 to £5.59 in 2023. There was a 3.4% drop for Uber Eats order fees—from £4.36 to £4.21—during the same period. Deliveroo has blocked its order fee data from being published. Those figures are not adjusted for inflation, but it is clear to see how pay and conditions have worsened for riders. By undercutting domestic workers—British workers—and exploiting those with no legal right to be here, companies are privatising profits and socialising costs. Promises from such companies to introduce tougher security checks have not made the problem go away. We should all be appalled by this state of affairs, because nobody should be above the law.

During random checks two years ago, the Home Office found that two in five delivery riders who were stopped were working illegally. In the same month, 60 riders from Uber Eats, Deliveroo and Just Eat were arrested in London for immigration offences, including working illegally and holding false documentation. Last month, Deliveroo sacked more than 100 riders who shared their accounts with illegal migrants. But that is only the tip of the iceberg: insurance companies report unauthorised riders involved in motor and personal injury cases.

That is happening because undocumented migrants are renting rider accounts for between £70 and £100 a week. Profiles have been bought for as much as £5,000. The i Paper found more than 100,000 people on Facebook groups  where identities have been traded for years, including one group that gained around 28,000 members in less than 18 months.

Illegal migrants are using social media apps to rent accounts and share information on a significant scale. Today, we only have figures from press investigations, but we can find copious examples across the internet with ease. Legal workers have reported problems to the police and the Home Office, but that has fuelled tensions as they compete for orders and has even led to violent clashes between legal and illegal riders in Brighton and London, including physical beatings and damage to bikes.

People working illegally for these big companies are working longer hours round the clock for lower fees, never knowing when their last payday might be. They use group chats to share information and evade Home Office immigration raids. We do not even know how many substitute riders there are for these companies at any given time. A spokesman for the App Drivers and Couriers Union says:

“Unfortunately there is this loophole that allows some bad people to come through. They are not vetted so they could do anything.” \p Gavin Williamson: Obviously, my hon. Friend hopes that the Government will support his new clause. What does he think would stop the Government supporting this very sensible measure straightaway? \p Nick Timothy: I do not see why the Government should not support this new clause. This seems to be an obvious example of labour market abuse, but the difference with many of the provisions in the Bill is that my new clause does not directly benefit trade unions who pay for the Labour party.

Sadly, we know that there have been many sexual assaults and attacks committed by substitute workers. New clause 105 proposes the robust regulation of substitution clauses. Amazon, Uber, Deliveroo and the rest would have to do their due diligence and, just like everyone else, ensure that all their riders are who they say they are and have the right to work in this country. Introducing such a change would reduce labour abuse, protect our communities and deliver a fairer labour market. \p John Martin McDonnell: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Just to inflame matters more, I am the chair of the RMT parliamentary group as well.

Next Monday is the third anniversary of the P&O scandal. Members might recall what happened: 800 members of staff—RMT members, largely—turned up for work and were sacked by video. Many of them were marshalled off their vessels by trained bouncers and guards who dealt with them roughly. The reaction across the House and across society was that this was repellent and should not happen in a civilised society. The Labour party then made a commitment that it would introduce legislation that would install in law the seafarers’ charter, and that is exactly what the Bill does,  so I welcome it wholeheartedly and congratulate the Minister on doing this. But as he can guess, we see this as just the first step, because there is so much more to do, particularly in this sector, where many workers are still exploited compared with shore-based workers.

Government new clause 34 extends the maximum period of the protective award from 90 days to 180 days. We were looking for an uncapped award, to be frank, because P&O built into the pricing the amount it would be fined as a result of its unlawful behaviour, so that did not matter to P&O—it simply priced that in.

In addition, we were looking for injunctive relief, and I thank the Government for entering into discussions about that. Many employers can get injunctive relief on the tiniest error by a union in balloting procedures, but workers cannot. We are asking for a level playing field. We hoped that an amendment would be tabled to the Bill today, but it has not been. We hope the Government will enter into those discussions and go further. \p Andy McDonald: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend recalls the evidence of Peter Hebblethwaite, the chief executive of P&O Ferries, to the Business and Trade Committee. He made it clear that he deliberately broke the law and had no regard for it. Was my right hon. Friend as horrified as I was to see that in this House, and as disappointed at the lack of response from the Conservative party? \p John Martin McDonnell: I think that across the House it took a long while to recover from the anger at the behaviour that was displayed in front of the Select Committee. The chief executive was acting with impunity because he had been able to price in those sorts of fines, and it was a cross-party view that we were angry about that behaviour. That is why the charter is so important to us, and why injunctive relief that is open to trade unions would provide an adequate starting point for getting some form of justice.

A range of other issues need to be addressed, including schedule 4, where the Government are introducing  the ability to monitor the behaviour of companies. Harbourmasters monitor some of that behaviour as well, with declarations that companies are abiding by basic health and safety practices—some practices in the past have been frankly terrifying. We want health and safety to be about more than just basic legislation; it is also about rosters and how long people are working. We still have ferry contracts where people are working for 17 weeks without a break. We want to ensure that the regulations cover rosters, as well as holiday pay, sick pay, pensions and ratings training, so that we can start to get some form of accountability within the sector. That is not much to ask for, yet we have given shipping owners £3 billion of tonnage tax exemptions in return for the employment of British seafarers, and I do not think we got a single job as a result of that £3 billion. There is a need for proper regulation of the sector.

I tabled an amendment to ask the Government to stand back once a year and bring a report to the House on how implementation of the Bill is going, and to update us on the implications for maritime law and International Labour Organisation conventions, and the impact on the sector. A lot of debate on this issue has been about ferries, but we want to ensure that the provisions apply to all vessels, not just ferries. One point  made by those on the Labour Front Bench when considering the Seafarers’ Wages Bill was that if a ship came into a harbour 52 times a year, the legislation would apply. Now—I do not know why—that has been extended to 120 times year, which means that thousands of workers will lose out because the measure will not apply to them. Will the Government have another conversation about that and see whether we can revert to the original position of the Labour party all those years ago when these scandals happened?

There is not much time but, briefly, I am interested in the extension of sectoral collective bargaining right across the economy. We are doing it with social care, but what I have seen from proposals in the Bill does not look like sectoral collective bargaining to me; it looks simply like an extension of pay review bodies. Indeed, the Bill states that any agreements within those organisations cannot legally be accepted as collective bargaining.

The Bill is not clear about how members of the negotiating body are appointed or by who. We were expecting that it would be 50% employers and 50% trade unions, and I tabled an amendment to try to secure that. We think that the negotiating body should elect its own chair, not that the chair should be appointed by the Secretary of State. We want such bodies to be independent and successful, because I see that as the first step in rolling out sectoral collective bargaining in many other sectors of our economy. That is desperately needed because of the lack of trade union rights and the low pay that exists.

The Bill is a good first step, but there is a long agenda to go through. I look forward not just to the Bill proceeding, but to the Minister bringing forward an Employment Rights (No. 2) Bill in the next 18 months. \p Wera Hobhouse: I rise to speak in support of new clause 74, which appears in the name of the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh). I pay tribute to her and to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) who have campaigned on these issues for a long time. New clause 74 seeks to ban non-disclosure agreements that prevent workers from making a disclosure about harassment, including sexual harassment—we have talked about sexual harassment in the workplace for the last four or five hours.

NDAs were initially designed to protect trade secrets by restricting the sharing of certain information, but in recent times they have taken on an entirely different and quite sinister role. They have essentially become the default solution for organisations and individuals to settle cases of misconduct, discrimination and harassment, keeping the extent of such incidents unaccounted for. Incorporating clear provisions to ensure transparency in cases of harassment would strengthen protections for all workers.

Data from Can’t Buy My Silence has revealed some deeply worrying statistics about the misuse of NDAs. In a survey of more than 1,000 people who experienced harassment and discrimination in the workplace, 25% reported being forced to sign an NDA, while an additional 11% stated that they could not say due to legal reasons, implying that they had also signed an NDA. Four times as many women as men sign NDAs, and they are used disproportionately against women of colour.

In Committee, the Minister said that the Government had “reservations” about changing the law in this way, as there may be “unintended consequences”. I struggle to understand why the Government have committed to banning universities from using NDAs in cases of sexual misconduct, harassment and bullying but have not committed to extending those protections to other sectors. NDAs are clearly being used in a totally different way to what they were designed to achieve, and we must stop this before more victims are silenced. I heard the Minister say earlier that he is at least looking at what new clause 74 is trying to achieve.

Despite my concerns about the misuse of NDAs, the Bill as a whole has many very positive provisions. Importantly, it finally legislates to protect workers from third-party harassment. I brought that forward in my original Bill that became the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023, which recently became law. However, it was blocked by amendments made to the Bill in Committee in the House of Lords by the Conservative party, so that such liability and protection from sexual harassment by third parties in the workplace was not created. We have already discussed that several times this afternoon.

I am most pleased that the Government have committed to making workplaces safer through this protection, because that is what this is all about. Creating safer workplaces is good for everyone, including businesses, despite what the Conservative party says. A study by Culture Shift found that 66% of businesses believe that preventing sexual harassment is very important. I do not know what Conservative Members are talking about when they say that their inboxes are full; I have not seen a single email from a business writing to me to say that it is worried about protecting its own employees from third-party harassment. According to WorkNest, three quarters of employers are still concerned about protecting employees from harassment by third parties. Businesses are concerned that they cannot protect their workers from third-party harassment; they clearly want these protections to be included in the Bill.

Too many people still suffer from third-party harassment at work. Amendment 288, which tries to remove those important provisions, is plain wrong. Employers have a duty to ensure the safety of their employees from not just other employees, but third parties who may interact with them in the workplace. That responsibility should be part of their broader commitment to workplace safety. If the Conservative party is truly committed to a world without harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace, why is it still condoning offensive language and behaviour as “banter” and “free speech”, rather than taking a step to support businesses and protect workers from sexual harassment in the workplace, as proposed in the Bill?

I am grateful that the Government have ensured the completion of my Act as it was intended a year or two ago. Although I remain concerned about the misuse of NDAs, I welcome many of the provisions in the Bill. I will be proud to walk through the No Lobby when we come to vote on amendment 288, and I hope that all right-minded people will join me there. \p Jessica Asato: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.  I am a proud member of the trade unions USDAW,  Unison and GMB, and I am also proud to have worked at a domestic abuse charity for six years. That is why I rise today to speak in support of new clause 22, which I have tabled with the support of colleagues from across the House. I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, the secretariat of which is ably provided by Women’s Aid. I have tabled this new clause following evidence presented to the APPG, with the drafting support of the law firm Hogan Lovells.

New clause 22 would require employers with five or more employees to publish a domestic abuse policy outlining the support they provide to workers who are victims of domestic abuse. Some 2.3 million people, predominantly women, experience domestic abuse each year. This is not a niche issue, but one that pervades every level of society, often with devastating effects. For example, we know that around 100,000 people in the UK are at high or imminent risk of being murdered or seriously harmed by an abuser.

Some Members may wonder how domestic abuse relates to employers, and may question whether the new clause is necessary. To them, I say that domestic abuse is a workplace issue. Up to 75% of women who experience domestic abuse are targeted at work. We know that perpetrators often harass women at their workplace, through phone calls or by arriving unannounced. Abusers can also be colleagues; research by the TUC found that 16% of victims surveyed said that their perpetrator worked in the same place that they did. For example, Jane Clough, a 26-year-old nurse, was stabbed 71 times in 2010 by her former partner, an ex-ambulance technician, outside the hospital where they had worked and met.

Victim-survivors need, and deserve, more support from their workplaces. A number of trade unions and the TUC have campaigned on this issue, alongside domestic abuse charities, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and survivors themselves. One survivor told the domestic abuse charity SaveLives:

“Everyone at work knew. They must have done…I wished someone…had said something, asked me how I was. I think if my manager had known what to do or say, she would have liked to help, but the conversation just seemed too hard, perhaps.”

It is important to note that the previous Government introduced guidance on this issue alongside the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. However, without a mandatory duty on employers, the support that victims can expect remains a lottery. The Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse estimates that only 5% of employers have a policy.

Of course, domestic abuse also has a financial impact, both on victims and the organisations they work for. Over one in five women take time off work because of abuse, and 86% of victims say that abuse negatively impacts their work performance due to them being distracted, tired or unwell. Abuse stunts career progression, and research undertaken by Vodafone and KPMG has found that the potential loss of earnings for each victim is £5,800 a year. This clearly has severe knock-on impacts for businesses and the economy. In 2019, the Home Office estimated that domestic abuse costs the UK economy around £14 billion a year in lost economic output. A mandatory domestic abuse policy is therefore  pro-worker, pro-business and pro-growth. Indeed, a study in New Zealand found that introducing domestic abuse protections in the workplace has cut costs for businesses in that country and led to increased levels of productivity.

Embedding domestic abuse in the ethos and practices of companies here in the UK is a vital step. I am happy to say that some organisations have already taken that step, led by the pioneering Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse, which supports over 1,800 businesses—large and small—that collectively comprise over a quarter of the UK workforce. I am glad that companies such as Sainsbury’s, Argos and Poundland already offer employees paid leave to enable victim-survivors to attend medical or legal appointments, or to seek safe accommodation. However, we need all workplaces and all victims to be covered. Victim-survivors deserve far more support than they currently receive, and workplaces are often the only safe place for victims to seek support and safety, but a culture of shame or stigma, a fear of not being believed, or even a concern about losing their job due to disclosure is failing victims. Supporting those victims should be seen as a key duty that would secure their health and safety.

I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging the Government’s commitment to victims of abuse in the forthcoming violence against women and girls strategy, but we would like to see something more—at least a taskforce consisting of domestic abuse charities, employers and trade unions, with, crucially, input from survivors and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. That would complement the VAWG strategy. We need a much clearer commitment from the Department to proceed with this important matter. I look forward to working further with Ministers across Departments, and to working with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) on his ten-minute rule Bill to introduce paid leave for domestic abuse survivors, because victims of domestic abuse cannot wait. \p Aphra Brandreth: Let me begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

As other Conservative Members have already pointed out, the flaws in this Bill are numerous. It will damage businesses and, ultimately, employment opportunities, and I am deeply concerned about its consequences for our economy both nationally and in my constituency. The Government have said that they want to grow the economy, but the Bill will penalise and stifle those who do just that. Businesses of all sizes, investors and entrepreneurs—these are the people who grow our economy. Only if we grow our economy can we invest in our much-needed public services, and only then can we provide the significant increases in defence investment that are needed more than ever at this time. We ought to be empowering businesses to deliver growth, but the Bill adds burdens on business to such an extent that, by the Government’s own admission, it will cost the economy up to £5 billion a year. In fact, I believe that that is a fairly conservative estimate and that it will probably cost much more.

Survey after survey has shown that business confidence has gone through the floor, although I do not need a survey to tell me that, because my inbox has received  a steady stream of messages from local businesses reaching  out to share the detrimental impacts of the Budget and their concern about the impact of measures in the Bill. Every week I visit and meet business owners across my constituency, and the message is consistent and clear: how can the Government expect the economy to grow when it penalises the growth creators?

Amendment 289, tabled by the Opposition, offers a reasonable and pragmatic compromise to mitigate the unintended consequences of placing a duty on employers to prevent third-party harassment in the hospitality sector. I have listened closely to the debate on that issue, so let me say strongly that harassment of any sort is absolutely wrong. I do not for one moment condone or excuse any kind of harassment, in the hospitality sector or, indeed, in any other area. The reality is, however, that in a pub, a restaurant, a social setting or a hospitality setting, things may be said that are not acceptable. As has already been made clear, this is not condoning sexual harassment; it is making clear that we simply cannot legislate for people’s words or language in every context. We must have free speech. Surely it is reasonable to protect our landlords and restaurant owners in the hospitality sector, and to include provisions exempting them in the Bill, if it has to be passed at all. It cannot be fair to expect landlords to be responsible for every conversation that takes place on their premises.

It has been made clear to me by the many landlords and restaurant owners across my constituency whom I have met since my election—whether it be Woody who runs the Swan in Tarporley and the Lion at Malpas, or Jarina at the Rasoi and the Bulls Head—that employee welfare is a top priority for them. I know that they do everything they can to treat staff exceptionally well, and to protect them from third-party harassment. They want their staff to be safe and secure, but making such businesses liable for other people’s behaviour and language is a step too far, and will have a detrimental impact on our hospitality sector.

Let me end by reiterating my deep and fundamental concerns about the Bill as a whole. I will not be supporting it today. There are Opposition amendments that would improve it, and I hope that they will be supported, because they are pragmatic and give a glimmer of hope to businesses faced with what is otherwise very damaging legislation. I also hope that when Labour Members vote this evening they will consider the consequences of the Bill and the ways in which it is detrimental to growth, something that the Government have sought to pursue. \p Sarah Owen: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the fact that I am a trade union member.

This Government were elected on the promise to deliver the biggest boost to workers’ rights in a generation, and that is exactly what this Bill will do. The previous Government oversaw a system that left working people paying the price for economic decline through insecurity, poor productivity and low pay. The measures in this Bill will make a serious difference to working people’s lives. Nine million people will benefit from day one protection against unfair dismissal, the around 4,000 mothers who are dismissed each year after returning from maternity leave will be protected, and 1.3 million people on low wages will receive statutory sick pay for the first time. In Luton North and elsewhere, these rights will make a  real and meaningful difference to people, especially those in new jobs, on lower incomes or with insecure contracts.

As a former care worker, I know that fair pay in adult social care—bringing workers and employers together to agree pay and conditions across the whole sector—will be transformational and is long overdue. During covid, when many carers risked their lives and those of their families to care for others, the last Government handed out claps, gave out bin bags in place of personal protective equipment, and sent carers off to food banks. This Government are delivering the recognition that social care is skilled, valued and vital to a thriving society.

I will speak in my role as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. Our Committee’s report in January showed the need for bereavement leave following pregnancy loss. I give my wholehearted thanks to all who gave evidence, which led to our report and the amendment that followed. I thank Members from across the House for their support, and I especially thank the brave women who shared their experience of losing a pregnancy with our Committee. All of them had only the option of sick leave, and every single witness said it is time for a change.

Granting sick leave to grieve the loss of a pregnancy is not appropriate. First, it means that women workers are left fearful that human resources processes will kick in following the accrual of sick leave. Secondly, it wrongly reinforces the feeling that there is something wrong with their bodies. Thirdly, it makes them feel unable to talk about their miscarriage with both their employers and their colleagues, as they should be able to do. It is as if miscarriage is something shameful to approach one’s boss about.

From small businesses to big businesses, such as the Co-op Group and TUI, many employers already offer bereavement leave following miscarriage, as does the NHS, which is the largest public sector employer of women. They all show that doing the right thing is good for workers and good for business, and I am so pleased to hear the Minister commit to working with the other place to introduce miscarriage bereavement leave. This Labour Government will make the UK only the fourth country in the world to recognise the need for bereavement leave following miscarriage, which is truly world leading. We will be a leading light in a world that seems to be taking a backwards step on women’s rights.

Although such leave is not paid, as outlined in my amendments, it is a significant step forward. It not only provides rights, but goes a long way towards furthering how we talk about pregnancy loss in society as a whole. Miscarriage should no longer be ignored and stigmatised as a sickness. People have been moved to tears of joy, relief and raw emotion on discovering that their loss is now acknowledged and that things will change. Later tonight, in the privacy of my home, I will probably be one of those people. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady for her passion and compassion, for her honesty and for talking about this subject in the Chamber. We all recognise her commitment to the task that she has set herself, and this Government will deliver it for her. I welcome that, because we have all lost loved ones. We have mothers and sisters who have had miscarriages,   and we have family members and colleagues who have had miscarriages. That is why we commend the hon. Lady for making a special contribution. \p Sarah Owen: I thank the hon. Member for his kind intervention, and I thank many Members for their support throughout the years. I experienced pregnancy loss while I was an MP, and the kindness of colleagues in this place got me though, but at no point did any of them wrap their arms around me and say, “Get well soon”; they all said, “I’m sorry for your loss.” I am so glad that today the Minister has committed to the law reflecting society’s view on miscarriage.

I thank the Department for Business and Trade team, and especially the Minister, for meeting the challenge set by the Women and Equalities Committee. Each of the Committee members is committed to this, and it was enabled by our excellent Clerks. I thank the Members who have supported my amendment—and our amendments —and so many people for their campaigning work. Many Members have been very kind and have expressed gratitude to me for tabling the amendment, but this was actually a team job, with team work and campaigning spanning many years.

That campaigning work included inspirations such as Myleene Klass, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) and the former Member Angela Crawley, as well as brilliant organisations such as the Miscarriage Association, Tommy’s, Sands and Pregnant Then Screwed, and all their supporters. However, I want to say a special thank you to Vicki and her team at the Miscarriage Association. Both professionally and personally, she is a voice for so many during their darkest times—thank you.

This change means that the law will finally catch up with society’s views on pregnancy loss. It is a giant leap forward in the recognition that miscarrying is a bereavement, not an illness, and workers will legally have the right to grieve. \p Laurence Turner: It is a particular pleasure to follow a former colleague of mine, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). What she has said will have a special resonance with the many people who are following this debate in this Chamber and beyond. She has done a valuable public service, and we thank her  for it.

As is customary, I draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.

Because time is limited, I will restrict my comments to Opposition amendment 290 on the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. This amendment seeks to disapply the SSSNB’s statutory remit from both academies and local authority maintained schools, which makes it substantially different from and more damaging than the similar amendment brought forward in Committee. If it was carried, it would reduce protection for many school support staff workers in employment.

The vast majority of school support staff are already covered by collective bargaining, almost 80% directly and the rest indirectly. However, the existing agreement, through the National Joint Council, does not serve support  staff or employers well. Last year, teaching assistants were paid just £17,400 on average, and 90% of those workers are women. I have spoken to some who have relied on food banks and payday loans to make ends meet. There are 1,800 school support staff workers in my constituency of Birmingham Northfield, and they deserve better. Most schools struggle to recruit for those roles, according to research by the National Foundation for Educational Research, and at one point during the pandemic the role of teaching assistants  was the second hardest to recruit for after that of HGV drivers.

This is not just about pay. As the Harpur v. Brazel case showed, substantial liabilities also exist for employers because of unclear and outdated terms and conditions. As the Confederation of School Trusts, representing academy employers, has said, the time has come to move school support staff out from under the local government negotiating umbrella. Indeed, the request from school employers was for the Bill to establish a floor, not a ceiling.

That point was addressed in Committee, so we might ask why this amendment has been brought forward. It is in contradiction to the amendment that the Opposition tabled in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee. After all, it was the Conservatives who put the School Teachers Review Body on a statutory footing back in the early 1990s, so why will they not support the same step for school support staff? Similarly, they are not seeking to amend the Bill in respect of the adult social care negotiating body, despite the similarities between the two occupations.

I fear that the answer is that school support staff—the majority of people who work in schools—are suffering from the soft prejudice of unequal knowledge and interests that divide the workforce into professionals and ancillaries. This outdated attitude should be confined to the dustbin of history, where it belongs. It was rejected in this place almost 20 years ago, when the process that led to the SSSNB began. This is not a measure whose time has come; it is long overdue.

I wish to say a little about the importance of the measure for special educational needs and disabilities. Classroom-based support staff spend the majority of their time supporting SEND learners. They are essential to schools’ models of inclusion. \p Christopher Vince: My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech and referring to a really important group of people. As a former teacher—I mention it quite often— I recognise the huge importance of what school support staff provide to the classroom. Does he agree that they support not just learners but teachers too, and have a wider influence on the school community? \p Laurence Turner: I agree. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. When we look back at the national agreement in the early 2000s which led to the expansion of school support staff roles, the justification was that they would alleviate pressure on teachers and add to the quality of teaching in classrooms. That is exactly what school support staff workers in my constituency and his do every day.

School support staff roles are essential for SEND support, but the contracts those staff are employed under are so squeezed that no paid time is available for  professional development or training. In other words, we cannot resolve the SEND crisis without contract reform, and we cannot achieve that contract reform if the drift and delay, which is the legacy of the 2010 decision to abolish the SSSNB, continues. I urge the Opposition, even now, to think again and not press their amendment to a vote.

In the time remaining, I wish to say a few words about the provisions on hospitality workers and their right not to be subject to third-party harassment. When the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who was formerly in her place, brought forward her private Member’s Bill in the last Parliament, it contained the same provisions that are being advanced now. At the start of the debates in the House of Lords, the extension of the protection to “all reasonable steps” was supported by the Government of the day. Baroness Scott, leading for the Conservative party, said that the measures would not infringe on freedom of speech; in fact, they would strengthen it. The Conservative Front Benchers were right then and they are wrong today.

The Bill is incredibly important. Employment law in the United Kingdom has tended to advance by increments; the Bill measures progress in strides. I am proud to have had some association with it through the Public Bill Committee. I thank the departmental team who were part of the process and the other members of the Committee. I will be proud to vote in favour of the extensions to rights in the Bill when they are brought forward to a vote tonight. \p Andy McDonald: As a proud trade unionist, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Today marks a truly historic moment: the most significant expansion of employment rights in more than a generation. I extend my congratulations to the Secretary of State and the Deputy Prime Minister for their efforts, and express my enormous gratitude to the employment rights Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), for his time and engagement with me over recent months in discussing the measures in the Bill. I also wish to acknowledge the dedication of Bill Committee members, as well as the countless trade union officers, academics, Labour party members and staffers who have worked tirelessly for decades to bring us to this day. This is a milestone we have long strived for. On a personal note, I extend my sincere thanks to the Prime Minister for entrusting me, while in opposition, with the responsibility of delivering Labour’s Green Paper, “A New Deal for Working People”.

I speak in support of the Government’s amendments and will touch on my own tabled amendments selected for discussion. Specifically, I support Government new clause 32 and Government new schedule 1, which will extend guaranteed hours protections to nearly 1 million agency workers. This is a crucial step, aligning with my own amendment 264, and I am pleased to see the Government taking it forward. The TUC has rightly emphasised that for these rights to be effective, they must apply to all workers. Including agency workers is essential to prevent unscrupulous employers from circumventing new protections by shifting to agency staff. Exploitative tactics employed by a minority of employers, designed to avoid responsibilities and deny  workers job security, remain a deep concern, which is precisely why I have consistently advocated for a single employment status.

I tabled new clause 61 because I believe that establishing a single status of worker is a necessary step to ending unfair employment practices. The Government’s “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document, published alongside the Bill, states their intent to consult on moving towards a single worker status. On Second Reading, I noted that we cannot truly eradicate insecure work until we establish a clear and unified employment status. Since then, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, Margaret Beels, has told the Business and Trade Committee that

“the whole business of employment status needs to be addressed”,

adding that

“you can probably consult until the cows come home on this issue…it is about time to do something about it”.

The TUC also urged a rapid review of employment status to prevent tactics such as bogus self-employment from proliferating as employers respond to new rights.

I welcome the Business and Trade Committee’s recommendation that the Government must prioritise their review of employment status and address false self-employment

“so that these reforms are rolled out alongside…the Employment Rights Bill.”

I acknowledge the new clause tabled by the Chair of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), which seeks to establish a deadline for this consultation. I urge the Government to accelerate progress on this front, but take reassurance from the fact that this issue is well understood at the highest levels.

I turn to collective redundancy and the unacceptable practice of fire and rehire. ACAS reported in 2021 that the use of fire and rehire tactics by employers was prevalent in the UK and had increased since the pandemic. Nearly a fifth of young people say their employer has tried to rehire them on inferior terms. Many will recall how P&O shamelessly broke the law, choosing to pay compensation rather than comply with its legal obligations because it calculated that replacing its workforce with cheaper labour would ultimately be more profitable.

I welcome the Government’s consultation on collective redundancy and their introduction of new clause 34, which doubles the maximum protective award for unfairly dismissed workers to 180 days’ pay. However, while this may deter some employers, I question whether it is a sufficient deterrent to prevent further abuses. The TUC has raised concerns that merely doubling the cap will still allow well-resourced employers to treat breaching their legal obligations as the cost of doing business. The TUC instead proposes a stronger deterrent: the introduction of interim injunctions to block fire and rehire attempts—an approach I have sought through new clause 62.

Mick Lynch, the outgoing general secretary of the RMT, told the Bill Committee that unions should have the power to seek injunctions against employers like P&O. He rightly pointed out:

“The power is all with the employers,”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 59, Q57]

and that unions currently lack the legal means to stop mass dismissals before they happen. My new clause offers a solution, giving employees immediate redress  through an injunction if they can show that their dismissal is likely to be in breach of the new law, ensuring that they remain employed with full pay until a final ruling is made. I encourage the Minister to address this issue in his response and to indicate an openness to considering injunctive powers in this Parliament. \p Richard Burgon: My hon. Friend has played such an important role in the development of these policies. He is making a wide-ranging speech—in his remaining remarks, will he reflect on the importance of not just individual rights, but collective rights? \p Andy McDonald: My hon. Friend highlights a critical issue—this is about making that shift and reversing the decline in collective bargaining. We should be looking for the International Labour Organisation standard and, as per the European Union, to get to 80% collective bargaining coverage across the piece.

I also note the concerns of the TUC and Unite regarding Government new clauses 90 to 96, on the “one establishment” issue, and urge them to engage with the unions on these issues.

Much has been said about wealth creators, but there needs to be a recognition that working people are wealth creators and they are entitled to their fair share. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee calls for consensus. At the core of this discussion has to be that good, well-paid, secure, unionised employment is good for our constituents, our businesses and our economy, and this crucial Employment Rights Bill is an essential step along that road to a brighter economy and a brighter future for all our people. \p Imran Hussain: It is an absolute honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), and I know the whole House will join me in thanking him for all the work that he has done in shaping the Bill before us today.

The Employment Rights Bill, which I am also proud to have played a small part in shaping, represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The Bill is a testament to the values that we stand for: a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work; dignity; protection; bargaining powers for workers; and a safety net for the most vulnerable when they need it the most.

There is much to celebrate in the Bill, as we have heard in the many excellent contributions today. I have also put my name to many of the amendments that we have heard hon. Members speak to in the House. I do feel that all of them are designed to strengthen the Bill further. However, given the time constraints, I shall focus my remarks on my amendments relating to statutory sick pay.

As we all know, and as has been said very eloquently today, the current system of statutory sick pay is not just insufficient, but completely and inexcusably broken. We have the worst system in Europe, which is shameful. Workers are entitled to just 17% of the average weekly wage, yet the cost of living does not suddenly plunge  by 83% when they are sick. Their rent, their energy bills and their grocery tabs are not discounted, so why does   SSP remain such a paltry sum? Being forced to survive on £118.75 a week—if they are lucky enough to get that in the first place—leaves workers exposed to financial hardship. It forces many to make the difficult decision to go to work when they are unwell.

It is therefore quite right that the Government have put forward major, necessary and welcome reforms. They include: removing the three-day waiting period, so that workers are entitled to sick pay from day one of illness; and extending sick pay to all workers by removing the lower earnings limit and implementing a fair earnings replacement percentage of 80%.

These reforms will directly benefit more than a million low-paid workers, a disproportionate number of whom continue to be those from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, women and young people. There is much more that we can do to strengthen the Bill, which is why I have tabled two amendments, which will do just that and ensure that no worker is left behind. Amendment 7 calls for sick pay to be aligned with the national living wage. Let me make it clear that uprating SSP is popular with businesses as well as with workers. Six in 10 employers agree that the rate is simply too low for workers to survive on. We know that because the poverty rate among those claiming SSP is more than double that among the overall working population.

Amendment 7 makes it clear that if a person is working full time, they should not be paid poverty wages when they are unwell. No one should have to choose between their health and their financial security, which is why my amendment would immediately raise SSP to around 67% of the average weekly wage, putting us on a par with many of our European counterparts.

My new clause 102 is about ensuring fairness. Although I welcome the Government’s proposed system, the reality is that 300,000 workers may actually end up worse off than they are today. Those who earn slightly above the current lower earnings limit of £123 up to £146 per week would receive 80% of their earnings, which is lower than the SSP rate that they would receive today.

We cannot allow anyone to be left behind. Although removing the waiting period puts more money in people’s pockets from the beginning of the illness period, workers taking more than four weeks off due to long-term conditions, going through cancer treatment, recovering from serious operations or suffering from mental health crises will face the biggest losses under the new system. \p Chris Hinchliff: Research has found that the cost of presenteeism to the private sector in mental ill health alone is £24 billion a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that shows that reforming our statutory sick pay is the most pro-prosperity, pro-productivity policy that we can pursue? \p Imran Hussain: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he makes the case brilliantly against some of the nonsense arguments about productivity that we have heard from the Conservative Benches today. It is the right thing to do, but also it will lead to much improved productivity and a better, healthier, happier workforce, as well as being much better for the employer.

My amendment and new clause would ensure that every worker receives, at the very least, the same amount of sick pay that they would have done under the current  system, and not a penny less. I urge the Government to support them, as they are very much in the spirit of this legislation. \p Claire Hanna: I congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on advancing the Bill—eight months into their mandate, we are at the remaining stages. In Northern Ireland, 13 months after restoration, the proposed NI “good jobs” Bill has not even been introduced, and doubt is growing as to whether it will pass in this mandate. Once again, workers and businesses in Northern Ireland are paying the cost of dither and lack of ambition. Does he agree that those same barriers to people on sick pay also apply to women on maternity leave? Would he support in principle my new clause 23, which would raise statutory maternity pay for women in work to the living wage for the later parts of maternity leave? \p Imran Hussain: Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the case brilliantly. I would support that in principle, because the challenges are exactly the same. I said at the beginning of my speech that many of the amendments, if not all—not the ones tabled by the Opposition, but the reasonable ones from the Government Benches—are constructive and designed to improve the Bill further.

My hon. Friend the Minister and I have had the great pleasure of working together for many months on the Bill, so he will know that I come from a position of sincerity to strengthen the Bill further. I fully understand that amendment 7 is a probing amendment, which will not be voted on in Lobbies. However, it does reflect the ambition that we should rightly have because it is shameful, frankly, that we are in the situation of offering among the lowest statutory sick pay. Our partners across Europe, quite rightly, are much better on this.

I ask the Minister to seriously consider new clause 102. Again, it does not ask for any immediate action today; it asks the Government to come back to the House in three months to report back that nobody will be worse off as a result of these measures. I do not think that is ever an intended consequence of the Government’s excellent measures, so I look forward to my hon. Friend engaging with me further on that.

Finally, I want to end by paying tribute to the millions of workers who are the backbone of our economy. It is my hope that, with the amendments and new clauses that we have proposed today, we can take significant steps towards a society that rewards workers instead of punishing them, that treats them with dignity instead of malice, and where no one must choose between their health and their livelihood. \p Ian Byrne: I place proudly on the record that I am currently a member of Unite and GMB. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to my good friend Terry Jones, a brilliant Scouse trade unionist who sadly passed away this morning. He supported the Bill wholeheartedly.

Forty-five years after Margaret Thatcher began her war on trade unions, the Bill is hugely welcome and long overdue. It is a step to turn back the tide and strengthen the power of workers. In a former life as an industrial organiser for Unite the union, I saw how difficult it was to build industrial strength in workplaces  because of the restrictive legislation supported by previous Governments of all colours. The Bill will hopefully begin at long last to turn back that tide.

Hon. Members have already discussed key measures in the Bill, and there is so much to welcome. I congratulate the Minister on his efforts in getting the Bill to this place, and I also congratulate him and his team on taking two points off Arsenal, which helped us no end on Sunday.

The Bill needs to be not the end, though, but the beginning of a renewal of trade union rights. If we want to tackle the injustices done to the working class from low pay and poverty to sordid inequality, we need to empower the institutions that were founded to fight for the working class. Be in no doubt about the scale of the problem: 60% of those who use the nine food pantries run across Liverpool are in work, including public sector workers from nurses to Department for Work and Pensions workers. Let that sink in: 60% of those relying on emergency food aid are in work. That tells us how broken the labour market is for so many people.

Economic growth goes hand in hand with fixing the broken economic settlement, hence the importance of the Bill. I will focus my comments on the amendments but, for the record, tomorrow we will debate two new clauses that I have tabled about upholding trade union rights and outsourcing. My amendments for debate today—amendments 326 and 327—are aimed at strengthening protections against unfair dismissals, but in my brief time I will focus on amendments tabled by colleagues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) has tabled a series of crucial amendments to strengthen the Bill. He deserves a huge amount of credit for getting the Bill to this place. His amendments include amendments 265 to 267, which would enhance the Bill’s provisions against zero-hours contracts. Those contracts leave workers with precious little control over their lives, allowing bosses to dictate shifts with little or no notice, with workers vulnerable to gross exploitation. It is no wonder that workers overwhelmingly prefer regular contracts. For example, when Wetherspoons introduced the option of guaranteed hours for its workforce, 99% of workers opted for that, with just 1% choosing the zero-hours contract model. The amendments would help ensure that when we say we are banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, we actually mean it.

My hon. Friend has also tabled new clauses 62 to 65, which would strengthen the Bill’s protections against the disgraceful practice of fire and rehire. I saw in my own family the devastating impact that this cruel practice can have in destroying livelihoods when my brother was a victim of fire and rehire at British Gas. This immoral practice should never again be able to be used by rogue employees as a weapon against the working classes of this country. I fully support those strengthening new clauses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) has tabled amendment 7, which would raise statutory sick pay to the level of the national living wage, and new clause 102, which would guarantee that workers do not lose out under the new fair earnings replacement proposals. We should have learned from the pandemic that no one should be forced into work when   they are ill. Those amendments and others would help to make that a reality. I really hope that the Minister and Front-Bench Members are listening.

The devastating consequences of Thatcherism’s assault on working-class communities and trade unions are seen in towns and cities across the country. Once vibrant industrial towns have been hollowed out and industries destroyed, with insecure work replacing well-paid, unionised jobs. The never-ending doom loop must be broken if we are to rebuild communities that at the moment feel forgotten, betrayed and abandoned by successive Governments since Thatcher. The Bill must be a decisive step in breaking away from a failed settlement and finally building a country that works for us all. \p Lola McEvoy: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud trade union member and in my career, I have campaigned for more rights for support staff and teaching assistants in schools, for better bargaining rights for care workers, for people to have contracts that affect the hours they work and for statutory sick pay from day one. I am proud that the Bill will deliver all those things—and much more—for working people up and down the country.

I rise to speak to the issue of parental leave, which has come up in relation to many amendments and in contributions from Members across the House. Since I was elected in July, I have spoken three times in the Chamber about the terrible inequality around dads’ rights and paternity pay, including in my maiden speech during the International Men’s Day debate and again in the debate on this Bill in last October. I therefore welcome the clauses that support dads’ rights and will encourage more men to take their paternity leave entitlements.

In the last Parliament, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis) introduced a private Member’s Bill that came into force in April 2024. The Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act 2023 extended the protected period from redundancy for parents. The protected period is the length of time during which a member of staff must be offered an appropriate, suitable post should their job role be at risk of redundancy. That protected period applies to the mother for 18 months after her child is born, to adoptive parents for 18 months after their child arrives in England, Scotland or Wales from overseas or the date on which the adoption placement starts, and for 18 months for those taking more than six weeks of shared parental leave. Those are the only groups of parents included in the extension to the protected period, which means that dads taking paternity leave are left out. Dads may benefit from the protections if they adopt a child, which is great, or if they take more than six weeks of shared parental leave, but dads who take paternity leave have no such protections, and that is obviously wrong.

In Darlington, dads and mums raise parental leave and dads’ rights on the doorstep all the time. Pregnant Then Screwed estimated that 74,000 mothers a year lose their jobs while pregnant or taking maternity leave. That  is appalling, and my hon. and gallant Friend’s Act will protect women from that utterly awful motherhood penalty. He was right to take action to protect working mums; however, I urge the Government to take action to extend the protections to dads in the upcoming parental leave review.

Clause 22 directly amends the Employment Rights Act 1996 to offer further protections to pregnant women, which is absolutely right. Once again, the additional rights extend to mums, parents taking adoptive leave and parents taking shared parental leave. We rightly want those people to be protected. The rights also extend to bereaved fathers, which is important, but they do not extend to those taking paternity leave.

In anticipation of the argument that dads can benefit from shared parental leave, I want to outline why it does not work as a policy or law. Five per cent of dads take shared parental leave. That is because it is a bit of a gimmick. First, the second partner—most often the father of the child—is more likely to take a smaller share of the shared parental leave, which is often less than six weeks and therefore would not qualify for additional redundancy protections. Secondly, and further to that argument, shared parental leave is itself a policy that is tough on mothers. Mothers who want to go back to work should be able to do so, and if they want to go back early and not use their full maternity rights, we obviously support that. My views are not in conflict with the rights of mothers, but are in addition to and in support of them.

Shared parental leave, however, is an anti-mother policy, and that is why only 5% of fathers and partners take it. Fathers, mothers and babies need time together. They need time to bond, time to heal and time to adjust to the earth-shattering experience of becoming a parent, together. In practice, dads, who are often the breadwinners, go dutifully back to work, sleep-deprived and under heavy societal pressure to provide for and protect their new families. They have to keep that job, and that is because so many women face maternity discrimination.

I absolutely appreciate the effort and scale of this landmark legislation and appreciate the vast-reaching scope of the measures it contains. It will improve many lives. I am a pragmatist and am hopeful that we can get an increase in paternity pay. For now, however, I simply ask for parity for paternity—for dads’ rights. Seventy-two per cent of the public support more protections for dads, but only a third of new dads take paternity leave. Something is badly wrong there and I urge the Minister to listen to the campaign group The Dad Shift, which says that an estimated 4,000 dads a year who take paternity leave lose their jobs because of it.

My generation and those younger than me are the keenest yet for more family time, but their primary concern is paying the bills. The rate of paternity leave, the huge swathes of discrimination for returning mothers and the lack of protections mean that dads cannot even take what they are entitled to. We have to change that. I am proud of this Bill and proud of our Government, and I am very hopeful for dads. \p Polly Billington: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I am a proud member of  the GMB.

I stand to speak against amendment 289, which would exclude the hospitality sector and sports venues from the Bill’s duty for employers not to permit harassment of their employees. The first time I was harassed at work was when I was 14 years old, waiting tables at a charity event. The second time was when I was 16, in a bistro, except this time I was being paid for the experience. After that, it was when I was a student working in a bar, then when I worked in a canteen, and then in a warehouse. It is because of that experience—one shared by people of both sexes and all ages, but particularly the young and particularly women, across this country—that I was, I am not going to lie, absolutely gobsmacked by the amendment tabled by the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), to the protection from harassment clause, which would exclude those working in the hospitality sector or sports venues.

The Conservative party is arguing that some kind of harassment is okay and that if you are working in the hospitality sector or in a sports venue, it is fine. Tories seem to believe that if you go to a pub, your right to harass bar staff is greater than their right not to be harassed. I have to say, that is quite an extraordinary thing to argue for, but I am glad that they are at least being honest with us. Jobs in hospitality often involve insecure work on low pay that is reliant on tips. In Margate, Ramsgate and Broadstairs, thousands of people work in jobs like that, and I do not see why it should be deemed acceptable for them to be harassed in their job, but not people who work in an office. \p Jonathan Pearce: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and I am a proud member of the GMB. Does my hon. Friend agree that even more concerning are the calls from the Opposition Benches, and particularly from the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), for the Equality Act to be scrapped, which would mean that laws covering sexual harassment and equal pay would be completely removed from the workplace? This is a really troubling agenda from the Conservatives, and I believe it is in keeping with this amendment. \p Polly Billington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is indeed a very worrying direction of travel from the Conservatives.

We on the Labour Benches think that people should not be allowed to harass any workers. I honestly did not expect this to be a controversial aspect of the Bill for the Conservatives. Perhaps I am being uncharitable, so I would really appreciate it if the shadow Secretary of State, who is now in his place, could answer a few questions. When did it become Conservative party policy to allow staff to be harassed? Why does that apply only to staff working in hospitality and sports venues and not to all workers? Why is it all right to harass bar staff but not office staff? \p Alison Griffiths: I know that the hon. Lady has not been in the Chamber for most of the debate, so she will have missed many of the discussions where my hon. Friends have explained the nuance of our position on this, which relates to the law of unintended consequences where publicans and nightclub owners could be responsible  for policing the words of their customers. That is clearly not a tenable situation, but I will repeat the words of all of my colleagues on this side of the House: sexual harassment is abhorrent. We do not condone it in any shape or form, and I ask her to withdraw the insinuation that anyone on this side of the House has any truck with such behaviour. \p Polly Billington: I would like to emphasise that I listened closely to the opening speeches when the hon. Lady’s colleagues were talking about amendment 289. I heard clearly, for example, some confusion over whether sexual harassment was a crime or a civil offence, so I will not take any lessons from the Conservatives on their understanding of employment law or, indeed, what is considered acceptable at work.

The amendment is utterly disgraceful. I am proud that this Labour Government have brought forward a Bill to stop workers being harassed wherever they work. It is just a shame that the Conservative party does not agree. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), and apparently the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), think that it is wrong that pub landlords will have to be responsible for kicking out customers. He talked about it being a “banter ban”, but pub managers have always known the importance of keeping rowdy behaviour in limits and protecting their staff and customers from being pestered or being made the unwilling butt of so-called jokes. This law— \p Alison Griffiths: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Polly Billington: No, I will not give way.

This law will strengthen their hand. I say, in the words of the greatest pub manager of all time—Peggy Mitchell—to the proposers of the amendment, “Get outta my pub!” \p Nusrat Ghani: Quite. I call Dr Jeevun Sandher. \p Jeevun Sandher: What a speech to follow. I cannot quite claim to be Peggy Mitchell, but I will try to live up to that brilliant remark.

I rise as a proud member of the GMB. I happily refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will speak to new clauses 37 and 38, which relate to part 3 of the Bill. They will strengthen the bargaining power of social workers and, by doing so, create a stronger working relationship between employees and employers that both sides will invest more in. That means higher wages for those who look after our parents, more training and a healthier social care workforce. Both sides will invest more; both sides will benefit more. Pro-worker, pro-business, pro-growth—that is what these amendments and this Bill will achieve.

Before entering this place, I was a trade union rep, and I worked with my colleagues to help stop a 33% pay cut in my workplace. Workers speaking with one voice meant a happier and more productive workplace—one voice to set out what it means to increase productivity. That is why this is a pro-growth Bill.

Social care workers are among the lowest paid in  our economy. One in six are legally paid less than the minimum wage. Little proper certification, reward or recognition for skills means that there is little training. Poor conditions mean that almost half suffer from  work-related stress. Low pay, little progression and poor conditions are the reasons why a third of social care workers leave the sector each year. That is what this Bill and these new clauses will fix. The Adult Social Care Negotiating Body will mean more social care workers speaking as one voice, gaining higher wages, better conditions and more training. Those benefits do not just appear on payslips; they mean less time spent worrying about paying the bills, and more time with our families and reading to our children. They make workers more productive and benefit employers—they make life worth living.

Those on the Opposition Benches say that life cannot improve. They have talked a lot of fear instead of hope and the change we can achieve. They will likely vote against our amendments and against the Bill. In doing so, they would deny their constituents better wages and, indeed, a better life. We cannot simply sit back and hope that wages rise, that training will magically appear, or that conditions will get better on their own. We have to act to make it so. The Bill and the amendments do exactly that by giving social care workers the power to speak with one voice to negotiate higher wages, better training and better conditions, benefiting employee and employer—pro-worker, pro-business and pro-growth. That is what the Bill stands for. That is what I stand for. That is what we stand for. \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Having been a trade union activist for 40 years and a regional official, I have a genuine sense of pride in seeing the Bill make its way through Parliament. It is truly transformational and seeks to address the imbalance that has existed in the workplace for far too long. Many of the amendments before us strengthen existing rights so as to ensure that unscrupulous employers are unable to frustrate, delay or act unreasonably when dealing with their workforce, either collectively or as individuals.

Other amendments, such as new clause 101 in my name, seek to introduce new rights and protections for groups of workers who have hitherto been forgotten or overlooked. My new clause calls for the establishment of a regulatory body for foster carers. Currently, those who employ foster carers—local authorities, charities and independent fostering agencies—also serve as de facto regulators, with the power to register and de-register workers. That puts too much power in the hands of the employers, and, according to the foster carers branch of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, it illustrates a structure within the sector that fails to bring consistency, transparency, fairness or decent outcomes for the children and young people in their care.

A new regulatory body would therefore accredit educational institutions to provide standardised training courses. Once completed, those courses would remain on a carer’s work record. At the moment, every time a foster carer starts with a new provider, they are required to do the training again. That is both unnecessarily costly and time consuming. The body would also be responsible for maintaining a central register of foster  care workers, and would ensure proper standards of care and deal with fitness-to-practice cases. As with the very best regulatory bodies, it would include those with lived experience of foster care.

One of the key roles of that proposed body would be to standardise the employment rights available to carers, such as maximum working hours, entitlement to statutory sick pay and protections against unfair dismissal, while also considering the important issue of collective sectoral bargaining. Through that, we would hope to see improvements in pay, minimum allowances, holidays and pension entitlements. As the UK continues to lose foster carers at an alarming rate, now is the time for that basic oversight, which will help to ensure we have enough safe and loving homes for the vulnerable children who need them.

My amendments 316 to 323 relate to the issue of redundancy. Over the years, I have negotiated with a number of employers over hundreds of redundancies, and I am seeking to improve the legislation based on that first-hand experience. Amendment 316 would require an employer to hold meaningful consultation even if they were preparing to make fewer than 20 staff redundant—something that many good employers already do, of course—whereas amendments 317 and 318 would introduce greater sanctions for those who fail to consult properly. Amendment 319 would treat workers dismissed under fire and rehire as having been made redundant and would ensure that they receive greater remuneration as a result.

Amendments 320 to 323 all seek to improve the level of redundancy pay by removing the 20-year cap on entitlements; by ensuring that someone with 10 years and six months’ service, for example, receives 11 years’ redundancy pay rather than 10; by basing the statutory redundancy calculation on months rather than weeks; and by ensuring those with less than two years’ service also have the right to redundancy payments.

Of course, there are many reasons why redundancies occur, but at the moment, the rules and sanctions around this issue enable some unscrupulous employers to exploit the situation and treat their staff unfairly. These amendments seek to address that imbalance, and I hope the Government will consider ways in which the issues I have highlighted can be included in the legislation. \p Nadia Whittome: I am a proud trade unionist, and I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I commend the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for introducing this landmark legislation, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who did a huge amount of work on it as shadow Minister. All of them have dedicated their lives to standing up for working people, and this Bill is a culmination of that work and the work of trade unionists over many, many years.

I would like to speak in support of new clause 73. My own experience of taking time off work as an MP and the contrast with the experience of those on statutory sick pay made it clear just how badly reform is needed. Some years ago, when I needed to take a leave of absence because of the severity of my post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, I received full pay and a phased return, but for many workers, that is a million  miles from their experience. The UK has some of the worst sick pay entitlements in Europe. The fact that the Bill means that sick pay will be paid from day one, instead of after day three, is very welcome, as is the removal of the eligibility threshold, increasing access for more than 1 million low-paid workers. However, we must acknowledge that without increasing the rate, the low level of statutory sick pay will continue to place a terrible burden on those who are already poorly paid. That is why amendment 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), is so important.

Those are far from the only issues. Another problem is the inflexibility of statutory sick pay, and that is why I have worked with the mental health charity Mind to table new clause 73. More than 8 million working-age people have long-term health conditions and experience challenges at work. Statutory sick pay currently does not allow for a proper phased return or for workers to reduce their hours during periods of ill health. Statutory sick pay can only be paid for a full day of sickness. If a worker needs a half day, for instance, SSP cannot be used to cover the hours they are not working.

If we force people to return to work before they are ready, whether that is because they cannot afford to remain on statutory sick pay or because a phased return is not an option for them, they are far more likely to be trapped in a cycle of poor mental wellbeing and to fall out of work completely. New clause 73 would mean that sick pay was paid pro rata, by hours rather than days, to allow for that greater flexibility.

Years of successive Government reviews have come to the same conclusion: a flexible statutory sick pay model would improve lives and better support people to remain in work. I have appreciated Ministers’ engagement with me on this issue, and I hope the Government will commit to looking at it further, especially as the cost to the Government would only be administrative. However, the impact it would have on people’s lives is huge.

The Labour movement fought long and hard for the right to sick pay and proper support for those with long-term illness and disability, whether in work or not, because our movement and our party exists to stand up for the whole of the working class. At a time when more people are affected by sickness and disability, it is crucial that this Government support them and do not scapegoat them for the failures and the political choices of the Conservative party. \p Mary Foy: As a young worker in the late 1980s, I experienced the precarious nature of the world of work, along with many of my peers. Lack of knowledge about our rights and the fear of being sacked if we complained about our terms and conditions politicised me and made me a lifelong trade unionist and a member of Unite and Unison. I wish to speak to new clause 92, on rolled-up holiday pay for irregular hours workers and part-year workers, and new clause 93, entitled “Working Time Regulations 1998: records”, which are tabled in my name. Like most colleagues in this House, and along with the trade union movement and the millions of workers who will benefit from its provisions, I warmly welcome the Bill and thank everyone who has campaigned for it long and hard.

The majority of people spend a huge portion of their lives in work. Work should be an opportunity to be fulfilled, to live fully, to support ourselves and our family, to  develop as individuals, and to contribute to society. In reality, however, for too long and for too many the world of work has been, and is, a world of uncertainty and ruthless exploitation, often stripping people of their dignity and their worth. For millions there is a struggle to obtain secure work, and that strengthens the hand of employers to drive a hard bargain to benefit their balance sheet and their profits. For those who can secure work, working life can remain unclear and insecure. It can include irregular and uncertain employment, uncertainty about hours, payment, and vital matters such as holiday pay and entitlement. While others in the House boast of their endless push for so-called flexible labour markets, the reality is very different for those on the other side of the employment contract—for the workers.

The previous Government spoke about cutting so-called red tape, when they really meant reducing people’s working rights and strengthening the powers of boardroom billionaires. My proposed new clauses are in relation to certain sectors, although they would benefit all workers. It is widely known and acknowledged that some employers use so-called rolled-up holiday pay as a device to tackle their obligations to provide paid time off for holidays. Holidays and breaks from work are essential for workers, and a recognised factor in delivering an effective organisation in the public and private sectors. So-called rolled-up holiday pay is a mechanism by which an employer adds holiday pay to basic pay throughout the working year, but does not provide it separately at the time of taking the holiday. It is acknowledged, including by ACAS, that that creates a risk that a worker may feel under pressure not to take any holiday, or to take less holiday than they are entitled to. That is particularly a risk for those who work in sectors of the economy where the work is irregular, and along with that, their work also tends to be lower paid. The pressure on such workers is immense. New clause 92 seeks to address that risk—a risk accepted and addressed by rulings from the European Court of Justice.

New clause 93 would ensure that working time is accurately recorded by employers. Colleagues across the House may recall that the recordkeeping requirements under the Working Time Regulations 1988 were watered down by amendments tabled by the previous Government in November 2023, following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. They believed that it was too cumbersome to require employers to maintain accurate records on behalf of employees, referring to it as “time consuming” and “disproportionate reporting.” What a load of rubbish. With advances in modern technology, there is no excuse for an employer to fail to accurately and precisely keep records of the working time contributed by a worker. The onus of managing records should be shifted from employees to allow them to focus on their own roles without added administrative requirements.

This Government’s Employment Rights Bill will deliver a new deal for working people, and I wholeheartedly support it, but I urge the Minister to take account of the issues I have raised and to accept new clauses 92 and 93, which would strengthen the Bill’s provisions and increase protection for the sections of workers who need it the most. \p Anna Dixon: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I am a proud member of Community.

It is an honour to speak as this landmark Bill hopefully passes its next stage, finally bringing to an end an era of insecurity and low pay under the Conservative party. This landmark Bill brings in day one rights for workers, a fair pay agreement for social care workers and greater entitlement to statutory sick pay. My speech will focus on and highlight the way in which the Bill and some of its amendments strengthen the rights of care workers and carers, the majority of whom are women.

We have heard already in this debate many proposals from hon. Members on the Government Benches to go further than the excellent proposals before us to strengthen day one rights for employees. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) spoke movingly about pregnancy loss and bereavement, and, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), talked about the need for stronger entitlements to parental leave. All of that will have a really positive impact, particularly on women.

I draw attention particularly to the day one right that strengthens flexible working by default. I invite the Minister to consider giving guidance to employers that they should require flexible working to be advertised. The Fawcett Society has made a particularly strong case for the importance of that for women, and I know that that is also true for carers. If, before applying for a job, they do not know that they can secure that flexibility, many will not even apply. Some 40% of women who are not currently working said that if flexible work was available to them, it would enable them to do paid work, so we are missing out on huge potential for businesses.

The Fawcett Society survey in 2023 said that 77% of women agreed that they would be more likely to apply for a job that advertises flexible working options, while 30% had had to turn down a job offer when employers were unable to offer the flexible working that they needed. While the Bill makes excellent provisions, I urge the Minister to respond on how we can implement that in practice, so that carers and particularly women can have the confidence to apply for jobs and know that they can have those flexible working requirements. \p Joshua Reynolds: I thank the hon. Lady for her warm words about carers. Will she therefore support Liberal Democrat new clause 10, which would make paid carer’s leave an entitlement? \p Anna Dixon: The hon. Gentleman may know that I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers. We are very pleased that there are now unpaid leave requirements for carers; on other occasions, I have urged the Government to look into going further with paid entitlements for carers. There is a real opportunity to enable the 3 million carers in paid employment to remain in employment and to stop the loss of an estimated 600 people per day who leave work due to their caring responsibilities. While that is not part of this Bill, hopefully the Government and the Minister will respond to that.

That is the first area of the Bill that I really welcome. The second, which has huge benefit for care workers, is its provisions on pay and conditions through pay agreements. I echo some of the comments made by my  hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), who is no longer in his place, about the huge benefits that these will bring to so many of our valued adult social care staff.

The establishment of the new Fair Work Agency will ensure that everyone is playing by the same rules, and strengthening powers to deal with modern slavery and labour abuse will further extend protections to care workers. Many care workers have come to this country on overseas visas and, having paid extortionate fees in their country of origin, have found themselves tied into accommodation here, on zero-hours contracts and being exploited by the care companies. As such, the provisions in the Bill are very welcome. We know that too many care workers live in poverty; research by the Health Foundation suggests that one in five care workers cannot afford the essentials, either for themselves or for their children. I am proud to be sitting on the Labour Benches as we bring forward fair pay agreements, along with the abolition of exploitative zero-hours contracts, which will finally provide security for our valued social care workers.

In implementing these changes, it is really important that we establish a framework to help home care workers in particular—some of whom I met recently—who are not paid for their travel time or their sleep-in hours, despite the fact that such practices should be illegal. As we take forward the fair pay agreement in adult social care, I urge the Minister to work with colleagues to ensure it is accompanied by an ethical charter for care providers to sign up to. This Government have already shown how serious they are about valuing those who do so much to care for, and provide support to, disabled adults and older people in this country.

The third area I want to mention, which other colleagues have talked about and which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) has addressed in his new clause 102—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I keep looking at the clock. I believe there is an issue; would you please advise me on my remaining time? \p Nusrat Ghani: Yes, the clock has stopped. You started at 7 pm, but you did take an intervention, so I think you can go for one more minute. \p Anna Dixon: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Very briefly, I am delighted that the Government are strengthening statutory sick pay. During covid, many care workers were forced to go into work—at their own risk, and risking those they were caring for—because they were not eligible for statutory sick pay, so strengthening it is an excellent move.

In conclusion, this Bill, together with the proposed Government amendments and some of those suggested by my hon. Friends, will ensure that the 1.5 million people working in adult social care can get fair pay, guaranteed hours, statutory sick pay and day one rights. It is good for workers, and it is good for women. \p Deirdre Costigan: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my Unison membership.

I welcome the Bill, which is a once-in-a-generation chance to give more power to working people—including those in Ealing Southall—and I support the Government amendments to provide decent sick pay to 1.3 million low-paid workers. I do not support the Opposition’s amendments, which attempt to tie us up in knots in an effort to block working people from getting the rights they should be entitled to.

I particularly want to consider the impact of the Bill and the Government amendments on disabled people. Currently, almost 3 million people are off work long-term sick—a record high. Of course, some of those are disabled people who are unable to work. However, there are also many disabled people who desperately want to work, but who have been kicked out of their job because their employer refused to make simple changes that would allow them to succeed.

In my previous role as national disability officer for the country’s biggest trade union, Unison, we worked with Disability Rights UK and Scope to develop the disability employment charter. That charter is a list of improvements to help disabled people get, and keep, employment. Over 240 employers, both large and small, signed up to say that they backed the ideas in the charter—they backed disabled workers’ rights—but the previous Conservative Government saw it all as red tape. They did not listen, and they refused to introduce those changes. They left millions of disabled people who want to work stuck on benefits, and the Opposition’s amendments today are just more of the same.

Those 240 employers that signed the disability employment charter, and the many disabled workers who have been pushed out of their jobs, will be heartened to see the changes being introduced in the new Employment Rights Bill. Many of those changes implement the demands of the charter, including allowing flexible working, more support for trade union disability reps, and strengthening sick pay. Those 240 employers would reject the Opposition’s many amendments whose aim is to frustrate this support for disabled workers.

People are often surprised to learn that low-paid workers are not entitled to statutory sick pay, and that unless the employer company has its own scheme, they can claim statutory sick pay only after three days of being ill. During the pandemic, that led to social care staff, in particular, feeling forced to work when they had covid, potentially passing the illness on. Lack of access to sick pay is a public health issue, and this new law will ensure that low-paid workers no longer have to choose between not being paid and going to work sick. It will also give disabled workers time off to recover from illness rather than struggling into work., becoming sicker, and potentially falling out of employment for the long term. Being paid to take a few days off to recover could save them, and the economy, a lifetime of being left on the scrapheap. \p Anna Dixon: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Deirdre Costigan: No, because many Members are waiting to speak.

I welcome Government amendments 80 to 85, which specify the level of sick pay that low-paid workers will now be able to expect from day one. I know that some employers wanted to pay a bit less and trade unions wanted a bit more, but 80% is a compromise. I certainly do not support the delaying tactics of the Opposition,  who have sought impact appraisals that already exist and show that these changes will lead to an increase in productivity and growth if we can get disabled people working when they want to do so.

This transformative Bill responds to a key demand of the disability employment charter for a default right to flexible working. For many disabled workers, the ability to organise their hours around taking medication and dealing with pain or fatigue will mean being able to keep their job rather than ending up sick or being marched out of the door. In line with the charter, this new law also introduces paid time off for trade union equality representatives, a subject that I know we will discuss tomorrow. Negotiating reasonable adjustments can take time, and input from a trained person, whose priority is to keep the worker in his or her job, will make all the difference.

However, Unison research has established that nearly a quarter of disabled workers who asked their employers for reasonable adjustments waited a year or more for help, and some never even received a reply. You cannot do a job that causes you pain, or sets you up to fail, so it is no wonder that disabled people end up out of the door. The disability employment charter calls for a new right to a two-week deadline for at least receiving a reply to a reasonable adjustment request. Currently there is no deadline for such a response, although in the case of flexible working requests the employer must respond within eight weeks. I have had constructive discussions with the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), and I am hopeful that we may see such a deadline included in the “Get Britain Working” plan, which complements the Bill.

Many good employers already support disabled workers, and I pay tribute to the 240 who have backed the disability employment charter and rights for those workers. The Bill and the Government amendments will ensure that there is a level playing field, so that bad employers cannot undercut those who want to do the right thing. They will ensure that more disabled workers can keep jobs that they value, and can contribute to the growth that we need to get our economy working again. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Alex Sobel, and ask him to keep his remarks to four minutes. \p Alex Sobel: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my 28-year membership of the GMB union.

New clause 72, which stands in my name, would place a duty on employers to investigate whistleblowing concerns and establish internal channels for reporting and managing whistleblower disclosures. In recent years we have seen scandals rock the country in which whistleblowers raised the alarm at an early stage only for their warnings to be ignored and for disastrous consequences to follow. Scandals with thousands of victims, such as the Post Office Horizon case, the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy and the collapse of Carillion, involved whistleblowers raising the alarm only to face a wall of silence. We saw the very worst of that at Yorkshire cricket club in my constituency when Azeem Rafiq suffered years of racist harassment and abuse. Despite the number of players who admitted to racist remarks or actions, the club’s  leadership refused to accept their mistakes and refused to release the full report, instead releasing an edited summary. Only when Azeem appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee did the full scale of institutional racism at the club become known.

These failures have a tragic human cost, and they often place a significant strain on the taxpayer. According to the report “The Cost of Whistleblowing Failures”, the avoidable costs incurred owing to the failure to listen to whistleblowers in the Post Office Horizon, Carillion and Letby cases was £426 million.

It is unacceptable for the taxpayer to have to bear the burden of failed systems and a failed legislative framework, which is why we need a new legal duty on employers to investigate whistleblowing. New clause 72 would ensure that employers must take “reasonable steps” to investigate any protected disclosure made to them. It would compel large employers to establish internal channels and appropriate procedures for reporting. By ensuring that disclosures are investigated, we can prevent scandals such as Horizon from occurring and ensure that harm in the workplace is dealt with early. The new clause is proudly pro-worker and pro-business, and would tackle one of the long-standing issues with our current whistleblowing legal framework for workers. The status quo provides only an after-the-event remedy for whistleblowers, and this new clause would ensure that there are channels for whistleblowers from the start.

YouGov and Protect’s research found that 76% of workers want a legal duty on employers to investigate whistleblowing concerns, and new clause 72 would deliver on the long-standing demands from workers. In the light of recent scandals, businesses are realising the value of whistleblowers in helping to root out wrongdoing and harm within their own companies. In its report on the Post Office scandal, the Institute of Directors recommends that

“all employers should be required to meet standards for whistleblowing and follow recognised procedures.”

New clause 72 would require employers to take “reasonable steps”, meaning that vexatious or insignificant concerns would not always require an investigation. This is a once-in- a-generation opportunity to revolutionise whistleblowing law.

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 was groundbreaking for its time, but the UK has since fallen behind our comparator jurisdictions, such as the EU and Japan, on whistleblower protections. I hope that the Government will consider supporting new clause 72 or equivalent measures, which would be good for workers, businesses and taxpayers. I also hope that the Minister will meet me to discuss this matter following today’s debate. Through this new clause, we can take action to ensure that whistleblowers are supported, that businesses are given the tools to root out wrongdoing, and that taxpayers are spared from having to bail out state scandals. \p Catherine Atkinson: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the fact that I am a proud trade union member. I give my full support to the measures in this landmark Bill.

In Derby we make things, from nuclear reactors that power submarines to the trains, cars and aeroplane engines that get people and goods where they need to go, and food production operations that help put food on our tables. We do not just have large companies with big economies of scale; we also have thousands of small and medium-sized companies. Many businesses that I have visited—large and small—are investing in their workforce, want to pay them properly and want to provide stable, secure work that enables their employees to build lives and families, but they want a level playing field so that they are not undercut by competitors that do not play by the rules, that avoid their responsibilities and that exploit those who work for them.

When people are stuck in insecure, low-paid work, planning for their future is impossible. It is wrong that so many people have no idea whether they will have five hours of work or 50 in a week, wrong that they have no idea whether they will earn enough to pay their bills, and wrong that they can have paid for childcare, be on a bus to work and get a call saying they are no longer needed. What is shocking is that we have 2.4 million people in irregular work, such as those on zero-hours or low-hours contracts, or in agency jobs. I am proud that this Government, through this Bill, are taking action to end exploitative zero-hours contracts, and that amendments 32 and 33 will ensure that agency workers are also protected.

On Second Reading of this groundbreaking Bill, I spoke about the importance of enforcement. A right is not worth the paper it is written on unless it is enforced; and the provisions that we make, the guidance that we set and the laws that we pass are only as strong as the enforcement.

For part of my career as a barrister, I had the honour of representing working people, but I always knew that for the many who did seek justice through tribunals, there were many who did not feel able to take action. The Low Pay Commission has found that low-paid and exploited workers can be reluctant to speak out about abuses of their rights. Last year we celebrated the 25th anniversary of a Labour Government bringing in the national minimum wage, but the Low Pay Commission estimates that one in five workers receiving it were not provided with the correct pay in 2022.

On Second Reading, I called for the strengthening of the Fair Work Agency, which will enforce the national minimum wage, statutory sick pay and a wide range of rights, such as holiday pay, so that everyone plays by the same rules. I am hugely pleased to see that new clauses have been tabled that would strengthen the powers of the Fair Work Agency. As we will talk about tomorrow, new clause 57 would give the agency powers to bring proceedings to an employment tribunal on behalf of workers. That could make a huge difference for workers, and it helps protect businesses from being undercut by acting as a real deterrent. The sooner that these measures are in place, the sooner enforcement can begin and justice can be delivered, and this will bring us better protections, better productivity and better growth. \p Justin Madders: First, I think I need to mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) is celebrating his 40th birthday today, and what a great way to spend his birthday. He  is one of the people who have worked tirelessly over  many years in different guises to help us get where we are today.

Given the number of speeches and contributions, it is just not going to be possible to pay tribute to everyone in the time I have, or indeed to reference every speech and every amendment, but I will do my best to cover as much as possible.

I will start with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), whose new clause 73 relates to significant structural changes to the statutory sick pay system. I thought she made a very personal and persuasive speech, and I agree with her that phased returns to work are an effective tool in supporting people to stay in or return to work, helping to reduce the flow into economic inactivity and the cost to businesses of sickness absence. By removing the waiting period, employees will be entitled to statutory sick pay for every day of work missed. This better enables phased returns to work—for example, by supporting someone who normally works five days a week to work a three-day week, being paid SSP for the other two days. That simply would not have been possible under the existing system. We are committed to continuing to work closely with employees and employers to develop and implement a system that is fair, supportive and effective in kick-starting economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity, and we will continue to have conversations about that.

Turning to new clause 102 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), I pay tribute to him for his work as a shadow Minister in this area. The changes we are bringing in through this Bill mean that up to 1.3 million low-paid employees will now be entitled to statutory sick pay, and all eligible employees will be paid from the first day of sickness absence, benefiting millions of employees. The new percentage rate is consistent with the structure used for other statutory payments. It is simple to understand and implement, and with the removal of waiting periods, the internal modelling from the Department for Work and Pensions shows that most employees, even those who may nominally earn less per week, will not be worse off over the course of their sickness absence.

I believe the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) was her first from the Back Benches, and I do not think she will be on them for very long if she continues to make such contributions. I thought it was an excellent speech, and the way she spoke about her constituent Mr B really hammered home the importance of tackling non-disclosure agreements. I would like to pay tribute to her ongoing efforts to ensure that victims of misconduct and bullying can speak up about their experiences, and get the help and support they need.

I want to thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for originally tabling the amendment, and for meeting me last week to share, sadly, another horrific story about the abuse of NDAs. I also thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for her contribution in this area.

There are legitimate uses of NDAs, but I want to be clear—we have heard too many examples of this today—that they should not be used to silence victims of harassment or other misconduct. I understand that hon. Members want to ensure equal protection in relation to NDAs concerning harassment across the economy, and I absolutely hear what they have said. However, we have to acknowledge that this would be a far-reaching change, and it would be to take a significant step  without properly engaging with workers, employers and stakeholders, and assessing the impact on sectors across the economy. I want to reiterate that I recognise that non-disclosure agreements are an important question that warrants further consideration, and we will continue to look at the issues raised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley said that she wants me to go further, and I look forward to engaging with her and with organisations such as Can’t Buy My Silence.

New clause 30, in the name of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), would give employees who are special constables the right to time off work to carry out their voluntary police duties. I join him in paying tribute to special constables, who make an invaluable contribution to policing across the country. It would not be appropriate, however, to support additional legislation on this matter without a comprehensive analysis on the impact such a change could bring to policing. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we debated it in Committee and my officials have been in discussion with colleagues at the Home Office to learn more about the topic. Further engagement is continuing with the staff association for special constables and the Association of Special Constabulary Officers. I recognise that the legislation is now half a century old and needs a considerable look. We cannot support the amendment tonight, but I am glad that there is at least one Member on the Conservative Benches who supports increasing employment rights.

Turning to new clause 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), I want to start by recognising the key role that paternal leave plays in supporting working families. The arrival of a child is transformative for all parents. The Government understand and value the vital role that fathers and partners play in raising children, and we want to support them to do that. I commend my hon. Friend for her work in this area.

We already have a statutory framework in place that guarantees eligible employed fathers and partners a protected period of paternity leave, ensuring that they cannot be required to work while claiming that leave, or be discriminated against by their employer for taking it. However, I recognise what my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) said about the limitations on those protections. I also pay tribute to her for her work on this issue.

Paternity leave is available to the father of the child or the mother’s partner irrespective of their gender, and the leave can be taken by the father or partner at any point in the first year following the child’s birth or adoption. I acknowledge the wider point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, which is that we need to do more to ensure that the parental leave system as a whole supports working families. As a Government, we have committed to doing that. I recently met The Dad Shift, Pregnant then Screwed and Working Families to discuss that very issue.

Through the Bill, we are making paternity leave and unpaid parental leave day one rights, meaning that employees will be eligible to give notice of their intent to take leave from their first day of employment, removing any continuity of service requirement. That brings them both into line with maternity leave and adoption leave, simplifying the system. We are also committed to reviewing the parental leave system. The review will be conducted separately from this Bill. Work is already under way  across Government on planning for its delivery and will commence before Royal Assent. We are scoping the work already under way across the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We of course want and expect to engage widely with stakeholders as part of that review process, and I would expect my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow to engage with us in that respect.

New clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), would partially reinstate, to the Equality Act 2010, a similar measure that was sponsored by the previous Labour Government. This Government continue to have sympathy with its aims. We all know that the statutory questionnaire was sometimes found to be a helpful, informative tool. While the Government will not support new clause 6, we will be giving close consideration to the impact of the repeal of the statutory questionnaire and any steps that may be needed during this Parliament. \p Stella Creasy: I am very pleased to hear confirmation that the review into parental rights, which I understand will begin in June, will go ahead. The Minister talks about stakeholders. Will he confirm whether they will include our trade union colleagues, because many of us are very happy to withdraw our amendments tonight on the basis that working people can be part of the conversation? \p Justin Madders: I would fully expect us to consult with all relevant parties, so I do not think my hon. Friend need have any worries in that respect.

I pay tribute to two people who have been instrumental in shaping our thoughts on this issue: my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). They tabled amendments on employment status. It is important to say that we are taking action in respect of those who work for umbrella companies. We have been clear that some reforms in the plan to make work pay will take longer to undertake and implement. We see consulting on a simpler two-part framework as a longer-term goal, but I assure them both that I remain committed to that. I also hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East says in relation to his concerns about fire and rehire. We will be looking very closely at how our reforms work in practice.

New clause 17 seeks to create a legal definition of kinship care to be used to establish eligibility for kinship care leave. New clause 18 aims to establish a new kinship care leave entitlement for employed kinship carers, with a minimum of 52 weeks of leave available for eligible employees. I am pleased to say that the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will, for the first time, create a legal definition of kinship care for the purposes of specific measures in the Bill. By defining kinship care in law, the legislation will ensure that all local authorities have a clear and consistent understanding of what constitutes kinship care. I am also pleased to say that the Government have recently announced a £40 million package to trial a new kinship allowance. This is the single biggest investment made by this Government in kinship care to date and will enable children to be raised within their communities by their extended families.

New clause 10—another Liberal Democrat new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling)—which we debated in Committee, would commit the Government to introducing an entitlement for employees with caring responsibilities to be paid their usual wage while taking carer’s leave. While we have stressed the Government’s commitment to supporting employed unpaid carers and I have been engaging with Ministers and relevant bodies on the matter, the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 only recently gave employed carers a new right to time off work to care for a dependant with a long-term care need, so we are reviewing this measure and considering whether further support is required.

I recognise that many of their amendments and new clauses come from a good place, but the Liberal Democrats have to decide whether they are going to be Manchester United or Manchester City; their speeches were littered with concerns about the increase in costs from the Bill, yet every new clause and amendment seems only to add to those costs. I understand that they are coming from a good place, but they have to decide whether or not they support the Bill. I hope they can make that decision before tomorrow night. At least the Liberal Democrats are here, unlike the new kids on the block, who are absent from the Benches behind them—I pay tribute to them for actually turning up today.

I will now address the points raised by the Opposition on harassment, as set out in amendments 288 and 289, in the name of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). Those amendments seek either to exclude the hospitality sector and sports venues from the Bill’s obligations for employers not to permit the harassment of their employees by third parties or to remove clause 18 altogether, thus depriving employees of protection from all types of harassment by third parties under the Equality Act. Let us be clear: this Government are committed to making workplaces and working conditions free from harassment, and we must therefore protect employees from third-party harassment.

I want to underline two important points in relation to clause 18. First, on the expectations it places on employers, I would like to assure the House that employers cannot and are not expected to police or control every action of third parties; instead, employers simply need to do what is reasonable. What is reasonable will, of course, depend on the specific circumstances of the employer. Further, the steps that an employer can reasonably take in respect of the actions of third parties in its workplace are clearly more limited than the steps it can take in respect of its employees, and employment tribunals will, of course, take that into account when considering the facts of the case.

The second point relates to the threshold for what constitutes harassment. Far too often, I have heard objections to clause 18 implying that employers will be liable if their staff are offended by comments made by third parties, which is not the case at all—a fact reflected, I think, by the Conservatives supporting a similar measure in the previous Parliament. In his opening remarks, the shadow Minister asked what evidence there was that this clause was needed. The NHS staff survey for 2023 revealed that a quarter of all staff had suffered harassment, bullying or abuse from patients or service users, while a Unite survey said that 56% of its members had suffered third-party harassment. Presumably that is why UKHospitality, in its written evidence to the Bill Committee,  said that it supported the measures in principle. I will work with them to ensure that we protect everyone in the sector, because I believe that everyone who works in this country deserves protection from harassment. I think it is incredible that the Opposition cannot see a problem with arguing against that.

I will turn to new clause 105 on substitution clauses, which was tabled by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy). I think it is fair to say that we are aware of the risks. I have been working closely with the Minister for Border Security on illegal working by irregular migrants in the gig economy and the role that substitution clauses play in facilitating that. We will continue to work closely with the Home Office on this issue.

The Opposition also tabled new clause 87, which seeks to require the Secretary of State to have regard to the UK’s international competitiveness and economic growth when making any regulations under parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. The Government are already laser-focused on this key objective. Our plan to make work pay is a pro-growth package and sets out an ambitious agenda to deliver our plan for change by ensuring that employment rights are fit for a modern economy, empower working people and contribute to economic growth.

The plan will bring the UK back into line with our international competitors and directly address our low-growth, low-productivity and low-pay economy. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may be laughing, but they are the people who delivered that economy for so many years. International competitors and growth are at the heart of what we do. We will pay close attention to the potential impacts as we develop regulations to implement the measures in the Bill.

On small business support, I remind Members that I had a meeting with representatives from Inkwell, who said that introducing these changes will help create a happy and productive workplace and create a level playing field for employers. That is exactly what we want to achieve with the Bill. We understand that the best businesses want to look after their staff and that treating them well is good for business, good for workers and good for the wider economy. The Opposition’s narrow view seems to be that anything that is good for workers is automatically bad for businesses. We absolutely reject that analysis.

In conclusion, giving people a baseline of security and respect at work is fundamental. It is clear that we need a change from the system where people do not know what hours they will get from one week to the next, where people with caring responsibilities never get the same benefits of flexibility as their employers, where a minority of rogue employers can fire and rehire at will, and where care workers and teaching assistants have all been undervalued for far too long. It is time to end these injustices. It is time to make work pay.

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E). \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 27BUA (inserted by section (Agency workers: guaranteed hours and rights relating to shifts)) insert— \p UNKNOWN: 27BUB Zero hours workers, etc

(1) This section applies in relation to—

(a) a duty imposed on an employer in respect of a worker, and

(b) a right conferred on a worker in respect of an employer, by or under any provision of Chapter 2, 3 or 4.

(2) The duty or right is excluded if—

(a) the worker is employed by the employer under a worker’s contract (“the contract”),

(b) a relevant collective agreement contains—

(i) terms that expressly exclude the duty or right, and

(ii) terms that expressly replace the excluded duty or right,

(c) the terms within paragraph (b)(ii) are incorporated into the contract, and

(d) the employer notifies the worker in writing of the incorporation and effect of those terms.

(3) A relevant collective agreement is a collective agreement that is—

(a) in writing, and

(b) made by or on behalf of—

(i) one or more trade unions which each have a certificate of independence, and

(ii) the worker’s employer.

27BUC Agency workers

(1) This section applies in relation to—

(a) a duty imposed on a hirer or a work-finding agency in respect of an agency worker, and

(b) a right conferred on an agency worker in respect of a hirer or a work-finding agency, by or under any provision of Chapter 4A (including Schedule A1).

(2) The duty or right is excluded if—

(a) the agency worker is supplied to work for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer by virtue of a worker’s contract (“the contract”) that the agency worker has with another person (“the other party”),

(b) a relevant collective agreement contains—

(i) terms that expressly exclude the duty or right, and

(ii) terms that expressly replace the excluded duty or right,

(c) the terms within paragraph (b)(ii) are incorporated into the contract, and

(d) the other party notifies the agency worker in writing of the incorporation and effect of those terms.

(3) A relevant collective agreement is a collective agreement that is—

(a) in writing, and

(b) made by or on behalf of—

(i) one or more trade unions which each have a certificate of independence, and

(ii) the other party.

27BUD Supplementary provision

(1) For the purposes of sections 27BUB and 27BUC, it does not matter whether—

(a) terms in a collective agreement that expressly replace a duty or right relate to the same subject matter as the duty or right, or

(b) a collective agreement ceases to be in force after the terms mentioned in section 27BUB(2)(b)(ii) or 27BUC(2)(b)(ii) are incorporated into the contract (within the meaning of section 27BUB or 27BUC, as the case may be), provided the terms continue to be incorporated.

(2) Where the duty to make a guaranteed hours offer under Chapter 2 or 4A is excluded by virtue of terms that are incorporated into a contract with a worker or, as the case may be, an agency worker, as mentioned in section 27BUB(2)(c) or 27BUC(2)(c), during the offer period, the duty ceases to apply.

(3) Where—

(a) the duty to make a guaranteed hours offer under Chapter 2 or 4A is excluded by virtue of terms that are incorporated into a contract with a worker or, as the case may be, an agency worker, as mentioned in section 27BUB(2)(c) or 27BUC(2)(c),

(b) a guaranteed hours offer has already been made in compliance with the duty, and

(c) the worker or agency worker has not accepted the offer, the person who made the offer may withdraw it during the response period by giving a notice to the worker or agency worker.

(4) The notice must include a statement to the effect that the offer is withdrawn in consequence of the exclusion of the duty to make a guaranteed hours offer as a result of the incorporation into the worker’s or agency worker’s contract, as mentioned in section 27BUB(2)(c) or 27BUC(2)(c), of terms contained in a collective agreement that expressly replace that duty.

(5) A worker or an agency worker to whom a notice is given in reliance on subsection (3) may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that subsection (3) did not permit the notice to be given.

(6) Where a complaint is presented under subsection (5)—

(a) by a worker, sections 27BH and 27BI apply in relation to the complaint as they apply in relation to a complaint under section 27BG(5)(b);

(b) by an agency worker, paragraphs 9 and 10 of Schedule A1 apply in relation to the complaint as they apply in relation to a complaint under paragraph 7(7)(b) of that Schedule.

(7) Subsection (8) applies where—

(a) the duty to make a guaranteed hours offer under Chapter 2 or 4A is excluded by virtue of terms that are incorporated into a contract with a worker or, as the case may be, an agency worker, as mentioned in section 27BUB(2)(c) or 27BUC(2)(c), and

(b) the duty ceases to be excluded as a result of the terms ceasing to be incorporated into the contract (including where the contract ceases to be in force).

(8) In applying Chapter 2 or 4A for the purposes of the duty after it has ceased to be excluded—

(a) in any case where there was a reference period in relation to the duty as it had effect before being excluded, that reference period is to be disregarded,

(b) in relation to a worker and the worker’s employer, sections 27BA(5) and 27BF(3) have effect as if the first day on which the worker is employed by the employer is the day after the day on which the terms cease to be incorporated, and

(c) in relation to an agency worker and a hirer for and under the supervision and direction of whom the agency worker works, paragraphs 1(5) and 6(3) of Schedule A1 have effect as if the first day on which the agency worker so works is the day after the day on which the terms cease to be incorporated.

27BUE Regulations

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision for the purposes of section 27BUB or 27BUC.

(2) The regulations may, in particular, make provision about—

(a) the effect on a duty in Chapters 2 to 4A of terms being or ceasing to be incorporated as mentioned in section 27BUB(2)(c) or 27BUC(2)(c),

(b) the form and manner in which a notice under section 27BUD(3) is to be given, and

(c) when a notice under section 27BUD(3) is to be treated as having been given.

27BUF Interpretation

(1) Terms used in this Chapter that are used in—

(a) Chapters 2 to 4 (rights relating to zero hours workers, etc), or

(b) Chapter 4A (including Schedule A1) (rights relating to agency workers), have the same meaning as in those Chapters or that Chapter (including that Schedule).

(2) In this Chapter, “certificate of independence” means a certificate issued under section 6 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

(3) In section 203 (restrictions on contracting out), in subsection (2), before paragraph (a) insert—

“(za) does not apply to terms of a collective agreement or contract that exclude a duty or right by virtue of provision made by or under Chapter 4B of Part 2A,”.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause adds a new clause (intended to go after NC32) which provides for the exclusion of duties or rights under new Chapters 2 to 4A of Part 2A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (inserted by clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill and that new clause) under the terms of collective agreements.

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (procedure for handling redundancies) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 189 (duty to consult representatives: complaint and protective award), in subsection (4), in the words after paragraph (b), for ‘90’ substitute ‘180’.

(3) In section 197 (power to vary provisions), in subsection (1)(b), for ‘periods’ substitute ‘period’.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause would allow an employment tribunal to impose a higher protective award on an employer who is in breach of the requirements to consult representatives in a collective redundancy.

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Working Time Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/1833) are amended as follows.

(2) In Part 2 (rights and obligations concerning working time), after regulation 16A insert—

‘Records relating to annual leave entitlement

16B.—(1) An employer must—

(a) keep records which are adequate to show whether the employer has complied with the entitlements conferred by regulations 13(1), 13A(1), 15B(2) and 16(1) and the requirements in regulations 14(2) and (6) and 15E(2);

(b) retain such records for six years from the date on which they were made.

(2) The records referred to in paragraph (1)(a) may be created, maintained and kept in such manner and format as the employer reasonably thinks fit.’

(3) In regulation 29 (offences), in paragraph (1), after “the relevant requirements” insert “or with regulation 16B(1)”.

(4) In regulation 29C (restriction on institution of proceedings in England and Wales)—

(a) the existing provision becomes paragraph (1);

(b) after that paragraph insert—

‘(2) But paragraph (1) does not prevent the  Secretary of State from instituting proceedings in England and Wales for an offence under regulation 29(1) in respect of a failure to comply with regulation 16B(1) (duty to keep records).’” —(Justin Madders.)

This new clause imposes an obligation on employers to keep records to show that they have complied with certain entitlements conferred on workers by the Working Time Regulations 1998 in relation to annual leave. Subsection (3) of the new clause makes it an offence, punishable with a fine, to fail to comply with this duty.

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “In section 13 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (interpretation), for subsection (3) substitute—

‘(3) For the purposes of this Act “employment business” means the business (whether or not carried on with a view to profit and whether or not carried on in conjunction with any other business) of participating in employment arrangements.

(3A) “Employment arrangements” means arrangements under which persons who are, or are intended to be, in the employment of a person are, or are intended to be, supplied to act for, and under the control of, another person in any capacity.

(3B) “Participating in” employment arrangements means doing any of the following in connection with the arrangements—

(a) being an employer of the persons who are, or are intended to be, supplied under the arrangements;

(b) paying for, or receiving or forwarding payment for, the services of those persons, in consideration of directly or indirectly receiving a fee from those persons;

(c) supplying those persons (whether or not under the arrangements);

(d) taking steps with a view to doing anything mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c).’”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause would expand the scope of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 to cover other types of business that participate in arrangements under which persons are supplied by their employer to work for other persons (such as “umbrella companies”).

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) For the purposes of this Chapter, the Secretary of State may by regulations provide for there to be a body in England known as the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body for England.

(2) For the purposes of this Chapter, the Welsh Ministers may, with the agreement of the Secretary of State, by regulations provide for there to be a body in Wales known as the Social Care Negotiating Body for Wales.

(3) For the purposes of this Chapter, the Scottish Ministers may, with the agreement of the Secretary of State, by regulations provide for there to be a body in Scotland known as the Social Care Negotiating Body for Scotland.

(4) Any power of the Welsh Ministers or the Scottish Ministers to make regulations under the remaining provisions of this Chapter may not be exercised without the agreement of the Secretary of State.

(5) In this Chapter—

‘the appropriate authority’—

(a) in relation to the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body for England, means the Secretary of State;

(b) in relation to the Social Care Negotiating Body for Wales, means the Welsh Ministers;

(c) in relation to the Social Care Negotiating Body for Scotland, means the Scottish Ministers;

‘Negotiating Body’ means a body established by regulations under this section.”—(Justin Madders)

This new clause would enable the Welsh Ministers and the Scottish Ministers, with the agreement of the Secretary of State, to establish a Social Care Negotiating Body for Wales and for Scotland respectively. As a result, Chapter 2 of Part 3 is amended to enable regulation-making powers conferred on the Secretary of State by Chapter 2 also to be exercisable by the Welsh Ministers and the Scottish Ministers. These powers may not be exercised without the Secretary of State’s agreement.

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) This section applies in any case where an individual (the ‘agency worker’)—

(a) is supplied by a person (the ‘agent’) to do work for another (the ‘principal’) under a contract or other arrangements made between the agent and the principal,

(b) is not, as respects that work, a worker, because of the absence of a worker’s contract between the individual and the agent or the principal, and

(c) is not a party to a contract under which the agency worker undertakes to do the work for another party to the contract whose status is, by virtue of the contract, that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual.

(2) The provisions of this Chapter (other than this section) have effect as if there were a worker’s contract for the doing of the work by the agency worker made between the agency worker and—

(a) whichever of the agent and the principal is responsible for paying the agency worker in respect of the work, or

(b) if neither the agent nor the principal is so responsible, whichever of them pays the agency worker in respect of the work.

(3) For the purposes of Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protection of wages), as it applies in relation to the entitlements conferred by sections 38(2) and 39(5)—

(a) if at any time the agency worker and the person who, as a result of this section, is the person’s employer for the purposes of this Chapter would not (apart from this subsection) be regarded as the worker and the employer for the purposes of that Part, they are to be so regarded;

(b) it is to be assumed that there was a worker’s contract between those persons at that time.

(4) If there would (in the absence of this section) be no worker’s contract between the agency worker and the person who, as a result of this section, is the person’s employer for the purposes of this Chapter, for the purpose of enforcing any entitlement conferred by section 38(2) or (3) or 39(5) or (6) in civil proceedings on a claim in contract it is to be assumed that there is (or was) such a contract between those persons.

(5) Any reference in this section to doing work includes a reference to performing services, and ‘work’ is to be read accordingly.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause reproduces the provision previously found in clause 46(2) to (4) that ensures that the provisions of Chapter 2 of Part 3 also apply in relation to agency workers who are not otherwise “workers” as defined by clause 46. It also ensures that, where an agency worker does not have a worker’s contract, this does not prevent the agency worker from bringing a claim in an employment tribunal under Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, or in civil proceedings on a claim in contract, for a failure to pay the remuneration to which the agency worker would be entitled as a result of an agreement or regulations under Chapter 2.

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) In section 80K of the Employment Rights Act 1996, omit subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) In subsection (1)(a), “terms and conditions of employment” includes—

(a) matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under the contract of employment, and

(b) terms and conditions about remuneration.””—(Steve Darling.)

This new clause would make Carer’s Leave a paid entitlement.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 95, Noes 323.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended is follows.

(2) In section 50 (Right to time off for public duties), after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) An employer shall permit an employee who is a special constable, appointed in accordance with section 27 of the Police Act 1996, section 9 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 or section 25 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, to take time off during the employee’s working hours for the purpose of performing their duties.

(1B) In section (1A), “duties” means any activity under the direction of a chief officer of police.’”—(Sir Ashley Fox.)

This new clause gives employees who are special constables the right to time off to carry out their police duties.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 324.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: “When making regulations under Parts 1 and 2 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.”—(Greg Smith.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State, when making regulations under Part 1 and 2 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.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 106, Noes 340.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 8, page 3, line 5, leave out

“section 27BW for power to make provision about”

and insert

“Part 1 of Schedule A1 for provision about guaranteed hours and”.

This amendment is consequential on NC32 and NS1.

Amendment 9, page 3, line 30, at end insert—

“(7A) If, during a reference period—

(a) a worker was employed by an employer under one or more worker’s contracts of the type described in subsection (3)(a)(i) and one or more worker’s contracts of the type described in subsection (3)(a)(ii), and

(b) the hours that the worker worked under the worker’s contract, or the worker’s contracts, that are of the type described in subsection (3)(a)(ii) did not exceed the minimum number of hours,

the worker’s contract, or the worker’s contracts, that are of the type described in subsection (3)(a)(ii) are to be disregarded in the application of this Chapter (other than this subsection) in relation to the worker and the reference period (and accordingly that worker’s contract, or those worker’s contracts, are to be treated as not existing).”

This amendment deals with the possibility of a worker being employed by an employer during a reference period under a zero hours contract or zero hours arrangement and under another type of contract where the requirement on the employer to make work available is limited to a number of hours not exceeding a number specified in regulations.

Amendment 10, page 4, line 8, leave out

“make work available to the qualifying worker”

and insert

“provide the qualifying worker with work, and the qualifying worker to do work,”

This amendment confirms that the number of hours in a guaranteed hours offer are hours that the employer will be required to provide and the qualifying worker will be required to work.

Amendment 11, page 4, line 18, leave out from “the” to “or” in line 20 and insert “offered number of hours are to be provided and worked,”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 10.

Amendment 12, page 4, line 22, leave out from “the” to “and” in line 24 and insert “offered number of hours are to be provided and worked,”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 10.

Amendment 13, page 4, line 27, at end insert—

“(3A) Where no regulations are in force under subsection (2) that apply in relation to an offer by an employer to a qualifying worker, the offer is a guaranteed hours offer for the purposes of this Chapter only if it also proposes terms and conditions relating to when the offered number of hours are to be provided and worked (which need not be on particular days of the week, or at particular times on those days, or by reference to a particular working pattern of days or times of day).”

This amendment caters for the scenario where there are no regulations in force under proposed section 27BB(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or none that apply to the offer in question. In this scenario, a guaranteed hours offer will still have to propose terms and conditions relating to when the worker will work the guaranteed hours even though it will not have to set out particular days and times, or a particular working pattern.

Amendment 14, page 4, line 32, leave out “, whether an” and insert

“that apply in relation to an offer, whether the”.

This amendment makes a minor drafting change because regulations under proposed section 27BB(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 may make provision subject to exceptions (see proposed section 27BX of that Act inserted by clause 4).

Amendment 15, page 4, line 42, at end insert “, and

(c) the qualifying worker did not work for the employer under any other worker’s contract during the period beginning with the first day of the relevant reference period and ending with the day the offer is made.”

This amendment adds a further condition that must be satisfied if a guaranteed hours offer is to take the form of an offer to vary a worker’s terms and conditions of employment as opposed to an offer to enter into a new worker’s contract.

Amendment 16, page 5, line 10, after “(2)” insert

“or subsections (1) and (3A)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 13.

Amendment 17, page 5, line 17, after “(2)” insert

“or subsections (1) and (3A)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 13.

Amendment 18, page 6, line 27, after “(2)” insert

“or section 27BB(1) and (3A)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 13.

Amendment 19, page 11, line 26, at end insert—

“( ) Where—

(a) an employer is permitted by section 27BUD(3) to withdraw a guaranteed hours offer (withdrawal of offer following incorporation of terms of collective agreement), and

(b) the employer withdraws the offer by giving notice under that section, subsection (1) of this section ceases to apply in relation to the offer when the notice is given.”

This amendment clarifies that where an offer is withdrawn as a result of the duty to make the offer being excluded by terms of a collective agreement that are incorporated into a worker’s contract the worker cannot accept the offer.

Amendment 20, page 12, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 13 and insert—

“(i) where regulations are in force under subsection (2) of section 27BB that apply in relation to the offer, subsections (1) and (3) of that section (read with any regulations in force under subsection (4)(a) or (b) of that section), or

(ii) where no regulations are in force under subsection (2) of section 27BB that apply in relation to the offer, subsections (1) and (3A) of that section (read with any regulations in force under subsection (4)(a) of that section).”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 13. It also makes a minor drafting change (see the explanatory statement for amendment 14).

Amendment 21, page 13, line 13, at end insert—

“(3A) A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that—

(a) the duty imposed by section 27BA(1) applies to the worker’s employer in relation to the worker and a particular reference period, but

(b) the guaranteed hours offer that the employer has made to the worker in relation to that reference period is on terms requiring the employer to provide, and the worker to do, less work than would have been the case if the employer had not, during that reference period—

(i) limited (by whatever means, including termination of a worker’s contract or an arrangement) the number of hours of work made available to the worker, or

(ii) decided to make work available to the worker in the way that the employer did, for the sole or main purpose of being able to comply with the duty by making such a reduced offer.

(3B) A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that the duty imposed by section 27BA(1) would have applied to the worker’s employer in relation to the worker and a particular reference period if the employer had not, during that reference period—

(a) limited (by whatever means, including termination of a worker’s contract or an arrangement) the number of hours of work made available to the worker, or

(b) decided to make work available to the worker in the way that the employer did, for the sole or main purpose of preventing the worker from satisfying, in relation to that reference period, one or more of the conditions in section 27BA(3)(b) to (d).”

This amendment adds additional grounds of complaint to the ones listed in proposed section 27BG of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to cater for cases where an employer has sought to manipulate or avoid their obligations to make a guaranteed hours offer.

Amendment 22, page 13, line 14, leave out “or (3)” and insert “, (3) or (3A)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 21.

Amendment 23, page 13, line 17, leave out from “is” to end of line 19 and insert “—

(i) treated as having been withdrawn by virtue of section 27BD(2) or regulations under section 27BD(6) , or

(ii) withdrawn in accordance with section 27BUD(3) (withdrawal of offer following incorporation of terms of collective agreement).”

This amendment is consequential on NC33.

Amendment 24, page 14, line 6, after “27BG(3)” insert “or (3A)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 21. It has the effect of providing for a six month time limit (from the making of the guaranteed hours offer) to apply in relation to complaints under the subsection (3A) inserted by that amendment.

Amendment 25, page 14, line 8, at end insert—

“(3A) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under section 27BG(3B) unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after what would have been the last day of the offer period (as defined in section 27BG(7)) if the duty imposed by section 27BA(1) had applied.”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 21.

Amendment 26, page 15, line 8, leave out from “is” to end of line 10 and insert “—

(a) where the complaint is under section 27BG(1), (2), (3), (5) or (6), such number of weeks’ pay as the Secretary of State may specify in regulations;

(b) where the complaint is under section 27BG(3A) or (3B), such amount as the Secretary of State may specify in regulations.”—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 21. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 27, page 15, line 39, at end insert—

“and the shift is to be worked under the contract referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).”

This amendment clarifies that a shift of which reasonable notice must be given under proposed new section 27BJ(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is one that is to be worked under a contract referred to in that provision.

Amendment 28, page 16, leave out lines 9 to 12 and insert—

“(c) the shift is to be worked under that contract but no part of it corresponds to the time of a shift provided for by the contract as described in paragraph (b).”

Proposed new section 27BJ(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is about employers giving reasonable notice of shifts to workers who have contracts of a specified description that guarantee some work and provide when some or all of that work will be done. This amendment limits the notice requirement to shifts that are to happen at times that do not overlap with the times provided for by the contract. But see also amendment 29.

Amendment 29, page 16, line 30, at end insert—

“(5A) Where—

(a) the conditions in subsection (2)(a) and (b) are met in relation to a worker and a worker’s contract,

(b) the worker is to work (or is working) a shift under that contract all or part of which corresponds to the time of a shift (a “guaranteed shift”) provided for by the contract as described in subsection (2)(b),

(c) the employer requests or requires the worker to start earlier, or end later, than is provided for by the contract (as described in subsection (2)(b)) in relation to the guaranteed shift, and

(d) the earlier start or later end is to result in an additional number of hours being worked above the number of hours to be worked in the guaranteed shift, the additional hours are to be treated for the purposes of this Chapter as a separate shift (and accordingly as one that meets the condition in subsection (2)(c)).”

This amendment will produce the result that workers who have contracts of a specified description that guarantee some work and provide when some or all of that work will be done will be entitled to reasonable notice of extensions of their guaranteed shifts.

Amendment 30, page 17, line 35, leave out from “see” to end of line 36 and insert

“Part 2 of Schedule A1 for provision about rights of agency workers to reasonable notice in relation to shifts).”

This amendment is consequential on NC32 and NS1.

Amendment 31, page 17, line 37, leave out “, or a longer shift,”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 29 and 33.

Amendment 32, page 17, line 41, leave out from “applies” to end of line 42 and insert

“(even though the conditions in section 27BK(1) have not been met).”

This amendment clarifies the effect of proposed section 27BL(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Amendment 33, page 17, line 42, at end insert—

“(2A) Section 27BJ(5A) applies for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section as if section 27BJ(5A)(c) referred to what the worker suggests rather than what the employer requests or requires.”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 29.

Amendment 34, page 18, line 2, after “request” insert “(a “multi-worker request”)”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 35.

Amendment 35, page 18, line 5, at end insert—

“(3A) For the purposes of section 27BK, where an employer has made a multi-worker request to a worker in relation to a shift, references to the cancellation of the shift include the worker not being needed to work the shift because one or more others have agreed to work it.”

This amendment clarifies how the provision in proposed section 27BK of the Employment Rights Act 1996 about cancellation of a shift is to operate where the request to work the shift was made to more workers than were needed to work it.

Amendment 36, page 18, leave out lines 6 to 17.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment removes proposed section 27BL(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from the Bill. This provision is no longer considered necessary; where appropriate, a request will in any event be treated as a request to work a new shift. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 37, page 20, leave out lines 28 to 40 and insert—

“(3) A shift is also a “qualifying shift”, in relation to a worker and an employer, if—

(a) it would be (or would have been) worked, or is being worked, by the worker for the employer under a worker’s contract of a specified description,

(b) the contract provides on what days and at what times, or in accordance with what pattern of days and times, that work, or some of that work, is to be done by the worker, and

(c) no part of the shift corresponds to the time of a shift provided for by the contract as described in paragraph (b).

(4) Where—

(a) the conditions in subsection (3)(a) and (b) are met in relation to a shift,

(b) all or part of the shift corresponds to the time of a shift (a “guaranteed shift”) provided for by the contract as described in subsection (3)(b),

(c) the employer requests or requires, or the worker suggests, that the worker starts earlier, or ends later, than is provided for by the contract (as described in subsection (3)(b)) in relation to the guaranteed shift, and

(d) the earlier start or later end is to result in an additional number of hours being worked above the number of hours to be worked in the guaranteed shift, the additional hours are to be treated for the purposes of this Chapter as a separate shift (and accordingly as a “qualifying shift”).”

This amendment is the equivalent for clause 3 of amendments 28, 29 and 33 to clause 2.

Amendment 38, page 21, leave out lines 41 to 44 and insert—

“(10) In this Chapter, references to a request to work a shift made by an employer to a worker include a request (a “multi-worker request”) made by the employer to the worker and one or more others in circumstances where the employer does not need the shift to be worked by all of those to whom the request is made.”

This amendment is partly consequential on amendments 39 and 41. It is also being made for reasons of consistency with the equivalent provision in clause 2.

Amendment 39, page 21, line 44, at end insert—

“(11) For the purposes of this Chapter, where an employer has made a multi-worker request to a worker in relation to a shift, references to the cancellation of the shift (however expressed) include the worker not being needed to work the shift because one or more others have agreed to work it.”

This amendment clarifies how the provision in proposed section 27BP of the Employment Rights Act 1996 about cancellation of a shift is to operate where the request to work the shift was made to more workers than were needed to work it.

Amendment 40, page 23, line 7, leave out from “see” to end of line 8 and insert “Part 3 of Schedule A1 for provision about rights of agency workers to payment for cancelled, moved and curtailed shifts);”.

This amendment is consequential on NC32 and NS1.

Amendment 41, page 23, line 8, at end insert—

“(aa) in relation to the cancellation, movement or curtailment of a shift that an employer has requested a worker to work, unless the worker reasonably believed, whether on agreeing to work the shift or at some later time before the cancellation, movement or curtailment, that they would be needed to work the shift;”

This amendment produces the result that, in cases within proposed section 27BP(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, a worker will not be entitled to a payment for a short notice cancellation, movement or curtailment of a shift unless at some point prior to that they reasonably believed they would be needed to work the shift.

Amendment 42, page 23, line 14, leave out from “regulations” to “the” in line 15 and insert

“has produced the effect that the employer is not required to make”.

This amendment makes a drafting change to proposed section 27BR(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for reasons of consistency.

Amendment 43, page 23, leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert—

“(a) any information the disclosure of which by the employer would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether a disclosure would do so, the duty imposed by that subsection is to be taken into account);”.

This amendment has the effect that personal data may be included in a notice given by an employer under proposed section 27BR(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 but only in so far as the disclosure of the information would not contravene data protection legislation.

Amendment 44, page 23, line 24, at end insert—

“(3A) In subsection (3)(a) “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(9) of that Act).”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.

Amendment 45, page 25, line 2, leave out “is inadequate or untrue” and insert “—

(i) does not refer to any provision of the regulations;

(ii) does not contain an explanation or contains an explanation that is inadequate or untrue.”

This amendment sets out what a worker can present a complaint about in relation to a notice under proposed section 27BR(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Amendment 46, page 25, leave out lines 25 to 29.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment removes proposed section 27BT(7) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from the Bill. This provision is no longer considered necessary and, depending on how the power in proposed section 27BR(1)(b) was exercised, it might not have produced an appropriate outcome in some cases. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 47, page 26, line 17, leave out from first “the” to end of line 19 and insert

“meaning given by section 27BUA;”.

This amendment is consequential on NC32.

Amendment 48, page 27, leave out lines 9 to 14.

See the explanatory statement for NC32.

Amendment 49, page 27, line 22, after “3” insert

“and (Agency workers: guaranteed hours and rights relating to shifts)”.

This amendment is consequential on NC32.

Amendment 50, page 27, line 22, after “3” insert

“and (Collective agreements: contracting out)”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC33. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 79, page 29, line 12, at end insert—

“(7) In section 202 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (national security), in subsection (2), after paragraph (e) insert—

“(eza) Part 8A,”.”—(Justin Madders.)

Clause 7 of the Bill amends Part 8A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to require an employer who refuses an employee’s application for flexible working to explain why the employer considers it is reasonable to refuse the application. This amendment would enable the disclosure of information under Part 8A to be restricted where it would be contrary to the interests of national security. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 80, page 30, line 1, leave out “£116.75” and insert “£118.75”.

Clause 9 in its current form amends section 157(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 so that the weekly rate of statutory sick pay in Great Britain would be the lower of £116.75 and a percentage of an employee’s normal earnings to be set out in regulations. This amendment, together with the Minister’s other amendments to clause 9, would mean that the weekly rate of statutory sick pay in Great Britain would be the lower of £118.75 and 80% of an employee’s weekly earnings. The change from £116.75 to £118.75 is to account for annual uprating that is expected to come into effect on 6 April 2025.

Amendment 81, page 30, line 2, leave out “the prescribed percentage” and insert “80%”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 80.

Amendment 82, page 30, line 4, leave out paragraph (b). —(Justin Madders.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 80. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 83, page 30, line 34, leave out “£116.75” and insert “£118.75”.

Clause 11 in its current form amends section 153(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 so that the weekly rate of statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland would be the lower of £116.75 and a percentage of an employee’s normal earnings to be set out in regulations. This amendment, together with the Minister’s other amendments to clause 11, would mean that the weekly rate of statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland would be the lower of £118.75 and 80% of an employee’s weekly earnings. The change from £116.75 to £118.75 is to account  for annual uprating that is expected to come into effect on 6 April 2025.

Amendment 84, page 30, line 35, leave out “the prescribed percentage” and insert “80%”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 83.

Amendment 85, page 30, line 37, leave out paragraph (b). —(Justin Madders.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 83. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 288, page 34, line 32, leave out Clause 18—(Greg Smith.)

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 409.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 86, page 36, line 15, at end insert—

“( ) Part 5B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (redundancy during a protected period of pregnancy) is amended as follows.”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 87.

Amendment 87, page 36, line 24, at end insert—

“( ) After section 49D insert—

“49E Section 49D: supplemental

Regulations under section 49D may—

(a) make provision about notices to be given, evidence to be produced and other procedures to be followed by employees and employers;

(b) make provision for the consequences of failure to give notices, to produce evidence or to comply with other procedural requirements;

(c) make provision for the consequences of failure to act in accordance with a notice given by virtue of paragraph (a);

(d) make special provision for cases where an employee has a right which corresponds to a right under section 49D and which arises under a contract of employment or otherwise;

(e) make provision modifying the effect of Chapter 2 of Part 14 (calculation of a week’s pay) in relation to an employee who is or has been absent from work during, or after, a protected period of pregnancy;

(f) make provision applying, modifying or excluding an enactment, in such circumstances as may be specified and subject to any conditions specified, in relation to a person during, or after, a protected period of pregnancy;

(g) make different provision for different cases or circumstances.””

Section 49D of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as amended by clause 22, enables the Secretary of State to make regulations about redundancy or dismissal during, or after, a protected period of pregnancy. This amendment would enable the regulations to make supplementary provision in connection with that, such as procedures to be followed by employers and the consequences of failing to follow those procedures. These powers mirror supplementary powers conferred by Part 8 of the 1996 Act in relation to types of family leave such as maternity and paternity leave.

Amendment 88, page 36, line 25, leave out from beginning to “after” and insert “In the heading of Part 5B,”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 87. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 89, page 37, line 29, leave out “substantially the same duties” and insert

“the same duties, or substantially the same duties,”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment makes a minor drafting change. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 90, page 39, line 8, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

“(a) before subsection (1) insert—

‘(A1) Subsection (1) applies where an employer is proposing to dismiss as redundant within a period of 90 days or less—

(a) at least the threshold number of employees (see section 195A), or

(b) 20 or more employees at one establishment.’;

(b) in subsection (1), for the words from ‘Where’ to ‘the employer’ substitute ‘The employer’;

(c) in subsection (1A), for ‘(1)’ substitute ‘(A1)’;

(d) after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) This section does not require the employer to—

(a) consult all of the appropriate representatives together, or

(b) undertake the consultation with a view to reaching the same agreement with all of the appropriate representatives.’;

(e) in subsection (4)—

(i) in paragraph (c), at the beginning insert ‘where the employees whom it is proposed to dismiss as redundant are at only one establishment,’;

(ii) after paragraph (c) insert—

‘(ca) where the employees whom it is proposed to dismiss as redundant are at more than one establishment—

(i) the total number of employees of any such description employed by the employer, and

(ii) details of the establishments at which those employees are employed,’.”

This amendment and other amendments to this clause would mean that the Secretary of State can by regulations, in a case where employees are being made redundant at more than one establishment, prescribe a higher number than 20 of those employees for the purposes of determining when the obligations in sections 188 and 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 apply in relation to those employees. The number may be determined by reference to criteria set out in the regulations (for example,  by reference to a particular percentage of total employees). This amendment also clarifies that, although consultation under section 188 must be carried out with all appropriate representatives, it need not be carried out with all appropriate representatives together or with a view to reaching the same agreement with all appropriate representatives.

Amendment 91, page 39, line 12, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

“(a) omit subsection (1);

(b) before subsection (2) insert—

‘(1A) Subsection (2) applies where an employer is proposing to dismiss as redundant within a period of 90 days or less—

(a) at least the threshold number of employees (see section 195A), or

(b) 20 or more employees at one establishment.’;

(ba) in subsection (2)—

(i) for the words from ‘An employer’ to ‘period’ substitute ‘The employer’;

(ii) omit paragraphs (a) and (b);

(bb) after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) The notice must be given—

(a) before the employer gives notice to terminate an employee’s contract of employment in respect of any of the dismissals;

(b) at least 30 days before the first of the dismissals takes effect, or, where the employer is proposing to dismiss 100 or more employees as mentioned in subsection (1A), at least 45 days before the first of the dismissals takes effect.’;

(bc) in subsection (3), for ‘(1) or (2)’ substitute ‘(1A)’;”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 90.

Amendment 92, page 39, line 15, at end insert—

“(d) in subsection (6), omit ‘(1) or’;

(e) in subsection (7), for ‘(1)’ substitute ‘(2)’.”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 90.

Amendment 93, page 39, line 15, at end insert—

“( ) After section 195 insert—

‘195A Construction of references to threshold number of employees

(1) In this Chapter references to the threshold number of employees are references to the number of employees determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section.

(2) Regulations under this section may (among other things) provide that the number is—

(a) a specified number;

(b) a number determined by reference to a specified percentage of employees;

(c) a number that is the highest or lowest of two or more numbers, whether those numbers are specified numbers, determined by reference to a specified percentage of employees, or determined in another way specified in the regulations.

(3) But the regulations may not provide in any case for the threshold number of employees to be lower than 20.

(4) For the purposes of determining a number by reference to a specified percentage of employees, the regulations may make provision for determining how many employees an employer has, including (among other things)—

(a) provision about the time by reference to which that determination is to be made;

(b) provision excluding employees of a specified description from being taken into account in that determination.

(5) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes, including (among other things)—

(a) different provision in respect of different provisions of this Chapter;

(b) different provision in respect of different descriptions of employer.

(6) Regulations under this section may contain such incidental, supplementary or transitional provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.

(7) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.

(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section (whether alone or with other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument is laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(9) In this section “specified” means specified in the regulations.’”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 90.

Amendment 94, page 39, line 15, at end insert—

“( ) In section 193A (redundancies of ships’ crew)—

(a) in subsection (1)(a), omit ‘193(1) or’;

(b) in subsection (2), for ‘section 193(1) or (2)’ substitute ‘section 193(2)’.”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 90.

Amendment 95, page 39, line 17, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

“(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘188(2) and 193(1)’ substitute ‘188(1A) and 193(2A)(b)’;

(b) in the words after paragraph (b), for ‘188(2) and 193(1)’ substitute ‘188(1A) and 193(2A)(b)’.”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 90.

Amendment 96, page 39, line 21, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

“(a) in subsection (1)(b), for the words from ‘20 or more employees’ to ‘or less,’ substitute ‘within a period of 90 days or less—

(i) at least the threshold number of employees (see section 195A), or

(ii) 20 or more employees at one establishment,’;

(b) in subsection (4)(a)—

(i) for ‘and as if’ substitute ‘and, where relevant, as if’;

(ii) for ‘(1)(b)’ substitute ‘(1)(b)(ii)’.”—(Justin Madders.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 90. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 97, page 40, line 1, leave out “after ‘or (2)’” and insert “before ‘to the competent authority’”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 94. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 98, page 48, line 32, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) Where the appropriate authority provides for there to be a Negotiating Body under section (Power to establish Social Care Negotiating Body), the authority may by regulations make further provision about the Negotiating Body.”

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 99, page 49, line 16, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 100, page 49, line 19, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority ”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC37. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 101, page 49, line 39, leave out third “the” and insert “a”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 102, page 49, line 41, before first “social” insert “relevant”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 108.

Amendment 103, page 49, line 41, before second “social” insert “relevant”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 108.

Amendment 104, page 50, line 1, before “social” insert “relevant”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 108.

Amendment 105, page 50, line 2, before “social” insert “relevant”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 108.

Amendment 106, page 50, line 3, before “social” insert “relevant”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 108.

Amendment 107, page 50, line 4, before “social” insert “relevant”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 108.

Amendment 108, page 50, line 5, after “(1)” insert—

“‘relevant social care worker’ , in relation to a Negotiating Body, means a social care worker employed in, or in connection with, the provision of social care in the area for which the Negotiating Body is established;”

This amendment is consequential on NC37. It ensures that the matters within each Negotiating Body’s remit must relate to social care workers employed in, or in connection with, the provision of social care in England, Wales or Scotland as applicable.

Amendment 109, page 50, line 6, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”. —( Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC37. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 110, page 50, line 8, leave out from “means” to end of line 10 and insert—

“(a) in relation to England, a person who is employed wholly or mainly in, or in connection with, the provision of social care to individuals aged 18 or over;

(b) in relation to Wales or Scotland, a person who is employed wholly or mainly in, or in connection with, the provision of social care to any individual.”

The effect of this amendment is that a Negotiating Body established for Wales or Scotland may consider matters relating to people working in adult or children’s social care.

Amendment 111, page 50, line 11, leave out “adult”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 110.

Amendment 112, page 50, line 13, leave out “aged 18 or over”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 110.

Amendment 113, page 50, line 16, leave out from “assistance,” to end of line 20.—( Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 110. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 114, page 50, line 23, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 115, page 50, line 24, leave out “the” and insert “a”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 116, page 50, line 30, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 117, page 50, line 31, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 118, page 50, line 34, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 119, page 51, line 4, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 120, page 51, line 6, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”. —( Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC37. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 121, page 51, line 9, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 122, page 51, line 9, leave out “the” and insert “a”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 123, page 51, line 10, leave out “Secretary of State, the Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority, the authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 124, page 51, line 13, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 125, page 51, line 14, leave out “the” and insert “a”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 126, page 51, line 19, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 127, page 51, line 22, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 128, page 51, line 32, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 129, page 51, line 34, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”. —(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC37. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 130, page 51, line 37, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 131, page 51, line 38, leave out “the” and insert “a”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 132, page 52, line 2, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 133, page 52, line 5, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”. —(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC37. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 134, page 52, line 9, leave out first “the” and insert “a”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 135, page 52, line 10, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 136, page 52, line 11, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”. —(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC37. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 137, page 52, line 15, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 138, page 52, line 16, leave out “the” and insert “a”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 139, page 52, line 17, after second “the” insert “social care”.

This amendment makes a minor drafting change.

Amendment 140, page 52, line 20, after “the” insert “social care”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment makes a minor drafting change. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 141, page 52, line 27, leave out first “the” and insert “a”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 142, page 52, line 27, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 143, page 52, line 31, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 144, page 52, line 32, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 145, page 53, line 3, after second “the” insert “social care”.

This amendment makes a minor drafting change.

Amendment 146, page 53, line 6, after “the” insert “social care”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment makes a minor drafting change. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 147, page 53, line 12, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 148, page 53, line 13, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “authority”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 149, page 53, line 14, leave out “the” and insert “a”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 150, page 53, line 16, after “made” insert “by the authority”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC37. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 151, page 54, line 6, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under this section that provide for any of those provisions of that Act to apply in relation to such records may provide for section 49 of that Act (restrictions on contracting out) to apply, with or without modifications, in relation to the application of those provisions by the regulations.”—(Justin Madders.)

Clause 41 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring employers to keep records for the purposes of Chapter 2 of Part 3. The regulations may also provide for provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 relating to the keeping of records, for example section 10, which confers a right to access records, to apply in relation to records kept for the purposes of Chapter 2. The amendment would enable section 49 of that Act also to be applied by the regulations. Section 49 operates to prevent an agreement from seeking to limit or exclude the operation of the 1998 Act or prevent a person from bringing proceedings under that Act in an employment tribunal. Any provision of a social care worker’s contract that sought to prevent the worker from, say, accessing records kept by virtue of clause 41 would therefore be void. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 152, page 54, line 8, leave out clause 42.—(Justin Madders.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 250. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 153, page 55, line 4, leave out from “submitted” to “or” in line 5 and insert

“by a Negotiating Body to the appropriate authority,”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC37. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 154, page 55, line 18, leave out first “the” and insert “a”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 155, page 55, line 18, leave out second “the” and insert “a”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 156, page 55, line 23, leave out “the” and insert “a”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC37. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 157, page 55, line 25, at end insert—

“‘the appropriate authority’ has the meaning given by section (Power to establish Social Care Negotiating Body)(5);”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 158, page 55, line 32, at end insert—

“‘enactment’ means—

(a) an Act of Parliament,

(b) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales or an Act of Senedd Cymru, or

(c) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37. It would enable, for example, regulations made by the Scottish Ministers setting up a Negotiating Body to make consequential amendments of Acts of the Scottish Parliament.

Amendment 159, page 55, leave out line 33 and insert—

“‘Negotiating Body’ has the meaning given by section (Power to establish Social Care Negotiating Body)(5);”.

This amendment is consequential on NC37.

Amendment 160, page 56, line 1, after “‘agency worker’” insert “, ‘relevant social care worker’”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 108.

Amendment 161, page 56, line 12, leave out subsections (2) to (4).—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NC38. \p UNKNOWN: “Before Schedule 1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996 insert— \p UNKNOWN: Right for qualifying agency workers to be offered guaranteed hours

1 (1) A hirer must make a guaranteed hours offer to an agency worker in accordance with paragraph 2 after the end of every period—

(a) that is a reference period in relation to that agency worker and that hirer, and

(b) in relation to which the agency worker is a qualifying agency worker of the hirer.

(2) Paragraph 4 makes provision for exceptions to this duty, including in certain cases where the agency worker stops working for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer.

(3) An agency worker is a qualifying agency worker of a hirer in relation to a reference period if—

(a) during the reference period the agency worker worked for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer for a number of hours (the “reference period hours”),

(b) the reference period hours satisfy such conditions as to number, regularity or otherwise as are specified, and

(c) when the agency worker worked the reference period hours, it was not as an excluded agency worker.

(4) In relation to an agency worker and a hirer for and under the supervision and direction of whom the agency worker works, each of the following is a “reference period”—

(a) the initial reference period, and

(b) each subsequent reference period.

(5) “The initial reference period”, in relation to an agency worker and a hirer for and under the supervision and direction of whom the agency worker works, means the period—

(a) beginning with—

(i) where the agency worker is working for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer on the day on which sub-paragraph (1) comes into force (“the commencement day”), the commencement day, or

(ii) where the agency worker is not so working, the first day after the commencement day on which the agency worker is working for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer, and

(b) ending with the specified day.

(6) A “subsequent reference period”, in relation to an agency worker and a hirer for and under the supervision and direction of whom the agency worker works, means a period beginning and ending with the specified days.

(7) For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule—

(a) references to a “hirer” are to a person for and under the supervision and direction of whom agency workers are supplied to work;

(b) references to a “qualifying agency worker” are to an agency worker who is a qualifying agency worker of a hirer in relation to a reference period by virtue of sub-paragraph (3), and

(c) the reference period in relation to which the agency worker is a qualifying agency worker of the hirer is referred to as “the relevant reference period”.

(8) Nothing in this Part of this Schedule prevents a hirer from making one or more other offers to a qualifying agency worker to enter into a worker’s contract, at the same time as making a guaranteed hours offer.

(9) Regulations made under sub-paragraph (3)(b), (5) or (6) may, in particular, include provision to take account of time when an agency worker does not work for a specified reason.

(10) In this paragraph, “excluded agency worker” means an agency worker who is of a specified description.

Requirements relating to a guaranteed hours offer

2 (1) An offer by a hirer to a qualifying agency worker is a guaranteed hours offer for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule if it is an offer to enter into a worker’s contract and the worker’s contract will require the hirer to provide the qualifying agency worker with work, and the qualifying agency worker to do work, for a number of hours that reflects the reference period hours in the relevant reference period.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that an offer by a hirer to a qualifying agency worker is a guaranteed hours offer for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule only if it also satisfies the condition in sub-paragraph (3).

(3) The condition referred to in sub-paragraph (2) is that—

(a) the offer sets out—

(i) the days of the week, and the times on those days, when the offered number of hours are to be provided and worked, or

(ii) a working pattern of days, and times of day, by reference to which the offered number of hours are to be provided and worked, and

(b) those days and times reflect, or that pattern reflects, when the qualifying agency worker worked the reference period hours in the relevant reference period.

(4) Where no regulations are in force under sub-paragraph (2) that apply in relation to an offer by a hirer to a qualifying agency worker, the offer is a guaranteed hours offer for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule only if it also proposes terms and conditions relating to when the offered number of hours are to be provided and worked (which need not be on particular days of the week, or at particular times on those days, or by reference to a particular working pattern of days or times of day).

(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about how it is to be determined—

(a) whether an offer reflects the number of hours worked by a qualifying agency worker during a reference period;

(b) where regulations are in force under sub-paragraph (2) that apply in relation to an offer, whether the offer reflects when hours were worked by a qualifying agency worker during a reference period.

(6) A guaranteed hours offer—

(a) must not propose a worker’s contract that is a limited-term contract unless it is reasonable for it to be entered into as such a contract, and

(b) must (in addition to what is required by or under sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) or sub-paragraphs (1) and (4)) propose terms and conditions of employment—

(i) that, taken as a whole, are no less favourable than the terms and conditions relating to matters other than working hours and length of employment under which the qualifying agency worker worked for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer during the relevant reference period, or

(ii) where paragraph 3 applies, that comply with sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph.

(7) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (6)(a) it is reasonable for a worker’s contract to be entered into, between a hirer and a qualifying agency worker, as a limited-term contract only if—

(a) it is reasonable for the hirer to consider that the qualifying agency worker is only needed to perform a specific task and the worker’s contract provides for termination when the task has been performed,

(b) it is reasonable for the hirer to consider that the qualifying agency worker is only needed until the occurrence of an event (or the failure of an event to occur) and the worker’s contract provides for termination on the occurrence of the event (or the failure of the event to occur), or

(c) it is reasonable for the hirer to consider that there is only a temporary need of a specified description (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) for the qualifying agency worker to do work under the worker’s contract and the worker’s contract is to expire at a time when it is reasonable for the hirer to consider that the temporary need will come to an end.

(8) A guaranteed hours offer—

(a) must be made by no later than the specified day,

(b) must be made in the specified form and manner, and

(c) must be accompanied by specified information relating to the offer.

(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about when a guaranteed hours offer is to be treated as having been made.

(10) In this paragraph, “reference period hours”, in relation to a qualifying agency worker and a relevant reference period, has the same meaning as in paragraph 1(3).

Requirements relating to a guaranteed hours offer: supplementary

3 (1) This paragraph applies where, during the relevant reference period, the terms and conditions relating to matters other than working hours and length of employment under which the qualifying agency worker worked for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer were not the same throughout the relevant reference period.

(2) Where this paragraph applies, the guaranteed hours offer may propose terms and conditions of employment (in addition to what is required by or under paragraph 2(1) and (2) or paragraph 2(1) and (4)) that, taken as a whole, are less favourable than the most favourable terms and conditions relating to matters other than working hours and length of employment that the qualifying agency worker had when working for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer during the relevant reference period, but only if—

(a) those proposed terms and conditions, taken as a whole, are no less favourable than the least favourable terms and conditions relating to matters other than working hours and length of employment that the qualifying agency worker had when working for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer during the relevant reference period, and

(b) the proposal of those terms by the hirer constitutes a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(3) If a hirer relies on sub-paragraph (2) when making a guaranteed hours offer to a qualifying agency worker, the hirer must give to the qualifying agency worker a notice that—

(a) states that the hirer has done so, and

(b) explains how the proposed terms and conditions constitute a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(4) A notice under sub-paragraph (3) must be given by no later than the same day, and in the same form and manner, as the guaranteed hours offer (see paragraph 2(8)).

Guaranteed hours offer: exceptions to duty to make offer and withdrawal of offer

4 (1) The duty imposed by paragraph 1(1) on a hirer in relation to a qualifying agency worker does not apply if, during the relevant reference period or the offer period, the qualifying agency worker stops working for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer in relevant circumstances.

(2) A guaranteed hours offer made by a hirer to a qualifying agency worker is to be treated as having been withdrawn if, during the response period, the qualifying agency worker stops working for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer in relevant circumstances.

(3) Relevant circumstances occur where—

(a) the qualifying agency worker declines to continue working under the supervision and direction of the hirer other than in circumstances in which the qualifying agency worker is entitled to do so without notice by reason of the hirer’s conduct;

(b) the hirer tells the work-finding agency, or other person, that has been supplying the qualifying agency worker to the hirer to stop supplying the qualifying agency worker and—

(i) the hirer’s reason for doing so (or, if more than one, the hirer’s principal reason for doing so) is a qualifying reason, and

(ii) in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the hirer’s undertaking) the hirer has acted reasonably in treating the reason (or the principal reason) as a sufficient reason for telling the work-finding agency, or other person, to stop supplying the qualifying agency worker.

(4) In sub-paragraph (3)(b), “qualifying reason”, in relation to a qualifying agency worker, means a reason falling within sub-paragraph (5) or some other substantial reason of a kind  such as to justify telling a work-finding agency, or other person, to stop supplying an agency worker doing work of the kind which the qualifying agency worker was supplied to the hirer to do.

(5) A reason falls within this sub-paragraph if it—

(a) relates to the capability or qualifications of the qualifying agency worker to do work of the kind which the qualifying agency worker was supplied to the hirer to do,

(b) relates to the conduct of the qualifying agency worker, or

(c) is that the qualifying agency worker could not continue to do work of the kind which the qualifying agency worker was supplied to the hirer to do without contravention (whether on the part of the qualifying agency worker, on the part of the hirer or on the part of the work-finding agency or other person that supplied the qualifying agency worker) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under any legislation.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the duty imposed by paragraph 1(1) not to apply, or for a guaranteed hours offer that has been made to be treated as having been withdrawn, in other specified circumstances.

(7) Where, by virtue of sub-paragraph (2), a guaranteed hours offer made by a hirer to a qualifying agency worker is treated as having been withdrawn, the hirer must, by no later than the end of the response period, give a notice to the qualifying agency worker stating this to be the case.

(8) Where, by virtue of regulations under sub-paragraph (6)—

(a) a hirer who would otherwise have been subject to the duty imposed by paragraph 1(1) in relation to a qualifying agency worker and a particular reference period is not required to make a guaranteed hours offer to the qualifying agency worker, or

(b) a guaranteed hours offer made by a hirer to a qualifying agency worker is treated as having been withdrawn, the hirer must give a notice to the qualifying agency worker that states which provision of the regulations has produced the effect referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) (as the case may be).

(9) A notice under sub-paragraph (8) must be given by a hirer to a qualifying agency worker—

(a) where it is required to be given by virtue of paragraph (a) of that sub-paragraph, by no later than the end of the offer period;

(b) where it is required to be given by virtue of paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph, by no later than the end of the response period.

(10) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—

(a) the form and manner in which a notice under sub-paragraph (7) or (8) must be given;

(b) when a notice under sub-paragraph (7) or (8) is to be treated as having been given.

(11) In this paragraph—

“capability”, in relation to a qualifying agency worker, means the qualifying agency worker’s capability assessed by reference to skill, aptitude, health or any other physical or mental quality;

“the offer period”, in relation to a qualifying agency worker and the hirer for and under the supervision and direction of whom the agency worker worked, means the period beginning with the day after the day on which the relevant reference period ends and ending with—

(a) the day on which a guaranteed hours offer is made to the qualifying agency worker by the hirer, or

(b) if no guaranteed hours offer is made before the day specified under paragraph 2(8)(a) as the last day on which the hirer may make such an offer to the qualifying agency worker, that last day;

“qualifications”, in relation to a qualifying agency worker, means any degree, diploma or other academic, technical or professional qualification relevant to the work which the qualifying agency worker is supplied to the hirer to do;

“the response period”, in relation to a guaranteed hours offer made to a qualifying agency worker, means the period—

(a) beginning with the day after the day on which the offer is made, and

(b) ending with the specified day.

Acceptance or rejection of a guaranteed hours offer

5 (1) Where a hirer makes a guaranteed hours offer to a qualifying agency worker and the offer is not treated as having been withdrawn by virtue of paragraph 4(2) or regulations under paragraph 4(6), the qualifying agency worker may, by giving notice to the hirer before the end of the response period, accept or reject the offer.

(2) Where a qualifying agency worker gives notice under sub-paragraph (1) accepting an offer, the qualifying agency worker and the hirer that made the offer are to be treated as entering into a worker’s contract in the terms of the offer on the day after the day on which notice is given.

(3) But a qualifying agency worker and a hirer may agree, for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), that the worker’s contract is to be treated as being entered into on a later day than the day mentioned in that sub-paragraph.

(4) If a qualifying agency worker to whom a guaranteed hours offer has been made does not give notice under sub-paragraph (1) before the end of the response period, the qualifying agency worker is to be treated as having rejected the offer.

(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—

(a) the form and manner in which notice under sub-paragraph (1) must be given by a qualifying agency worker to a hirer;

(b) when notice given by a qualifying agency worker to a hirer under sub-paragraph (1) is to be treated as having been given.

(6) In this paragraph, “the response period” has the same meaning as in paragraph 4.

(7) Where—

(a) a hirer is permitted by section 27BUD(3) to withdraw a guaranteed hours offer (withdrawal of offer following incorporation of terms of collective agreement), and

(b) the hirer withdraws the offer by giving notice under that section, sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph ceases to apply in relation to the offer when the notice is given.

Information about rights conferred by Part 1 of Schedule A1

6 (1) Where—

(a) a work-finding agency has a worker’s contract or an arrangement with an agency worker by virtue of which the agency worker is (or is to be) supplied to work for and under the supervision and direction of a hirer, and

(b) it is reasonable to consider that the agency worker might become a qualifying agency worker of a hirer in relation to a reference period (whether the initial reference period, or a subsequent reference period, as defined in paragraph 1), the work-finding agency must take reasonable steps, within the initial information period, to ensure that the agency worker is aware of specified information relating to the rights conferred on agency workers by this Part of this Schedule.

(2) A work-finding agency that is subject to the duty in sub-paragraph (1) in relation to an agency worker must take reasonable steps to ensure that, after the end of the initial information period, the agency worker continues to have access to the specified information referred to in that sub-paragraph at all times when—

(a) the worker’s contract or (as the case may be) the arrangement so referred to continues to be in force, and

(b) it is reasonable to consider that the agency worker might become (or might again become) a qualifying agency worker of a hirer in relation to a reference period.

(3) “The initial information period”, in relation to an agency worker and the work-finding agency with which the agency worker has a worker’s contract or an arrangement by virtue of which the agency worker is (or is to be) supplied to work for and under the supervision and direction of a hirer, means the period of two weeks beginning with—

(a) where the worker’s contract or arrangement is in force on the day on which paragraph 1(1) comes into force (“the commencement day”), the commencement day, or

(b) where it is not in force on that day, the first day after the commencement day on which it is in force.

(4) But where, on the day referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(a) or (b), it was not reasonable to consider that the agency worker might become a qualifying agency worker of a hirer in relation to any reference period, sub-paragraph (3) is to be read as if it provided for “the initial information period” to mean the period of two weeks beginning with the day on which it becomes reasonable so to consider.

Complaints to employment tribunals against a hirer: grounds

7 (1) An agency worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that—

(a) the duty imposed by paragraph 1(1) applies to a hirer in relation to the agency worker and a particular reference period, but

(b) by the end of the last day of the offer period, the hirer has not made an offer to enter into a worker’s contract in compliance (or purported compliance) with that duty (whether because the hirer does not consider that the agency worker is a qualifying agency worker in relation to the reference period or for any other reason).

(2) An agency worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that—

(a) the duty imposed by paragraph 1(1) applies to a hirer in relation to the agency worker and a particular reference period, but

(b) the offer that the hirer has made to the agency worker in relation to that reference period to enter into a worker’s contract is not a guaranteed hours offer as described in—

(i) where regulations are in force under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 2 that apply in relation to the offer, sub-paragraphs (1) and (3) of that paragraph (read with any regulations in force under sub-paragraph (5)(a) or (b) of that paragraph), or

(ii) where no regulations are in force under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 2 that apply in relation to the offer, sub-paragraphs (1) and (4) of that paragraph (read with any regulations in force under sub-paragraph (5)(a) of that paragraph).

(3) An agency worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that—

(a) the duty imposed by paragraph 1(1) applies to a hirer in relation to the agency worker and a particular reference period, but

(b) the guaranteed hours offer that the hirer has made to the agency worker in relation to that reference period does not comply with paragraph 2(6).

(4) An agency worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that—

(a) the duty imposed by paragraph 1(1) applies to a hirer in relation to the agency worker and a particular reference period, but

(b) the guaranteed hours offer that the hirer has made to the agency worker in relation to that reference period is on terms requiring the hirer to provide, and the agency worker to do, less work than would have been the case if the hirer had not, during that reference period—

(i) limited (by whatever means) the number of hours of work that the agency worker was requested or required, by virtue of a worker’s contract or arrangement between the agency worker and a work-finding agency, to work for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer, or

(ii) caused the agency worker to be requested or required, by virtue of a worker’s contract or arrangement between the agency worker and a work-finding agency, to work for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer in the way that the agency worker was,

for the sole or main purpose of the hirer being able to comply with the duty by making such a reduced offer.

(5) An agency worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that the duty imposed by paragraph 1(1) would have applied to a hirer in relation to the agency worker and a particular reference period if the hirer had not, during that reference period—

(a) limited (by whatever means) the number of hours of work that the agency worker was requested or required, by virtue of a worker’s contract or arrangement between the agency worker and a work-finding agency, to work for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer, or

(b) caused the agency worker to be requested or required, by virtue of a worker’s contract or arrangement between the agency worker and a work-finding agency, to work for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer in the way that the agency worker was,

for the sole or main purpose of preventing the agency worker from satisfying, in relation to that reference period, the condition in paragraph 1(3)(a) or (b).

(6) A complaint under sub-paragraph (2), (3) or (4)—

(a) may be presented whether or not the offer in question has been accepted by the agency worker, but

(b) may not be presented in relation to an offer that is—

(i) treated as having been withdrawn by virtue of paragraph 4(2) or regulations under paragraph 4(6), or

(ii) withdrawn in accordance with section 27BUD(3) (withdrawal of offer following incorporation of terms of collective agreement).

(7) An agency worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that a hirer—

(a) has failed to give to the agency worker a notice under paragraph 4(7) or (8);

(b) has given to the agency worker a notice under paragraph 4(7) or (8)(b) in circumstances in which the hirer should not have done so;

(c) has given to the agency worker a notice in purported compliance with paragraph 4(8) that does not refer to any provision of the regulations or refers to the wrong provision.

(8) In this paragraph, “the last day of the offer period”, in relation to a reference period, means the day specified under paragraph 2(8)(a) as the last day on which a guaranteed hours offer may be made in relation to that reference period.

Complaints to employment tribunals against a work-finding agency: grounds

8 (1) An agency worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal, against a relevant work-finding agency, that—

(a) the duty imposed by paragraph 1(1) applies to a hirer in relation to the agency worker and a particular reference period, but

(b) during that reference period the relevant work-finding agency—

(i) limited (by whatever means, including termination of a worker’s contract or an arrangement) the number of hours of work that the agency worker was requested or required, by virtue of a worker’s contract or arrangement between the agency worker and the relevant work-finding agency, to work for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer, or

(ii) caused the agency worker to be requested or required, by virtue of a worker’s contract or arrangement between the agency worker and the relevant work-finding agency, to work for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer in the way that the agency worker was,

for the sole or main purpose of enabling the hirer to comply with the duty by making an offer to the agency worker on terms requiring the hirer to provide, and the agency worker to do, less work than would otherwise have been the case.

(2) An agency worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal, against a relevant work-finding agency, that the duty imposed by paragraph 1(1) would have applied to a hirer in relation to the agency worker and a particular reference period if the relevant work-finding agency had not, during that reference period—

(a) limited (by whatever means, including termination of a worker’s contract or an arrangement) the number of hours of work that the agency worker was requested or required, by virtue of a worker’s contract or arrangement between the agency worker and the relevant work-finding agency, to work for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer, or

(b) caused the agency worker to be requested or required, by virtue of a worker’s contract or arrangement between the agency worker and the relevant work-finding agency, to work for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer in the way that the agency worker was,

for the sole or main purpose of preventing the agency worker from satisfying, in relation to that reference period, the condition in paragraph 1(3)(a) or (b).

(3) A complaint under sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) may be presented whether or not an offer has been made by the hirer to the agency worker and, if it has, whether or not the offer has been accepted by the agency worker, but

(b) where an offer has been made, may not be presented where the offer is—

(i) treated as having been withdrawn by virtue of paragraph 4(2) or regulations under paragraph 4(6), or

(ii) withdrawn in accordance with section 27BUD(3) (withdrawal of offer following incorporation of terms of collective agreement).

(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), references to a “relevant work-finding agency”, in relation to an agency worker, a hirer and a reference period, are to a work-finding agency with which the agency worker had a worker’s contract or arrangement by virtue of which the agency worker was (or could have been) supplied to work for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer during the reference period in question.

(5) An agency worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that a work-finding agency has failed to comply with—

(a) the duty imposed by paragraph 6(1);

(b) the duty imposed by paragraph 6(2).

Complaints to employment tribunals: time limits

9 (1) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under paragraph 7(1) unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the last day of  the offer period (as defined in paragraph 7(8)).

(2) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under paragraph 7(2) unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the day when the offer referred to in that provision is made.

(3) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under paragraph 7(3) or (4) unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the day when the guaranteed hours offer referred to in that provision is made.

(4) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under paragraph 7(5) or 8(2) unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after what would have been the last day of the offer period (as defined in paragraph 7(8)) if the duty in paragraph 1(1) had applied.

(5) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under paragraph 7(7)(a) relating to a notice unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on or before which the notice should have been given (see paragraph 4(7) and (9)).

(6) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under paragraph 7(7)(b) or (c) relating to a notice unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on which the notice is given.

(7) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under paragraph 8(1) unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the last day of the offer period (as defined in paragraph 7(8)).

(8) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under paragraph 8(5)(a) unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the last day of the initial information period (see paragraph 6(3) and (4)).

(9) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under paragraph 8(5)(b) unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which the agency worker first becomes aware of the failure to which the complaint relates.

(10) But, if the employment tribunal is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for a complaint under paragraph 7 or 8 to be presented before the end of the relevant period of six months, the tribunal may consider the complaint if it is presented within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable.

(11) Section 207B (extension of time limits to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings) applies for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (1) to (9).

Remedies

10 (1) Where an employment tribunal finds a complaint under paragraph 7 or 8 well-founded, the tribunal—

(a) must make a declaration to that effect, and

(b) may make an award of compensation to be paid by the respondent to the agency worker.

(2) The amount of compensation under sub-paragraph (1)(b) is to be such amount, not exceeding the permitted maximum, as the tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances to compensate the agency worker for any financial loss sustained by the agency worker which is attributable to the matter complained of.

(3) In ascertaining the financial loss sustained, the tribunal must apply the same rule concerning the duty of a person to mitigate their loss as applies to damages recoverable under the common law of England and Wales or (as the case may be) Scotland.

(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), “the permitted maximum” is—

(a) where the complaint is under paragraph 7(1), (2), (3) or (7) or 8(5), such number of weeks’ pay as the Secretary of State may specify in regulations;

(b) where the complaint is under paragraph 7(4) or (5) or 8(1) or (2), such amount as the Secretary of State may specify in regulations.

(5) For the purposes of determining the permitted maximum for an award of compensation to be paid by a hirer (where the complaint is under paragraph 7(1), (2), (3) or (7))—

(a) the amount of a week’s pay is (subject to paragraph (b)) the amount of average weekly remuneration received by the agency worker for working for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer in the reference period in question;

(b) the amount of a week’s pay is not to exceed the amount specified in section 227(1) (as amended from time to time).

(6) For the purposes of determining the permitted maximum for an award of compensation to be paid by a work-finding agency (where the complaint is under paragraph 8(5))—

(a) the amount of a week’s pay is (subject to paragraph (b)) the amount of average weekly remuneration received by the agency worker, in the relevant period, for working for and under the supervision and direction of a hirer (or, if more than one, all of the hirers taken together) by virtue of the worker’s contract or arrangement between the work-finding agency and the agency worker;

(b) the amount of a week’s pay is not to exceed the amount specified in section 227(1) (as amended from time to time);

(c) “the relevant period” means—

(i) where the worker’s contract or arrangement between the agency worker and the work-finding agency ceased to be in force on or before the date the complaint was presented to the employment tribunal, the period of 12 weeks (or, if it was not in force for 12 weeks, the shorter period for which it was in force) ending with the latest day before the last day on which it was in force on which the agency worker worked for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer, or (if more than one) one of the hirers, referred to in paragraph (a);

(ii) where the worker’s contract or arrangement between the agency worker and the work-finding agency did not so cease to be in force, the period of 12 weeks (or, if it had not then been in force for 12 weeks, the shorter period for which it had been in force) ending with the latest day before the date on which the complaint was presented to the employment tribunal on which the agency worker worked for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer, or (if more than one) one of the hirers, referred to in paragraph (a);

(d) Chapter 2 of Part 14 does not apply (and this paragraph applies instead), where the agency worker to whom compensation is to be paid is an employee of the work-finding agency.

Power to change the effect of Part 1 of Schedule A1

11 (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that, in relation to specified descriptions of agency workers, has the effect that—

(a) a hirer is not required by this Part of this Schedule to make a guaranteed hours offer, and

(b) a work-finding agency, or another person involved in the supply or payment of an agency worker, is instead required to make a corresponding or similar offer (and is liable to have a complaint against them presented to an employment tribunal on grounds corresponding or similar to those in paragraph 7).

(2) The provision referred to in sub-paragraph (1) may be made by amending this Act (or otherwise).

(3) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) may make consequential provision, including provision amending—

(a) an Act of Parliament (including this Act);

(b) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales or an Act of Senedd Cymru;

(c) an Act of the Scottish Parliament. \p UNKNOWN: Application of Part 2 of Schedule A1

12 (1) This Part of this Schedule applies in relation to a shift that would be (or would have been) worked, or is being worked, by an individual as an agency worker.

(2) But nothing in this Part of this Schedule applies in relation to a shift that would be (or would have been) worked, or is being worked, by an individual as an agency worker if, in relation to the agency worker, the shift is an excluded shift.

(3) For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, “excluded shift”, in relation to an agency worker, means a shift of a specified description.

(4) Regulations under sub-paragraph (3) may, in particular, specify a description of shift by reference to—

(a) the amount payable for working the shift being more than a specified amount;

(b) the number of hours to be worked during the shift, whether alone or taken together with other shifts of a specified description, being more than a specified number;

(c) the shift corresponding to the time of a shift provided for by a worker’s contract between the agency worker and a work-finding agency or another person involved in the supply or payment of the agency worker (and where the regulations so specify a description of shift, the regulations may include provision similar or corresponding to section 27BJ(5A)).

(5) In the application of this Part of this Schedule in relation to an agency worker and a shift, references to—

(a) “the work-finding agency” are to the work-finding agency with which the agency worker has a worker’s contract or an arrangement and by virtue of which the agency worker would work (or would have worked) or is working the shift;

(b) “the hirer” are to the person for and under the supervision and direction of whom the agency worker would work (or would have worked) or is working the shift.

Right to reasonable notice of a shift

13 (1) An agency worker is entitled to be given, by the work-finding agency or the hirer, reasonable notice of a shift that the agency worker is requested or required to work by virtue of the worker’s contract or arrangement that the agency worker has with the work-finding agency.

(2) It is to be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that notice of a shift is not reasonable notice if it is given less than a specified amount of time before the shift is due to start.

(3) In this paragraph and paragraphs 14 and 15, “notice of a shift” means notice of how many hours are to be worked during the shift and when the shift is to start and end.

Right to reasonable notice of cancellation of or change to a shift

14 (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies in relation to an agency worker where—

(a) the agency worker has been given notice of a shift by the work-finding agency or the hirer, and

(b) where the shift is one that the agency worker has been requested (rather than required) to work, the agency worker has agreed to work it.

(2) The agency worker is entitled to be given, by the work-finding agency or the hirer, reasonable notice of—

(a) the cancellation of the shift;

(b) any change requested or required by virtue of the worker’s contract or arrangement that the agency worker has with the work-finding agency consisting of—

(i) a change to when the shift is to start or end;

(ii) a reduction in the number of hours to be worked during the shift because of a break in the shift;

(but this is subject to paragraph 17).

(3) It is to be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that—

(a) notice of the cancellation of a shift is not reasonable notice for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) if it is given less than a specified amount of time before the shift would have started (if the shift had not been cancelled);

(b) notice of a change to when a shift is to start is not reasonable notice for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) if it is given less than a specified amount of time before the earlier of—

(i) when the shift would have started (if the shift had not been changed), and

(ii) when the shift is due to start (having been changed);

(c) notice of any other change to a shift is not reasonable notice for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) if it is given—

(i) less than a specified amount of time before the shift is due to start;

(ii) on or after the start of the shift.

Paragraphs 13 and 14: liability of work-finding agency and hirer

15 (1) The work-finding agency is liable for a breach of paragraph 13 or 14, in relation to an agency worker and a shift, to the extent that it is responsible for the breach.

(2) The hirer is liable for a breach of paragraph 13 or 14, in relation to an agency worker and a shift, to the extent that it is responsible for the breach.

(3) For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, the hirer is not responsible for a breach of paragraph 13 or 14 in relation to an agency worker and a shift (and accordingly is not liable for the breach) if—

(a) the hirer gives notice to the work-finding agency of the shift or (as the case may be) of the cancellation of, or change to, the shift, and

(b) that notice is such as to enable the work-finding agency to give reasonable notice to the agency worker under paragraph 13 or 14.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide, in relation to an agency worker and a shift, that the work-finding agency is solely responsible for a breach of paragraph 13 or 14 (and accordingly is solely liable for the breach) where the hirer is a person of a specified description.

Paragraphs 13 to 15: supplementary

16 (1) Where an agency worker suggests working a shift and the work-finding agency or the hirer agrees to the suggestion—

(a) nothing in paragraph 13 applies in relation to the shift as suggested by the agency worker, but

(b) paragraph 14(2) applies (even though the conditions in paragraph 14(1) have not been met).

(2) In paragraphs 13 and 14, references to a request made to an agency worker to work a shift include a request (a “multi-worker request”) made to the agency worker and one or more others in circumstances where not all of those to whom the request is made are needed to work the shift.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph 14, where a multi-worker request has been made to an agency worker in relation to a shift, references to the cancellation of the shift include the agency worker not being needed to work the shift because one or more others have agreed to work it.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—

(a) the form and manner in which notices under paragraphs 13 to 15 must be given;

(b) when notice under those paragraphs is to be treated as having been given.

Interaction with Part 3 of Schedule A1

17 (1) Where a work-finding agency—

(a) is required to make a payment to an agency worker under paragraph 21(1) in relation to a shift that is cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice, or

(b) would have been required to make such a payment in relation to the shift but for provision made under paragraph 23(1)(c),

nothing in paragraph 14(2) is to be taken to have applied in relation to the cancellation, movement or curtailment of the shift that gave rise to, or would have given rise to, the requirement to make the payment.

(2) Terms used in this paragraph have the same meaning as in paragraph 21.

Complaints to employment tribunals

18 (1) An agency worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that the work-finding agency or the hirer is liable for a breach of paragraph 13 or 14 in relation to the agency worker and a shift.

(2) Where, in determining whether a complaint under this paragraph is well-founded, the tribunal must determine whether reasonable notice has been given, the tribunal must have regard, in particular, to such of the specified matters as are appropriate in the circumstances.

(3) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under this paragraph unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with—

(a) where the complaint is that the work-finding agency or the hirer is liable for a breach of paragraph 13 in relation to the agency worker and a shift, the day on which the shift was due to start;

(b) where the complaint is that the work-finding agency or the hirer is liable for a breach of paragraph 14(2) in relation to the agency worker and the cancellation of a shift, the day on which the shift would have started (if the shift had not been cancelled);

(c) where the complaint is that the work-finding agency or the hirer is liable for a breach of paragraph 14(2) in relation to the agency worker and a change to a shift, the day on which the shift as changed was due to start or, where the shift was changed on or after its start, the day on which the shift started.

(4) But, if the employment tribunal is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for a complaint to be presented before the end of the relevant period of six months, the tribunal may consider the complaint if it is presented within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable.

(5) Section 207B (extension of time limits to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings) applies for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3).

Remedies

19 (1) Where an employment tribunal finds a complaint under paragraph 18 well-founded, the tribunal—

(a) must make a declaration to that effect, and

(b) may make an award of compensation to be paid by the respondent to the agency worker.

(2) The amount of compensation under sub-paragraph (1)(b) in relation to a complaint is to be such amount, not exceeding the specified amount, as the tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances to compensate the agency worker for any financial loss sustained by the agency worker which is attributable to the matter complained of.

(3) In ascertaining the financial loss sustained, the tribunal must apply the same rule concerning the duty of a person to mitigate their loss as applies to damages recoverable under the common law of England and Wales or (as the case may be) Scotland.

(4) Where an employment tribunal makes an award of compensation under sub-paragraph (1)(b) to an agency worker in relation to a shift and both the work-finding agency and the hirer are respondents, the amount of compensation payable by each respondent is to be such amount (if any) as the tribunal considers just and equitable having regard to the extent of each respondent’s responsibility for the breach to which the complaint relates. \p UNKNOWN: Application of Part 3 of Schedule A1

20 (1) This Part of this Schedule applies in relation to a shift that would be (or would have been) worked, or is being worked, by an individual as an agency worker.

(2) In the application of this Part of this Schedule in relation to an agency worker and a shift, references to—

(a) “the work-finding agency” are to the work-finding agency with which the agency worker has a worker’s contract or an arrangement and by virtue of which the agency worker would work (or would have worked) or is working the shift;

(b) “the hirer” are to the person for and under the supervision and direction of whom the agency worker would work (or would have worked) or is working the shift.

Right to payment for a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift

21 (1) A work-finding agency must make a payment of a specified amount to an agency worker each time that, by virtue of the worker’s contract or arrangement that the agency worker has with the work-finding agency, there is a cancellation, movement or curtailment at short notice of a shift—

(a) that the agency worker has been informed they are required to work for the hirer (by virtue of that worker’s contract or arrangement),

(b) that the agency worker has been requested to work for the hirer (by virtue of that worker’s contract or arrangement) and the agency worker has agreed to work, or

(c) that the agency worker has suggested working for the hirer and it has been agreed (by virtue of that worker’s contract or arrangement) that the agency worker is to work,

(but see paragraph 23 for exceptions to this duty).

(2) A payment that a work-finding agency is required to make under sub-paragraph (1) must be made by no later than the specified day.

(3) For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, “short notice” means—

(a) in relation to the cancellation of a shift, notice given less than a specified amount of time before the shift would have started (if the shift had not been cancelled);

(b) in relation to the movement of a shift, or the movement and curtailment (at the same time) of a shift, notice given less than a specified amount of time before the earlier of—

(i) when the shift would have started (if the shift had not been moved, or moved and curtailed), and

(ii) when the shift is due to start (having been moved, or moved and curtailed);

(c) in relation to the curtailment of a shift where there is a change to when the shift is to start (but there is no movement of the shift), notice given less than a specified amount of time before the earlier of—

(i) when the shift would have started (if there had not been the change), and

(ii) when the shift is due to start (the change having been made);

(d) in relation to the curtailment of a shift where there is no change to when the shift is to start, notice given—

(i) less than a specified amount of time before the shift is due to start;

(ii) on or after the start of the shift.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about when notice of the cancellation, movement or curtailment of a shift is to be treated as having been given to an agency worker for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule.

(5) In this Part of this Schedule, references to the “movement” of a shift (however expressed) are to any change to the day on which or the time at which the shift is to start that is a change of more than a specified amount of time.

(6) In this Part of this Schedule, references to a request made to an agency worker to work a shift include a request (a “multi-worker request”) made to the agency worker and one or more others in circumstances where not all of those to whom the request is made are needed to work the shift.

(7) For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, where a multi-worker request has been made to an agency worker in relation to a shift, references to the cancellation of the shift include the agency worker not being needed to work the shift because one or more others have agreed to work it.

Regulations under paragraph 21: supplementary

22 (1) Regulations under paragraph 21(1) may not specify an amount to be paid to an agency worker in relation to the cancellation, movement or curtailment of a shift that exceeds—

(a) where the shift is cancelled, the amount of remuneration to which the agency worker would have been entitled had they worked the hours that will not be worked because of the cancellation;

(b) where the shift is moved, or moved and curtailed (at the same time), and no part of the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed, corresponds to the time of the shift (“the original shift”) before it was moved, or moved and curtailed, the amount of remuneration to which the agency worker would have been entitled had they worked the original shift;

(c) where the shift is moved, or moved and curtailed (at the same time), and part of the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed, corresponds to the time of the original shift (but part does not), the amount of remuneration to which the agency worker would have been entitled had they worked the part of the original shift that does not correspond to the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed;

(d) where the shift is—

(i) curtailed but not moved, or

(ii) moved and curtailed (at the same time) and the shift as moved and curtailed is to start and end within the time of the original shift,

the amount of remuneration to which the agency worker would have been entitled had they worked the hours that will not be worked because of the curtailment, or the movement and curtailment.

(2) Regulations under paragraph 21(1) may, in particular, include provision specifying different amounts depending on the amount of notice that was given of the cancellation, movement or curtailment.

(3) Regulations under paragraph 21(3) may not specify an amount of time that exceeds 7 days.

Exceptions to duty to make payment for a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift

23 (1) The requirement to make a payment under paragraph 21(1) does not apply—

(a) in relation to the cancellation, movement or curtailment of a shift if, in relation to the agency worker, the shift is an excluded shift;

(b) in relation to the cancellation, movement or curtailment of a shift that an agency worker has been requested to work, unless the agency worker reasonably believed, whether on agreeing to work the shift or at some later time before the cancellation, movement or curtailment, that they would be needed to work the shift;

(c) in other specified circumstances (whether circumstances relating to the work-finding agency, the hirer or otherwise).

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(a), “excluded shift”, in relation to an agency worker, means a shift of a specified description.

(3) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2) may, in particular, specify a description of shift by reference to—

(a) the amount payable for working the shift being more than a specified amount;

(b) the number of hours to be worked during the shift, whether alone or taken together with other shifts of a specified description, being more than a specified number;

(c) the shift corresponding to the time of a shift provided for by a worker’s contract between the agency worker and a work-finding agency or another person involved in the supply or payment of the agency worker (and where the regulations so specify a description of shift, the regulations may include provision similar or corresponding to section 27BP(4)).

(4) Where, by virtue of regulations made under sub-paragraph (1)(c), a work-finding agency is not required to make a payment to an agency worker in relation to a shift under paragraph 21(1), the work-finding agency must give a notice to the agency worker that—

(a) states which provision of the regulations has produced the effect that the work-finding agency is not required to make the payment, and

(b) explains why the work-finding agency was entitled to rely on that provision so as not to make the payment to the agency worker under paragraph 21(1).

(5) But sub-paragraph (4) does not require a work-finding agency to disclose—

(a) any information the disclosure of which by the work-finding agency would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether a disclosure would do so, the duty imposed by that sub-paragraph is to be taken into account);

(b) any information that is commercially sensitive;

(c) any information the disclosure of which by the work-finding agency would constitute a breach of a duty of confidentiality owed by the work-finding agency to any other person.

(6) In sub-paragraph (5)(a) “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(9) of that Act).

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—

(a) the form and manner in which a notice under this paragraph must be given;

(b) the day on or before which it must be given;

(c) when a notice under this paragraph is to be treated as having been given.

(8) The duty in sub-paragraph (4) does not apply if, before the day on or before which the notice must be given, the work-finding agency or another person has paid to the agency worker an amount in relation to a number of hours that is at least equal to the amount of the payment that the work-finding agency would have been required to make to the agency worker under paragraph 21(1) in relation to the same number of hours but for regulations made under sub-paragraph (1)(c).

(9) Sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 24 applies for the purposes of sub-paragraph (8) of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of that paragraph.

Contractual remuneration

24 (1) The right of an agency worker to receive a payment from a work-finding agency under paragraph 21(1) does not affect any right of the agency worker in relation to remuneration under a worker’s contract (whether with the work-finding agency or another person) (“contractual remuneration”).

(2) Any contractual remuneration paid to an agency worker in relation to a number of hours goes towards discharging any liability of the work-finding agency to make a payment to the agency worker under paragraph 21(1) in relation to the same hours.

(3) Any payment made by a work-finding agency to an agency worker under paragraph 21(1) in relation to a number of hours goes towards discharging any liability to pay contractual remuneration to the agency worker in relation to the same hours.

(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), the hours to which a payment under paragraph 21(1) relates are—

(a) where a shift has been cancelled, the hours that would have been worked (by virtue of the worker’s contract or arrangement between the work-finding agency and the agency worker) if the shift had not been cancelled;

(b) where a shift has been moved, or moved and curtailed (at the same time), and no part of the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed, corresponds to the time of the shift (“the original shift”) before it was moved, or moved and curtailed, the hours that would have been worked (by virtue of the worker’s contract or arrangement between the work-finding agency and the agency worker) during the original shift;

(c) where a shift has been moved, or moved and curtailed (at the same time), and part of the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed, corresponds to the time of the original shift (but part does not), the hours that would have been worked (by virtue of the worker’s contract or arrangement between the work-finding agency and the agency worker) during the part of the original shift that does not correspond to the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed;

(d) where a shift has been—

(i) curtailed but not moved, or

(ii) moved and curtailed (at the same time) and the shift as moved and curtailed is to start and end within the time of the original shift,

the hours that would have been worked (by virtue of the worker’s contract or arrangement between the work-finding agency and the agency worker) if the shift had not been curtailed, or moved and curtailed.

Complaints to employment tribunal

25 (1) An agency worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that, in relation to a shift, the work-finding agency—

(a) has failed to make the whole or any part of a payment that the work-finding agency is liable to make to the agency worker under paragraph 21(1);

(b) has unreasonably failed to give to the agency worker a notice under paragraph 23(4);

(c) has given to the agency worker a notice in purported compliance with paragraph 23(4) that—

(i) does not refer to any provision of the regulations or refers to the wrong provision;

(ii) does not contain an explanation or contains an explanation that is inadequate or untrue.

(2) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under sub-paragraph (1)(a) relating to a payment unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on or before which the payment should have been made (see paragraph 21(2)).

(3) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under sub-paragraph (1)(b) relating to a notice unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on or before which the notice should have been given (see paragraph 23(7)(b)).

(4) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under sub-paragraph (1)(c) relating to a notice unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on which the notice is given.

(5) But, if the employment tribunal is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for a complaint under this paragraph to be presented before the end of the relevant period of six months, the tribunal may consider the complaint if it is presented within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable.

(6) Section 207B (extension of time limits to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings) applies for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2) to (4).

(7) Where—

(a) an agency worker presents a complaint to an employment tribunal under sub-paragraph (1)(c) that, in relation to a shift, the work-finding agency has given to the agency worker a notice in purported compliance with paragraph 23(4) that refers to the wrong provision of the regulations or contains an explanation that is inadequate or untrue, and

(b) the work-finding agency claims that it was provided by the hirer with information for the purposes of the notice that was wrong, inadequate or untrue,

the work-finding agency may request the employment tribunal to direct that the hirer be added as a party to the proceedings.

(8) A request under sub-paragraph (7) must be granted if it is made before the hearing of the complaint begins, but may be refused if it is made after that time; and no such request may be made after the tribunal has made its decision as to whether the complaint is well-founded.

(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that sub-paragraph (7) does not apply in relation to a hirer of a specified description.

Remedies

26 (1) Where an employment tribunal finds a complaint under paragraph 25(1)(a) well-founded, the tribunal must—

(a) make a declaration to that effect, and

(b) order the work-finding agency to pay to the agency worker the amount of the payment under paragraph 21(1) which it finds is due to the agency worker.

(2) Where an employment tribunal finds a complaint under paragraph 25(1)(b) or (c) well-founded, the tribunal—

(a) must make a declaration to that effect, and

(b) may order the work-finding agency to make a payment to the agency worker of such amount, not exceeding the specified amount, as the tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances.

(3) But an employment tribunal may not make an order under sub-paragraph (2)(b) relating to a notice given in purported compliance with paragraph 23(4) if the tribunal makes an order under sub-paragraph (1)(b) relating to the same payment to which the notice related.

(4) In determining—

(a) whether to make an order under sub-paragraph (2)(b), and

(b) if so, how much to order the work-finding agency to pay, an employment tribunal must have regard, in particular, to the seriousness of the matter complained of.

(5) If, following the making of a request under paragraph 25(7), an employment tribunal has added the hirer as a party to the proceedings and the tribunal—

(a) finds the complaint under paragraph 25(1)(c) well-founded (so far as relating to the notice referring to the wrong provision of the regulations or containing an explanation that is inadequate or untrue),

(b) makes an award of compensation under sub-paragraph (2)(b), and

(c) also finds that the hirer did provide the work-finding agency with information for the purposes of the notice that was wrong, inadequate or untrue,

it may order that the compensation is to be paid by the hirer instead of by the work-finding agency, or partly by the hirer and partly by the work-finding agency (with the amount of the compensation payable by each being such amount as the tribunal considers just and equitable in the circumstances).

Recovery of payment by work-finding agency from hirer: pre-existing arrangements

27 (1) Where, in compliance with paragraph 21(1), a work-finding agency makes a payment to an agency worker in relation to a shift that the agency worker was to be, or was, supplied to work by virtue of a pre-existing arrangement involving the work-finding agency and the hirer, the work-finding agency is entitled to recover from the hirer the proportion of the payment (up to the full amount of it) that reflects the hirer's responsibility for the shift having been cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that sub-paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to a hirer of a specified description.

(3) A "pre-existing arrangement" means an arrangement—

(a) that was entered into on or before the last day of the period of two months beginning with the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 was passed, and

(b) that has not been modified by the work-finding agency and the hirer after the last day of that period.

(4) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) to a payment made in compliance with paragraph 21(1) includes a payment made by virtue of an order under paragraph 26(1)(b).

(5) Sub-paragraph (1) applies whether the agency worker was to be, or was, supplied to work for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer by the work-finding agency or by another person.””—(Justin Madders.)

This new schedule inserts new Schedule A1 into the Employment Rights Act 1996 which makes provision for agency workers which is similar to the provision made in relation to certain non-agency workers by clauses 1 to 3.

Brought up, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 51, page 121, line 6, after “27BT,” insert “No. 51, 27BUD(5),”.

This amendment is consequential on NC33.

Amendment 52, page 121, line 6, at end insert—

“(b) after “177 of” insert “, or paragraph 7, 8, 18 or 25 of Schedule A1 to,”.”

This amendment is consequential on NS1.

Amendment 53, page 121, line 14, at end insert—

“(aa) after paragraph (cf) (inserted by sub-paragraph (a)) insert—

(cg) a payment under paragraph 21(1) of Schedule A1 to this Act (agency workers: payment for a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift),”;”.

This amendment is consequential on NS1.

Amendment 54, page 121, line 16, leave out “(cg)” and insert “(ch)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 53.

Amendment 55, page 122, line 9, at end insert—

“(iv) section 27BUD(5), or”.

This amendment clarifies that the right not to be subjected to any detriment applies where a worker brings a complaint under section 27BUD(5).

Amendment 56, page 122, line 17, leave out from “has” to end of line 21 and insert

“(as the case may be)—

(a) failed to comply with the duty imposed by section 27BA(1), 27BD(7) or (8) or 27BF(1) or (2), a duty imposed by section 27BJ or 27BK or the duty imposed by section 27BP(1) or 27BR(2), or

(b) behaved as described in section 27BG(3A) or (3B),

but, for subsection (1)(d) or (e) to apply, the claim must be made in good faith.”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 21. It restructures and restates what is in the existing provision and adds the provision in paragraph (b).

Amendment 57, page 122, line 23, after “non-compliance” insert

“, or (as the case may be) alleged behaviour,”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 21.

Amendment 58, page 123, line 5, at end insert—

“6A After section 47H (inserted by paragraph 6) insert—

“47I Agency workers and Schedule A1 rights

(1) An agency worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by a relevant person done on the ground that the agency worker—

(a) accepted, or proposed to accept, an offer to enter into a worker’s contract made in compliance (or purported compliance) with the duty imposed by paragraph 1(1) of Schedule A1,

(b) rejected, or proposed to reject, an offer to enter into a worker’s contract made in compliance (or purported compliance) with the duty imposed by paragraph 1(1) of Schedule A1,

(c) declined to work a shift (or part of a shift) on the basis of a reasonable belief that there had been a failure to comply with a duty imposed by paragraph 13 or 14 of Schedule A1 in relation to the shift,

(d) brought proceedings under—

(i) paragraph 7 or 8 of Schedule A1,

(ii) paragraph 18 of Schedule A1,

(iii) paragraph 25 of Schedule A1, or

(iv) section 27BUD(5), or

(e) alleged the existence of any circumstance which would constitute a ground for bringing any proceedings within paragraph (d).

(2) The reference in subsection (1)(b) to an agency worker who rejected an offer includes a reference to an agency worker who is to be treated as having rejected an offer (see paragraph 5(4) of Schedule A1).

(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (1)(d) or (e) whether or not there has been (as the case may be)—

(a) a failure to comply with the duty imposed by paragraph 1(1), 4(7) or (8) or 6(1) or (2) of Schedule A1, a duty imposed by paragraph 13 or 14 of Schedule A1 or the duty imposed by paragraph 21(1) or 23(4) of Schedule A1, or

(b) behaviour of the type described in paragraph 7(4) or (5) or 8(1) or (2) of Schedule A1,

but, for subsection (1)(d) or (e) to apply, the claim must be made ingood faith.

(4) It is sufficient for subsection (1)(e) to apply that the agency worker made the nature of the alleged non-compliance, or (as the case may be) the alleged behaviour, reasonably clear to either the relevant person or (if different) the person against whom proceedings could be brought.

(5) An agency worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by a relevant person done on the ground that—

(a) the duty imposed by paragraph 1(1) of Schedule A1 applies in relation to the agency worker and a particular reference period, or

(b) the relevant person believes that that duty so applies.

(6) This section does not apply where—

(a) the worker is an employee of the relevant person, and

(b) the detriment in question amounts to dismissal within the meaning of Part 10.

(7) For the purposes of this section, a person is a “relevant person”, in relation to an agency worker, if the person is (or has been)—

(a) a work-finding agency with which the agency worker has a worker’s contract or an arrangement by virtue of which the agency worker is (or is to be) supplied to work for and under the supervision and direction of another person;

(b) a person for and under the supervision and direction of whom the agency worker is (or is to be) supplied to work;

(c) a person who is (or is to be) involved in the supply of the agency worker to a person falling within paragraph (b) or the payment of the agency worker for work done for such a person.

(8) In this section—

“agency worker” has the same meaning as in Part 2A (see section 27BUA);

“reference period” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of Schedule A1 (see paragraph 1(4));

“work-finding agency” has the same meaning as in Part 2A (see section 27BUA).””

This amendment is consequential on NS1.

Amendment 59, page 123, line 10, at end insert—

“(2A) After subsection (1BA) (inserted by sub-paragraph (2)) insert—

(1BB) An agency worker (within the meaning of Part 2A) may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that the agency worker has been subjected to a detriment in contravention of section 47I.””

This amendment is consequential on amendment 58.

Amendment 60, page 123, line 11, at end insert—

“(4) After subsection (2A) insert—

“(2B) On a complaint under subsection (1BB) it is for the relevant person (within the meaning of section 47I) to show the ground on which any act, or deliberate failure to act, was done.”

(5) In subsection (4), in the words after paragraph (b), after “hirer” insert “, or a relevant person (within the meaning of section 47I),”.

(6) In subsection (6), after “49” insert “, except so far as relating to an alleged detriment in contravention of section 47I,”.”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 58.

Amendment 61, page 123, line 13, at end insert—

“(2A) After subsection (1A) insert—

“(1B) Where an employment tribunal finds a complaint under section 48(1BB) well-founded, the tribunal—

(a) must make a declaration to that effect, and

(b) may make an award of compensation to be paid by the relevant person (within the meaning of section 47I) to the complainant in respect of the act or failure to act to which the complaint relates.””

This amendment is consequential on amendment 58.

Amendment 62, page 123, line 14, at end insert—

“(3A) In that subsection, after “(7A)” insert “and (7B)”.”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 58.

Amendment 63, page 123, line 24, at end insert—

“(5) After subsection (7A) (inserted by sub-paragraph (4)) insert—

“(7B) Where—

(a) the complaint is made under section 48(1BB),

(b) the detriment to which the agency worker is subjected is the termination of a worker’s contract between the agency worker and the relevant person, and

(c) that contract is not a contract of employment,

any compensation must not exceed the compensation that would be payable under Chapter 2 of Part 10 if the agency worker had been an employee and had been dismissed for a reason specified in section 104BB (and “agency worker” and “relevant person” have the same meaning in this subsection as in section 47I).””

This amendment is consequential on amendment 58.

Amendment 64, page 124, line 3, at end insert—

“(2A) An employee who is dismissed is also to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee—

(a) brought proceedings against the employer under section 27BG(3A) or (3B), or

(b) alleged the existence of any circumstance which would constitute a ground for bringing such proceedings.

(In relation to other proceedings under section 27BG, see section 104.)

(2B) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (2A) whether or not the employer has behaved as described in section 27BG(3A) or (3B) but, for subsection (2A) to apply, the claim must be made in good faith.

(2C) It is sufficient for subsection (2A)(b) to apply that the employee made the nature of the employer’s alleged behaviour reasonably clear to the employer.”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 21.

Amendment 65, page 124, line 15, at end insert—

“9A After section 104BA (inserted by paragraph 9) insert—

“104BB Guaranteed hours: agency workers

(1) An employee who is dismissed by a relevant person (who is their employer) is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee—

(a) accepted, or proposed to accept, an offer to enter into a worker’s contract made in compliance (or purported compliance) with the duty imposed by paragraph 1(1) of Schedule A1, or

(b) rejected, or proposed to reject, an offer to enter into a worker’s contract made in compliance (or purported compliance) with the duty imposed by paragraph 1(1) of Schedule A1.

(2) The reference in subsection (1)(b) to an employee who rejected an offer includes a reference to an employee who is to be treated as having rejected an offer (see paragraph 5(4) of Schedule A1).

(3) An employee who is dismissed by a relevant person (who is their employer) is also to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee—

(a) brought proceedings against the employer under paragraph 8(1) or (2), or

(b) alleged the existence of any circumstance which would constitute a ground for bringing such proceedings.

(In relation to other proceedings under paragraph 8, see section 104.)

(4) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (3) whether or not the employer has behaved as described in paragraph 8(1) or (2) but, for subsection (3) to apply, the claim must be made in good faith.

(5) It is sufficient for subsection (3)(b) to apply that the employee made the nature of the employer’s alleged behaviour reasonably clear to the employer.

(6) An employee who is dismissed by a relevant person (who is their employer) is also to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if—

(a) the duty imposed by paragraph 1(1) of Schedule A1 applies in relation to the employee and a particular reference period, or the employer believes that that duty so applies, and

(b) the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employer sought to avoid the necessity of that duty having to be complied with in relation to the employee and the reference period.

(7) In this section—

“reference period” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of Schedule A1 (see paragraph 1(4));

“relevant person” means a person falling within subsection (7)(a) or (c) of section 47I.””

This amendment is consequential on NS1.

Amendment 66, page 124, line 23, at end insert “, or

(c) the reason specified in subsection (2A) of that section (read with subsections (2B) and (2C) of that section).”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 64.

Amendment 67, page 124, line 23, at end insert—

“(b) after subsection (7BZA) (inserted by paragraph (a)) insert—

“(7BZB) This subsection applies if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which the employee was selected for dismissal was—

(a) the reason specified in subsection (1)(a) or (6) of section 104BB,

(b) the reason specified in subsection (1)(b) of that section (read with subsection (2) of that section), or

(c) the reason specified in subsection (3) of that section (read with subsections (4) and (5) of that section).””

This amendment is consequential on amendment 65.

Amendment 68, page 124, leave out lines 26 to 28 and insert—

“(gha) any of the following provisions of section 104BA applies—

(i) subsection (1)(a) or (3),

(ii) subsection (1)(b) (read with subsection (2) of that section), or

(iii) subsection (2A) (read with subsections (2B) and (2C) of that section),”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 64.

Amendment 69, page 124, line 28, at end insert—

“(b) after paragraph (gha) (inserted by paragraph (a)) insert—

“(ghb) any of the following provisions of section 104BB applies—

(i) subsection (1)(a) or (6),

(ii) subsection (1)(b) (read with subsection (2) of that section), or

(iii) subsection (3) (read with subsections (4) and (5) of that section),”.”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 65.

Amendment 70, page 124, line 38, at end insert—

“(4) After subsection (2) insert—

“(3) The remedy of an agency worker (within the meaning of Part 2A) for infringement of any of the rights conferred by Parts 1 to 3 of Schedule A1 and section 47I is, where provision is made for a complaint to an employment tribunal, by way of such a complaint and not otherwise.””

This amendment is consequential on NS1 and amendment 58.

Amendment 71, page 125, line 4, leave out from “is” to end of line 6 and insert “—

(a) where the complaint is under section 27BG(1), (2), (3) or (5), the latest day of the reference period to which the complaint relates on which the worker was employed by the employer under a worker’s contract;

(b) where the complaint is under section 27BG(6)—

(i) the date on which the complaint was presented to the employment tribunal, or

(ii) if the worker was not employed by the employer under a worker’s contract on that date, the latest day before that date on which the worker was so employed.””

This amendment supplements the amendment of section 225 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 by adding a calculation date for determining the permitted maximum for an award of compensation   where an employer breaches an information duty imposed by proposed section 27BF of that Act (resulting in a complaint under proposed section 27BG(6)).

Amendment 72, page 125, line 6, at end insert—

“(A2) Where the calculation is for the purposes of section 27BI as applied by section 27BUD(6)(a) in relation to a complaint under section 27BUD(5), the calculation date is the latest day of the reference period to which the complaint relates on which the worker was employed by the employer under a worker’s contract.”

This amendment is consequential on NC33.

Amendment 73, page 125, line 10, at end insert—

“( ) in subsection (1), in paragraph (b) of the definition of “week”, after “86” insert “and paragraph 10 of Schedule A1””.

This amendment is consequential on NS1.

Amendment 74, page 125, line 19, after “27BU(2),” insert “27BUE,”.

This amendment will make regulations under section 27BUE (see NC33) subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 75, page 125, line 19, leave out “27BW,”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 48.

Amendment 76, page 125, line 19, at end insert—

“(b) after “209,” insert “or under paragraph 1(3)(b), (6) or (10), 2(2), (5) or (7)(c), 4(6), 11(1), 12(3), 13(2), 14(3), 15(4), 21(1), (3) or (5), 23(1)(c) or (2), 25(9), 26(2) or 27(2) of Schedule A1,”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on NS1. The regulation-making powers referred to in this amendment are the ones that will be subject to affirmative parliamentary procedure. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 77, page 126, line 15, at end insert

“or subsection (2A) of that section (read with subsections (2B) and (2C) of that section)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 64.

Amendment 78, page 126, line 15, at end insert—

“(ja) subsection (1)(a) or (6) of section 104BB, subsection (1)(b) of that section (read with subsection (2) of that section) or subsection (3) of that section (read with subsections (4) and (5) of that section);”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 65.

Amendment 240, page 126, leave out lines 23 and 24.

This amendment ensures that, when section 108A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (inserted by paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Bill) comes into force, section 104I of that Act (inserted by clause 24 of the Bill) will not apply to the dismissal of an employee if, at the time of dismissal, the employee has not yet started work.

Amendment 241, page 128, line 39, at end insert—

“( ) in paragraph 160 (right not to be subjected to detriment: compensation), in sub-paragraph (2)(b)—

(i) for “124(1)” substitute “124”;

(ii) at the end insert “(ignoring any different sum specified as the limit for a dismissal that meets the conditions in section 98ZZA(2) and (3) of that Act).”;”.

Paragraph 156 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 provides that a worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by the worker’s employer resulting from, among other things, the worker supporting recognition of a trade union. Paragraph 160 of that Schedule provides that the compensation payable where such detriment consists of the termination of the worker’s contract is subject to a limit calculated by reference  to the maximum amount of a compensatory award for an employee who has been unfairly dismissed. This amendment would make it clear that the relevant figure for this calculation remains the standard maximum, not any different amount specified for cases where an employee is dismissed during the initial period of employment.

Amendment 242, page 130, line 5, at beginning insert—

“(1) The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 24 (enforcement of right not to be subjected to detriment), in subsection (4)(b)—

(a) for “124(1)” substitute “124”;

(b) after “section 123 of that Act” insert “(ignoring any different sum specified as the limit for a dismissal that meets the conditions in section 98ZZA(2) and (3) of that Act)”.”

Section 23 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 provides that a worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by the worker’s employer resulting from, among other things, the worker seeking to enforce the right to the minimum wage. Section 24(3) and (4) of that Act provides that the compensation payable where such detriment consists of the termination of the worker’s contract is subject to a limit calculated by reference to the maximum amount of a compensatory award for an employee who has been unfairly dismissed. This amendment would make it clear that the relevant figure for this calculation remains the standard maximum, not any different amount specified for cases where an employee is dismissed during the initial period of employment.

Amendment 243, page 130, line 28, at beginning insert—

“(1) In Part 1 of the Pensions Act 2008 (pension scheme membership for jobholders), Chapter 3 (safeguards: employment and pre-employment) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 56 (enforcement of right not to be subjected to detriment), in subsection (4)(b)—

(a) for “124(1)” substitute “124”;

(b) at the end insert “(ignoring any different sum specified as the limit for a dismissal that meets the conditions in section 98ZZA(2) and (3) of that Act).””—(Justin Madders.)

Section 55 of the Pensions Act 2008 provides that a worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by the worker’s employer resulting from, among other things, the worker seeking to enforce the duties imposed by that Act in relation to pension enrolment. Section 56(3) and (4) of that Act provides that the compensation payable where such detriment consists of the termination of the worker’s contract is subject to a limit calculated by reference to the maximum amount of a compensatory award for an employee who has been unfairly dismissed. This amendment would make it clear that the relevant figure for this calculation remains the standard maximum, not any different amount specified for cases where an employee is dismissed during the initial period of employment. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 244, page 138, line 8, leave out “(6)” and insert “(7)”.

This amendment corrects an incorrect cross-reference.

Amendment 245, page 138, line 39, leave out “(6)” and insert “(7)”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment corrects an incorrect cross-reference.

Bill to be further considered tomorrow. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.—(Anna McMorrin.)

Question agreed to. \p Alison Hume: I rise to present a petition about the proposals for a 24-hour casino in Whitby. I hope very much that planning officers take note of the petition, which has been signed on paper by seven of my constituents and online by a further 412. It expresses the concern of Whitby residents about a planning application submitted by Luxury Leisure to open a 24-hour adult gaming centre at Baxtergate in Whitby. They are particularly disappointed that the site of the proposed gaming centre is that of the Halifax bank branch, which is due to close shortly, leaving the town without any bank branches. The petition further declares that what residents of Whitby want is access to banks, shops and services, and not a 24-hour gaming centre. It states:

“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage North Yorkshire Council to reject the application for a 24-hour adult gaming centre at the site on Baxtergate, Whitby.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of the residents of the constituency of Scarborough and Whitby,

Declares that residents of Whitby are very strongly concerned that a planning application has been made by the slots and gambling company, Luxury Leisure, to open a 24-hour adult gaming centre at 67-68 Baxtergate in Whitby; further declares that the gaming centre may cause issues with noise and anti-social behaviour; notes that, as at 6 March 2025, North Yorkshire Council has received 522 objections to the application, whereas only 6 people have supported it; further notes that residents are particularly disappointed that the site of the proposed gaming centre is that of the Halifax bank branch, which is due to close in May 2025, leaving the town without any bank branches; and further declares that what residents of Whitby want is access to banks, shops and services, and not the proposed 24-hour gaming centre.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage North Yorkshire Council to reject the application for a 24-hour adult gaming centre at the site on Baxtergate, Whitby.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003052] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anna McMorrin.) \p Gavin Robinson: Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I thank Mr Speaker for selecting this Adjournment debate?

Today is 11 March, and on every 11 March since the dreadful bombings in Madrid in 2004, it has been the European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism. This occasion gives us the opportunity to reflect on terror and the innocent victims of terror. It gives the House the opportunity to reflect on the impact that acts of terror have had on the institution of the House of Commons.

When I was elected in 2015, I entered Parliament alongside Jo Cox, who is memorialised behind me. She was cut down by a far-right extremist. I served for many a year with David Amess and had a great relationship with him, and he was struck down by an Islamic terrorist. When you look to either side of the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will note that under the door there are three heraldic plaques: one to Rev. Robert Bradford, one to Ian Gow and one to Airey Neave, all of whom were serving parliamentarians when they were cut down by Irish republican terrorists. It is little known that behind your Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are two further plaques: one to Sir Anthony Berry, who was killed in the Brighton bomb by Irish republican terrorists, and one to Sir Henry Wilson, a first world war hero and latterly an Irish Unionist Member of Parliament, who was cut down by Irish republican terrorists.

Occasions like this give us the opportunity to reflect, but it is important for us as parliamentarians to consider what we can do in the best interests of those we represent, and the legacy in Northern Ireland continues to be a sore that has not healed. The scars remain among communities of whatever constitutional aspiration, who have been affected by the onslaught of terror that we faced.

I am privileged to sit on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, but I was even more privileged last week, alongside colleagues who are present in the Chamber today, to meet a number of organisations that represent the interests of innocent victims. We met the 174 Trust, and we met victims at the WAVE Trauma Centre. We met victims represented by the South East Fermanagh Foundation—SEFF—which is an organisation that works on behalf of Fermanagh and Enniskillen victims. The most profound thing that they said to us was that, within their county of Fermanagh, 42 people were killed—40 of them by republican terrorists, and none by loyalists.

The people of Fermanagh did not turn to taking the law into their own hands; they put their trust and faith in law and order, and in the parts of our state that are there to protect us. That is most profound, because there is no other county in Northern Ireland where that can be said. There was one recurring theme throughout the engagement that we had during the course of those two days: victims wanted truth and justice. \p Jim Shannon: I commend my right hon. Friend for bringing forward this issue. His passion for victims is long-standing and admirable. Does he agree that we need to set in stone the truth about victims in Northern Ireland? For all the attention that is given to 10% of victims, the families of the 90% suffer in silence. Will this day ensure that true victims’ stories are told and remembered without any whitewashing whatsoever? \p Gavin Robinson: I appreciate the intervention because there is a task on the part of the Government, with the legislation they are considering at the moment, on storytelling, reconciliation and the narrative that people wish to share. Their truth must be told and their truth known. \p Claire Hanna: I thank the right hon. Member for giving way; I know his time is precious. I want to associate myself with the remarks he made about Members of this House who were lost and about the moving visit we had last week with victims in Belfast and Fermanagh in relation to people who were murdered by perpetrators from various sides of the conflict. It showed their continuing pain and their fortitude, as the opening weeks of the Omagh inquiry have done. The SDLP supports a parallel Dublin inquiry on that. Does the right hon. Member agree with me that, in the current legacy discussion, a moment—an opportunity—is coming when we can assert that the needs of victims, not those of perpetrators, have primacy, and that we cannot afford to squander that opportunity? \p Gavin Robinson: I am very grateful for the intervention from the hon. Lady. I think she is right that we cannot squander the opportunity, but for too long now I have heard voices within the Government say that the one thing the parties of Northern Ireland can agree on is their opposition to the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, but for very different reasons. Very often, we do not get the opportunity to fully explore those very different reasons, and for our part, we will never stand in the way of justice and we will always support innocent victims. \p David Smith: I thank the right hon. Member for securing this important debate on such a moving subject. I, too, was very honoured to go with him and other members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to visit SEFF in Fermanagh last week, and it was profoundly moving. Does he agree with me that, as part of dealing with this legacy, truth, justice and reconciliation must be intentional parts of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery going forward? \p Gavin Robinson: It was interesting to hear the reflections of some who said, “Why do I need to reconcile? I’ve been blown up. I’ve been shot. I’ve lost my father, my mother, my sister, my brother. Why is the onus on me to reconcile? I should be honoured for the sacrifice that I’ve made or been forced to go through, but where is somebody coming along to say, ‘I’m sorry. You did not deserve what occurred to you or your family member, you didn’t need to live through the pain and you don’t deserve the scars that you bear.’?” So I agree with the hon. Member entirely that much more focus is required on reconciliation. \p Jim Allister: As someone who had the honour of hosting an event on this day for all the years I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I commend the right hon. Member for securing this debate. However, does he agree with me that one of the most abiding and insidious hurts to victims of terrorism is the constant glorification of those who made them victims, particularly when it comes to those who sit in Government in Northern Ireland, by their attendance at events commemorating those who were the men of blood and who delivered death and destruction on our streets? Is that not one of the most hateful and insidious things that can be done to a victim, with the re-traumatisation that it brings? \p Gavin Robinson: I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Member. I have two things to say to him on that. First, I am glad he organised—for 13 years, I think—an event at Stormont to mark European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism. Such an event also occurred yesterday, so his legacy lives on, and I was pleased to attend it, as I have on many occasions in the past.

Secondly, the hon. and learned Member is absolutely right. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet again—we met last week, but I met again yesterday—Margaret Veitch and Ruth Blair, who lost loved ones in the Enniskillen bomb. I reflected with them, and it resonates so much with this point, on the glorification of terror, particularly from those who have a responsibility to live by the Nolan principles and to fulfil the political offices they hold, yet who attend commemorations and glorify those who revelled in terror. The excuse they always use is, “We have a right to remember our dead.” That is what they say: they have a right to remember their dead. Margaret and Ruth lost family members by simply turning up to remember their war dead on Remembrance Sunday in Enniskillen, yet they hear their political leaders say, “We do this because we have an entitlement to remember our war dead.” Margaret and Ruth and their parents were offered no opportunity to remember, rightfully, those who made the sacrifice for freedom in our country. \p Julian Lewis: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He talks of truth and justice. He will be aware that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 means that if prosecutions carry on, no one will serve more than two years in jail. If prosecutions carry on, people will do everything they can to cover up the truth in defending themselves. When people criticise the legacy Act, which did propose a truth and reconciliation commission, are they not really criticising a measure that would have given them a much better opportunity for the truth to come out, once the threat of prosecutions was removed, given that the punishment would not fit the crime even if someone was found guilty? \p Gavin Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have high regard for him. We explored these issues at great length when he chaired the Defence Committee and I was but a lowly member of it. The truth is that there are hundreds if not thousands of individuals in Northern Ireland who have been prosecuted already. How often do we see them go to meet their victims, or the families of their victims? How often do we see them try to apply balm on the wound that has never healed? And those are the individuals who have received justice.

I started to talk about truth and justice before the explosion of interventions. They are important for this debate. For the last number of years, the terminology from this Chamber has been very clearly, “You’re not going to get justice, but we can offer you truth. And the only way you can get truth is if we deny justice.” That is what the legacy Act presented to the people of Northern Ireland. That is why we opposed it. They want justice. They want their day in court. They have had to suffer evasions of justice in Northern Ireland for decades. We did not support the Belfast agreement because of the release of prisoners. We do not support the notion that those who take life could be sentenced for two years—sentenced for much longer, but only have to serve two years. Nor did we support on-the-runs letters. Nor did we support amnesties for terrorists throughout the Labour Government proposals or the Conservative Government proposals, because the approach that denies justice is one that will never allow the wounds to heal.

I want to reflect on a number of institutions we have that are supposed to aid justice, truth and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. One of them is the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, which was established to allow members of the community who did not support the police to buy into the police, to get confidence in the police. Yet I am sorry to say in this debate today that we have a police ombudsman in whom I have no confidence—none whatsoever. We have a police ombudsman who constructed the notion of collusion. She was struck down by the courts, so she constructed the notion of collusive behaviours. She was struck down by the courts. More recently, she has been missing in action: she is fit to do the job; she is unfit to do the job; she is being investigated by the West Midlands police herself. Yet whether she is obstructing in her role or not, I will raise one family, one gentleman: Alan Black.

Alan Black was a workman who was out to work with his colleagues. All of them, bar one, were Protestants. In 1976 in Kingsmill, all bar one were attacked by the IRA. When asked to identify themselves, the one individual who identified himself as a Catholic was allowed to leave. Eleven of Alan’s colleagues were murdered that day for no other reason than that they had a Protestant faith. Alan survived. He went to the police ombudsman looking for answers on the investigation 14 years ago. He had an inquest, which concluded 11 months ago. We hear from the ombudsman’s office that it is ready to report, but, 11 months later, there has still been no outcome, no publication and no report for Alan. Alan is an old man now. He is an ill man because of the attack. He has suffered greatly, yet he put his faith in the organisations in which he and members of our community should be able to have confidence, and he has received nothing.

The Omagh inquiry started five weeks ago. The first four weeks were testimonies from the families who lost someone so tragically that day. Four months after the Belfast agreement was signed—four months after, when society was meant to be basking in peace—29 people and two unborn babies were killed that day in Omagh. The inquiry has a cross-border dimension: when the courts in Belfast said in 2021 that there should be an inquiry in Omagh, they said there also needed to be one in the Republic of Ireland, because the bomb was  constructed in the Republic of Ireland and was planted by a Provisional IRA bomb team who were operating from the Republic of Ireland, travelled from the Republic of Ireland and escaped to the Republic of Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) indicated her support for such an inquiry in the south. It is for this reason that answers are required.

What do we have so far? Reluctance on the part of the Irish Government—there is nothing new in that. The Irish Government have singularly failed to do anything on legacy apart from criticise the British Government for the past 30 years. During the troubles, they allowed people to hide in the Irish Republic, armed people in the Irish Republic and would not extradite terrorists from the Irish Republic, yet today they stand and look square in the eye the families of the 29 Omagh victims and say, “We are sorry—we are not going to do that for you. We are not going to give you answers.” The same bomb team responsible for Omagh were responsible for 20 bombings in 1997 and 1998. Whether it was in Banbridge, Portadown, Lisburn, Newry or Moira—right throughout Northern Ireland—they were making their mark and making their voice heard in the run-up to peace negotiations. It is an outrage.

That the Irish Government still stand back and say they will not provide an inquiry is a disgrace. They have offered honeyed words for years, yet they do nothing to aid the sorrow. They will not provide the conditions that would allow us to challenge Garda Dermot Jennings, who is accused of having said “We will let one more through, lads,” because he knew the bombing team. Who is going to challenge and question the J2 Irish intelligence officials and ask them the questions? Our inquiry cannot do it, because it does not have the powers. I know the Government are considering a memorandum of understanding with the Irish Government, and that is important. However, if that does not allow for the production of people as well as papers, it will never work. It is why there has to be an inquiry in the Republic of Ireland, too, and I am glad there is broad support for that.

The Committee on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland—with which I struggle, Madam Deputy Speaker—published a brilliant report in the last four weeks castigating the Irish Republic for its total failure to do anything on legacy over the past 30 years. It has no legacy bodies, no legacy investigations unit, no historical enquiries team and no ombudsman service; it has no infrastructure whatsoever to answer questions on legacy, and no infrastructure whatsoever to aid the healing of the past. \p Gregory Campbell: What concerns many people in Northern Ireland is that often, when things happen in Northern Ireland that are of a particular disposition, the Republic of Ireland’s Government will weigh in heavily to press our Government to do certain things. However, it seems that on many occasions when things happen on which our Government should make representations to the Republic’s Government, they fail adequately to do so. \p Gavin Robinson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At a summit last week, not one word on these issues emerged, save the Irish Government saying they are not yet quite ready to withdraw their challenge against the  British Government for the legacy Act. They ruled against an amnesty being provided, just as we did, but they decided to challenge their near neighbours in the British Government through the European courts. They decided to do that without trying to address these issues, yet when the onus is on them—when the shoe is on the other foot—they offer nothing.

Just this evening, the Northern Ireland Assembly passed a motion to say that the Irish Government should hold an inquiry into Omagh, and I agree. It was amended by the DUP and unanimously supported by every party in Stormont. That is a message that I hope that the Minister will take to the Irish Government about the strength of feeling on this issue. We looked a lot of victims in the eye last week, but we cannot continue, year after year, to look victims in the eyes and say nice things, but offer no hope, offer no truth and offer no justice. \p Robin Swann: Let me briefly mention that motion that has just taken been debated in the Assembly, which was secured by the Ulster Unionist party and amended by the DUP. We often hear in this place that when all parties stand together in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Government will react. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in asking the Minister to respond to that debate? \p Nusrat Ghani: Mr Robinson, there are nine minutes remaining of this Adjournment debate. \p Gavin Robinson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I took that intervention because it was a powerful point, and I am grateful for your latitude.

I am delighted that the Minister is here this evening. I hope that she responds positively. I hope that she recognises the pain and the anguish, as she herself has met individuals in Northern Ireland. There is a long way to go on providing the answers, the truth and the justice. We will not be found wanting, and I hope the Labour Government will not either. \p Fleur Anderson: It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate this evening. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) on securing it and on speaking so eloquently and powerfully on what is for so many people a painful and difficult subject.

As the right hon. Member described, acts of terrorism in the United Kingdom have had a devastating and unimaginable impact on the individuals, families and communities affected. Indeed, that violence has been brought to our very doorstep, and we stand in solemn remembrance of the Members of this House taken from us by acts of terrorism while representing their constituents. Most recently, as the right hon. Member mentioned, they include Jo Cox, brutally murdered in 2016, and Sir David Amess, brutally murdered in 2021. Both died while serving their constituents. I knew them both, as the right hon. Member did, and miss them, and I feel their loss very personally. Those whom we have sadly lost to terrorism are forever remembered, by their families, by their loved ones and by a nation that stands still, and importantly stands together, when these tragedies occur.

As the right hon. Member said, acts of terrorism have had a pronounced effect on communities in Northern Ireland, where over 3,000 people were killed by terrorists during the course of the troubles. Behind every individual murder are the countless family members and others whose lives are changed forever by unthinkable loss in heartbreaking circumstances. I have listened to many of those harrowing stories personally.

Recent research reminds us that as many as 30% of people in Northern Ireland have conflict-related trauma, and that this can be passed down the generations, too, and we must never forget that. Thankfully, today Northern Ireland is a place of relative peace and stability. However, the threat from terrorism remains, with the current threat to Northern Ireland from Northern Ireland-related terrorism assessed as substantial.

I wish to pay tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the security services that continue to work tirelessly to keep us safe. I had the privilege of attending the Police Federation for Northern Ireland awards last week in Belfast to celebrate and honour the bravery of some of the exceptional officers who put their lives on the line for us every day.

In Northern Ireland, many groups mark a day of reflection on 21 June to acknowledge the pain and suffering caused by the troubles and reflect on what more we can do. Sadly, memorials, remembrance and commemoration can be challenging and even divisive. That is why this Government, in seeking to address the legacy of the troubles, are committed to bringing forward a memorialisation strategy to support inclusive structures and initiatives to help all in Northern Ireland, including future generations, to reflect on those lost. And we will continue to work to support those civil society groups that are working tirelessly to promote reconciliation.

The right hon. Member mentioned SEFF and the WAVE Trauma Centre, which came to Westminster. Many are the subject of portraits in the “Silent Testimony” exhibition by Colin Davidson, which is in the National Portrait Gallery. I recommend Members pay a visit there. \p Leigh Ingham: I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) securing this debate. As part of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee I met victims from all sides last week, but I especially wanted to highlight the incredible work of WAVE in supporting victims of terrorism. Does the Minister agree that those organisations are crucial for supporting victims from all sides, and we should do all we can to support them? \p Fleur Anderson: I agree, and I am glad that WAVE and SEFF have been mentioned this evening. NHS services are also vital for specialist trauma counselling, such as the regional trauma network, which I visited with Minister Nesbitt.

On the legacy Act, acknowledging and addressing the suffering of victims of violence was an important aim of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, but I agree that the task remains incomplete. The Government take their responsibility to victims and survivors of the troubles extremely seriously, which is why we have been working with victims, survivors and all interested parties to correct the mistakes of the last Government, and to put in place measures that will provide answers, accountability and acknowledgment for families who have waited too long already.

In December, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland laid a draft remedial order to correct several of the human rights deficiencies of the legacy Act, including removing the bitterly opposed conditional immunity scheme, which would have granted immunity from prosecution for those who carried out the most appalling terrorist crimes. The Secretary of State will introduce primary legislation that will reform and strengthen the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.

The right hon. Member for Belfast East referred to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. The Government was pleased that the ombudsman recently returned to work following an extended period of absence. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the legal proceedings, but for families who are waiting to receive the ombudsman’s reports, I understand the concern and frustration with publication delays. Many families have already encountered too much delay in seeking information and accountability. I know that the ombudsman’s office is doing all that it can to publish reports. \p Jim Shannon: Will the Minister give way? \p Fleur Anderson: I am afraid I do not have time, because I want to respond to the issues that the right hon. Member for Belfast East raised.

The right hon. Member rightly highlighted that a number of troubles-related cases have a cross-border dimension, including the Kingsmill murders, which are an appalling example of the pain and suffering inflicted on civilians during the troubles. It is right to acknowledge that the implementation of truly holistic legacy mechanisms, which can provide families across the UK and Ireland with as much information as possible about the circumstances of their particular case, will require the co-operation of both the UK and Irish Governments to facilitate the disclosure of information held by authorities in both jurisdictions. This Government consider the  Irish Government to be an essential partner in the process of seeking a way forward on legacy issues that is human rights compliant and can command public confidence across communities.

Turning to the Omagh bombing inquiry, last month’s commemorative hearings were a painful reminder of the impact of cowardly terrorist actions on communities and families. Victims do not need hearings, inquiries or commemorative days to know that; they live with it every day. The Secretary of State has received political assurances from the Irish Government on their full co-operation with the UK inquiry. That is important and should be welcomed. The Irish Government are currently working at pace to determine how to facilitate that in practice through a memorandum of understanding. The right hon. Gentleman’s comments in the Chamber today will not have gone unnoticed. The details of those arrangements are ultimately a matter for the inquiry, which rightly is independent of the Government, but I agree with him that they should provide for the greatest possible level of co-operation from Irish authorities. The Government look forward to seeing those details in due course. In the meantime, our focus remains on ensuring that the UK inquiry that has been established can successfully fulfil its terms of reference.

I close by remembering all those who have been killed by cowardly terrorist acts. I pay tribute to everyone who is carrying on—not getting over what happened, but getting on and working around the gap of the people they lost, or of their own life that they had before, despite the grief that can engulf them. They are getting up every day when it is not getting easier, remembering people who should be here and are not. They are not giving up on getting answers and justice for their relatives, families and friends. In the memory of all who have died, we will keep taking action against terrorism and for peace and justice. We will remember.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.